All the scoffers were out when Rush Limbaugh at the beginning of the BP (NYSE:BP) oil spill noted the ability of the Gulf of Mexico to absorb a lot of the oil spill naturally.
You would have thought there was no truth to the statement at all because of the obvious fact that most people either love Limbaugh or hate him.
The emotions got in the way and his detractors used his comments to attack him, but now that things are settling down and the smoke is clearing, there is a growing number of scientists and professors saying it's quite possible the damage alleged from the oil spill isn't going to be anywhere what was originally thought because of the microbes in the Gulf which evidence shows are devouring the oil.
This is why people are asking the question of where is the oil. The answer is it isn't there. It isn't settling on the ocean floor, approximately 40 percent is evaporating, and much of the rest is being greedily eaten by these tiny microbes.
What this does is also question the integrity of the environmentalists who have jumped on the bandwagon of devastation to further their dubious agendas.
Citing a Time article saying just these things, a British columnist said this:
"So the questions must be asked: how much of the hype that was generated by this incident served political purposes? And whose interests did it serve? The hysterical anti-oil eco-lobby? The anti-Obama camp in the first instance, and then the White House itself when the President turned public anger on BP? The US media which loves a scare story, particularly when it involves a “foreign” enemy?
"And who will be the ultimate losers? Obviously, those who hold shares in BP (around half of whom are American) and all the pension funds which rely on the value of those shares. But also, perhaps, the eco-lobby itself whose judgment and credibility are called into question once again."
Others have talked about the affect of the oil-eating microbes, another other factors, and one of our writers at Commodity Surge tackled it as well.
The emerging narrative based on actual facts is the alleged environmental damage, whether in the number of birds or wildlife killed, damage to beaches and wetlands or marshes, isn't in reality that much,
Eugene Turner, an LSU coastal scientist, who isn't a friend in any way to the oil industry, sums it up well, "We don't want to deny that there's some damage, but nothing like the damage we've seen for years."
The fervor point to media hype fueled by radical green organizations who have been losing donations and money for years, who attempt to hype any potential environmental disaster to the utmost in order to generate funding for the cause.
Too bad these scientists and professors didn't have the guts to come forward far before this, as it would have calmed things down and allowed an accurate assessment of the situation.
It is understandable from the point of view of the focus of the majority of people being on the oil leak, but now that's it has been stopped, it's incredible to see how quickly things are restoring themselves naturally.