Today’s Qs for O’s WH – 11/30/09
EmailTAPPER: When more troops are sent into a country, inevitably it results in more casualties, when the military presence and fighting is increased. Is the president going to — is that going to be part of the president's message tomorrow, to prepare the American people for the fact that, while an exit strategy exists, the next year or two is going to be perhaps bloodier than even the last six months?
GIBBS: Well, I — and we've discussed this before. I think the amount of sacrifice that we've seen from the men and women that we have there already is something that I know the president is assured by each and every day. I think — you know, he signs letters of condolence. He meets with the families of those that have been killed. Obviously, the trip to Dover is something that I doubt you ever truly forget. I think the president will reiterate the importance of why we're there, but also, by all means, very early on, acknowledge the tremendous cost and sacrifice to our men and women in uniform. I don't think there's any doubt that we are all in awe of — of the commitment from our military and our civilian side in order to get this right.
TAPPER: And just in terms of defining our terms, where does making sure that we have a stable Afghan partner and — and nation- building begin? What's the line? Is it just — is it just a question of our responsibility, U.S. responsibility being training Afghan troops? It's just — that's the safe and secure part, the safe and stable partner part? Because we've heard a lot about what the U.S. intends to do, and I know you don't want to get ahead of the president's speech, but just in terms — if you could define the terms a little for us.
GIBBS: Well, I — I guess I would more ask you to — I don't — I'm unclear as to what continuum you're putting. Are you asking me to — to put them on a certain…
TAPPER: Well, the president has said about the new strategy that it's important that we have a secure, stable ally in the Afghan…
(CROSSTALK)
GIBBS: Right. Well, and a partner that is — and a partner that understands, as the president directly told President Karzai in a telephone call in the Oval Office, that it is time to turn — it's time for a new chapter in our relationship as it relates to corruption and improved governance in order to address the security situation not just through training and security force needs, but also — look, it's hard for a civilian — it's hard for civilians to go in and improve areas — it's impossible — that aren't secure. So I would say this is all part of what has to be a partnership. And I think anybody would tell you that — that — and I've said this, and I think, quite frankly, you've seen this from Democrats and Republicans in Congress — without partners that are willing to do stuff in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, no number of American troops can solve all of those problems unless or until those steps are taken inside both of those countries where we see a change in the security situation.
TAPPER: So a "stable partner" means a partner that is willing to have its own troops step up.
GIBBS: Well…
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: It doesn't mean a thriving democracy. It doesn't mean a great economy. It doesn't mean schools — schools for girls.
GIBBS: Well look, I think first — first and foremost — first and foremost, we have to have a partner that can identify, recruit, retain a security force and a police force that are able to take improved security — an improved security environment and eventually hold that area. Once that area is cleared, that area then has to be held. Ultimately, the strategy will be to transfer the security responsibility of an area to the Afghans. That — that is a big part of what you'll hear the president talk about tomorrow.
TAPPER: But that's what we want from the Afghan government.
GIBBS: That's — I would say that's a big part of it, yes.
-jpt
Santorum: Money Will Not Defeat Obama, Ideas Will 
Rick Santorum's Full Speech at CPAC 2012
Gibbs is as clear as a bucket of tar. He is painful… simply painful to watch on TV. It must be h*ll to be in the press room with him.
Nothing against him personally… I just think he does a terrible job. Tony Snow so far fit the bill. Obama would be wise to hire someone from the media.
Maybe Obama will call on Mr. Tapper?
Posted by: den | November 30, 2009, 2:39 pm 2:39 pm
LET THE EAGLE SOAR OBAMA
Posted by: Sherry | November 30, 2009, 3:12 pm 3:12 pm
Sorry to go off-topic so early…
Just did a search on “ABC News” regarding the e-mails hacked from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU). Several e-mails indicate that the CRU and other “climate scientists” who hold significant sway with the IPCC are doctoring data and muffling critics (“skeptics”, “deniers”) to maintain the “consensus” that (a.) temperatures are rising, and (b.) humans are responsible for this supposed rise. Several of these e-mails would give credence that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is a massive hoax.
I did not receive any response to several searches for reporting by ABC News on this issue.
Has ABC News not learned its lesson? Ultimately, this story will surface (as did the ACORN videos and Van Jones’ indiscretions). It would behoove ABC News to catch up to this story now rather than suffer (more) losses in credibility. Your audience would be much better served by reporting this issue rather on fluff pieces such as Chelsea Clinton’s engagements, Obama’s presence at a college basketball game, etc. Thank you.
