White House science adviser attacks Roger Pielke Jr. for his Senate testimony, Pielke responds with a skillfull counterstrike

From http://1.usa.gov/1mRYomm (PDF) I have converted the text for presentation here with Dr. Pielke’s response.

Dr. Roger Pielke responds:

I’m flattered that the White House has posted up an attack on me. Here is my response:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2014/03/john-holdrens-epic-fail.html

Please share far and wide.

Holdren’s letter is first, followed by Pielke’s response below.

============================================================

Drought and Global Climate Change: An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr

John P. Holdren, 28 February 2014 Introduction

In the question and answer period following my February 25 testimony on the Administration’s Climate Action Plan before the Oversight Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) suggested that I had misled the American people with comments I made to reporters on February 13, linking recent severe droughts in the American West to global climate change. To support this proposition, Senator Sessions quoted from testimony before the Environment and Public Works Committee the previous July by Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., a University of Colorado political scientist. Specifically, the Senator read the following passages from Dr. Pielke’s written testimony:

It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally.

Drought has “for the most part, become shorter, less, frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U.S. over the last century”. Globally, “there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.”

Footnotes in the testimony attribute the two statements in quotation marks within the second passage to the US Climate Change Science Program’s 2008 report on extremes in North America and a 2012 paper by Sheffield et al. in the journal Nature, respectively.

I replied that the indicated comments by Dr. Pielke, and similar ones attributed by Senator Sessions to Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, were not representative of main- stream views on this topic in the climate-science community; and I promised to provide for the record a more complete response with relevant scientific references.

Dr. Pielke also commented directly, in a number of tweets on February 14 and thereafter, on my February 13 statements to reporters about the California drought, and he elaborated on the tweets for a blog post on The Daily Caller site (also on February 14). In what follows, I will address the relevant statements in those venues, as well. He argued there, specifically, that my statements on drought “directly contradicted scientific reports”, and in support of that assertion, he offered the same statements from his July testimony that were quoted by Senator Sessions (see above). He also added this:

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that there is “not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought.”

In the rest of this response, I will show, first, that the indicated quote from the US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) about U.S. droughts is missing a crucial adjacent sentence in the CCSP report, which supports my position about drought in the American West. I will also show that Dr. Pielke’s statements about global drought trends, while irrelevant to my comments about drought in California and the Colorado River Basin, are seriously misleading, as well, concerning what is actually in the UN Panel’s latest report and what is in the current scientific literature.

Drought trends in the American West

My comments to reporters on February 13, to which Dr. Pielke referred in his February 14 tweet and to which Senator Sessions referred in the February 25 hearing, were provided just ahead of President Obama’s visit to the drought-stricken California Central Valley and were explicitly about the drought situation in California and elsewhere in the West.

That being so, any reference to the CCSP 2008 report in this context should include not just the sentence highlighted in Dr. Pielke’s testimony but also the sentence that follows immediately in the relevant passage from that document and which relates specifically to the American West. Here are the two sentences in their entirety (http://downloads.globalchange.gov/sap/sap3- 3/Brochure-CCSP-3-3.pdf):

Similarly, long-term trends (1925-2003) of hydrologic droughts based on model derived soil moisture and runoff show that droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U.S. over the last century (Andreadis and Lettenmaier, 2006). The main exception is the Southwest and parts of the interior of the West, where increased temperature has led to rising drought trends (Groisman et al., 2004; Andreadis and Lettenmaier, 2006).

Linking Drought to Climate Change

In my recent comments about observed and projected increases in drought in the American West, I mentioned four relatively well understood mechanisms by which climate change can play a role in drought. (I have always been careful to note that, scientifically, we cannot say that climate change caused a particular drought, but only that it is expected to increase the frequency, intensity, and duration of drought in some regions―and that such changes are being observed.)

The four mechanisms are:

1. In a warming world, a larger fraction of total precipitation falls in downpours, which means a larger fraction is lost to storm runoff (as opposed to being absorbed in soil).

2. In mountain regions that are warming, as most are, a larger fraction of precipitation falls as rain rather than as snow, which means lower stream flows in spring and summer.

3. What snowpack there is melts earlier in a warming world, further reducing flows later in the year.

4. Where temperatures are higher, losses of water from soil and reservoirs due to evaporation are likewise higher than they would otherwise be.

Regarding the first mechanism, the 2013 report of the IPCC’s Working Group I, The Science Basis (http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf, p 110), deems it “likely” (probability greater than 66%) that an increase in heavy precipitation events is already detectable in observational records since 1950 for more land areas than not, and that further changes in this direction are “likely over many land areas” in the early 21st century and “very likely over most of the mid-latitude land masses” by the late 21st century The second, third, and fourth mechanisms reflect elementary physics and are hardly subject to dispute (but see also additional references provided at the end of this comment).

As I have also noted in recent public comments, additional mechanisms have been identified by which changes in atmospheric circulation patterns that may be a result of global warming could be affecting droughts in the American West. There are some measurements and some analyses

suggesting that these mechanisms are operating, but the evidence is less than conclusive, and some respectable analysts attribute the indicated circulation changes to natural variability. The uncertainty about these mechanisms should not be allowed to become a distraction obscuring the more robust understandings about climate change and regional drought summarized above.

Global Drought Patterns

Drought is by nature a regional phenomenon. In a world that is warming on the average, there will be more evaporation and therefore more precipitation; that is, a warming world will also get wetter, on the average. In speaking of global trends in drought, then, the meaningful questions are (a) whether the frequency, intensity, and duration of droughts are changing in most or all of the regions historically prone to drought and (b) whether the total area prone to drought is changing.

Any careful reading of the 2013 IPCC report and other recent scientific literature about on the subject reveals that droughts have been worsening in some regions in recent decades while lessening in other regions, and that the IPCC’s “low confidence” about a global trend relates mainly to the question of total area prone to drought and a lack of sufficient measurements to settle it. Here is the key passage from the Technical Summary from IPCC WGI’s 2013 report (http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf, p 112):

Compelling arguments both for and against significant increases in the land area affected by drought and/or dryness since the mid-20th century have resulted in a low confidence assessment of observed and attributable large-scale trends. This is due primarily to a lack and quality of direct observations, dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice, geographical inconsistencies in the trends and difficulties in distinguishing decadal scale variability from long term trends.

The table that accompanies the above passage from the IPCC’s report―captioned “Extreme weather and climate events: global-scale assessment of recent observed changes, human contribution to the changes, and projected further changes for the early (2016-2035) and late (2081-2100) 21st century”―has the following entries for “Increases in intensity and/or duration of drought”: under changes observed since 1950, “low confidence on a global scale, likely changes in some regions” [emphasis added]; and under projected changes for the late 21st century, “likely (medium confidence) on a regional to global scale”.

Dr. Pielke’s citation of a 2012 paper from Nature by Sheffield et al., entitled “Little change in global drought over the past 60 years”, is likewise misleading. That paper’s abstract begins as follows:

Drought is expected to increase in frequency and severity in the future as a result of climate change, mainly as a consequence of decreases in regional precipitation but also because of increasing evaporation driven by global warming1-3. Previous assessments of historic changes in drought over the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries indicate that this may already be happening globally. In particular, calculations of the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) show a decrease in moisture globally since the 1970s with a commensurate increase in the area of drought that is attributed, in part, to global warming4-5.

The paper goes on to argue that the PDSI, which has been relied upon for drought characteriza- tion since the 1960s, is too simple a measure and may (the authors’ word) have led to over- estimation of global drought trends in previous climate-change assessments―including the IPCC’s previous (2007) assessment, which found that “More intense and longer droughts have been observed over wider areas since the 1970s, particularly in the tropics and subtropics.”

The authors argue for use of a more complex index of drought, which, however, requires more data and more sophisticated models to apply. Their application of it with the available data shows a smaller global drought trend than calculated using the usual PDSI, but they conclude that better data are needed. The conclusion of the Sheffield et al. paper has proven controversial, with some critics pointing to the inadequacy of existing observations to support the more complex index and others arguing that a more rigorous application of the new approach leads to results similar to those previously obtained using the PDSI.

A measure of the differences of view on the topic is available in a paper entitled “Increasing drought under global warming in observations and models”, published in Nature Climate Change at about the same time as Sheffield et al. by a leading drought expert at the National Center for Climate Research, Dr. Aiguo Dai. Dr. Dai’s abstract begins and ends as follows:

Historical records of precipitation, streamflow, and drought indices all show increased aridity since 1950 over many land areas1,2. Analyses of model-simulated soil moisture3, 4, drought indices1,5,6, and precipitation minus evaporation7 suggest increased risk of drought in the twenty-first century. … I conclude that the observed global aridity changes up to 2010 are consistent with model predictions, which suggest severe and widespread droughts in the next 30-90 years over many land areas resulting from either decreased precipitation and/or increased evaporation.

The disagreement between the Sheffield et al. and Dai camps appears to have been responsible for the IPCC’s downgrading to “low confidence”, in its 2013 report, the assessment of an upward trend in global drought in its 2007 Fourth Assessment and its 2012 Special Report on Extreme Events (http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/) .

Interestingly, a number of senior parties to the debate―including Drs. Sheffield and Dai―have recently collaborated on a co-authored paper, published in the January 2014 issue of Nature Climate Change, entitled “Global warming and changes in drought”. In this new paper, the authors identify the reasons for their previous disagreements; agree on the need for additional data to better separate natural variability from human-caused trends; and agree on the following closing paragraph (quoted here in full):

Changes in the global water cycle in response to the warming over the twenty-first century will not be uniform. The contrast in precipitation between wet and dry regions and between wet and dry seasons will probably increase, although there may be regional exceptions.

Climate change is adding heat to the climate system and on land much of that heat goes into drying. A natural drought should therefore set in quicker, become more intense, and may last longer. Droughts may be more extensive as a result. Indeed, human-induced warming effects accumulate on land during periods of drought because the ‘air conditioning effects’ of water are absent. Climate change may not manufacture droughts, but it could exacerbate them and it will probably expand their domain in the subtropical dry zone.

Additional References (with particularly relevant direct quotes in italics)

Christopher R. Schwalm et al., Reduction of carbon uptake during turn of the century drought in western North America, Nature Geoscience, vol. 5, August 2012, pp 551-556.

The severity and incidence of climatic extremes, including drought, have increased as a result of climate warming. … The turn of the century drought in western North America was the most severe drought over the past 800 years, significantly reducing the modest carbon sink normally present in this region. Projections indicate that drought events of this length and severity will be commonplace through the end of the twenty-first century.

Gregory T. Pederson et al., The unusual nature of recent snowpack declines in the North American Cordillera, Science, vol. 333, 15 July 2011, pp 332-335.

Over the past millennium, late 20th century snowpack reductions are almost unprecedented in magnitude across the northern Rocky Mountains and in their north-south synchrony across the cordillera. Both the snowpack declines and their synchrony result from unparalleled springtime warming that is due to positive reinforcement of the anthropogenic warming by decadal variability. The increasing role of warming on large-scale snowpack variability and trends foreshadows fundamental impacts on streamflow and water supplies across the western United States.

Gregory T. Pederson et al., Regional patterns and proximal causes of the recent snowpack decline in the Rocky Mountains, US, Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 40, 16 May 2013, pp 1811-1816.

The post-1980 synchronous snow decline reduced snow cover at low to middle elevations by

~20% and partly explains earlier and reduced streamflow and both longer and more active fire seasons. Climatologies of Rocky Mountain snowpack are shown to be seasonally and regionally complex, with Pacific decadal variability positively reinforcing the anthropogenic warming trend.

Michael Wehner et al., Projections of future drought in the continental United States and Mexico, Journal of Hydrometeorology, vol. 12, December 2011, pp 1359-1377.

All models, regardless of their ability to simulate the base-period drought statistics, project significant future increases in drought frequency, severity, and extent over the course of the 21st century under the SRES A1B emissions scenario. Using all 19 models, the average state in the last decade of the twenty-first century is projected under the SRES A1B forcing scenario to be conditions currently considered severe drought (PDSI<-3) over much of the continental United States and extreme drought (PDSI<-4) over much of Mexico.

