Today's WH press briefing could have made Ari Fleisher proud...

Subdivisions

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Aug-04-10 11:29 PM
Original message

Today's WH press briefing could have made Ari Fleisher proud...

Edited on Wed Aug-04-10 11:55 PM by Subdivisions

Earlier today I made a post stating my opinion of today's White House press briefing and I was attacked mercilessly and called a liar for stating that opinion. I said it was an "Orwellian nightmare". Then, after my thread was locked (because I don't take being called a liar and having my character assassinated lying down), http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8879027&mesg_id=8879027">I posted a thread asking if anyone knew where I could get the data that today's report was based upon. It was ompletely ignored by nearly every last person who viewed it. This is reminiscent of bushbots' interest in science, or lack thereof. Suddenly, DUers had no interest in the data. Like global warming deniars. Well, as it turns out, THERE IS NO DATA AVAILABLE which can be analyzed by interested third parties and which was made available along with the report presented today. They just made it all up based on their best guesses. This is the only conclusion I can reach in their failure to provide all the empirical data that was used to generate the conclusions in the following PIE CHART and REPORT:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100804_oil.html">Federal Science Report Details Fate of Oil from BP Spill

So, we're to take it on FAITH that what we were told today about the status of the "worst disaster in U.S. history" is the be-all and end-all of this sorry episode in American history? Sorry, but I ain't buying it.

Where's the science?

Check out this exchange in today's presser. My emphasis and my comments in red...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/press-briefing-press-secretary-robert-gibbs-admiral-thad-allen-carol-browner-and-dr

...snip...

MR. GIBBS: With that, Ms. Loven.

Q Yes, this would be I guess both for Carol and for Dr. Lubchenco. As I understand it, some outside scientists have some concerns about such a sort of neat and tidy conclusion to where the oil has gone. (Why would they be concerned and were their concerns addressed?) And I�m wondering whether it�s -- whether that definitive of a conclusion is really warranted with science, and why you wouldn�t release the pages of scientific backup to show how it was arrived at. (Yes, why did you not release the 'scientific backup to show how it was arrived at'?)

DR. LUBCHENCO: We believe (As opposed to you KNOW?) that these are the best direct measurements or estimates that we have at the moment. We have high degree of confidence in them. If new information comes to light, we will continue to upgrade the estimates, as is always the case in science.

The numbers that went into the calculations http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/PDFs/DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget20100801.pdf">are posted on the website. (So this PDF is what their report is based on? Where is the RAW data that was used to determine this PDF and the PIE CHART?) Anyone can readily see how the budget calculator was -- how the tool was developed, what�s in it, what went into each of those different categories, how they are defined, how it was calculated. So we would certainly welcome others using that tool and fact-checking, running the numbers. And I�m pretty sure they�ll come up with the same estimates.

Q Will you seek new estimates or is this sort of your last attempt to look at where this amount of oil has gone?

DR. LUBCHENCO: Well, some of the numbers are clearly not going to change. The amount of oil that was captured from the wellhead we know.

Q Right --

DR. LUBCHENCO: The amount that has been skimmed and burned is not likely to change. There�s just very little oil on the surface now. There�s not much oil that is visible other than right along the shore and on some of the beaches. So those numbers are not going to change.

The amount that was chemically dispersed is not likely to change; we�re not using dispersants anymore. The amount that was naturally dispersed is a result of direct calculations of how much turbulence there was and what we know about how oil behaves at different depths under pressure. The amount that was evaporated or dissolved is I think a pretty good estimate. (Where is the data to back up this assertion?)

So the one piece of the pie that is left after you sum all those others is what we�re calling the residual, and that�s a combination of things that we cannot measure directly or estimate with confidence. (Really, you cannot measure it? Then how can you quantify it at 26%?)

MR. GIBBS: Just to add to that, I mean, I think, to mention this -- Dr. Lubchenco just mentioned on the residual -- some of this is oil that, in tar balls, has, as she said earlier, washed up on the beach. It�s been removed but isn�t measurable because you�re removing it -- you may remove this with sand. That�s the 37,000 tons. So some of the 26 is immeasurable or unknowable (Really, you cannot measure it? Then how can you quantify it at 26%?).

DR. LUBCHENCO: I also want to point out one thing, and that is that there are three categories on your pie chart that have a little asterisk by them -- residual, naturally and chemically dispersed. And it�s important to recognize that each of those categories is being -- the oil in those categories is being degraded, naturally degraded. (Data please...) And so some of the residual that might be in marshes, for example, or tar balls is being biodegraded. The oil that is beneath the surface as a result of dispersion and these microscopic droplets is in the process of rapid degradation. (Data please...) And so what you see on this pie chart, as Robert indicated, is a sum total of where the oil went over time. But it doesn�t necessarily represent what�s there at this moment. (Data please...)