Posted by: tjp612 | November 30, 2009, 3:18 pm 3:18 pm
“Several of these e-mails would give credence that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is a massive hoax.”
___________________________________
No they don’t.
Anyone who wants to deny that climate change is real should find other evidence for skepticism; these emails by no means support that claim.
Posted by: tierra | November 30, 2009, 3:35 pm 3:35 pm
“Anyone who wants to deny that climate change is real should find other evidence for skepticism; these emails by no means support that claim.”
Do you know the difference between “AGW” and “climate change”? The former is a hoax (confirmed by evidence of distorted data and muffling of dissent as seen from the data hijacked from the CRU), the latter is real (based on real science, based on hundreds of thousands of years).
BTW – Don’t you find it remotely curious that the CRU “threw away” the primary data collected to develop the climate prediction models that have been used to sound the alarm of AGW? Sounds fishy, doesn’t it?
Posted by: tjp612 | November 30, 2009, 4:00 pm 4:00 pm
“Is the president going to — is that going to be part of the president’s message tomorrow”
Gibbs could have gone with yes or no. Instead he chose to blanket his non-answer of “I think the president will reiterate the importance of why we’re there, but also, by all means, very early on, acknowledge the tremendous cost and sacrifice to our men and women in uniform” with more WH tripe.
You should have followed up Jake.
Posted by: Live! From DC! It's Sat Night! | November 30, 2009, 4:03 pm 4:03 pm
The obvious question for Mr. Obama in light of Climategate scandal is to ask him if he will at least slow the headlong rush to Cap and Trade long enough for the evidence to be sorted out…
Posted by: Terry | November 30, 2009, 4:05 pm 4:05 pm
And why was the raw data thrown away? Yes, hiding the evidence that doesn’t support the claim of global warming.
Posted by: Jenny | November 30, 2009, 4:09 pm 4:09 pm
BTW – Don’t you find it remotely curious that the CRU “threw away” the primary data collected to develop the climate prediction models that have been used to sound the alarm of AGW?
____________________________________
Sure, except for they didn’t. That is nonsense put out on right wing blogs and then mindlessly repeated in other right wing blogs.
Posted by: tierra | November 30, 2009, 4:13 pm 4:13 pm
Hey “Baghdad Bob” Gibbs, does this quote from Speaker Nancy Pelosi in September bother you or anybody on the Left….at all??
“The power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially UNLIMITED.”
Posted by: Health Czar | November 30, 2009, 4:14 pm 4:14 pm
“And why was the raw data thrown away? Yes, hiding the evidence that doesn’t support the claim of global warming.”
According to the CRU, the data was thrown away (due to lack of space) when the CRU relocated to a new building at the Univ. of East Anglia. British FOIA requests had been served to the CRU who repeatedly refused to comply. Furthermore, the original data set was “modified” within the CRU climate prediction model; without the original data, the results could not be replicated by climate scientist peers (which would then remove the ability for others to object to CRU’s findings…cannot object to findings if you can’t develop models to replicate findings).
Posted by: tjp612 | November 30, 2009, 4:16 pm 4:16 pm
In regards to the climate change debate NOT among scientists, it always seems to be the people who speak loudest have the least to say. (I’m looking at you climate change deniers / people who think climate change is solely a natural phenomenon and humans have had little impact on it)
Posted by: Truth | November 30, 2009, 4:18 pm 4:18 pm
“Furthermore, the original data set was “modified” within the CRU climate prediction model; without the original data, the results could not be replicated by climate scientist peers (which would then remove the ability for others to object to CRU’s findings…cannot object to findings if you can’t develop models to replicate findings).”
Posted by: tjp612 | Nov 30, 2009 4:16:56 PM
Which essentially makes this data as reliable as Obama’s data on all those fictitious jobs “created or saved” in non-existent Congressional districts.
Posted by: Ministry of Information | November 30, 2009, 4:20 pm 4:20 pm
“Sure, except for they didn’t. That is nonsense put out on right wing blogs and then mindlessly repeated in other right wing blogs.”
——————————
Scientists at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit have admitted that they threw away much of the raw temperature data used in their predictions of global warming. The result of that action is that other scientists will not be able to verify the CRU calculations that they say show a rise in the Earth’s average temperature over the past 150 years.