D. R. Cayan et al., Future dryness in the southwest US and the hydrology of the early 21st century drought, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 107, December 14, 2010, pp 21271-21276.

Although the recent drought may have significant contributions from natural variability, it is notable that hydrological changes in the region over the last 50 years cannot be fully explained by natural variability, and instead show the signature of anthropogenic climate change.

E. P. Maurer et al., Detection, attribution, and sensitivity of trends toward earlier streamflow in the Sierra Nevada, Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 112, 2007, doi:10.1029/2006JD08088.

The warming experienced in recent decades has caused measurable shifts toward earlier streamflow timing in California. Under future warming, further shifts in streamflow timing are projected for the rivers draining the western Sierra Nevada, including the four considered in this study. These shifts and their projected increases through the end of the 21st century will have dramatic impacts on California’s managed water system.

H. G. Hidalgo et al., Detection and attribution of streamflow timing changes to climate change in the western United States, Journal of Climate, vol. 22, issue 13, 2009, pp 3838-3855, doi: 10.1175/2009JCLI2740.1.

The advance in streamflow timing in the western United States appears to arise, to some measure, from anthropogenic warming. Thus the observed changes appear to be the early phase of changes expected under climate change. This finding presages grave consequences for the water supply, water management, and ecology of the region. In particular, more winter and spring flooding and drier summers are expected as well as less winter snow (more rain) and earlier snowmelt.

==============================================================

John Holdren’s Epic Fail

by Roger Pielke, Jr. at 3/01/2014 09:57:00 AM

Last week in a Congressional hearing, John Holdren, the president’s science advisor, characterized me as being outside the “scientific mainstream” with respect to my views on extreme events and climate change. Specifically, Holdren was responding directly to views that I provided in Senate testimony that I gave last July (and here in PDF).

To accuse an academic of holding views that lie outside the scientific mainstream is the sort of delegitimizing talk that is of course common on blogs in the climate wars. But it is rare for political appointee in any capacity — the president’s science advisor no less — to accuse an individual academic of holding views are are not simply wrong, but in fact scientifically illegitimate. Very strong stuff.

Given the seriousness of Holdren’s charges and the possibility of negative professional repercussions via email I asked him to elaborate on his characterization, to which he replied quite quickly that he would do so in the form of a promised follow-up to the Senate subcommittee.

Here is what I sent him:

Dear John-

I hope this note finds you well. I am writing in response to your characterization of me before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight yesterday, in which you said that my views lie “outside the scientific mainstream.”

This is a very serious charge to make in Congressional testimony about a colleague’s work, even more so when it comes from the science advisor to the president.

The context of your comments about me was an exchange that you had with Senator Sessions over my recent testimony to the full EPW Committee on the subject of extreme events. You no doubt have seen my testimony (having characterized it yesterday) and which is available here:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2013.20.pdf

Your characterization of my views as lying “outside the scientific mainstream” is odd because the views that I expressed in my testimony are entirely consonant with those of the IPCC (2012, 2013) and those of the US government’s USGCRP.  Indeed, much of my testimony involved reviewing the recent findings of IPCC SREX and AR5 WG1. My scientific views are also supported by dozens of peer reviewed papers which I have authored and which have been cited thousands of times, including by all three working groups of the IPCC. My views are thus nothing if not at the center of the “scientific mainstream.”

I am writing to request from you the professional courtesy of clarifying your statement. If you do indeed believe that my views are “outside the scientific mainstream” could you substantiate that claim with evidence related specifically to my testimony which you characterized pejoratively? Alternatively, if you misspoke, I’d request that you set the record straight to the committee.

I welcome your response at your earliest opportunity.

Today he has shared with me a 6-page single space response which he provided to the Senate subcommittee titled “Critique of Pielke Jr. Statements on Drought.” Here I take a look at Holdren’s response.

In a nutshell, Holdren’s response is sloppy and reflects extremely poorly on him. Far from showing that I am outside the scientific mainstream, Holdren’s follow-up casts doubt on whether he has even read my Senate testimony. Holdren’s justification for seeking to use his position as a political appointee to delegitimize me personally reflects poorly on his position and office, and his response simply reinforces that view.

His response, (which you can see here in full in PDF) focuses entirely on drought — whereas my testimony focused on hurricanes, floods, tornadoes and drought. But before he gets to drought, Holdren gets off to a bad start in his response when he shifts the focus away from my testimony and to some article in a website called “The Daily Caller” (which is apparently some minor conservative or Tea Party website, and the article appears to be this one).

Holdren writes:

Dr. Pielke also commented directly, in a number of tweets on February 14 and thereafter, on my February 13 statements to reporters about the California drought, and he elaborated on the tweets for a blog post on The Daily Caller site (also on February 14). In what follows, I will address the relevant statements in those venues, as well. He argued there, specifically, that my statements on drought “directly contradicted scientific reports”, and in support of that assertion, he offered the same statements from his July testimony that were quoted by Senator Sessions.

Let me be quite clear — I did not write anything for “The Daily Caller” nor did I speak or otherwise communicate to anyone there. The quote that Holdren attributes to me – “directly contradicted scientific reports” — is actually written by “The Daily Caller.” Why that blog has any relevance to my standing in the “scientific mainstream” eludes me, but whatever. This sort of sloppiness is inexcusable.

Leaving the silly misdirection aside — common on blogs but unbecoming of the science advisor to the most powerful man on the planet — let’s next take a look at Holdren’s substantive complaints about my recent Senate testimony.

As a starting point, let me reproduce in its entirety the section of my Senate testimony (here in PDF) which discussed drought.

Drought 

What the IPCC SREX (2012) says:

  • “There is medium confidence that since the 1950s some regions of the world have  experienced a trend to more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia.”
  • For the US the CCSP (2008)20 says: “droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U. S. over the last century.”21

What the data says:

8. Drought has “for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U. S. over the last century.”22


Figure 8.
Figure 2.6 from CCSP (2008) has this caption: “The area (in percent) of area in severe to extreme drought as measured by the Palmer Drought Severity Index for the United States (red) from 1900 to present and for North America (blue) from 1950 to present.”

Note: Writing in Nature Senevirnate (2012) argues with respect to global trends that, “there is no necessary correlation between temperature changes and long-term drought variations, which should warn us against using any simplifications regarding their relationship.”23

Footnotes:

20 CCSP, 2008: Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate. Regions of Focus: North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific Islands. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. [Thomas R. Karl, Gerald A. Meehl, Christopher D. Miller, Susan J. Hassol, Anne M. Waple, and William L. Murray (eds.)]. Department of Commerce, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, Washington, D.C., USA, 164 pp.

21 CCSP (2008) notes that “the main exception is the Southwest and parts of the interior of the West, where increased temperature has led to rising drought trends.”

22 This quote comes from the US Climate Change Science Program’s 2008 report on extremes in North America.

23 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/full/491338a.htm

Let’s now look at Holdren’s critique which he claims places me “outside the scientific mainstream.”

Holdren Complaint #1:  “I will show, first, that the indicated quote [RP: This one: ““droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U. S. over the last century.”21″] from the US Climate  Change Science Program (CCSP) about U.S. droughts is missing a crucial adjacent sentence in  the CCSP report, which supports my position about drought in the American West. . . That being so, any reference to the CCSP 2008 report in this context should include not just the sentence highlighted in Dr. Pielke’s testimony but also the sentence that follows immediately in the relevant passage from that document and which relates specifically to the American West.”

What is that sentence is question from the CCSP 2008 report that Holdren thinks I should have included in my testimony? He says it is this one:

“The main exception is the Southwest and parts of the interior of the West, where increased temperature has led to rising drought trends.”

Readers (not even careful readers) can easily see Footnote 21 from my testimony, which states:

CCSP (2008) notes that “the main exception is the Southwest and parts of the interior of the West, where increased temperature has led to rising drought trends.”

Um, hello? Is this really coming from the president’s science advisor?

Holdren is flat-out wrong to accuse me of omitting a key statement from my testimony. Again, remarkable, inexcusable sloppiness.

Holdren’s reply next includes a section on drought and climate change which offers no critique of my testimony, and which needs no response from me.

Holdren Complaint #2: Holdren implies that I neglected to note the IPCC’s reference to the fact that drought is a regional phenomena: “Any careful reading of the 2013 IPCC report and other recent scientific literature about on the subject reveals that droughts have been worsening in some regions in recent decades while lessening in other regions.”

Again, even a cursory reading of what I quoted from the IPCC shows that Holdren’s complaint does not stand up. Here is the full quote that I included in my testimony from the IPCC on drought:

“There is medium confidence that since the 1950s some regions of the world have experienced a trend to more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia.”

Again, hello? Seriously?

Holdren Complaint #3: Near as I can tell Holdren is upset that I cited a paper from Nature that he does not like, writing, “Dr. Pielke’s citation of a 2012 paper from Nature by Sheffield et al., entitled “Little change in global drought over the past 60 years”, is likewise misleading.”

He points to a January 2014 paper in Nature Climate Change as offering a rebuttal to Sheffield et al. (2012).

The first point to note in response is that my citing of a paper which appears in Nature does not provide evidence of my being “outside the scientific mainstream” no matter how much Holdren disagrees with the paper. Academics in the “scientific mainstream” cite peer-reviewed papers, sometimes even those in Nature. Second, my testimony was delivered in July, 2013 and the paper he cites as a rebuttal was submitted in August, 2013 and only published in early 2014. I can hardly be faulted for not citing a paper which had not yet appeared.  Third, that 2014 paper that Holdren likes better actually supports the IPCC conclusions on drought and my characterization of them in my Senate testimony.The authors write:

How is drought changing as the climate changes? Several recent papers in the scientific literature have focused on this question but the answer remains blurred.

The bottom line here is that this is an extremely poor showing by the president’s science advisor. It is fine for experts to openly disagree. But when a political appointee uses his position not just to disagree on science or policy but to seek to delegitimize a colleague, he has gone too far.

About these ads

192 thoughts on “White House science adviser attacks Roger Pielke Jr. for his Senate testimony, Pielke responds with a skillfull counterstrike

  1. Holdren is part of the Ehrlich/Schneider school of science that is
    1- proven to be wrong
    2-over many decades
    3- is willing to make the message achieve the societal goal, even at the risk of misrepresenting the science
    Holdren is holding true to form.

  2. It appears typical of this administration to employ individuals who care less about the truth and more about the party line.

  3. By the way, notice how Dr. Holdren relies on “climate change”, asserting it “adds heat to the system”. “Climate change” adds nothing. There has to be specific mechanisms to ad heat to anything. Climate, as even a high level scientist surely knows, is always changing. It is a small item- possibly- but it is a telling insight on how the climate obsessed view nature. And what it tells is of reactionary, uninformed and less then enlightening work.

  4. Why would the Presidents Scientific Adviser quote an obscure web-page unrelated to Dr Pielke as evidence of Dr Pielke’s views? This appears to be a political smear campaign much like the McCarthy era of American Politics.

  5. Yikes. That wasn’t much difference than what Stalin’s “science adviser” did… Except for the killing part though but warmists did call for similar actions against skeptics. Scary times….

  6. “This sort of sloppiness is inexcusable.”

    Perhaps, but it also may be typical of Holdren.

    In a warming world, a number of things may change. However, unless it could be conclusively shown that the cause of the warming is anthropogenic CO2, curtailing said emissions is not necessary.

  7. Contradiction is not welcome, not even expected. One should simply lie down and if not, heavy machinery will be brought against the rogue scientist. Simply put, democracy at work./sarc

  8. Global Precipitation anomalies over the past year. Almost everywhere is perfectly normal and only very, very small areas have a significant difference from normal.

  9. Obama has many faults, but I believe his worst has been appointing completely unqualified people to nearly every position John Kerry, Turbo Tax Tim, John Holdren, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton etc, etc, etc

  10. Despite all their power and influence, the alarmists see the mighty wobbling of their house of cards. They’re scared and becoming more desperate and more nasty. And they’ve already been rather nasty for years.

