AP Photo/Charlie Riedel
Wait, what?
Critics have bashed President Obama for being slow to seize the political initiative in combating the BP oil spill in the Gulf Coast, now widely believed to be the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. The White House has battled back, releasing a timeline of events showing that Obama was briefed—and deploying the Coast Guard—within 24 hours of the Deepwater Horizon blowout.
What has not been previously disclosed: The president was not only briefed on the real-time events of the spill, but also on just how bad it would be—and how hard it would be to plug the hole.
Carol Browner, director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, told Obama at one of the earliest briefings in late April that the blowout would likely lead to an unprecedented environmental disaster, senior White House aides told The Daily Beast. Browner warned that capping a well at such depths had never been done before, and that they ought to expect an oil spill that would continue until a relief well was drilled in August, the aide said.
That early briefing on the scope of the spill—and enormous technical challenges involved in fixing it—might help explain the sense of fatalism that has infused Obama’s team from the start.
Publishing this at 8:46 PM on a Friday night, when it is least likely to be noticed, Richard Wollfe sends out a trial balloon, to see if it will float some sympathy toward the White House: Hey, America, Obama knew it was going to be really bad, and there was nothing he could actually do about that, so he did nothing about anything.
Hey, America, I knew it was hopeless, and I couldn’t change anything, so I couldn’t see the point of accepting the help of 17 nations offering their technology and their expertise in attempting to contain the damage as much as possible; no point in even attempting to use supertankers to try to remove as much oil from the surface as possible, even if they have to do it for months.
Hey, America, I knew it was bad, so there was no sense in telling you anything, or in helping Governor Jindal try to protect the marshlands and coasts of Louisiana.
President Obama surely cannot be blamed for (or personally do anything about) “the damn hole,” that–even “capped”– is still gushing oil into (and beyond) the Gulf of Mexico, and that’s why reasonable people have not been the ones insisting that the president play superhero, or display reassuring “concern” by doing a public freak-out. In a crisis, you want the president to be calm and collected.
But Obama just as surely could have informed the nation that we were facing a long-term assault on our environment that would have wide repercussions.
He could have put his legendary oratorical skills to work, communicating an appreciation of the gravity of the situation, and an assurance that everything that could possibly be done to protect the environment was being done.
That was his fundamental job as president: clear communication of the struggle ahead, and reassurance that all possible efforts at collection and containment were operational. That is what he could have done, and did not; six weeks into it, he still has not really managed it.
We’ve just spent years listening to ungenerous, miserable people excoriate President Bush for calmly taking 7 minutes, after learning of the attacks of 9/11, to allow his Secret Service to do their thing and to–with a great deal of composure–take his leave from a classroom without managing to scare the children or give an impression of fear that would be put before the nation and the world.
After watching President Obama take six weeks to process the terrible news he was given–pressing forward with golf, vacations, parties and fund-raisers in order to not scare the nation–even if that it meant he seemed a little disengaged from the BP Oil disaster, I never want to hear another sneering, idiotic My Pet Goat joke, again.
A president needs to be calm and deliberate in the face of crisis, and he even needs to say puzzling things like “go on vacation, go shopping” or “go to the beaches” when it is clear the crisis has precipitated a long, hard slog.
But he also needs to promptly stand on a pile of rubble with the firefighters, or in a marsh full of dead wildlife and a slick, red tide, and say, “we’re going to respond; we’re going to protect and we’re going to rebuild and restore. We are going to get through this long hard slog, together.”
And he has to be able to convince people that he means every word he has said.
Wolffe writes:
“. . .Obama’s team is focusing on the options at their immediate disposal—methods of news management and presidential communication.”
There will be a slow but continual drip of bad-to-worse news about this issue, coming out of the White House. President Obama needs to shake off the fatalism and show the nation that he is willing to try things, fight back against the rising tide of suffocating red death.
The president who rose to office riding the notion of hope cannot be the guy who meanders around, wishing things were not so damned hopeless.
Allahpundit: “. . . if he really did know right away that this was the oil equivalent of an asteroid strike, he didn’t scramble some sort of all-hands-on-deck emergency operation to protect the coastline. Remember, Jindal reportedly requested five million feet of hard boom back on May 2, long after Obama (according to Wolffe) knew about the magnitude of the disaster. By May 24, not even 800,000 feet had arrived. What happened?”
