Quote of the Week

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

In discussing President Obama’s latest boondoggle, the one billion (with a “b) dollar Climate Resilience Plan, The US Under-Assistant Minister of Scientific Silly Walks, John Holdren, wandered way off of the party line. The party line in question, of course, is …

“Although we can’t ascribe any given weather event to climate change, we still insist that blah blah blah …”

Perhaps Holdren’s teleprompter was broken, but anyhow, here’s what he said (emphasis mine):

During a call with reporters on Thursday evening, the assistant to the president on science and technology, John Holdren, said, without any doubt, the severe drought plaguing California and a number of other states across the country is tied to climate change.

Now, that quote was bad enough, since everyone from the IPCC to my cat agrees that

• There is no link between historical post-Little-Ice-Age warming and extreme weather, and

• Droughts are more common in colder times than in warmer times, and

• For the last decade and a half there’s been no statistically significant warming, certainly not enough to cause increased extreme weather.

• We have neither the understanding nor the information necessary to ascribe ANY single weather event to climate change, and we’re a long ways from having either one.

But despite Holdren going way off piste in his comment, it wasn’t truly of the quality needed for a quote of the week. It wasn’t concise enough for an epigram … or for an epitaph, for that matter.

However, just when it all looked hopeless, Holdren rallied, came back and captured the gold by uttering the deathless words that will ring forever in the halls of climate academe:

Weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change.

There you have it, folks, Holdren’s Law of Climate Causation, all you need to know about droughts and such … weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change.

… and people wonder why the alarmists are having trouble these days peddling their nostrums? Well, mostly it’s not a communications failure. Mostly, it’s because we’ve been lied to before by these same folks (including Holdren), and Holdren’s current pathetic shilling for the Obamaclimate program is just more of the same.

The issue is not how the science is being communicated, as Judith Curry and many others seem to think.

The issue is that what is being communicated is so obviously not science, but merely poorly framed and scientifically absurd scare tactics, that as in this case, the communication just makes people point and laugh …

Regards to all,

w.

Read more.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
187 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 14, 2014 12:22 pm

Well, he is right. Climate does cause weather. Without a climate, there would be no weather.
And without an atmosphere, there would be no climate. And without a planet there would be no atmosphere. And without a solar system there would be no planet.
I guess the problem can be traced back to the Big Bang! Damn that thing! It caused all our problems!

DS
February 14, 2014 12:27 pm

didn’t we just recently have a Government study conclude that droughts we not getting stronger, longer or more widespread?

dayday
February 14, 2014 12:29 pm

The same propaganda is being preached here in the UK

heysuess
February 14, 2014 12:30 pm

What’s that old line? ‘I’ll have what s/he’s having?’ That dude has spent too much time in the old Large Holdren Collider.

Aphan
February 14, 2014 12:31 pm

Somebody needs to market a whole line of shirts and bumper stickers that say “Climate Change est 4.5 billion years BCE”, or “‘Climate Change…happening on Earth for 4.5 billion years” or “Climate Changes…always has….always will.”

negrum
February 14, 2014 12:31 pm

Did he say whether humans caused the climate change? I suppose that is considered an accepted fact. It will be amusing if they are going to try and deny that they ever believed or stated that humans caused the climate to change.

Richard Howes
February 14, 2014 12:33 pm

We need to PASS climate change bills to see what is IN climate change bills. It will work out just dandy!

jmrSudbury
February 14, 2014 12:36 pm

Sadly, it does not make enough people point and laugh. — John M Reynolds

John A
February 14, 2014 12:37 pm

Since all weather is caused by (human caused) climate change, it means that no weather event or events can falsify it.
Its a religious statement masquerading as science.
For those who have religious backgrounds, human-caused climate change is the equivalent of the doctrine of original sin and just as immune to disproof.

Phil
February 14, 2014 12:39 pm

Climate is the integral of weather over, say, 30 years. So, the derivative of climate or climate change would be weather. Yep, looks like he discovered sliced bread. Good one, Willis

Jimbo
February 14, 2014 12:41 pm

Holdren
Weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change.

These are the very same folks who told sceptics a few years back that the weather is not the same as the climate. Since the hiatus can no longer be ignored they are now desperately clutching as straws in the windy weather.
In 1971 Holdren believed that a new ice age was likely and blamed man

This number seems small until it is realized that a decrease of only 4°C would probably be sufficient to start another ice age. Moreover, other effects besides simple screening by air pollution threaten to move us in the same direction. In particular, a mere one percent increase in low cloud cover would decrease the surface temperature by .8°C.
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=873

Dr. Roy Spencer chips in on Holdren and explains what the weather actually is.

You might say, “But what about global warming causing a warmer Gulf Stream, which then clashes with the cold air masses and makes bigger East Coast snowstorms?” The trouble with that argument is that “global warming” warms those winter air masses more than it warms the oceans, reducing the temperature contrast. So, if the opposite is happening this winter, then it’s not due to global warming.
The idea that any of the weather we are seeing is in any significant way due to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions verges on irrationality.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/how-much-weather-is-being-caused-by-climate-change-maybe-1-part-in-1000/

James Strom
February 14, 2014 12:41 pm

Most readers probably already know this, but WUWT runs considerable documentation on the history of weather, and in particular extreme weather. It’s linked above at “Reference Pages”/”Climatic Phenomena”. It’s quite helpful if you’re involved in a discussion and want to scan historical trends quickly. Thanks, Anthony.

