“Garbage: Another environmental claim proven to be hyped“. Anthony Watts finds an Oregon State University press release that says the Pacific Ocean’s “Great Garbage Patch” isn’t the size of Texas after-all.
From the press release:
“There is no doubt that the amount of plastic in the world’s oceans is troubling, but this kind of exaggeration undermines the credibility of scientists,” White said. “We have data that allow us to make reasonable estimates; we don’t need the hyperbole. Given the observed concentration of plastic in the North Pacific, it is simply inaccurate to state that plastic outweighs plankton, or that we have observed an exponential increase in plastic.”
This, of course, proves that environmentalists are liars and that there is no Global Warming. But what about the disgruntled claim that “mainstream” scientists always cover up for each other and make the data fit the desired result? I guess Assistant Professor of Oceanography Angelicque White is the only honest scientist out there.
Nuanced arguments have never been kind to Anthony. Yes, there’s a garbage patch. Yes, it’s big. Yes, it’s a real problem. No, it’s not an island of plastic the size of Texas.
Once again proving that WUWT likes to be called a “climate science blog” but doesn’t feel compelled to discuss things like climate.
Now, it is my understanding that the combined effects of the oceanic currents and the coriolis effect means there are another four major gyres with several very different sub gyres, exist world wide. Thus we have not just one plastic floating garbage patch and we must take into account not less than five more as well, minimum.
Talk about extreme cherry picking!
So, the million dollar unanswered question becomes, just why did Anthony Watts, choose to deliberately ignore the rest?
This piece of research was quite interesting, however it raised a question about what constitutes “covered”. For example teh picture at the top of this Telegraph article would not be considered as covered in the new research.