Kim Priestap says the Obama administration’s “fatalism” looks like “gross negligence”:
He could have ordered the mobilization of as much of the government’s resources as possible and put out an SOS to private companies and organizations with expertise in disaster clean up to try to prevent the oil slick from entering the gulf’s coastal waters. With the advanced notice that he was given, he could have had them ready and waiting.
But he didn’t do anything.
Instapundit and reader note Obama’s weak responses to any disasters that don’t affect a Democrat-majority. And Moe Lane has the chart to prove it.
What did Tony Hayward Know? and when did he know it?
Also writing:
Brutally Honest
The Dawning of the Day of Incompetence
Jim Geraghty
Protein Wisdom
Taylor Marsh
Radio Patriot
Moderate Voice
Gateway Pundit
River Daughter
Related:
Pelicans back in danger
Caught in the Oil
Jesus, Good Pelican
Witnessing the heart at it cracks
(Zachriel wrote – “You still haven’t addressed the point. Only if production is high enough to force a substantial drop in price would the oil companies not bother to drill deep.”)
The reason we are drilling so deep in the Gulf is because there are few places left to drill. Thanks to government regulations the Pacific coast and nearly all of the Atlantic coast are off-limits to oil production. And there has been a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as well. THAT is the point.
(Zachriel wrote – “That you think there is a manufactured scientific controversy doesn’t make it one.”)
There is no scientific controversy. There is only controservial scientists trying to produce “facts” from consensus.
(Zachriel wrote – “NASA’s Dr. Reto A. Ruedy said “the National Climatic Data Center’s procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate,” and recommended using NCDC’s data for the U.S. means and [East Anglia] data for the global means.” )
And here’s more from that article:
“NASA’s temperature data is worse than the Climate-gate temperature data. According to NASA,” wrote Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who uncovered the e-mails. Horner is skeptical of NCDC’s data as well, stating plainly: “Three out of the four temperature data sets stink.”
Global Warming critics call this a crucial blow to advocates’ arguments that minor flaws in the “Climate-gate” data are unimportant, since all the major data sets arrive at the same conclusion — that the Earth is getting warmer. But there’s a good reason for that, the skeptics say: They all use the same data.
“There is far too much overlap among the surface temperature data sets to assert with a straight face that they independently verify each other’s results,” says James M. Taylor, senior fellow of environment policy at The Heartland Institute.
“The different groups have cooperated in a very friendly way to try to understand different conclusions when they arise,” said Dr. James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in the same 2007 e-mail thread. Earlier this month, in an updated analysis of the surface temperature data, GISS restated that the separate analyses by the different agencies “are not independent, as they must use much of the same input observations.”
So no. Climate change is not scientifically well-supported. In fact, it’s not scientifically supported at all.
Couldn’t read thru all comments because on a schedule. I’ll read tonite in bed. All look good.
Kind of reminds me of Casey Anthony when Caylee was *missing*. Or better yet, Nero fiddling while Rome….uh oh.
I know I’m picking nits here, but I do it when insufferable lefties drag out My Pet Goat when bashing President Bush.
The name of the book is The Pet Goat.
What’s Obama been doing since the day of disaster in the Gulf?
13 Parties/Dinners
7 rounds of golf
2 vacations
in Louisiana…a total of about 6 hours in all this time….photo ops all
-
Day 1 – April 20
Explosion in Gulf
Obama returns from L.A. – fundraiser for Baraba Boxer
DAY 2 – April 21
Obama attends reception for G-20 Labor Ministers
DAY 3 – April 22
Obama hosts Rose Garden reception to honor earth day
Obama flies to NYC to push Wall St Bill
DAY 4 – April 23
Hey, let’s go on vacation to Ashville North Carolina
Lunch at Twelve Bones for ribs and mac & cheese
No worries! How about a mountain hike?
Obama squeezes in a round of golf!
DAY 5 – April 24
Let’s go golfing again — at Grove Park Inn
A nice gourmet dinner at the Biltmore
DAY 6 – April 25
A scrumptious brunch at Grove Park Resort
DAY 7 – April 26
Obama hosts NY Yankees for White House event
DAY 8 – April 27
Obama visits Iowa for rhubarb pie at Jerry’s Diner
DAY 9 – April 28
Obama flies to Missouri for lunch at Peggy Sue’s Diner
DAY 10 – April 29
Obama attends DNC fundraiser at swank DC residence
DAY 11 – April 30
Obama flies to MD to view Secret Service binoculars
DAY 12 – May 1
Obama joins Leno for comedy routine at WHCD
DAY 13 – May 2
Obama finally visits Lousiana
DAY 14 – May 3
Obama hosts the Navy football team
DAY 15 – May 4
Obama private lunch with Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel
DAY 16 – May 5
Obama hosts Cinco De Mayo party at White House
DAY 17 – May 6
Just chillin’. Summers gives updates on economy
DAY 18 – May 7
Wizbangs give Rose Garden speech on ‘economy’
DAY 19 – May 8
Obama hits links at Ft Belvoir
Dining out at ritzy DC restuarant — Komi!