  11. Syntax error in first sentence after bold “Holdren complaint #1:” quote

    “What is that sentence is question from the CCSP 2008 report that Holdren thinks I should have included in my testimony? He says it is this one:”

  12. Clear case of damaging libel. He’s probably immune from lawsuits though in his current public capacity. Too bad.

  13. Dr. David Stockwell showed that the CSIRO’s Australian Drought model predictions were wrong.

    droughts have decreased last century in line with increasing rainfall, but the climate models used in the DECR showed the opposite (and significantly so).

    “Critique of Drought Models in the Australian Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report (DECR)”. Energy and Environment Vol. 21 No. 5, 2010 pp 425-436.
    Given such evidence, Dr. Holdren bears the burden of proof to show that the models he cites have been validated and are statistically significant.

  14. It’s interesting that Holdren took so much time to write a response. I think he’s feeling threatened that someone he’d rather have outside of mainstream science is being taken seriously by the legislature.

  15. When these guys say “outside the scientific mainstream”, they really mean contrary to left-wing dogma. There is not that much difference between “science” and left-wing dogma these days, unfortunately, but the are not identical yet. Old media and Marxist academia are doing their best to merge the two.

    As for the “warming planet”, I wish it would hurry up. Here in Montana’s banana belt we have had the winter from Hell. It is now -11 degrees F., and our snow is amazingly deep.
    .

  16. ” the previous July by Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., a University of Colorado political scientist.”

    Political huh?

  17. IMO this administration does not give “A Fat Rats Rump ” about the facts , science , truth.
    The only thing that matters to them is their agenda. Group think at its’ worst. A very dangerous thing for the USA and the world.
    Vigilance is vital to our survival .They are showing their true nature.
    Stay safe , Dr. Pielke .

    [

  18. Which begs the question, Why has Obama surrounded himself with such weak and ill prepared advisers? It is his call to select these people. Is he that dumb himself? Is he adverse to hearing and considering something contrary to his desired direction? Is he a religious fanatic of the Gaia cult? Are these people all he could get? What possible motive could there be to surround yourself with advisers who are not the best in class?

  19. On the one hand, personal attacks on scientists like Roy Spencer and Roger Pielke seem to be on the rise, and are disturbing to say the least.

    On the other hand, we’ve been asking for a public debate for years. Suddenly we have one. The opening volley having been launched by the science adviser to POTUS no less. Frankly, he didn’t do very well. I expect a couple of public smack downs may well make them withdraw again. I mean seriously, this is the best the science adviser to POTUS can do? If that’s the best they’ve got, they’ve got nothing.

  20. Holdren = a true blue scientist-politician. Between him and Moniz the US has taken several steps backwards from what science is supposed to be about.

  21. David: The facts don’t support global warming as they define it. All they have left to do is smear and discredit those who oppose their agenda.

  22. Holdren is and has been, for four or five decades now, an activist nutcase. What else to expect from people like him?

  23. Since the entire premise of the CO2 caused climate change requires an increase in evaporation; how can anyone rationally try to pretend that increased drought is a likely consequence? More water vapor =increased drought? Just plain dumb. Unless they really don’t believe their premise at all?

  24. Ric Werme says:
    March 1, 2014 at 11:42 am
    ————————————–
    He is probably getting a bit worried about his legacy. This type of attack against another respected scientist just knocked a few more points off of that legacy.

  25. Pamela Gray;
    Which begs the question, Why has Obama surrounded himself with such weak and ill prepared advisers?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    For those of us who follow international politics, the debate is now as to his actions being rooted in incompetence of malevolence. I favour a third explanation. He is brown, sickeningly sweet, and completely hollow. America has elected the chocolate easter bunny as their leader.

  26. Roger speaks to dozens of PEER reviewed papers on Climate change and AGW – I have researched and could not locate a single paper that has been PEER reviewed per the requirements of the Scientific method – if he had papers reviewed there would be a public PROOF issued or at least a public rejection of the statements in the paper.

    How to tick off a global warming believer that say they have scientific proof and peer reviewed works. They do not and here is why.

    http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/

    http://www.scientificpsychic.com/workbook/scientific-method.htm

    End grant science by helping to pass this Article V 28th amendment project.

    http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/the-28th-amendment.html

  27. Pamela Gray says:
    March 1, 2014 at 11:51 am
    First-class minds surround themselves with other first-class minds, as they do not feel threatened by the intellectual stimulation of working with equals. Second class minds prefer third class minds around them, so that they look good and can dominate proceedings. Given Obama’s revealed intellectual abilities and those he has picked to advise him, it’s amazing that the White House functions at all.

  28. Dr. Roger Pielke gives scientific testimony and scientific citation – upsets the alarmist mantra. Holdren replies with rhetoric and the equivalent of ‘cut and paste’ misquoting from blogs.

    When Holdren states “were not representative of main- stream views on this topic in the climate-science community”. Instead of Holdren’s unscientific non-reply he would have been a lot clearer if he had just said ‘don’t be a heretic, there is no discourse, the science is settled – you are speaking outside the consensus of the global warming religion’.

    Doesn’t this sum up the standard of much of the scientific debate on ‘climate change’, except this time it is at the top of the ladder?

  29. @Udar

    On Roger Pielke Jr’s website he says:

    “I am currently a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado. At CU, I am also a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences and was director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research from 2001-2007. Before coming to CU in 2001, I spent 8 years as a staff scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in their Environmental and Societal Impacts Group (which no longer exists). I have a B.A. in mathematics, an M.A. in public policy and a Ph.D. in political science, all from the University of Colorado. In 2007 I was on sabbatical at the James Martin Institute for Science and Civilization (now called the Institute for Science, Innovation and Society) at Oxford University.

    Perhaps there is an assumption that if one has a Ph.D. in political science then they are a political scientist?

    Dunno.

  30. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr is getting the same treatment as Bjorn Lomborg, an eminently reasonable person, who agrees with the premise of CO2 causing the [alleged] dramatic warming, but committing the sin of not buying in to the preconceived solutions.

    The influential people, who won’t forgive him for this, may try to do him worse than they ostensibly wish to do to those of us who do not agree with the premise of CO2 causing the [alleged] dramatic warming.

  31. This made me laugh.

    I will also show that Dr. Pielke’s statements about global drought trends, while irrelevant to my comments about drought in California and the Colorado River Basin, are seriously misleading, as well, concerning what is actually in the UN Panel’s latest report and what is in the current scientific literature.

    So global drought trends are irrelevant to discussions about local drought trends that are caused by “global” warming?

    And, if it’s in the IPCC’s latest report it must be true.

    I also get the feeling (from Holdren’s comments that Sheffield and Dai had effectively “made up”) that Holdren is reminding everyone what the consensus is supposed to be. After all he’s pretty close to the purse strings isn’t he…

  32. “The bottom line here is that this is an extremely poor showing by the president’s science advisor.”

    The bottom line here is that this is an extremely poor science advisor. – Fixed!

  33. The one with the most twitter followers wins. It helps if they can summon the world’s MSM at a whim.

  34. Roger Pielke Jr debating publically with John Holdren and being posted on WUWT is a great thing for more balanced dialog on climate related science. Thanks to all for the debate and its posting.

    John Holdren has a serious disadvantage in that Pielke lives by constant debate whereas Holdren lives by PR monologue.

    John

  35. Pamela Gray says:
    March 1, 2014 at 11:51 am

    “First rate management hires first rate help. Second rate management hires third rate help”. Baxter Black.

  36. It’s only going to get worse as this administration becomes even more afraid of losing their climatic battle – pun intended.

  37. Huh….. Looks like the ‘debate’ isn’t over after all, eh?

    Love It, when Our Dear Leader’s ‘science adviser’ is forced to debate the AGW meme with climate experts like Dr. Pielke, and Holdren makes such a poor showing of it!

    Go Get ‘Em, Doc Pielke!

  38. There is not much trend in precipitation at Los Angeles int’l arpt (72295) in 65 years between 1947-2011. Which, of course, contradicts the statement brought forward by Holdren.

    What I do not understand is why is he trying to push patently false propositions to the public, especially if they are as easy to verify as it has become with the advent of the net. Does the guy have no shame or what?

  39. So Holdren is finding fault for Pielke putting in a footnote instead of the testimony body the sentence Holdren picked to support his point while excluding the meat of the paragraph that underpinned Pielke’s testimony. This seams to be a very pot to kettle type argument to me. I would say that his quote of the salient part in his rebuttal says more about his own bias for not including it in his Senate testimony than anything else.

  40. Also, doesn’t medium confidence mean a 50/50 chance either way? Kinda like a coin toss?

  41. Are the gloves officially off now? Some people need some noogies and face-washing. Sorry for the hockey references. I’m Canadian. BTW, neener-neener, you suck, rest of the world.

  42. Greg says:

    “Obama has many faults, but I believe his worst has been appointing completely unqualified people to nearly every position John Kerry, Turbo Tax Tim, John Holdren, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton etc, etc, etc”

    Pamela Gray;
    “Which begs the question, Why has Obama surrounded himself with such weak and ill prepared advisers?”

    I expect Greg and Pamela know the real reason. The reality is the reason Obama took the path he did is he is not overly bright and in corporate America he would have been on of those low to mid level manager because he has paper from the right institutions and can talk a good talk, but he would never advance beyond where low to mid level because he does not and will not hire someone smarter than himself. In politics you can get away with that because to get elected all you need to do is talk a good talk, performance of lack of is never an issue. So when is comes to Obama advisors when the bar is that low Holdren is as good as it gets.

  43. This is not even about climate. Dr Pielke contradicted Obama who was in California recently running his ignorant mouth. One does not challenge the Anointed One without being attacked in return, nothing to do with science one way or the other.

  44. davidmhoffer says:
    ” If that’s the best they’ve got, they’ve got nothing.”
    Sorry, they have the MSM press, bully pulpit, and all the power that POTUS brings. They have plenty.

  45. Question: Why would Holdren take the initiative to criticize Pielke Jr?

    It makes little sense to me for Holdren to have the idea to initiate such an effort. This looks like Holdren was given direction and material by ‘the usual suspects’. The poor quality and strategy looks like the stuff from the authors of the climategate emails.

    Obama’s real scientific advice is from Holdren’s beloved CAGW biased ‘science’ activists not from Holdren himself.

    John

  46. Holdren isn’t a ‘scientific advisor’, he’s a propagandist whose job is to try to justify & promote liberal agenda through factual distortion and vilification of those who disagree.

    These people need to be held accountable when the AGW ship finally sinks.

  47. This Holden guy is just another super bureaucrat with a limited intellect.

    He would not dare to publicly debate Pielke, as he knows he would get sliced and diced and no one likes to be shown to be pig ignorant about a subject in which they are supposedly expert.

    When you have a not very bright president, it is hardly surprising that he does not want to surround himself with anyone smarter than himself.

    John Kerry is a case in point, he has got to be the most incompetent Secretary of State in America’s history.

  48. “Which begs the question, Why has Obama surrounded himself with such weak and ill prepared advisers? It is his call to select these people. Is he that dumb himself? “
    ******

    There are many different kinds of intelligence of course. Obama’s a smart fellow academically, and a good and talented writer. But he’s naive. A typical, pointy headed academic Progressive. He was woefully inexperienced when elected President. He’s getting an education now, but it’s too late, and not fully learned. He believes in his gut that liberals are much smarter than conservatives. He buys the climate change meme hook, line, and sinker, primarily because he has no one to tell him otherwise. Holdren was the worse choice he could have made

  49. Consider “CCSP (2008) notes that “the main exception is the Southwest and parts of the interior of the West, where increased temperature has led to rising drought trends.”

    And in the next 60 years when the above reverses and there are reduciung drought trends in the Southwest and parts of the interior of the West, it will demonstrate how ridiculous it is to try and tie such events to manmade climate change. It may get warmer but it may get wetter or it may get colder and it may get wetter or it may get colder and it may get drier or it may continue to get warmer and drier. But it will still be climate change and Holdren and his ilk will still be able to claim it is caused by manmade climate change. Even nothing changing is change compared to when things changed and can therefore be claimed to be anthropogenic change in nature.

  50. Berényi Péter says:
    March 1, 2014 at 12:54 pm

    What I do not understand is why is he trying to push patently false propositions to the public, especially if they are as easy to verify as it has become with the advent of the net. Does the guy have no shame or what?

