^Watson claims flat-out that NOAA was “gold digging” for grants; there’s probably more federal research money floating around the Gulf than there is oil. “There is a feeding frenzy with people trying to get funding for their specialty,” he says.^

Isn’t this a case of pot/kettle? Watson Technical Consulting is a private company competing for government funds. Check out his website- last updated four years ago. He talks like he owns his own satellites but probably gets his data from NOAA.

^But late in May, NOAA did a study that was far less alarming. It found weak concentrations of oil in the area surrounding the Deepwater Horizon site: 0.5 parts per million, maximum.^

Oh, so now it’s ok to trust NOAA? Now that the data agrees with your pre-conceived notions?

^According to Arthur Berman, a respected petroleum expert at Labyrinth Consulting Services in Sugar Land, Texas, the theory flunks basic physics. “Oil is lighter than water and rises above it in all known situations on this planet. The idea of underwater plumes defies everything that we know about physical laws and has distressed me from the outset about these unscientific reports^

I think, I’m about to have an aneurism. Corexit 9500 breaks up oil and causes it to- sink. Look it up yourself.

The fact is, no one can say with certainty what the effects will be. So to proclaim “game over” is arrogant at best.

Tom you blame liberals for lapping pablum. Now it looks like you're taking tap hits of the stuff.