The data was gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals, which were stored on paper and magnetic tape, were dumped. Officials at CRU say they tossed out the data to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
CRU HAS POSTED A STATEMENT ON ITS WEBSITE SAYING: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
The CRU is credited by many scientists as being the world’s leading climate and temperature research facility, but many climate change sceptics have been anxious to examine exactly how the CRU arrived at its conclusions. That is now impossible.
The admission is likely to fuel further criticism of the CRU’s methods of obtaining data proported to to show asteady rise in the Earth’s temperature. The CRU has been under fire since the “climategate” scandal erupted last week when more than 1,000 emails obtained from the server used by University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit were posted to the internet.
The emails show exchanges between CRU scientists openly discussing manipulating data and how to suppress reports by other researchers that contradict their findings.
——————————
Care to try again, Tierra?
Posted by: tjp612 | November 30, 2009, 4:21 pm 4:21 pm
“Sure, except for they didn’t. That is nonsense put out on right wing blogs and then mindlessly repeated in other right wing blogs.”
——————————
No, this is NEWS–ignored by the Obama-worshipping American media, but covered extensively by the British media.
Posted by: Climate Fraud | November 30, 2009, 4:23 pm 4:23 pm
“Which essentially makes this data as reliable as Obama’s data on all those fictitious jobs “created or saved” in non-existent Congressional districts.”
Yes! Exactly!
Nobel Science and Economics Prizes for you.
Posted by: tjp612 | November 30, 2009, 4:25 pm 4:25 pm
Data destroyed? How about robots stuck on repeat, despite news to the contrary.
If you haven’t been paying attention. CRU says not. The implication of data destruction is wholly misleading.
According to Jones, “We haven’t destroyed anything.The data is still there — you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center.”
As for that Pielke quote in the Times Piece on this matter, just to show how shady or incompetent those clamoring to turn this into a bigger scandal than it is really are, Andrew Sullivan notes, “it reads as if it were offered “yesterday in response to “news” that UEA had somehow destroyed its original data” but as it turns out it was an old quote– “from a blog-post written months ago in response to CRU conceding that it had used data for some climate stations that it did not physically possess.”
Hmmm….
Need more? Well, why not look at some of the data that was supposedly destroyed?
See Real Climate.
Posted by: Helene | November 30, 2009, 4:37 pm 4:37 pm
Posted by: Helene | Nov 30, 2009 4:37:35 PM
According to Jones, “We haven’t destroyed anything.The data is still there — you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center.”
—————————–
Yeah, Phil Jones….VERY credible source….he’s the most implicated by hijacked emails in being the most complicit in the AGW fraud that has been foisted upon a (mostly) unsuspecting public….
====================================
Posted by: Serafina | Nov 30, 2009 4:44:13 PM
“As Brian Merchant at Treehugger…”
You can’t be serious. If you want to make a salient point supporting your position you’ll need to come up with sources other thant “Treehugger”….
Posted by: tjp612 | November 30, 2009, 4:51 pm 4:51 pm
Gibbs is as clear as a bucket of tar. He is painful… simply painful to watch on TV. It must be h*ll to be in the press room with him.
Nothing against him personally… I just think he does a terrible job. Tony Snow so far fit the bill. Obama would be wise to hire someone from the media.
Maybe Obama will call on Mr. Tapper?
Posted by: den | Nov 30, 2009 2:39:54 PM
Den, that’s a great post, and I absolutely agree with you. However, we will NEVER be so lucky as to have frat boy Gibbs removed from his post. He and Obama have a co-dependency issue. Gibbs knows he could never find a position like this one in any other place, so he has to be the puppet day in and day out. He also suits the Obama WH in his sarchastic, smart- answers-that’s what we have gotten to with this administration. Obama knows he could never find another buffoon to put himself out there and look like a total idiot so Obama can look better. So, they are a perfect fit for each other. Unfortunately for us, we get Obama the “Wonderboy” and his side kick “Gibby” for a few more years.