Louis Hooffstetter
February 14, 2014 12:43 pm

You can’t argue with stupid.

Marcos
February 14, 2014 12:44 pm

I thought it was common knowledge that La Nina-like conditions result in the Western/South Western US being very dry…

February 14, 2014 12:45 pm

“Weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change.”
So, in other words, there is no such thing as natural climate change and natural weather variability any more, right? When did God shut off the natural weather and climate change switch?
If he thinks I’m stupid enough to believe that statement, he’s more stupid than I am…..and I’m not even a scientist. What REALLY bugs me though is that there are probably plenty of people out there who are naïve and gullible enough to actually believe him……including many in the mainstream media.
There ought to be a law that forbids idiots like him from taking advantage of people’s scientific illiteracy this way. These last three years of the Obama presidency are going to be increasing difficult for me to tolerate, and it isn’t just because of his climate change policy. Obviously though, I don’t have much choice but to tolerate it anyway.
Please excuse me now while I go outside and scream.

Ralph Kramden
February 14, 2014 12:47 pm

President Obama can propose a Climate Resilience Plan but he can’t fund it. I could be wrong but I don’t think congress will fund the program.

Mac the Knife
February 14, 2014 12:47 pm

Another $1,000,000,000 slush fund, to be wasted on crony socialism by the psyentifically illiterate….. Perfect. Just Perfect.

Mac the Knife
February 14, 2014 12:49 pm

If You Like Your Climate, You can Keep Your Climate. Period.

Tom in Florida
February 14, 2014 12:50 pm

“The issue is that what is being communicated is so obviously not science, but merely poorly framed and scientifically absurd scare tactics ….”
And that, my good man, is the playbook for all issues. Successful politicians know damn well that so many people in the U.S. spend very little time on things that really matter. They only need to imply a problem and tell them that as long as you vote for me I will make sure the government is on top of it. Sadly too many people are more than happy to defer to the government without a thought, just like the Eloi.

Doonman
February 14, 2014 12:51 pm

Wait, I thought climate was the average weather over time. Either the definition of climate has changed, or Holdren’s logic is circular.

Jimbo
February 14, 2014 12:52 pm

dayday says:
February 14, 2014 at 12:29 pm
The same propaganda is being preached here in the UK

The Youtube was about Wraysbury. I found out that 58% of the land is in the flood plain. The UK is not the same land it was 10,000 years ago. It has been scraped, tilled, smothered in road and other urbanisation.

Abstract
River sediments, great floods and centennial-scale Holocene climate change
A new analysis of all 346 published 14C dated Holocene alluvial units in Britain offers a unique insight into the regional impacts of global change and shows how surprisingly sensitive British rivers have been to relatively modest but repeated changes in climate. Fourteen major but probably brief periods of flooding are identified bracketed within the periods 400–1070, 1940–3940, 7520–8100 and at ca. 10 420 cal. yr BP. There is a strong correspondence between climatic deteriorations inferred from mire wet shifts and major periods of flooding, especially at ca. 8000 cal. yr BP and since ca. 4000 cal. yr BP. The unusually long and complete British record also demonstrates that alterations in land cover have resulted in a step change in river basin sensitivity to variations in climate. This has very important implications for assessing and mitigating the impact of increasing severe flooding. In small and medium-sized river basins land use is likely to play a key role in either moderating or amplifying the climatic signal.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jqs.751/abstract

Nick Stokes
February 14, 2014 12:53 pm

“For the last decade and a half there’s been no statistically significant warming, certainly not enough to cause increased extreme weather.”
Warming is warming. Its effect is totally unrelated to statistical significance.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 14, 2014 1:10 pm

No Nick, the statistics is used to see if there IS warming or if it is just natural variation. 2 years are not identical. To proclaim there is cooling because 2013 was not as warm as 2012 is false. Just as is your proclamation.
No warming is no warming.

DS
February 14, 2014 12:53 pm

Marcos says:
February 14, 2014 at 12:44 pm
“I thought it was common knowledge that La Nina-like conditions result in the Western/South Western US being very dry…”
This is the potential drought pattern based off the Ocean Oscillations
http://sparkleberrysprings.com/v-web/b2/images/climate07/04mcabefig4lg.png

Russ R.
February 14, 2014 12:55 pm

“Climate change is so destructive it is causing snow, rain, wind, drought, hot weather, cold weather, ice, dead fish, acid oceans, hurricanes, typhoons, melting glaciers, starving Polar Bears, male pattern baldness, and it even looks like the sun, may succumb to climate change”, he says as he wipes the foam from the edge of his mouth.

February 14, 2014 12:56 pm

“Weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change.”
Okay. Whatever. Who knows. Maybe they’re right and we’re wrong, but would I be too much of a pedant if I asked what it was that caused weather practically everywhere before climate change? Perhaps it’s just idle curiosity on my part …

1 2 3 8