DAY 20 – May 9
Obama gives commencement speech at Hampton U.
DAY 21 – May 10
Hey, during a crisis, let’s pick a SCJ!
DAY 22 – May 11
Private (golf?) lunch with Joe Biden
DAY 23 – May 12
Obama hosts private reception for President Karzai
DAY 24 – May 13
Obama flies to Buffalo for Duff’s hot wings
DAY 25 – May 14
Obama finally makes speech on oil spill in Rose Garden
DAY 26 – May 15
Enough of the oil spill stuff… Obama off to golf!
DAY 27 – May 16
Obama golfs (again!) at Fort Belvoir
DAY 28 – May 17
Obama hosts UConn women’s basketball
DAY 29 – May 18
Obama tours plant in ‘Ohio’ (um, oil spill’s in LA!)
DAY 30 – May 19
Obama hosts glitzy state dinner for Calderon
Dance the night away!
DAY 31 – May 20
Obama meets with Bono for some reason
DAY 32 – May 21
Obama Rose Garden speech on… Wall St reform
DAY 33 – May 22
Obama goes golfing again at Andrews Air Force base
DAY 34 – May 23
Obama discusses basketball with Marv Albert
DAY 35 – May 24
Obama hosts Asian American celebration
DAY 36 – May 25
Obama flies to San Fran to party with Getty Oil family
…And raise millions for Barbara Boxer
DAY 37 – May 26
Obama spends day 2 in CA — with fellow economic wiz Gov. Schwartznegger
DAY 38 – May 27
Obama welcomes the Duke Blue Devils
Obama, Clinton hang with the U.S. World Cup team
Obama hosts party for Jewish Americans
Obama family heads off for a weekend vacation
DAY 39 – MAY 28
Obamas back in Chicago for weekend vacation
…Obama interrupts vaca for some PR
DAY 40 – MAY 29
Obama leaving U Chicago after some basketball…
…The Obamas heading out for an evening of barbecue
DAY 41 – MAY 30
After a night of barbecue and beers, let’s hit the gym!
Is this meant sarcastically? Without his teleprompter, he’s really not all that great.
Obama will never do anything because internal polls have shown 90% of democrats still support him. His numbers are still mid-40s so there is nothing to worry about. Until his poll numbers drop to mid-30s, the gulf states are on their own.
Obama only cares for Obama. If Americans are stupid enough to vote for him again in 2012, they deserve what they are getting.
It was/is so obvious that Obama is an incompetent guy who never work or had to do hard work all his life. He has gotten to where he is by using dirty tricks.
Obama is a fake action hero but for some unknown reasons, Americans don’t see or refuse to acknownledge it.
I am scared for our country.
Why is no one commenting on the fact that Obama, at least as of May 30 as reported by Reuters quoting WH spokesmen, has not spoken AT ALL with the CEO of BP? My God, how can he claim to have any sort of leadership role when he can’t be bothered to pick up the phone and talk to that CEO? He has time for golf (repeatedly) but no time to collaborate with BP? Is this somehow beneath him?
Obama. Just words.
Anchoress, I couldn’t agree more. I’ve got that 9/11 picture of Bush in the classroom in my last blog post. The Left showed Bush no mercy and they deserve none now.
Can someone look into the veracity of this?—
‘Bombshell expose. The real reason the oil still flows into the Gulf of Mexico.’
Ties to the company that produces the toxic dispersant chemical NALCO is associated with Warren Buffett, Maurice Strong, Al Gore, Soros, Apollo, Blackstone, Goldman Sachs, Hathaway Berkshire.
link
Politico pointed out rightly that a real leader would have been in the thick of things, looking over shoulders, offering suggestions and asking questions, from the get-go — EVEN if he didn’t know anything about undersea oil wells, he’d quickly learn a great deal about it. I mean… can you imagine? It’s like a mechanic working on your car: you may not be an expert, but if you have even the slightest interest, you’re going to ask him to explain the problem and point to the defective part.