    Sheep are notoriously poor fact checkers.

  51. They can’t handle be wrong. They can’t handle “losing.” They have a child’s mentality and frequently an inadequate skill set, such as not being detail oriented.

  52. Holdren offers four physical mechanisms for an increase in regional drought. All four depend on a warming world. But the world has not warmed for 17 years. So by his own testimony there is no physical reason for increased drought.

  53. Tom in Florida says:
    March 1, 2014 at 1:10 pm

    This is not even about climate. Dr Pielke contradicted Obama who was in California recently running his ignorant mouth. One does not challenge the Anointed One without being attacked in return, nothing to do with science one way or the other.
    ===========
    hammer/nail….

    Obama appointed exactly who they told him to appoint….it’s not science…it’s agenda

  54. I have similar thoughts as other commenters on Obama’s character judgment in picking his staff, cabinet and advisors.

    A simple explanation is that he tried to get some first rate people to work with him; it looks like they wouldn’t.

    John

  55. BillyV says:
    March 1, 2014 at 1:12 pm
    davidmhoffer says:
    ” If that’s the best they’ve got, they’ve got nothing.”
    Sorry, they have the MSM press, bully pulpit, and all the power that POTUS brings. They have plenty.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    If that was working for them, there would be zero reason to single out Pielke for a rebuke. The only reason they left the safety of the MSM press, bully pulpit and POTUS shooting his mouth off is that they know the tide has turned and they are losing. If they were winning based on those tactics, they wouldn’t be changing them.

  56. re: “… they know the tide has turned and they are losing.” (davidmhoffer at 1:37pm)

    Exactly.

    The farther you are pushed to the margins,
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    the louder you must SCREAM TO BE HEARD.

  57. Mr. Holdren’s PhD has no relationship to climatology. He is in no position to impugn Mr Pielke’s qualifications.

  58. What is really laughable about this particular dustup is that Pielke Jr. is, as indicated by his work and by his placement in Anthony’s blogroll, very much a Lukewarmer on the climate question. That Holdren can generate the level of ire and derogation that he heaps on Pielke Jr., for a guy who is far from a hardcore climate skeptic, speaks volumes to the level of desperation that the alarmist community seems to be exhibiting more and more blatantly every day.

    As to being “outside mainstream science”, given that even the IPCC and the usual suspects of the Brotherhood of Climate Alarmism have abjured the notion of blaming individual weather events on “Climate Change”, it would appear that Mr. Holdren is the one who is manning an outpost far beyond the boundaries of the collective mind.

  59. My father was greatly amused by a scene in a silent movie made in the Teens or Twenties. The heroes are escaping in a convertible when they reach the California state line. On the other side of the line there is rain but none in California. They grab the “California State Line” sign, attach it to the front of the car, and continue in sunshine. It seems that many Americans, at least the movie going public, took for granted that there is no rain in California.

    No doubt Holdren will argue that the movie actually shows the heroes entering California.

  60. JohnWho says:
    March 1, 2014 at 12:16 pm

    Perhaps there is an assumption that if one has a Ph.D. in political science then they are a political scientist?

    Could be simple sloppy work by Holdren – as sloppy as the rest of his statement.

    But I think it’s much more sinister then this – a misdirection. Just wait for compliant press (or lawmaker) to start saying the Pielke has no credentials to comment on climate since he is not a “climate scientist”

  61. I have a theory that people who are too stupid and whose work is too sloppy to maintain a position as a mainstream scientist look for a job in politics.

  62. Udar says:
    March 1, 2014 at 1:58 pm
    “JohnWho says:
    March 1, 2014 at 12:16 pm

    Perhaps there is an assumption that if one has a Ph.D. in political science then they are a political scientist?”

    I believe that Pielke Jr’s major work has been in the costs of climate change and bad weather. I do not doubt that his understanding of the relevant physics is at least equal to Holdren’s understanding.

  63. Of course Holdren goes too far. 35 years ago he advocated forced abortions and forced sterilization as a necessary bulwark against economic liberty, or capitalist economic growth. He has since found a more politically palatable device for achieving the same objective: demonization of the utterly benign release of CO2 by fossil fuel burning. No need to stop the flow of human energy that powers the economy if you can stop the flow of chemical energy instead.

    Like Obama, Holdren is a slightly evolved Stalinist, switching horses to the leading American communist of the 20th century Saul Alinsky, who advocated socialist takeover not by violent revolution but by a Gramscian “long march through the institutions.” Alinsky actually plotted out how the “long march” could be accomplished, and it has now been achieved in the persons of Holdren himself and the Alinsky-acolyte Obama, who together have reached the pinnacle of institutionalized power.

    But don’t kid yourself. Just because they achieved power without the use of violence does not mean they have any aversion to it, as Holdren’s advocacy of forced abortions and sterilization indicate. The “long march” strategy was purely strategic. Violence was/is actually the preferred/doctrinaire communist strategy, if only it would work, and now that they are in positions of power they might well decide that violence could yet work. Obama has already weaponized the IRS without much blowback and that IS violence, using the power of the state to directly attack his political opponents.

    A little bit of careless smearing of a rival scientist? Holdren is capable of much much worse.

  64. @ Eric Worrall — good point. 95% confidence… . Heh.

    Say, DID YOU GET ANY RESPONSE TO YOUR EXCELLENT LETTER RE: THE RANDI FOUNDATION NONSENSE? (it was a very well-written letter, btw)

    Have fun on that beach (sigh).

  65. davidmhoffer on March 1, 2014 at 1:37 pm said,

    @BillyV on March 1, 2014 at 1:12 pm

    If that [MSM press, bully pulpit, and all the power that POTUS brings] was working for them, there would be zero reason to single out Pielke for a rebuke. The only reason they left the safety of the MSM press, bully pulpit and POTUS shooting his mouth off is that they know the tide has turned and they are losing. If they were winning based on those tactics, they wouldn’t be changing them.

    – – – – – – – – –

    davidmhoffer,

    So, how will unscientific CAGW bias end? (and I think it will)

    Will it end with a whimper like this Holdren thing is? Or will it end in major congressional investigations? Or civil war ? Or . . . ?

    I think that as long as there is the vaguest vestige of credibility in the IPCC, the end will be long in coming. So I think the key to expedite the end of the unscientific CAGW bias is to create more intense dialog; specifically on the subject of the IPCC as irrelevant to the more balanced scientific dialog that has long since passed it by.

    I think unscientific CAGW bias will end in fuzzy whimpers and whining . . .

    John

  66. Presidents like to have a legacy such that in future history books they will rank high. To date, Pres. Obama has tried to redistribute wealth but failing to understand the difference between dollars and wealth he has simply dampened the entire vibrancy of the Nation. He set his acolytes to provide health care to those in need and has managed to cause chaos in the existing system and loss of medical help for many. And, in the process, redefined the role of “a week’s work” and where employers should be focusing their entrepreneurial skills. None of this is good. Because he did win re-election he has an extra few years to try to recover. The “climate” issue has passed him by but he and his advisers have not gotten the message. They are still making stuff up like they had just watched Al’s 2006 ICT movie. They (He) have nothing else.

    One of the worst presidencies ever; maybe the worst.

  67. Theo Goodwin says:
    March 1, 2014 at 2:09 pm
    ….
    I believe that Pielke Jr’s major work has been in the costs of climate change and bad weather. I do not doubt that his understanding of the relevant physics is at least equal to Holdren’s understanding.

    Yes, but Holdren is not talking to you. He is talking to lawmakers, press and general population, the more ignorant the better.
    By using “political scientist” and “outside the scientific mainstream” in same statement, he is making it possible for someone else to simply smear Pielke as not qualified to comment of climate at all.
    That, or he is simply sloppy.

  68. Holdren exposes his nakedness for all the scientific world to see. How embarrassed he must be… caught using politics/ideology for his data, instead of measurements and history. “Shameful” says Rail to Tar and Feathers. GK

  69. I have followed Pielke Jr.’s blog for a long time. He is articulate and honest. I often don’t agree with him. He makes it clear over time that he is a Democrat (liberal) and supported Obama both elections. I’m surprised they threw him under the bus. Obviously, sticking to the doctrine is the only benchmark. Pielke has had many sizeable research grants over the years. Will be interesting to see if they continue. Can you imagine what it is like working for NASA or NOAA? The most important event this week, however, is rain in California- reality wins again.

  70. Its a little like bringing science to a political fight. It appears that many scientists have to resolve the tension between science and personal preference at some juncture. Dr. Holden resolved his dilemma a long time ago.

  71. davidmhoffer says March 1, 2014 at 12:00 pm

    America has elected the chocolate easter bunny as their leader.

    Here is where you commit a most grievous error; the assumption that ‘America’ (a plurality of eligible voters in same) cast ballots for said ‘easter bunny’. Elections here have become contests where the more irrational of the two parties slimes the other to death while at the same time making appeals to the FSA (free stuff army) and that party is ‘winning’. One cannot possibly win the game of *promising* more free stuff than the other *and* remain sane, hence, one side is virtually guaranteed to win now (PS. I believe we have reached a turning point in this country, with the literally MILLIONS now enrolled in ‘food aid’ and other welfare assistance programs).

    Back to the vote issue: I assure you, many did not (some, I think, in fact I know, just gave up and stayed home) show up at the polls and vote. It would be appreciated if one took this into consideration before making these over-‘presumptive’ assumptions in the future …

    It would be fair to say, however, that “the chocolate easter bunny was elected as our leader”.

    .

  72. John Whitman says:
    March 1, 2014 at 1:12 pm
    Question: Why would Holdren take the initiative to criticize Pielke Jr?

    It makes little sense to me for Holdren to have the idea to initiate such an effort. This looks like Holdren was given direction and material by ‘the usual suspects’.

    No matter how mediocre the research, the fact that he went to the trouble and time to create such a long-winded rebuttal says a lot. I hope the American people take note of these shenanigans and recognise they too could be on the receiving end if they are on the wrong side of the argument. Very mature. (not)

  73. Berényi Péter says:
    March 1, 2014 at 1:25 pm

    Well, in 64 years (1947-2010) annual precipitation at Los Angeles int’l arpt has increased at a rate of 15 mm/decade. Which excludes the possibility of a rising drought trend, right?

    One only needs adequate water delivery infrastructure and sufficient water storage capacity, which may also help when floods come.

    ===============================================================
    That got me to wonder how much of the talk about droughts and water shortages fails to include a consideration of population growth and so an increased water demand.
    What I’m getting at is, is there some “bait and switch” going in the rhetoric and maybe even the published papers?

  74. goldminor says:
    March 1, 2014 at 11:58 am
    “He is probably getting a bit worried about his legacy. This type of attack against another respected scientist just knocked a few more points off of that legacy.”

    He shouldn’t worry. The world will always remember him for his epic population reduction tome EcoScience.

  75. pokerguy says March 1, 2014 at 1:18 pm

    primarily because he has no one to tell him otherwise.

    Well, there is Valeria Jarrett, which AS I HAVE POINTED OUT BEFORE (caps intentionally for effect) is the real power behind the ‘throne’, and also in favor of GW, of course.

    The president turns to Valerie Jarrett for definitive advice on all these issues. She has given him terrible advice over and over, and still he turns to her.

    Her true job is to make Obama feel proud of himself. When Obama looks at Jarrett, he sees himself as whole and good and real. He is no longer the fake black, the fatherless kid flailing around in a white world, tortured by the unfairness of it all. She fills the emptiness at the core of his identity. She admires and adores him. Jarrett told New Yorker editor David Remnick that the president is “just too talented to do what ordinary people do.” And the icing on the cake — she shares his left-wing politics that project unfairness out onto white America.

    Obama relies on Jarrett to create the White House bubble he likes to live in, where his narcissism is stroked and his desire to do the big, left-wing thing is encouraged. Jarrett is the doorman. She runs access to the president. As Klein puts it, she guards him from meeting with “critics and complainers who might deflate his ego.” No one gets past Jarrett who has an incompatible point of view.

    From:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/obamas_strange_dependence_on_valerie_jarrett.html

    and

    http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/Felsenthal-Files/January-2014/The-Mysteries-and-Realities-of-Valerie-Jarrett-Mystery-Woman-of-the-White-House/

  76. davidmhoffer says March 1, 2014 at 12:00 pm

    America has elected the chocolate easter bunny as their leader.

