Gillis' changed his writing topics 180 degrees as if the memo came down from above stating, "OK. Take the NOAA study and make it fit so we can kill the spill news."
A "Time" magazine article "The BP Spill: has the Danger Been Exaggerated?" written by well-known environmental reporter/author Michael Grunwald derailed the Gulf Oil crisis as hype. Grunwald aligns his opinion with "obnoxious anti-environmental" Rush Limbaugh concurring "although the long-term potential danger is unknowable"it does not seem to be inflicting severe environmental damage." Throughout the article Grunwald adopts Rush jargon (eco-fear, alarmists, debunking, overblown) used to label environmentalists as fear-mongering exaggerators.
Throughout the article Grunwald quotes industry consultants like geochemist Jacqueline Michel to support his hypothesis concerning the lack of environmental impact. Grunwald further quotes former LSU professor Ivor van Heerden stating
"There's just no data to suggest this is an environmental disaster. I have no interest in making BP look good--I think they lied about the size of the spill--but we're not seeing catastrophic impacts."
Grunwald lays the groundwork to support Heerden's credibility by explaining his firing by LSU after criticizing the Army Corps of Engineer's role during Katrina. Van Heerden is currently employed with Polaris, a BP contractor, reminding me of Eric Hoffer's quote "People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them." They sell out!
Grunwald's article pooh-poohs the effects of the oil spill to marshland by noting the area was already damaged by the oil and chemical industry. He quotes former LSU professor and current vice-president of the National Audubon Society Paul Kemp stating the vanishing marshlands are like "a sunburn on a cancer patient."
Grunwald attempts to downplay the spill by indicating the lack of visibly oiled dolphins, dead birds, and turtles. He compared the mortality numbers to those noted during the Exxon Valdez disaster which occurred over 20 years ago. Grunwald notes as many as 435,000 birds perished compared to 3,000 visibly oiled dead birds discovered in the gulf region. Throwing the numbers around reminds me of the media comparing the deaths that occurred during 10 years of Vietnam compared to our occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan. The loss of soldiers is so much less! Minimal collateral damage! We are so successful!
Grunwald's article concludes his article with this paragraph which could have come from an AM radio talk show:
"Anti-oil politicians, anti-Obama politicians and underfunded green groups all have obvious incentives to accentuate the negative in the Gulf. So do the media because disasters drive ratings and sell magazines; those oil-soaked pelicans you saw on TV (and the cover of "Time") were a lot more compelling than the health ones I saw roosting on a protective boom in Bay Jimmy. Even Limbaugh, when he wasn't' down playing the spill, outrageously hyped is as "Obama's Katrina.' But honest scientists don't do that, even when they work for Audubon."
My interpretation of Grunwald's articleis similar to my intuition about my fellow comrades in academia: shills for industry. My hypothesis is that a scientist working in industry is no different than a reporter working in a particular niche. Once a person builds a resume with solid credentials in the environmental industry, he/she is regarded as having integrity and expert knowledge. If one holds out long enough, he/she can then go to the highest bidder. Being in the environmental industry for 25+ years, I have seen this happen. Many a good people go to the "dark side" and are set for life after selling their soul. This is corporatism at work, folks.
The dark side of the industry will be fodder for another article".Let us just sit back and watch the U.S. Government and Big Oil sell us on the wonders of fossil fuels and downplay the minor "leak" that occurred in 2010.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
6
6
4