Obama, by contrast, hasn’t even spoken to BP’s CEO. Not once in six weeks. He neither knows, nor cares, what’s going on down there. Instead of huddling with the engineers, he has declared a PR emergency and huddled with his speechwriters. He’s an embarrassment to red-blooded American males everywhere.
Obama and his machine – knew from the beginning this was a serious problem – So…what to do???
Easy answer – in the Obama Way – wait it out – get better optics of dead birds and sea life – whip up the country’s outrage – crucify BP – AND, most importantly use these tools to push Cap and Trade and other Global Change and Eco projects down our throats.
The death of sea life and the Gulf coast communities way of life – small price for Obama to pay – to move his agenda forward.
After all, it is ALWAYS all about Obama, isn’t it? And the muck in the Gulf will not impact Obama, he will not have his fingerprints on anything, once again.
Obama is a clear and present danger to America.
June: “Obama will never do anything because internal polls have shown 90% of democrats still support him. His numbers are still mid-40s so there is nothing to worry about.”
I would disagree on one point. It’s not that he has nothing to worry about. It’s that he’s already lost so many votes, he has nothing to gain. He knows he’s going to lose big in November and he feels nothing but contempt for the “teabaggers” who are ruining his glorious legacy.
Two things:
1. Obama is a sociopath.
2. Allowing the spill to do the most damage possible to the coats was/is 100% intentional.
Given these two truths, you will never, ever see any compassion or empathy from Obama on this or any other issue. Mark my words, when the next 9/11 happens, or Iran nukes Tel Aviv, or whatever horror finally comes to pass, you will see exactly the same cold, black, dead eyes. It’s called evil, people. It is real, and it lives in the White House.
Of course we can blame Obama for how long this spill has gone on. Like you said, he was elected to first, head the executive branch of government, and second, to speak (presumably well). He could have motivated a nation–nay, a world–on Day One to get “all hands on deck” and stop this thing early on. Instead, well, we all know what happened instead.
I accept this analysis.
The essay that I have not seen yet is understanding that Obama is really an urban product–he has little connection to nature. Think of Reagon on horseback, Bush clearing brush, even Jimmy Carter and peanuts. This president is an urban product of ivy league schools and cities. When you see him on that beach, he looks completely disconnected, dressed in clothes that would be better in the clubhouse than roughing it in the outdoors. I mean, what has he ever done in the outdoors except play on a manicured, turf golf course? Does he know how to ride a horse, use a chainsaw? There’s your answer. This president has a big nature deficit disorder…
Remember that he basically did nothing about the spill until it looked like BP was successful with ‘Top Kill’. Then he went and made a speech stating that he was in charge all the time, directing efforts. When ‘Top Kill’ failed, he and his minions quickly went back to a CYA mode.
Now he makes noises about BP dividends and prosecuting BP, but nothing…absolutely nothing… about what they are doing to stop the oil from reaching the beaches of the Gulf states. There are Governors like Jindal trying their best to keep their states and economies from being severely damaged. Yet the ‘Won’ prefers to send lawyers rather than engineers.
If environmentalists were really interested in the safety of the beaches instead of their political power, they’d be putting pressure on Obama to do something other than wring his hands and make speeches about BP dividends. However, they want to see this massive damage because they desire unchecked political power more than a protected environment.
Last Sphere: According to NASA,” wrote Christopher Horner …
Gee whiz. Horner is a lawyer at a libertarian think tank. You pit him against scientists at NASA, NOAA, and the vast majority of working climatologists.
foxmarks: If so, why would they produce more costly off-shore resources before exhausting the less-costly on-shore resources?
As long as the price remains high, they will expand production.
foxmarks: A small change in global supply can/does have a major impact on market price (e.g. Katrina shut-ins or ME wars).
The market has virtually no slack, so a small decrease in supply will cause a spike in prices. However, an increase in supply will have little effect on long-term prices. That’s because world demand is quickly outstripping available oil. New discoveries of oil are just no longer being made in the quantities required, based on current trajectories. For instance, EIA estimates that opening ANWR would reduce prices by only about 50-cents per barrel, and reduce expected U.S. dependence on foreign sources by only 3%.
“world demand is quickly outstripping available oil”
I ask again, is that technically available or legally available?
My oil data shows reserves expanding beyond production. Kind of amazing how we keep finding as much oil as people will buy at the near-term price. Almost like an invisible geologist was at work.
“The market has virtually no slack”
I disagree (we’re running out of places to store abundant oil–tankers are being used for storage instead of transport), but for the sake of argument, you still lose. Marginal return goes both ways. A small increase in supply depresses prices. You commit a non-sequitur (changing the time scale) in an attempt to preserve your argument. Yes, someday the sun will burn out, too.