    – – – – – – – –

    davidmhoffer,

    No, hey, I like chocolate . . .

    As an America citizen, I think America has elected a sour all day sucker as their leader.

    John

  77. “But it is rare for political appointee in any capacity — the president’s science advisor no less — to accuse an individual academic of holding views are are not simply wrong, but in fact scientifically illegitimate. Very strong stuff.”

    Tell that to Doug Elmendorf.

  78. To accuse an academic of holding views that lie outside the scientific mainstream is the sort of delegitimizing talk that is of course common on blogs in the climate wars. But it is rare for political appointee in any capacity — the president’s science advisor no less — to accuse an individual academic of holding views are are not simply wrong, but in fact scientifically illegitimate. Very strong stuff.

    Given the seriousness of Holdren’s charges and the possibility of negative professional repercussions . . . .

    I don’t see how being outside the mainstream equates to being scientifically illiterate in ordinary discourse. Maybe it’s a shibboleth?

  79. In a 1969 article, Holdren and co-author Paul R. Ehrlich argued, “if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.”[28] In 1973, Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because “210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many.”[29] In 1977, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of means to address overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls, including compulsory abortion, adding sterilants to drinking water or staple foods, forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children, and discussed “the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences” such as access to birth control and abortion.[20][30][31]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren

  80. https://ia601506.us.archive.org/2/items/Ecoscience_17/JohnHoldren-Ecoscience.pdf

    Ecoscience P942-3 Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

    The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.

  81. John Whitman;
    Will it end with a whimper like this Holdren thing is? Or will it end in major congressional investigations? Or civil war ? Or . . . ?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I’m going with a whimper. Sure it is a three steps forward two steps back kind of debate, but it will end in a whimper. In fact, that has already begun to.

    The last COP conference ended with nothing. Kyoto is dead. Germany is building coal fired power plants. Spain is killing wind farm subsidies. Japan has shut down their nuclear power plants, replaced them with imported oil, and is now trying to figure out how to talk the populace into turning the nukes back on because they’ve figured out that replacing them with wind and solar just isn’t practical. Russia and China never bought into the madness in the first place. European industry is screaming that all the wind and power costs are killing them, and threatening to move to Asia.

    I said this many years ago, and I will say it again. What will ultimately defeat the CAGW meme is not the science. It is economics. You can only implement stupid and counter productive measures so far before the population becomes restless. In democracies that means a change of government, and governments just don’t like to lose power. So they encroach on the edges of reason, but no further. Tax carbon to death and your economy tanks, simple as that. If they step over the line, they soon retreat. The voter with no job and hungry kids to feed doesn’t give a tinker’s damn what the climate is going to do in two decades. His/Her kids are hungry now.

    In fact, the only countries left who are really still going full bore on the CO2 reduction schemes are the ones rich enough to afford it. As they approach economic ruin, they’ll pull back, and some of them already are.

  82. hunter says:
    March 1, 2014 at 11:21 am

    By the way, notice how Dr. Holdren relies on “climate change”, asserting it “adds heat to the system”. “Climate change” adds nothing. There has to be specific mechanisms to ad heat to anything.

    But warmists have an esoteric definition of the term:

    “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

    Gail Combs: “That’s from the official UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, signed by the good old USA a couple decades ago (http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/2536.php).”

  83. rob m. says:
    March 1, 2014 at 11:44 am

    ”the previous July by Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., a University of Colorado political scientist.”

    Political huh?

    Strangely enough, there’s an academic discipline of Political Science and, even more strangely, it’s less “politicized” than many other disciplines.

  84. Pokerguy, how has anyone read anything Obama has written, all his books were produced by ghost writers. He never wrote anything in the law review he edited and we have never seen any of his grades. His only smarts from what I can see is what I call street smarts he know how to throw a lot of mud and it never stick on himself, He has created a complete fabrication as to whom he is and what he believes. I will give it to him he made it an art. all though if we had an honest press his story would have been quite a bit different and Hillary would be president not Brock, Oh by the way I am a conservative and do not believe John Mccain could have won the election even if the Democrats had ran Mickey mouse against him. When it comes to intellect Obama beats Mccain every day of the week, this is not a statement of Obama brilliance it a statement of Mccain’s stupidity.

  85. the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.
    ====================
    So if a country exceeds its population limits…

    The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, … including all food on the international market.

  86. davidmhoffer asks at 1:37 basically: “If that was working for them, there would be zero reason to single out Pielke for a rebuke. The only reason they left the safety of the MSM press, bully pulpit and POTUS shooting his mouth off is that they know the tide has turned and they are losing. If they were winning based on those tactics, they wouldn’t be changing them.”

    Never attribute to malice what can be explained by simple stupidity and incompetence. I think they feel they are “on course” and are just reacting to an irritable situation that cropped up on his watch. If they knew they were losing, I think they would be making different noises. These people are not bright.

  87. R2Dtoo: As soon as Gore started talking about a man-made “dust bowl” you just knew the deluge was about to start.

    If global warmists wanted real data to support their contention, the solution was, and is, obvious: convince Gore we are in the throes of a man-made ice age, and we were going to freeze. Then everytime he opened his mouth, a heat wave would begin.

  88. davidmhoffer says:
    March 1, 2014 at 3:43 pm
    “The last COP conference ended with nothing. Kyoto is dead. Germany is building coal fired power plants. ”

    In light of upcoming EU parliament elections, our government has now also trotted out some expert sockpuppets demanding an end to the feed in tariff for renewables contraptions; so that the government has a technocratic excuse to end that (only for new installations), to quell the rising unrest in the populace about exploding electricity costs.

    The Greens have stopped talking about anything.

  89. Pamela Gray says:
    “Which begs the question, Why has Obama surrounded himself with such weak and ill prepared advisers?”

    When the primary objective is to find advisers who are loyal and willing to lie and deceive for the “cause”, the only thing necessary is an illusion of expertise. Actual competence and working knowledge can be a hindrance when you already have your objective in mind and you don’t want facts to get in the way.

  90. We must stop attacking John Holdren as he is someone we should listen to.

    In 1971 he saw a coming ice age. This is why we should listen to these very clever scientists. They really do know what they are saying.

    http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=873

    Here is another example of why we must listen to them and act now.

    Financial Times Magazine – 2 August 2013
    “It could even be this year or next year but not later than 2015 there won’t be any ice in the Arctic in the summer,”

    1.7 years to go and the Arctic will be ice free. It jumped up 50% in volume and extent in September 2013 on 2012. This is called a death spiral. I sincerely hope that you are all now convinced for the case about taking action now before it’s too late.

  91. Jimbo says:
    March 1, 2014 at 4:33 pm
    ” Financial Times Magazine – 2 August 2013″
    […]
    “This is called a death spiral. ”

    Financial Times Deutschland died a few years ago already…

  92. Holdren’s attack on Dr. Pielke is reminiscent in both quality and tone of much of what was directed at dissidents in the German and Russian scientific communities under Hitler and Stalin. He, and his boss, seem to me to not be worried about their futures but rather so confident that they figure they can get away with their sloppiness. It may appear insane of Holder to think so, but he is the sort of personality who will feel ever more confident even as his ship sinks under him – after all, Hitler remained confident of victory right up to the time the Russians were only a block away from his chancellery. . And as his earlier blathering about population control indicates, he is, I believe, capable of orchestrating mass murder to achieve his objectives. And his propensity to violence will only increase, the more resistance he encounters from people like Dr. Pielke.

    I would argue that in spite of his academic vacuity, Obama is very much in control of his plans to wreck the US economy and reduce the country to the condition of a third-world socialist dictatorship. Hitler and Stalin both were airheads intellectually, but that did not stop them from gaining power and committing their atrocities. And like them, Obama is driven by deep-seated hatreds and a total lack of respect for the rules of civilized behavior.

    P.S. Dr. Pielke – I hope you won’t ever vote Democrat again!

    And @profitup10 – be careful with the 28th Amendment: you can’t reverse minority citizenship, or have no mechanism for dealing with rights violations by the states, as you will if you simply repeal the 14th Amendment without something to replace these aspects of it. For me, I don’t want the Demokratik People’s Republik of Kalifornia (DPRK) to infringe on my rights any more than it is already doing. In other words, there is enormous potential for states to do what der Fuehrer is doing nationally.

  93. I find these climate change war discussions interesting, frustrating and illustrating the incompetence and the arrogance of the White House. However in the long term nature will determine the results as it is now. However this same incompetence will come into play in the Ukraine and that scares the hell out of m.

  94. I am just a layman, but It is time for every responsible member of the scientific community who challenges the CAGW farce to speak out. This illogical, factually unsupported hype is being sold as “fact” to our younger generations, and they are accepting it. Sanity and logic are losing in this debate. Do the right thing and speak out any chance you get to restore some balance. Thanks, Roger Pielke.

  95. BillyV;
    These people are not bright.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Actually, they are brilliant. They took an issue with almost no basis in science, dressed it up with the flimsiest of corroborating evidence, and somehow parlayed it into a deception that has taken in the better part of the free world. The created the basis for tax increases that the public swallowed with little protest, and a gigantic funnel of funding for crony socialism and crony capitalism alike. If I hadn’t lived through the history of it, and seen it unfold with my own eyes, I’d have bet good money that their chances of pulling off what they did were slim to none.

  96. @ Dirk — Danke for the good reporting out of Deutschland.

    Hopefully, come this November, the U.S. voters will replace the parasitic Enviro-socialists who are now doing their best

    (fortunately, they ARE, indeed, incompetent, Tom E.)

    to suck the life out of the U. S. economy
    with free market thinkers who want the economy to
    thrive.

  97. davidmhoffer says:
    March 1, 2014 at 12:00 pm

    He is brown, sickeningly sweet, and completely hollow. America has elected the chocolate easter bunny as their leader.

    ROFL! Thanks! That is priceless!

  98. Holdren, like what seems to be most of the folks in the current Administration, is simply a political turd.

  99. “How much MORE RAIN will Global warming bring ? ” (shouting emphasis , mine) by Frank Wentz et al in SCIENCE for about July 13, 2007, says one degree C rise in global Temperature, gives a 7% increase in global evaporation, global atmospheric water content, and global precipitation; that is a 7% increase in ALL three of those; and from actual experimental observational data (Wentz is with RSS.)

    It is conjectured (no proof) by George E. Smith (aka, ME) that there is a better than even chance that the total global area / optical density / persistence time / whatever also increases, and “maybe “by somewhere in the 7% total effect range. This is based on the notion, that traditionally, precipitation is accompanied by precipitable clouds, which can reduce the amount of solar spectrum EM radiant energy, which reaches the earth surface and oceans. Yes I know it is just a WAG; but what other possible reason could there be for all that EXTRA RAIN ??

    So global warming = global drought / drouth / whatever ; pull my other leg !!

  100. ferdberple says:
    March 1, 2014 at 11:22 am
    Why would the Presidents Scientific Adviser quote an obscure web-page unrelated to Dr Pielke as evidence of Dr Pielke’s views? This appears to be a political smear campaign much like the McCarthy era of American Politics.

    Be careful there. After the fall of the Soviet Union, many of Machine Gunner Joe’s supposedly wild claims were found to be absolutely true. Not that I’m advocating McCarthyism, but to intimate that he was fundamentally wrong about everything is – well – fundamentally wrong.

  101. John Holdren the wise.

    2009
    if you lose the summer sea ice, there are phenomena that could lead you not so very long thereafter to lose the winter sea ice as well. And if you lose that sea ice year round, it’s going to mean drastic climatic change all over the hemisphere.
    [MP3]

    http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/ideas_20090119_10989.mp3

    John Holdren the magnificent.

    1977
    Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

    http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

    Dr. Roger Pielke is no match for John Holdren the righteous.

    Here are more wonderful ideas and theories from John Holdren.

    http://deadlinelive.info/2011/10/15/mitt-romneys-climate-adviser-john-holdren-mr-drug-the-water-to-sterilize-the-populace-b-o-science-guy/

  102. John F. Hultquist said at 2:19 pm

    One of the worst presidencies ever; maybe the worst.