Posted by: Shoe | November 30, 2009, 4:53 pm 4:53 pm
Posted by: Helene | Nov 30, 2009 4:37:35 PM
BTW – Citing Andrew Sullivan as a source is one step above citing “Treehugger” as a credible source…
Posted by: tjp612 | November 30, 2009, 5:03 pm 5:03 pm
BTW – Citing Andrew Sullivan as a source is one step above citing “Treehugger” as a credible source…
Posted by: tjp612 | Nov 30, 2009 5:03:12 PM
Somehow I doubt you can prove your expertise on what is and isn’t credible. But just for fun, let’s hear your criteria, screen your sources and let everyone decide for themselves, why don’t we? If you’re game. I notice you give no reasons why– you just make proclamations without backup or sound reasoning. As if we’re supposed to trust the credibility of some random commenter on a blog. LOL.
Personally, I don’t think trying to control the narrative is very liberty-oriented. I suggest people check it out and use their critical literacy skills after following all the links. I actually trust normal people to be able to sort it out for themselves– and those who are too far gone to do that are already grumbling about my posts anyway cuz I don’t fit in with their predetermined partisan positions.
Shrug.
Posted by: Helene | November 30, 2009, 5:19 pm 5:19 pm
Posted by: Serafina | Nov 30, 2009 5:09:49 PM
“Treehugger is a great site for normal, cool, smart people.”
It’s all in the eye of the beholder, I suppose…
“Or you can try to prove your false allegations by finding the statement on the CRU site and proving the data isn’t available.”
Um, I’m not the one saying the data isn’t available – The CRU is. :
“SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.”
Posted by: tjp612 | November 30, 2009, 5:31 pm 5:31 pm
I see Dr. Mann has co-authored scientific papers with 43 other investigators.I’m not sure that I could trust peer-review if all of the reviewers hold the same position.
Posted by: Nephron | November 30, 2009, 5:38 pm 5:38 pm
@ Helene,
“Somehow I doubt you can prove your expertise on what is and isn’t credible. But just for fun, let’s hear your criteria, screen your sources and let everyone decide for themselves, why don’t we?”
So what makes Al Gore, Henry Waxmen, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, et. al experts? If I remember correctly, the aforementioned are all lawyers, not scientists…
But since you asked:
a.) Atmospheric carbon concentrations have increased over the past 8-10 years, yet global temperatures have not. This would imply that AGW believers credo that increased atmospheric carbon levels = increased temperatures is false.
b.) Temperatures (and carbon levels) have historically been much higher (and lower) long before the advent of humans and the Industrial Revolution…are we to blame for these swings as well?
c.) Greenhouse gases make up less than 2% of Earth’s atmosphere; of this 2%, ~95% of these greenhouse gases are attributable to water vapor (~3.5% CO2). Of this ~3.5% CO2, humans are responsible for ~3.4% (“nature” responsible for ~96.6%). As much as we like to think otherwise, we are not that important…
d.) Current CO2 atmospheric concentration are at very low levels; 550 million years ago CO2 levels were 18 times higher than today, 150 million years ago they were 9 times greater than today. In analysis of CO2 concentration and global temperatures, there is no clear correlation.
e.) Global temperatures were WARMER 3,000 / 1,500 / 500 years ago. Any explanation why? Must have been all of those motorized Roman chariots…
I leave you with this question: What is the “optimal” temperature of the Earth?
Look forward to your response…
Posted by: tjp612 | November 30, 2009, 5:59 pm 5:59 pm
Posted by: Serafina | Nov 30, 2009 5:52:42 PM
So if y’all are free to quote Andrew Sullivan as a “credible source”, does that mean I can quote Glenn Beck or someone else deemed by the left as a far-Right partisan? (you see the parallels, don’t you?)
Next you’ll be quoting Ed Schultz or Keith Olbermann…
Posted by: tjp612 | November 30, 2009, 6:04 pm 6:04 pm
The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. And, as Christopher Booker argues, this scandal is not at the margins of the politicized IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] process. It is not tangential to the policy prescriptions emanating from what David Henderson called the environmental policy milieu. It goes to the core of that process.
I’m also surprised by the IPCC’s response. Amid the self-justification, I had hoped for a word of apology, or even of censure. (George Monbiot called for Phil Jones to resign, for crying out loud.) At any rate I had expected no more than ordinary evasion. The declaration from Rajendra Pachauri that the emails confirm all is as it should be is stunning. Science at its best. Science as it should be. Good lord. This is pure George Orwell. And these guys call the other side “deniers”.