Cherry-picking one field is also a non-sequitur. We were discussing the global and U.S. supply under vastly different regulatory environments, i.e. all land-based oil was open for development, thus making offshore not cost-competitive. Add together ANWR, Bakken, the Rockies, Appalachia and shore-based horizontal wells to the shallow water. Throw in more development in Alberta, and North America becomes oil-independent. Replace the plutocrats wasting Mexico’s fields and the period of independence lasts longer.
Current supply constraints are a regulatory fabrication, not a technical limit. Kill the regulators and the market price drops to $40–50. Why? Because that’s the top marginal cost of production for on-shore wells. Deepwater offshore costs upward of $60, and that’s about to be regulated even higher.
We’re in drilling in deep water as a result of policy. Unless you want to say oil producers are not risk-averse and don’t care about profit.
“world demand is quickly outstripping available oil”
I ask again, is that technically available or legally available?
My oil data shows reserves expanding beyond production. Kind of amazing how we keep finding as much oil as people will buy at the near-term price. Almost like an invisible geologist was at work.
“The market has virtually no slack”
I disagree (we’re running out of places to store abundant oil–tankers are being used for storage instead of transport), but for the sake of argument, you still lose. Marginal return goes both ways. A small increase in supply depresses prices. You commit a non-sequitur (changing the time scale) in an attempt to preserve your argument. Yes, someday the sun will burn out, too.
Cherry-picking one field is also a non-sequitur. We were discussing the global and U.S. supply under vastly different regulatory environments, i.e. all land-based oil was open for development, thus making offshore not cost-competitive. Add together ANWR, Bakken, the Rockies, Appalachia and shore-based horizontal wells to the shallow water. Throw in more development in Alberta, and North America becomes oil-independent. Replace the plutocrats wasting Mexico’s fields and the period of independence lasts longer.
Current supply constraints are a regulatory fabrication, not a technical limit. Kill the regulators and the market price drops to $40–50. Why? Because that’s the top marginal cost of production for on-shore wells. Deepwater offshore costs upward of $60, and that’s about to be regulated even higher.
We’re in drilling in deep water as a result of policy. Unless you want to say oil producers are not risk-averse and don’t care about profit.
(duplicate post with links removed—I’m not spam, honest!)
(Zachriel wrote – “Gee whiz. Horner is a lawyer at a libertarian think tank. You pit him against scientists at NASA, NOAA, and the vast majority of working climatologists.”)
Actually, Horner is the man who uncovered the e-mails in question. And uhm, how many of these infallible, incorruptable, completely unbiased government-funded scientists are of the liberal persuasion?
And you conveniently ignored this little jewel:
Earlier this month, in an updated analysis of the surface temperature data, GISS restated that the separate analyses by the different agencies “are not independent, as they must use much of the same input observations.”
And This:
In an updated analysis of the surface temperature data released on March 19, NASA adjusted the raw temperature station data to account for inaccurate readings caused by heat-absorbing paved surfaces and buildings in a slightly different way. NASA determines which stations are urban with nighttime satellite photos, looking for stations near light sources as seen from space.
Of course, this doesn’t solve problems with NASA’s data, as the newest paper admits: “Much higher resolution would be needed to check for local problems with the placement of thermometers relative to possible building obstructions,” a problem repeatedly underscored by meteorologist Anthony Watts on his SurfaceStations.org Web site. Last month, Watts told FoxNews.com that “90 percent of them don’t meet [the government's] old, simple rule called the ’100-foot rule’ for keeping thermometers 100 feet or more from biasing influence. Ninety percent of them failed that, and we’ve got documentation.”
In other words Zachiel: Garbage in. Garbage out. Now where’s my grant money?
It’s like Obama had absolutely no leadership experience what-so-ever. Huh. Who’d a thunk?
We have to remember that the Obama Administration via Rahm Emmanuel is about crisis utilization. They have probably spent more time thinking about how to use this crisis to advance their radical Totalitarian agenda then how to protect the coastline. As someone who works in the oil industry, I expect an attempt to take over a significant part of it in America.
A link on Hotair brought me to this blog.
Just wanted to comment how much I learned from reading it and the comments.
It’s a relief to know there are still so many good, common sense people around.
I love that day by day account from RandyP in #58! It says it all.
A thought just came to me. Do you think Obama misheard? It’s the Gulf crises, not the Golf crisis…LOL!