    I think Lyndon Baines Johnson has that honor because he was successful in implementing his policies which of course were a disaster.

  103. hunter says:
    March 1, 2014 at 11:21 am

    “By the way, notice how Dr. Holdren relies on “climate change”, asserting it “adds heat to the system”. “Climate change” adds nothing.”

    “climate change” is the “cause” of many fantastic things. Interesting position, the use of an effect (climate change) as a “cause”. Well, of course! It is a “cause”…a political one. But, until someone can demonstrate scientifically that one can clearly put the cart before the horse and define an effect as a cause of anything, this whole stinking shooting match is a bucket of horse manure. Dr. Pielke has patently demolished Holdren’s “cause”. Unfortunately, it will change nothing, leading to further bizarre reasoning and Obama-selfies with Bill Nye…and Mannian Twitter-bursts.

  104. Holdren is unable to come up with any evidence for a global increase in drought length or frequency, and instead falls back on mushy phrases like “droughts have been worsening in some regions in recent decades while lessening in other regions” as some kind of proof of his assertions.

    I cannot help but conclude that Holdren is quite literally a climate change denier. He must believe that, until very recently, the world’s climate patterns have been static and unchanging. How else does his statement make any sense at all?

  105. Ehrlich, Holdren and others of their ilk –Keith Farnish, Kentti Linkola, Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber– are death-eating Luddite Thanatists, defined as ones with a deep-seated “phobia of Being.”

    Apropos Ehrlich’s ridiculously contentious “Population Bomb” (1968), concerning which Norman Borlaug had choice words, Holdren in 1974 malignantly characterized humanity as “a mass of seething maggots”. “Science Czar”?– Bram Stoker would do as well.

    No surprise that Holdren is dishonest, meretricious, misanthropic to the core. Rightly confronting this warmist banshee, let’s hope Pielke, Jr. doesn’t waste too much productive effort.

  106. Pamela Gray says:
    March 1, 2014 at 11:51 am
    What possible motive could there be to surround yourself with advisers who are not the best in class?

    Obama has surrounded himself with people just like him. They are extensions of Obama and offer great insight into the man.

  107. I’d call the Obama presidency “Amateur Hour,” but “The Gong Show” comes a lot closer to describing the incompetence of him and his Communist/Socialist/Collectivist cronies. When will the MSM ring the gong? Lysenkoism is alive and well in Obamaville.

  108. Janice Moore
    @ Eric Worrall — good point. 95% confidence… . Heh.

    Say, DID YOU GET ANY RESPONSE TO YOUR EXCELLENT LETTER RE: THE RANDI FOUNDATION NONSENSE? (it was a very well-written letter, btw)

    Have fun on that beach (sigh).

    He he :-)

    No response from Randi unfortunately. Randi has taken a lot of flak for pursuing fraud, so I think he is personally sincere, but even he may be an unwitting victim of CAGW spin. Nobody can see through every lie.

  109. Inre: Eugenics/population control

    Many people object to being forced by Federal mandate to cover contraceptives, abor ifacents, sterilizations, and “certain procedures” in their health insurance coverage. Small businesses have had to spend fortunes in court defending themselves against this unlawful demand.

    I think that it is not just people of faith who may find this requirement under Obamacare to be a violation, but also people who know the history of eugenics/population control. This government is obviously in a constant state of overreach, and people of all points of view may object to placing the tools of eugenics in the hands of the Federal Government.

    By the way, the new age/hippy version of eugenics/population control is called the “transhumanist” movement, and according to wik these claim that eugenics will be “voluntary.” Hippies are such dorks. Last time I visited my home town, the pot smoking organic hippies had placed 2 child limit signs on almost all of the business doors.

  110. What? You expected something different (reasonable?) from a member of the Obama Administration? This (lies, misdirection, innuendo) is what they do.

  111. Do you all really believe Holdren even read his response – probably written by a Greenpeace intern.

  112. RobertInAz says:
    March 1, 2014 at 6:49 pm

    Do you all really believe Holdren even read his response – probably written by a Greenpeace intern.
    =============================================================================
    And then mailed to one of Holdren’s interns.

  113. Holdren says that “In a warming world, a larger fraction of total precipitation falls in downpours, which means a larger fraction is lost to storm runoff (as opposed to being absorbed in soil).”
    Fort some reason he has not heard that the world is not warming and has not done so for the last seventeen years. Bear in mind that seventeen years is two thirds of the time that your IPCC has even existed. For them, and you to ignore this observed fact is Is ignoring the reality of global stasis and not warming is what we have today. Hence, talking of the occurrence of droughts in a hypothetical warming world that we do not inhabit has no merit.

  114. I posit that the reason for the Dr. Holdren rebuff of Dr. Pielke, Jr, is that the gov has spent a LOT of money working on an up-coming PR campaign to use drought as a main point for getting the low-knowledge US citizens to approve more taxes and lower quality of life so that “it doesn’t get hotter on earth”. “PR campaign” as in the 1919 Kipling poem, “Gods of the Copybook Headings”.
    However per Wiki, Dr, Holdren studied plasma physics and more at MIT so he is not as obtuse as above commenters state… IMO, Dr. Pielke is mainstream.

  115. Where we able to turn back time.

    On March 9 2014, the peoples of the United States of America will exercise an act of idiocy: Day Light Savings Time.

    I for one would certainly like to “turn back time.” But such is fantasy.

    Today I pulled a book from my office bookcase, “The Theory of Climate”, Advances in Geophysics (Ah! the AGU no longer recognizes the existence of the word “Geophysics” except in the title of the “society.”) volume 25, 1983, Barry Saltzman Editor and contributor.

    Such a wonderful volume of research on the meaning and understanding of the Theory of Climate. In 30 years there has been no additions, no advances, no further understanding of the Theory of Climate. That is sad.

    This treasure predates the era of Hansen, Jones, Mann and Trenberth; that is refreshing.

    30 years later and all that the Hansen, Jones, Mann and Trenberth have contributed is confusion, hubris, rubbish, waste.

    To turn back time and negate the existences of Hansen, Jones, Mann and Trenberth; that would be useful.

  116. Many say that Obama is bright, but surrounds himself with third rate minds.

    Perhaps we now have a reason for the extensive and secretive hiding of his college transcripts. Perhaps He is and was a poor student, pushed along with passing grades, by fears of being labeled anti-minority, in the bastions of left leaning, liberal, academia.

    To do as poorly as he has done, takes someone of sub-par intelligence, and academic capacity.

    Is the real issue trying to decide whether Mr. Obama’s mental abilities are just slightly below average, or more seriously moronic or even imbecilic?

  117. So exactly how do you measure more precipitation happening in downpours? Is this another the “heat is hiding” lament? If they can’t substantiate the model with observed precip changes, it’s hiding in downpours. I am beginning to smell a pattern and its aroma is a lot like what is out in my barnyard!

  118. So now, at last count, we have:

    Roving hot spot
    Roving ocean heat
    And
    Roving rain

    The new raw data format of Global Climate Disruption: Catch me if you can.

  119. @Steve Case –
    Yeah, he gave us a botched Vietnam war and the Great Society. $20 tril;lion later and still just as much poverty, and the demise of the black family.
    And don’t give him credit for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – that was voted in mainly by Republicans.

  120. The west seems to be having a real problem with the seriously bad calibre of a large part of it’s political leadership.
    Here in Australia we have just got rid of what was arguably the worst couple of prime ministers of the last half a century.
    And thats saying something as we have had a couple of real bad doozies for PM’s over the years.
    Hopefully Tony Abbot, our new PM will go a long way towards correcting that unfortunate record.

    Just for the record, we have compulsory voting across the entire Australian population so the party that gets into power does have a good reason to be able to claim a popular mandate for it’s policies if it wins by more than a few percent of the votes.

    The UK has Cameron who gives the impression of a uncovered jelly on a flat plate that can and does wobble all over the place with a political shimmy shake here and a hefty big jelly wobble or two there depending on the current situation in the UIK’s political jelly land.
    And he has managed to bring a good percentage of the british citizens to a point where they can no longer afford the power costs and have to decide whether to heat or eat as they can no longer afford to do both.

    France has Hollande who is acting more like a randy french rooster in a rooster-less french hen house than the big Cock of the french farmyard.
    Not sure if that description can’t be read another way !

    Germany has Merkel who despite her political prowess has managed after a great deal of hard work and effort to bring Germany’s industry to it’s knees to a point where their major industries are seriously talking about leaving Germany and going elsewhere.
    And to a point where some hundreds of thousands of German citizens can no longer afford the power costs and have been cut off from the power or where like Cameron’s UK , Merkel’s energy policies have led to Germany’s poorest citizens having to decide whether to heat or eat as they can no longer afford both.

    And then we have Obama who to say the absolute best about him and his administration, could be very politely described as grossly under-whelming from the Australian perspective.
    I don’t think that over the last 40 or 50 years I have ever seen so little commentary or mention of an American President in the Australian media . It could be safely claimed that there is almost a media conspiracy with the almost complete ignoring of Obama and his presidency
    He certainly comes across as one of the most underwhelming and bordering on incompetent presidencies of the USA that I have seen in my 75 years.

    Canada does not seem to be making any big waves politically on the international scene so
    I assume that they are traveling somewhat better than most of the western world’s governmental political parties

  121. If I were American I’d probably have voted for Obama as well. I fancy myself as a bleeding hearted Libertarian… which means I’m neither Democrat or Republican. I just value social liberties more than economic ones… if that makes any sense.

    That said, Holden has to be held accountable. Clearly his role is that of an Obama hack. Good work Roger!

  122. Doesn’t matter that Holdren looks and plays the fool. The bell has rung. Being on record having excoriated RPJ’s professional credentials may be all it takes to have RPJ’s grant requests denied and prevent any possibility of moving to another academic institution if ever desired. How very Putin of Holdren to invade under color of manufactured nonsense.

  123. “Your characterization of my views as lying “outside the scientific mainstream” is odd because the views that I expressed in my testimony are entirely consonant with those of the IPCC “My reading skills must be at fault here. I would swear Pielke says the IPCC represents mainstream scientific views, rather than just being a vehicle of hackneyed political positioning pushing energy policy via an unproven allegation. This is much closer to my take : http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/18115/ – doing this confabulation because http://donnalaframboise.mensnewsdaily.com/2011/06/the-ipcc-as-un-funding-mechanism/ and as noted in http://www.rightsidenews.com/2009071122518/life-and-science/energy-and-environment/un-ipcc-says-global-warming-big-deception.html
    Is there a new definition of ‘science’ implied somewhere ? Or did I misunderstand the substitution of scientism as a matter of both consensus and science.

  124. Can someone explain to me why Holdren is a member of the NAS? What “science” merited his elevation to that august group? Did he ever discover anything of note?

  125. Thanks, Eric Worrall, for the response. Bummer. Good for you to try, however. And thanks, again, for sharing that fine letter with us all.

  126. Dave Wendt says:
    March 1, 2014 at 1:53 pm

    What is really laughable about this particular dustup is that Pielke Jr. is, as indicated by his work and by his placement in Anthony’s blogroll, very much a Lukewarmer on the climate question. That Holdren can generate the level of ire and derogation that he heaps on Pielke Jr., for a guy who is far from a hardcore climate skeptic, speaks volumes to the level of desperation that the alarmist community seems to be exhibiting more and more blatantly every day.

    As to being “outside mainstream science”, given that even the IPCC and the usual suspects of the Brotherhood of Climate Alarmism have abjured the notion of blaming individual weather events on “Climate Change”, it would appear that Mr. Holdren is the one who is manning an outpost far beyond the boundaries of the collective mind.

    ——————————————————————

    Sir, I believe you are half right. The real reason they went after Dr. Pielke Jr. is because he represents those who are thinking logically and using [science]. His contradiction of Obama and his mainstream position make it look like Obama is the one out of the loop and [extreme]. This can not and will not be tolerated. Showing Obama, the EPA, and others as being extremists simply can not be allowed to continue.

    The letter, poorly written and poorly thought out, shows the desperation of their position. Holder is nothing more than a political hack and a very poor scientist.

