[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by popcorninthesofa

Aj; Why do you think our government is restricting our awareness of this profound event? it's a hard lesson for all of us to learn.

Popcorn:

So now you're going to try to change the subject? I have not said anything about the government's behavior. Do I think that the government is trying to cover BPs corporate ass? Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. However, that is a *separate* issue from the breathless conspiracy-minded, fear mongering of your jeremiads about methane explosions and tsunamis. These are *separate* issues. In fact, one of the problems I have with the fear-mongering--and it IS fear-mongering--is that it distracts from real concerns (government underreporting of the toxicity of the dispersants, BPs continuing and historical malfeasance, etc.) and puts the attention on non-issues. The methane-bubble-will-kill-us-all meme is a distraction. It is the *least* likely major consequence of this disaster. The government isn't keeping this from the public, there's quite simply nothing to keep. As I pointed out, the type of methane compounds found in the Gulf of Mexico (methane hydrates) are *not* implicated in the great methane bubble explosion theory of extinction.

Now, is the government not stating the true risk of toxicity of the dispersants? Most certainly they are. Are they underestimating the final economic impacts? Almost certainly. Are they clamping down on BP and every other major corporation as they should? Most certainly they are not. However, what good does it do to whip up fear of an event that isn't going to happen? There is certainly lots to be upset with about this disaster However, spreading disinformation--and incorrect information is a form of disinformation--does no one any good.

So, back to the topic at hand. If the person who developed the methane bubble hypothesis says that the kind of methane compounds involved in his model of extinctions and the methane compounds in the Gulf of Mexico are so different that the latter are no kind of threat for the kind of catastrophe described by the former, why should we not give that more weight? Why should we trust the word of this engineer over the word of the man who developed the hypothesis? Why is it that we should focus our attentions on events that are so unlikely that their probability is not far from zero while not *actually* being zero when there are events whose probability is much closer to 1 that should have our attention.

I've answered your questions, popcorn, is there some reason that you are deserving of having your questions answered directly without changing the subject while I am undeserving of the same courtesy from you?

I am not pro-government, popcorn nor am I anti-government. I am pro-facts and pro-reality. What I stand opposed to is allowing bad memes to spread without challenge.

Cheers
Aj