Last Sphere: In an updated analysis of the surface temperature data released on March 19, NASA adjusted the raw temperature station data to account for inaccurate readings caused by heat-absorbing paved surfaces and buildings in a slightly different way.
Scientists are always adjusting their findings based on the latest data and methods. The NASA paper you cite states:
We compare global temperature reconstructions of GISS, NCDC, and HadCRUT. We conclude that global temperature continued to rise rapidly in the past decade, despite large year-to-year fluctuations associated with the El Nino-La Nina cycle of tropical ocean temperature.
We conclude, based on results reported here and the other papers we referenced, that unaccounted for urban effects on global temperature change are small in comparison to the ~0.8°C global warming of the past century.
The reality of continued global warming contrasts sharply with a frequently heard
assertion that the world has been in a cooling trend for the past decade …
Current GISS Global Surface Temperature Analysis, NASA 2010.
The reality of continued global warming …
IF the earth is warming, which is highly debatable, the question is why think it has anything to do with human activity. If the earth’s climate warms periodically, why would we think this is any different?
But the big point here is not climate change or who’s to blame. If Obama was really told the probable extent of the disaster from day one, why did the administration say NOTHING and do NOTHING? People could have prepared. It’s an outright failure of responsibility. BP has obviously been busy. We can argue forever about whether they were busy at the right things, but they were working on it. What was the Obama administration doing?
The CEO of BP had a piece in the WSJ last week. He said plainly that the industry had no plan for what to do if the deep water drilling failsafes failed. That is an astonishing admission.
What we’ve got here is an “epic fail” from private enterprise AND government.
How many of those posting here voted for Obama? I did not–I knew better. He lacks empathy, disclipline, good humor and curiosity. If he can’t muster sympathy for the dying creatures, perhaps he’d have an interest in the technicalities of stopping the leak, mopping up the damage. I he can’t muster interest in the technical aspects of this disaster, perhaps he could find sufficient challenge and glory in helping the people of the Gulf, whose livelihoods, incomes and health are at risk. Honestly, I can’t tell what that man cares about. I would love the chance to vote for Hillary in 2012. For every flaw of hers that was ridiculed in the last election, we’ve found Obama and his gang to be 10x worse. O’s hypocrisy is galling.
Gail F: If the earth’s climate warms periodically, why would we think this is any different?
Science.
Gail F: What we’ve got here is an “epic fail” from private enterprise AND government.
Agreed.
(Zachriel wrote – Scientists are always adjusting their findings based on the latest data and methods.)
Not quite my friend. You seem to be missing the broad point here:
————————-
There are only four climate datasets available. All global warming study, such as the reports from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), must be based on these four.
They are:
1) the NASA GISS dataset
2) the NCDC GHCN dataset
3) the CRU dataset
4) and the Japan Meteorological Agency dataset.
Following Climategate, when it became known that raw temperature data for CRU’s “HADCRU3″ climate dataset had been destroyed, Phil Jones, CRU’s former director, said the data loss was not important — because there were other independent climate datasets available.
But the emails reveal that at least three of the four datasets were NOT independent, that NASA GISS was not considered to be accurate, and that these quality issues were known to both top climate scientists and to the mainstream press.
In a response to reporter Doyle Rice of USA Today, Dr. Reto Ruedy — a senior scientist at NASA — recommended the following:
-Continue using NCDC’s data for the U.S. means and Phil Jones’ [HADCRU3] data for the global means. …
-We are basically a modeling group and were forced into rudimentary analysis of global observed data in the 70s and early 80s. …
-Now we happily combine NCDC’s and Hadley Center data to … evaluate our model results.
This response was extended later the same day by Dr. James Hansen — the head of NASA GISS:
-[For] example, we extrapolate station measurements as much as 1200 km. This allows us to include results for the full Arctic. In 2005 this turned out to be important, as the Arctic had a large positive temperature anomaly. We thus found 2005 to be the warmest year in the record, while the British did not and initially NOAA also did not. …
-It should be noted that the different groups have cooperated in a very friendly way to try to understand different conclusions when they arise.
Two implications of these emails: The data to which Phil Jones referred to as “independent” was not — it was being “corrected” and reused among various climate science groups, and the independence of the results was no longer assured; and the NASA GISS data was of lower quality than Jones’ embattled CRU data.