(The Atlantic)
Posted by: Climate Fraud | November 30, 2009, 6:15 pm 6:15 pm
So what makes Al Gore, Henry Waxmen, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, et. al experts? If I remember correctly, the aforementioned are all lawyers, not scientists…
[list of questions you could get from any denier or skeptic site...]
Look forward to your response…
Posted by: tjp612 | Nov 30, 2009 5:59:14 PM
First, its you making a big deal of who is and isn’t an expert or what sources commenters can cite, not moi. What makes them “not experts” and puts them “off limits” in your world when it comes to citing reports they cite, or using their quotes. Personally, I ususally try to get at the data, but sometimes I quote people because I like the way they say it.
Second, how is this proving that your say is the be-all and end-all on what is and isn’t a credible source? LOL. The lack of logic and straightforwardness never ceases to create deep chuckles. This is just gobbly gook that I can answer by telling you to go to Real Climate, Climate Progress, Deltoid or Grists’ “How to talk to a climate change skeptic” series. Or if you want the appropriate skeptics response so you can stay a full-fledged tribe member, go to Watt’s Up or Climate Audit.
Way to miss the point and totally reframe.
Posted by: Helene | November 30, 2009, 6:20 pm 6:20 pm
Posted by: Helene | Nov 30, 2009 6:20:56 PM
“Way to miss the point and totally reframe.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself regarding your (for the most part, nonsensical) post…
Posted by: tjp612 | November 30, 2009, 8:08 pm 8:08 pm
“You can read the whole thing, but the bottom line is that he doesn’t think climate change theory is a fraud AT ALL… in fact, he’s worried about the summit, that enough won’t be done.”
So, Helene, how about you enlighten us “deniers” on why AGW (anthropogenic global warning/aka “man-made” global warning) is “real” – Can you? If so, how do you back up your claims?
And while you are at it, perhaps you can answer the question “what is the proper/optimal temperature of the Earth?”
Look forward to it.
Posted by: tjp612 | November 30, 2009, 8:45 pm 8:45 pm
@ Helene
“I just want to point out your lies and lack of logic. I have no interest in your “questions” and playacting.”
Lies? Please do tell…I am not aware of any “lies.”
And of course you have “no interest” in my “questions”….AGW-believers are never interested in debating. Has Al Gore ever debated with a “denier”? Why does he close off his talks to the press? Why did Congress deny invitation Rep. Joe Barton’s invitation to UK’s Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (and “denier of AGW)? (we “deniers” know the answer: Congress didn’t want Al Gore – who also received invite to same hearings – to be embarrassed by Lord Monckton with “inconvenient facts”)
So, your refusal to debate AGW on its merits is consistent with AGW believers (and “Carbon Millionaires” such as Al Gore).
Posted by: tjp612 | November 30, 2009, 8:59 pm 8:59 pm
Run, Helene, run!
Posted by: tjp612 | November 30, 2009, 9:00 pm 9:00 pm
“Somehow I doubt you can prove your expertise on what is and isn’t credible.”
Of course he can’t.
He’s a right wing sock puppet.
Posted by: Ryan C | November 30, 2009, 9:24 pm 9:24 pm
“Somehow I doubt you can prove your expertise on what is and isn’t credible.”
Of course he can’t.
He’s a right wing sock puppet.
Posted by: Ryan C | November 30, 2009, 9:24 pm 9:24 pm
“He’s a right wing sock puppet.”
Care to take a shot at answering my questions?
(pause)
Didn’t think so….
Posted by: tjp612 | November 30, 2009, 10:04 pm 10:04 pm
Libs idea of debating climate change is to cut the mike. Didn’t Al Gore say “we are past debating this?” My question is when was it debated? NEVER.
What happened to the liberal motto of question authority? Oh, that only applies if the authority has an R next to his/her name. Cowards.
Posted by: mjishernameo | December 1, 2009, 7:30 am 7:30 am
For all the tree-ring data,forcing models and CO2 levels and projections associated with missing data I have two basic questions: 1. How can it be warmer now than at 1000,when historical records (mind you WRITTEN records)describe active vinyards in England, animal husbandry with 2 dioceses in Greenland, the presence of American grapes in Newfoundland?2. Why despite the claims of the Global Warming alarmists have we not had more and more intense hurricanes which were predicted by the “experts”?If these simple questions can’t be answered how can these elaborate climate models be believed?
Posted by: Nephron | December 1, 2009, 8:36 am 8:36 am