  127. And then I miss spell science…. OY!

    [But you were discussing a scenic tour of exstream science. 8<) … Mod]

  128. Now I have looked at Holdren’s background for the first time, I see that he has absolutely no credentials whatsoever in climate science. Why would anybody care what he thinks ?

  129. @GeneDoc says:
    March 1, 2014 at 9:30 pm

    Lindzen discusses election to NAS in paper linked below
    Climate Science: Is it Currently Designed to Answer Questions?

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/16330

    The vetting procedure is generally rigorous, but for over 20 years, there was a Temporary Nominating Group for the Global Environment to provide a back door for the election of candidates who were environmental activists, bypassing the conventional vetting procedure. Members, so elected, proceeded to join existing sections where they hold a veto power over the election of any scientists unsympathetic to their position. Moreover, they are almost immediately appointed to positions on the executive council, and other influential bodies within the Academy. One of the members elected via the Temporary Nominating Group, Ralph Cicerone, is now president of the National Academy. Prior to that, he was on the nominating committee for the presidency. It should be added that there is generally only a single candidate for president. Others elected to the NAS via this route include Paul Ehrlich, James Hansen, Steven Schneider, John Holdren and Susan Solomon.

    P.S. The NAS needs to be renamed as the National Academy of Scientism, which is what it has become at least in terms of the hierarchy’s orientation.

  130. There’s a bad drought in most of Brazil this year. NPR had a segment on it a couple of days ago. Its reporter focused on a scientist who was trying to get the legislature to blame it on climate change and start Acting Now.

  131. Climate change not proven yet: Scientist
    NAGPUR: “There is not very strong evidence to prove the changes in monsoon pattern are due to climate change. No two monsoons have ever been same. To say that there are any global patterns will be an over statement,” said S R Shetye, vice-chancellor of Goa University and the former director of National Institute of Oceanography (CSIR-NIO) in Goa.

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/Climate-change-not-proven-yet-Scientist/articleshow/31196114.cms

  132. Regarding Holdren:

    2. In mountain regions that are warming, as most are, a larger fraction of precipitation falls as rain rather than as snow, which means lower stream flows in spring and summer

    If he was talking about California, he might want to say so. At 111% of average, Colorado snowpack (eight primary river basins east and west of the divide) is fine, thanks, and that does include 127% snowpack in the Colorado River Basin, heading their way.

    Current Colorado Snow Watershed

    I would agree with Dr. Pielke’s characterization of Holdren’s work: it is “sloppy”, misleading, and pointlessly single out Dr. Pielke. As observed by others, such behavior suggests a pawn doing the only thing it can do: advance a space to allow the “big guy” behind him to move. I predict unilateral action on carbon credits, or the like, are in the offing.

    Scanning through the Palmer Drought Severity Index one can see many years in the 19th century when “Extreme” (-4) and “Severe” (-3) drought conditions beset sizable chunks of the U.S. In one of the worst single years of drought, 1934, virtually every state west of the Mississippi River was in a drought conditions ranked as extreme, severe or moderate.. Palmer Drought Severity Index Droughts recur sporadically across the North American continent as jet streams and oceanic weather patterns shift across the landscape.

    Speed up the Palmer Index’s monthly display and one can see the purple, yellow and brown droughts blossom in and out of existence, in almost indiscriminate patches, swaths and tiers across the U.S. The history of droughts over the last 120-odd years shows them to be transient on a decadal timescale.

    Not to say they always are, or always will be. A big drought in the 13th Century helped decimate out the Anasazi Indians, one of the hardiest desert tribes. Truly, it appears that drought will always be a threat in these geographic regions. Everybody knows this – or so I thought.

    There is good news. President Obama and his science adviser have been given enough media rope that they are on record claiming new and spooky “significances” to today’s weather. It sure enough looks like the weather is about to change:

    In time for the Oscars?

  133. grumpyoldmanuk says:
    March 1, 2014 at 12:11 pm
    …Given Obama’s revealed intellectual abilities and those he has picked to advise him, it’s amazing that the White House functions at all.
    ——————————————————————
    You must’ve missed the ACA rollout.
    Not much function there.
    cn

  134. The essence of government is politics. That is, important decisions are the results of a contest of political power. We can can pack the decision process with as many experts, models and other resources, but the decision will result from a contest of political power. You can find an expert or a model to say anything you want. Or, experts and models can simply be ignored. There are copious examples of this in our government. If money, experts and models led to good policy, we would have seen the results by now.
    Policy has a qualitative and a quantitative aspect. There is no principle or procedure to ensure qualitatively good policy. Only the principle of quantitatively minimizing the scope and effect of policy can minimize the damage of the inevitable bad policies.
    It is bad enough when a clubby university system provides the sole validation for scientific thinking. Now it will be done by the White House.

  135. Holdren talks of tries to link severe droughts in the American West to something called climate change. I agree that climate change is the reason.

    Can I say that mega-droughts are just a thing of the past? Children won’t know what a mega-drought is?

    Abstract – E. Davis et. al.- September 2006
    An Andean ice-core record of a Middle Holocene mega-drought in North Africa and Asia

    A large dust peak, dated ~4500 years ago, is contemporaneous with a widespread and prolonged drought that apparently extended from North Africa to eastern China, evidence of which occurs in historical, archeological and paleoclimatic records. This event may have been associated with several centuries of weak Asian/Indian/African monsoons, possibly linked with a protracted cooling in the North Atlantic…..
    dx.doi.org/10.3189/172756406781812456
    ——-
    Abstract – Steven L. Forman et. al. – May 2001
    Temporal and spatial patterns of Holocene dune activity on the Great Plains of North America: megadroughts and climate links
    Periods of persistent drought are associated with a La Niña-dominated climate state, with cooling of sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific Ocean and later of the tropical Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico that significantly weakens cyclogenesis over central North America.
    dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8181(00)00092-8
    ——-
    Abstract – Hamish McGowan et. al. – 28 November 2012
    Evidence of ENSO mega-drought triggered collapse of prehistory Aboriginal society in northwest Australia
    …..Here we show that a mid-Holocene ENSO forced collapse of the Australian summer monsoon and ensuing mega-drought spanning approximately 1500 yrs …..
    doi: 10.1029/2012GL053916
    ——-
    Abstract – Samuli Helama et. al. – 13 October 2008
    Multicentennial megadrought in northern Europe coincided with a global El Niño–Southern Oscillation drought pattern during the Medieval Climate Anomaly
    doi: 10.1130/G25329A.1
    ——-
    Abstract – Scott Stine – 16 June 1994
    Extreme and persistent drought in California and Patagonia during mediaeval time
    California’s Sierra Nevada experienced extremely severe drought conditions for more than two centuries before ad ~ 1112 and for more than 140 years before ad ~ 1350…I also present similar evidence from Patagonia of drought conditions coinciding with at least the first of these dry periods in California….
    doi:10.1038/369546a0
    ——-
    Abstract – Martin Claussen et. al. – 7 December 2012
    Simulation of an abrupt change in Saharan vegetation in the Mid-Holocene

    Climate variability during the present interglacial, the Holocene, has been rather smooth in comparison with the last glacial. Nevertheless, there were some rather abrupt climate changes. One of these changes, the desertification of the Saharan and Arabian region some 4–6 thousand years ago,….
    doi: 10.1029/1999GL900494
    ——-
    Abstract – Brian F. Cumming et. al. – 2 December 2002,
    Persistent millennial-scale shifts in moisture regimes in western Canada during the past six millennia
    …After periods of relative stability, abrupt shifts in diatom assemblages and inferred climatic conditions occur approximately every 1,220 years….
    doi:10.1073/pnas.252603099
    ——-
    Abstract – Connie A. Woodhouse et. al. – December 1998
    2000 Years of Drought Variability in the Central United States
    …..One must turn to the paleoclimatic record to examine the full range of past drought variability, including the range of magnitude and duration, and thus gain the improved understanding needed for society to anticipate and plan for droughts of the future. Historical documents, tree rings, archaeological remains, lake sediment, and geomorphic data make it clear that the droughts of the twentieth century, including those of the 1930s and 1950s, were eclipsed several times by droughts earlier in the last 2000 years, and as recently as the late sixteenth century. In general, some droughts prior to 1600 appear to be characterized by longer duration (i.e., multidecadal) and greater spatial extent than those of the twentieth century……
    dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1998)079%3C2693:YODVIT%3E2.0.CO;2
    ——-
    Abstract – T. M. Shanahan – 17 April 2009
    Atlantic Forcing of Persistent Drought in West Africa
    …We find that intervals of severe drought lasting for periods ranging from decades to centuries are characteristic of the monsoon and are linked to natural variations in Atlantic temperatures. Thus the severe drought of recent decades is not anomalous in the context of the past three millennia,…..
    doi: 10.1126/science.1166352

  136. Holdren did not act alone. He is guided by Allinskyites who are seeking to single out and delegitimize and demonize Pielke, Jr. as a go by for dealing with skeptics in general.

  137. There is nothing so rare in California as a year of ‘normal’ precipitation.
    (Unless, perhaps, it’s a year in which the amount of precipitation is not used for political purposes.)

  138. Craig Moore says:
    March 1, 2014 at 9:18 pm

    Doesn’t matter that Holdren looks and plays the fool. The bell has rung. Being on record having excoriated RPJ’s professional credentials may be all it takes to have RPJ’s grant requests denied and prevent any possibility of moving to another academic institution if ever desired. How very Putin of Holdren to invade under color of manufactured nonsense.

    Holdren’s reputation may result in a reverse effect: JP Jr. will gain in credibility.

  139. Pamela Gray says:
    “Which begs the question, Why has Obama surrounded himself with such weak and ill prepared advisers?”
    Our president is an extremely thin skinned, spoiled, egotistical brat. He does not have one single person on his staff that would ever say “boss, you are really screwing up here”. Witness his compelling need to comment on certain issues that do not ever rise to the level of Whitehouse comment, like individual alleged race crimes of Henry Louis Gates and specific meddling in the George Zimmerman case with the Florida DA. This “allegiance at all costs” mentality also results in the behavior expressed by his sycophants, including guys like Holdren, Holden, the IRS in who they audit or approve 501.3c applications, and the MSM. In short the guy is dangerous, as proven by his announcement of $1 billion more dollars for whomever touts CAGW and other party line thinking of attacking the energy sector, etc. We are a LONG way from winning any kind of battle with this guy. Please prepare, if you are a well known “denier”, to have your life being looked into by various govt entities.

  140. Sooooo, it took Holdren over 6 months to form a rebuttal? That speaks volumes.

    Just another example of an unelected appointee driving policy for everyone … _ _ _ …

  141. I haven’t read all of the comments, but surely someone has pointed out the fact that the Daily Caller isn’t some minor website. In fact, Tucker Carlson’s gem might be the most read conservative website in the blogosphere now that Andrew Breitbart is gone.

  142. Re: Jimbo says:
    March 2, 2014 at 4:50 am

    Thanks for the good collection of papers on megadroughts, I’ll try to make time to read a few.

    With regard to the statement that megadroughts are a “thing of the past”, If that means that they are “not going to happen”, or even “unlikely to happen” again, could you link to a statement in any of these papers that actually says that? My non-scientific take on Earth’s climate is that oscillations between warming and cooling will continue to happen on geological timescales. Mega-events of every kind are in store for the Earth, and just as likely to happen in its future as they ever were in its past. And in human terms, we “ain’t seen nothin’ yet.” In the event that our species survives five or six more millennia, we will see much worse (and much better) than anything we’ve known in the present era.

    My 2 1/2 cents.

  143. “What the data says:”
    The word “data” is plural. The data say; a datum says.

    Nope. Data (per current usage standards) is singular when in reference to a compilation of mass information as a single collective, such as used above. Dictionary.com is your friend.

    Mark

  144. So even if you say Co2 causes some warming (although there is no evidence that this is how it works in our atmosphere), you will be thrown under the Obama bus anyway. How’d that work out for ya?