The NCDC GHCN dataset mentioned in the Ruedy email has also been called into question by Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts. D’Aleo and Watts showed in a January 2010 report that changes in available measurement sites and the selection criteria involved in “homogenizing” the GHCN climate data raised serious questions about the usefulness of that dataset as well.
These three datasets — from NASA GISS, NCDC GHCN, and CRU — are the basis of essentially all climate study supporting anthropogenic global warming.
- Charlie Martin of Pajamas Media
————————-
These scientists first claimed that their three data sources were independent of one another, but the emails revealed that was a flat-out lie. In fact, the “data” sources were being “adjusted” in a “very friendly way” to fit their hypothesis of global warming. Now that is hardly scientific, it is hardly independent, and it is anything but unbiased.
These men (especially Hansen from NASA) have their entire reputations, their entire careers, and their entire livelihoods invested in the unfounded claim of global warming.
Now I ask you, do you really think any amount of factual evidence will make them change their tune?
I guess this scientist is no longer very “scientific” now that he’s been exposed- is he Zachriel:
Former CRU Chief Admits Warming May Not Be Unprecedented
The suspended chief of the East Anglia CRU now admits that the warming seen in the late 20th century may not be unprecedented after all, that the planet has stopped warming for the last 15 years despite the predictions of AGW advocates, and that warming periods have happened before – but NOT due to man-made changes.
link
[Please avail yourself of this easy tutorial to learn how to make links. -admin]
I would love the chance to vote for Hillary in 2012
You mean Hillary “Reset Button” Clinton? Everything she has done as Secretary of State has “epic fail” written all over it.
Compared to Obama, she is nothing more than a different flavor of lousy.
Everything in the Daily Fail is made-up nonsense, seriously. If you want to read something right-wing in Britain go to the Telegraph (not their blogs if you want to hold on to your sanity) or the Economist. (Which I in fact read myself, as much as I disagree with its neoliberalism).
Obama cares about himself, first and foremost. He is so bad that he is actually making me miss Bill Clinton. Clinton, for all of his faults, was genuinely intelligent and cared about the economy thriving. Obama is a carnival barker, a scold, a boring professor who needs a telemprompter to get out a complete paragraph.
If O were as smart as he’d like us to believe, he’d use this as an opportunity to get new nuclear power plants licensed and on line as soon as possible. That would let us work toward using more electric cars (while waiting for a break through in battery technology.) Instead, this will be used as an excuse to push through cap and trade. It will come at the worst possible time and ruin the economy for years to come.
I stopped voting Democratic after years of hearing how “stupid” the opposition was. I’ve seen too many instances where the Dems do not seem to be as smart as they like to believe. This is one of them.
Last Sphere: The suspended chief of the East Anglia CRU now admits that the warming seen in the late 20th century may not be unprecedented after all, that the planet has stopped warming for the last 15 years despite the predictions of AGW advocates, and that warming periods have happened before – but NOT due to man-made changes.
Of course, the world has experienced climate change before modern times.
Climate change is only evident over longer periods due to a number of cyclical factors. Jon Stewart has addressed the confusion of short term fluctuations with long term climate trends.
(Zachriel wrote – “Jon Stewart has addressed the confusion of short term fluctuations with long term climate trends.”)
Well then- if Professor Jon (clown nose on, clown nose off) Stewart has weighed in with his liberal “scientific” consensus- then maybe we should just ignore all those pesky “friendly adjustments” of all that scientific data.
Gee whiz, it would be crazy to listen to a lawyer at a libertarian think tank who actually exposed the corruption of data when we can simply listen to a third-rate far-left comedian/political pundit on Comedy Central.
Touche my friend. You’ve converted me.
Last Sphere: Gee whiz, it would be crazy to listen to a lawyer at a libertarian think tank who actually exposed the corruption of data when we can simply listen to a third-rate far-left comedian/political pundit on Comedy Central.
Well, no. There was no corruption, and the data was never destroyed. And you did confuse short term fluctuations with long term trends.
The link in the previous comment didn’t show for some reason.
Jon Stewart on the confusion of short term fluctuations with long term trends.
(Zachriel wrote – “There was no corruption, and the data was never destroyed.”)
“Adjustments” IS corruption, and I never said anything about destroying anything.
And I’ll see your Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz and raise you one George Carlin:
Content Warning: Adult Language
My George Carlin link didn’t go through.
Here it is again:
link
Content Warning: Adult Language
This is not good for Obama, this is bad.
Blue Collar and IamDagney are right….Obama is about using this crisis rather than solving it…anything to further foist his socialist/marxist regime on the US.