Q All right. And just to follow up really quickly, if any of you all could speak to what you think the level of NOAA�s credibility should be on a conclusion this dramatic -- potentially pivotal, when there were points in the process when NOAA was insisting the amount of oil that was leaking or that there wasn�t any under the surface that turned out not to be right. Good question...)

MR. GIBBS: Let me take that question (Because you're the expert?) because it would be unfair to say that NOAA had come up with one number during this process, or that NOAA alone bears responsibility, because I think it�s clear that -- look, throughout the process of this response, we have had the benefit of greater insight and greater technology. So at the beginning of this event, the explosion, the flow rate was measured by taking pictures of what had floated to the surface, okay? (Sure, sure, Robert :eyes: ...)

I think by all accounts -- that happens in the first couple days. I think by all accounts even we would tell you that�s not the best way to measure the flow rate. But that was the best way we had at that point to measure the flow rate.

We know that as a result of adding remotely operated vehicles to the site, we had the benefit of somewhat cloudy, two-dimensional video. Throughout the process, that video was enhanced and upgraded to the point where we had, as you all remember, we went from the cloudier to the much clearer two-dimensional video.

But, again, even the two-dimensional video is hard to estimate because you just simply don�t know the depth of that plume. Lastly, based on the pressure test that we required BP to take, we were able to add instrumentation on -- at the point at these caps that allowed us to measure the pressure both inside and directly outside of the caps and the blowout preventer, which gave us, quite frankly, a better scientific measure.

I�ve used this analogy before, but I think I want to take one more time to do this. It is important to understand that this event happened 5,000 feet below the surface at a well that was several miles below that 5,000-foot point. It is measuring -- we were measuring the flow rate basically of an opened Coke can 5,000 feet below the ocean using the best available technology that we had at the time without the benefit of knowing how big the Coke can was. (I suppose there was no other way to ever measure that flow using a flow meter?)

Q Right, but you�re now measuring something --

MR. GIBBS: That�s always --

Q -- very complicated again --

MR. GIBBS: Right.

Q -- and saying that you have a definitive answer now.

MR. GIBBS: Using -- but -- and I don�t think any of us would sit up here and tell you that we�re using the same instrumentation or information that was available to us on day one on day 106 because that simply hasn�t been the case with the flow rate, and it hasn�t been the case with any of this.

I will say this, to build off of the last question that you had, Jennifer, NOAA will continue to make measurements of the water and monitor what is happening in the Gulf, just as the EPA will continue to monitor air and water for dispersants and for air quality as it�s related to burns. That -- the testing will continue, but our information and our instrumentation has at each step in this process gotten better simply because when we started this, we didn�t have a picture of what was going on down 5,000 below the ocean. We added pictures. We added enhanced pictures. We added pressure readings. All of that allows you to get a much clearer and much more precise picture of what�s going on.. (You mean you used every means possible to NOT use actual means by which to measure the flow rate?)

MS. BROWNER: Can I just add another point? This has all been -- as Dr. Lubchenco said -- been subjected to a scientific protocol, which means you peer review, peer review and peer review. You look at what the inputs are. You look at what the models are. (I'd love to see them. Please show me where to find this peer reviewed scientific data and models.) All of this has been made available. (Really? Where?)

And so this has been a government-wide effort, but it wasn�t just government scientists who looked at this. You reached out to the academic community, had them look at this as the models were being developed. And as Robert just said and as Jane said herself, we may get more information, for example, about the residuals such that some of that may fit into another part of the pie chart.

But what we have tried to do from the beginning is as we have numbers make them available knowing that they may change. I think in this instance there could be some change -- the likelihood of large-scale changes is very, very small because we have so much certainty in some of the numbers.

MR. GIBBS: Look, I don�t think you can -- we wouldn�t -- and I don�t think you could certainly dismiss the role that Mother Nature has played. And you can see the role that it�s played in this pie chart. (Mother Nature takes such good care of us. So, say Robert, how's the fishing in the affected areas? Has Mother Nature put back all the dead sea life? The dead birds? The dead marshes? Or, does Mother Nature have limits?)

And, look, would we be talking about a fundamentally different scenario in Alaska than we would in the warm waters of the Gulf? Absolutely. But that has to be taken into account in the natural degradation and evaporation process that is a result of an environment, quite frankly, that is not the same as Prince William Sound in Alaska.

...snip...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/press-briefing-press-secretary-robert-gibbs-admiral-thad-allen-carol-browner-and-dr

Today's WH press briefing could have made Ari Fleisher proud...

Where's the science?

Thank you, Professor MacDonald! Thank you very much!