  145. The President’s science advisor characterized Roger as being outside the scientific mainstream with respect to Haldren’s views on extreme events and climate change. I think more and more scientists will want be outside these views as well . Was it not the same scientific mainstream[ IPCC and certain alarmist AGW supporting scientists]who got the AGW science all wrong predicting unprecedented warming when the actual weather has gone the opposite way now for 17 years . Is it not this same mainstream science [NOAA and MET Office} that got the 2013/2014 winter forecast totally wrong. They fail now on both long term and short term predictions and have very little credibility to claim any mainstream truths in climate science. It is going to get even worse as the climate seems to be going dead opposite of their science and there will be a major disconnect between the observable climate and their latest mainstream predictions. It would appear that the President’s advisor may be playing the old political game , when you cannot dispute the truth and credibility of your opponent, attack the opponent by smearing his reputation.

  146. Holdren claims the world (& specifically the United States of America) is overpopulated. Holdren is still alive. Ergo, Holdren does not believe what he himself wrote.

    Dear John Holdren,

    Be the change you want to see in the world. Change begins at home. Think globally, act locally.

  147. Billy V “Never attribute to malice what can be explained by simple stupidity and incompetence.”

    Incompetence is the hiding place of the malevolent.

    Some folks are incompetent and some are hiding.

  148. hunter says:
    March 2, 2014 at 7:41 am
    “Holdren did not act alone. He is guided by Allinskyites who are seeking to single out and delegitimize and demonize Pielke, Jr. as a go by for dealing with skeptics in general.”

    Pielke Jr. is not a skeptic.

  149. Did Holdren just try to use a bunch of unproven models to claim he was right? And that’s science? I clearly worked too hard for my BS; my professors demanded experimental data with error analysis.

  150. The Monster (@SumErgoMonstro) says:
    March 2, 2014 at 9:22 am
    “What the data says:”

    The word “data” is plural. The data say; a datum says.

    In a comment I posted a couple of years ago I wrote:

    Fowler, in Modern English Usage, states, “Latin plurals sometimes become singular English words (e.g., agenda, stamina) …” As long as it’s OK to employ those words as singulars, it’s OK to do the same for “data.”

    Not only is it acceptable to use “data” as a collective singular, using data as a plural word is incorrect because it throws the speaker (including those who use “data are”) into inconsistency with his habitual method of speaking, as Phillip W. pointed out. He wrote: “‘Data’ is naturally and consistently used as a mass noun in conversation: the question is asked how much data an instrument produces, not how many; it is asked how data is archived, not how they are archived; there is talk of less data rather than fewer; and talk of data having units, saying they have a megabyte of data, …” For another example of this usage, look at the post just above this one, where the phrase “the raw data is gone” is used.

    Because of this inconsistency with long-established and near-universal usage, and because, as Fowler shows, there is no real rule forbidding “data is,” “data are” will never be accepted–it will always sound odd or even affected.

    It’s counterproductive to make an issue about it, because the people criticized will not change their habit, but be determined to pay no attention to any similar criticism in the future. This backlash is what happened 100 years ago after schoolmarm grammarians made a fetish of not splitting an infinitive, distinguishing between shall and will, etc. They lost the war, by going a bridge too far.

  151. “This backlash is what happened 100 years ago after schoolmarm grammarians made a fetish of not splitting an infinitive, distinguishing between shall and will, etc. They lost the war, by going a bridge too far.”
    Get ready for the next wave or, maybe it is already lost. Look what is happening with “bring” and “take.” College educated newscasters, professors, and essential every PBS kids show does not use either properly. e.g. Mother to Sid the science kid “when you go to school, be sure to bring this note with you.”

  152. Another thought, How many of these “peer reviewed” papers proving global warming are computer generated? Is that how they got the 97%?

  153. Just another incompetent, ideologue boob in this administration, consisting almost solely of such – including O himself. Ho-hum. “Elections have consequences”. Sadly – we’re seeing them.

  154. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/14/quote-of-the-week-21/#comment-1568519

    More Holdren stuff – hard to believe…

    John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet

    Book he authored in 1977 advocates for extreme totalitarian measures to control the population

    Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A “Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death over American citizens.

    The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?

    These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology — informally known as the United States’ Science Czar. In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:

    • Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
    • The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
    • Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
    • People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
    • A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.

    Impossible, you say? That must be an exaggeration or a hoax. No one in their right mind would say such things.

    Well, I hate to break the news to you, but it is no hoax, no exaggeration. John Holdren really did say those things, and this report contains the proof. Below you will find photographs, scans, and transcriptions of pages in the book Ecoscience, co-authored in 1977 by John Holdren and his close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich. The scans and photos are provided to supply conclusive evidence that the words attributed to Holdren are unaltered and accurately transcribed.

    More at http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

    Book at http://www.amazon.com/Ecoscience-Population-Environment-Paul-Ehrlich/dp/0716700298

  155. atmospheric CO2 levels continue to increase globally, while atmospheric temperatures have NOT increased globally in over 15 years… therefore, atmospheric CO2 does not directly correlate with atmospheric temperature…

    until a reliable source for calculation of CO2/temperature is discovered, ALL conjecture about human-caused climate change is simply that: CONJECTURE…

    it’s called honest scientific proof, of which there is NONE

  156. It sounds perfectly rational to me. It cannot be denied that the wrong sort of people are having too many babies. Reduce this population and resultantly elevate the remaining populations quality of life. Having children should no-longer be a right, and will inevitably become a privilege sanctioned only to those who are academically and racially qualified. We do not need more low-end breeders who deplete societies assets at every opportunity. Wake-up, dump the religious rubbish and accept what must by now be obvious, there is no god, and we are merely mammals !!

    REPLY: Your ugly comment is the best example I’ve seen in all my years of blogging as to why cowards hide behind a fake name like “pip Willow”. Rather than delete it, I decided to put it all on display so that people could see the sort of mentally defective thinking that goes on with people that defend such smears from the White House – Anthony

  157. There is an old Spanish saying: Quien con perros se echa, con pulgas se levanta.
    (If you lie down with dogs, you’ll get up with fleas.). In Holdren’s case, he has lain down with the mangiest mutts I have ever seen in the White House, and he has arisen scratching like a hound.

  158. davidmhoffer says:
    March 1, 2014 at 12:00 pm

    The “chocolate Easter bunny!” I love that – but I am more inclined to believe that the hollowness of the Usurper is rooted in his malevolent ideology, and that his appointments (such as that of Holdren) is based upon the Usurper’s desire to have nothing but syncophants at his beck and call to tell him what he wants to hear.

    As for PipWillow, I answer in the same way I answer to anyone who idiotically talks about the population of the planet: YOU are the “wrong sort of people,” and if you are so concerned about “too many babies,” you are most welcome to start your own solution by doing yourself in immediately. Leave the rest of us out of your fever-swamp ideological fantasies.

  159. Previously posted:

    It is clear that President Obama’s science adviser, Dr. John P. Holdren, is a political scientist.
    There never has been any valid evidence that humanity has contributed to catastrophic runaway global warming. Any impact humanity may have on climate is insignificant and not dangerous.
    We are being scammed about the alleged dangers of manmade global warming – it IS that simple.
    See Holdren’s spin, bolded below.

    P.S. Holdren’s bold lie about the “creampuff” NAS report is telling – Holdren conveniently neglects to mention the more credible Wegman report to Congress, which savages Mann’s “hockey stick” and Mann’s cabal of co-authors.
    _______________

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/14/quote-of-the-week-21/#comment-1568514

    Dec 05, 2009
    Climategate: Obama’s Science Adviser Confirms the Scandal – Unintentionally
    By Myron Ebell, CEI on Pajamas Media

    When the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held a hearing on the state of climate science on December 2, the Republicans were ready to focus it on the Climategate fraud scandal. And the first witness, President Obama’s science adviser, Dr. John P. Holdren, was ready to respond.

    Instead of summarizing his written testimony in his oral remarks, Holdren read a prepared statement on Climategate. He said that the controversy involved a “small group of scientists” and was primarily about one temperature dataset. He said that such controversies were not unusual in all branches of science and that they got sorted out through the peer review process and continuing scrutiny. Holdren also said that openness and sharing of data was important, which is why the Obama administration is strongly committed to openness. In the case of the disputed dataset (the “hockey stick” graph), the National Academies of Science (NAS) undertook a thorough review of it and all other similar datasets and concluded that the preponderance of evidence supported the principal conclusion of the research. Holdren concluded by predicting that when the dust settles on this controversy, a very strong scientific consensus on global warming will remain.
    Well, that sounds pretty plausible, but anyone who has followed Dr. Holdren’s amazing career knows that he is a master of plausible buncombe that disguises his “outlandish scientific assertions, consistently wrong predictions, and dangerous public policy choices,” as my CEI colleague William Yeatman has put it. Everything that Holdren said in his opening statement is incomplete and misleading. But explaining that is a job for another day. The point is that the alarmist establishment and environmental pressure groups have settled on these talking points in order to try to contain and sanitize the scandal.

    When Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) and other Republicans on the committee challenged Holdren’s analysis of Climategate, the president’s science adviser responded by repeating that it was just a small group of scientists engaged in some narrow research. Any mistakes or misdeeds on their part couldn’t possibly compromise the scientific consensus, which is as strong as it is vast.

    But when asked about some of his own extreme statements and predictions, Holdren replied that scientific research had moved on from the latest UN assessment report in 2007. The most up-to-date scientific research was contained in a report written by some of the world’s leading climate scientists and released last summer. Holdren mentioned and referred to this report, Copenhagen Diagnosis, several times during the course of the hearing.

    I remember when Copenhagen Diagnosis came out because nearly every major paper ran a story on it. Global warming is happening even faster than predicted, the impacts are even worse than feared, and that sort of thing. I also remembered that the authors of Copenhagen Diagnosis included many of the usual conmen who are at the center of the alarmist scare. So I asked my CEI colleague Julie Walsh to compare the list of authors of Copenhagen Diagnosis with the scientists involved in Climategate.

    I’m sure it will come as a shock that the two groups largely overlap. The “small group of scientists” up to their necks in Climategate include 12 of the 26 esteemed scientists who wrote the Copenhagen Diagnosis. Who would have ever guessed that forty-six percent of the authors of Copenhagen Diagnosis belong to the Climategate gang? Small world, isn’t it?

    Here’s the list of tippity-top scientists who both wrote the authoritative report that Holdren relied on to support his statements and belong to the “small group of scientists” who are now suspected of scientific fraud:
    Nathan Bindoff, also a lead author of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (hereafter LA-IPCC FAR)
    Peter Cox, also LA-IPCC FAR
    David Karoly, also LA-IPCC FAR and the Third Assessment Report (TAR)
    Georg Kaser, also LA-IPCC FAR
    Michael E. Mann, also LA-IPCC TAR (the hockey stick scandal made him too radioactive to participate in writing FAR)
    Stefan Rahmstorf, also LA-IPCC FAR
    Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, merely “a longstanding member of the IPCC.”
    Stephen Schneider, also LA-IPCC FAR, TAR, and the First and Second Assessment Reports (SAR) plus two of the IPCC’s synthesis reports
    Steven Sherwood, only a contributing author to IPCC-FAR
    Richard C. J. Somerville, co-ordinating LA-PCC FAR
    Eric J. Steig, no connection to IPCC listed
    Andrew Weaver, also LA-IPCC FAR, TAR, and SAR (and Chief Editor, Journal of Climate, AMS)

    In the interests of space, I’ve left out all of their distinguished positions as professors, editors of academic journals, and heads of institutes. You can search for their Climategate emails here.
    Then there are those Climategate figures who didn’t help write Climate Diagnosis, but who have been involved in the IPCC assessment reports. Here are three that come to mind:
    Phil Jones, contributing author IPCC TAR
    Kevin Trenberth, co-ordinating LA-IPCC FAR and SAR, LA-IPCC TAR, and an author of the summaries for policymakers for FAR, TAR, and SAR
    Ben Santer, convening LA-IPCC First Assessment Report

    Now, I wouldn’t want to jump to any conclusions here, but it kind of looks to me like the “small group of scientists” caught out by Climategate are pretty much the same people who make up the vast and strong scientific consensus on global warming and write the official reports that the U.S. and other governments rely on to inform their policy decisions. I’m sure Dr. John P. Holdren, President Obama’s science adviser, has a plausible alternative explanation. He always does.

    See post here.

Comments are closed.