We have a leader who is malevolent toward America, a friend of domestic terrorists and 3rd world dictators.
Having leaders who hate you is the promised consequence of a nation falling into sin (see Leviticus 26:14-46 esp. verse 17). Throughout Scripture, God has always used Assyria and Babylon to discipline His people. Assyria is now within our gates. Iran’s dictator has been invited to speak at the National Cathedral and by the UN to (O, the irony) defend women’s rights.
The next terrorist attack on American soil may be even more ugly and silent than a neglected oil spill and more pervasive and terrifying than an attack on mere buildings.
Last Sphere: “Adjustments” IS corruption …
Adjustments are normal scientific practice, such as when NASA made adjustments due to heat-absorbing paved surfaces and buildings, concluding “that unaccounted for urban effects on global temperature change are small in comparison to the ~0.8°C global warming of the past century.”
Last Sphere (before): CRU’s “HADCRU3″ climate dataset had been destroyed
Last Sphere (after): and I never said anything about destroying anything.
George Carlin: The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are f#@#. Difference. Difference.
Carlin is correct on this point. Climate change will not cause the Earth to fall into the Sun. But it will cause widespread human suffering. Difference. Difference.
(Zachriel wrote – “Adjustments are normal scientific practice,”)
“The different groups have cooperated in a very friendly way to try to understand different conclusions when they arise,”
Supposedly independent sources of data cooperating in a very friendly way i.e. “adjusting” data and thus rendering the data not so “independent” is normal scientific practice?
(Zachriel wrote – “Last Sphere (before): CRU’s “HADCRU3″ climate dataset had been destroyed
Last Sphere (after): and I never said anything about destroying anything.”)
Ah yes, my mistake Zachriel. Speaking of which, did that data that supposedly wasn’t destroyed ever show up?
(Zachriel wrote – “George Carlin: The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are f#@#. Difference. Difference.”)
The people who are claiming the planet is f%*& up ARE the ones who are f%*& up. Same. Same.
(Zachriel wrote – “Carlin is correct on this point. Climate change will not cause the Earth to fall into the Sun. But it will cause widespread human suffering. Difference. Difference.”)
Again: The planet is fine. People (i.e. Global Warming Believers) are f%*& up. Same. Same.
Last Sphere: Supposedly independent sources of data cooperating in a very friendly way i.e. “adjusting” data and thus rendering the data not so “independent” is normal scientific practice?
The source data isn’t modified. Delta adjustments are made as part of the analysis. And yes, scientists often cooperate with one another.
Last Sphere: Ah yes, my mistake Zachriel. Speaking of which, did that data that supposedly wasn’t destroyed ever show up?
The data is still available from the original sources.
Last Sphere: The planet is fine. People (i.e. Global Warming Believers) are f%*& up. Same. Same.
That does not properly represent Carlin’s statement. “People” does not refer to “Global Warming Believers,” but to the human species.
Carlin: Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We’ve been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? … We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that.
Carlin never had much admiration for humanity.
(Zachriel wrote – “The data is still available from the original sources.”)
The what is this about:
NASA Accused Of ‘Climategate’ Stalling
The man battling NASA for access to potential “Climategate” e-mails says the agency is still withholding documents and that NASA may be trying to stall long enough to avoid hurting an upcoming Senate debate on global warming.
Nearly three years after his first Freedom of Information Act request, Christopher C. Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said he will file a lawsuit Thursday to force NASA to turn over documents the agency has promised but has never delivered.
- Washington Times May 26, 2010
link.
[Last Sphere, seriously? AGAIN you leave an unembedded url in the comments section after I have specifically asked you to avail yourself of this tutorial so I don't have to do it? It's not hard. If I can do it, anyone can. I don't have time to go into comments and create links for everyone. If your stuff ends up in the spam filter from now on, don't blame me. -admin]
(Zachriel wrote – “That does not properly represent Carlin’s statement. “People” does not refer to “Global Warming Believers,” but to the human species.”)
Carlin: “And the greatest arrogance of all, “Save the planet.” WHAT? Are these f&*#$@* people kidding me? Save the planet? We don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven’t learned how to care for one another, we’re gonna save the f%&*$%*# planet?”
“Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are f*%#&$. Difference. Difference!”
Not all of the human species is claiming the planet is in danger- only a minority are (Global Warming Believers)
Carlin most certainly held humanity as a whole in contempt- but he obviously found the Global Warming Believers to be especially ridiculous and repugnant “And the greatest arrogance of all, “Save the planet….. Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet.”