John Holdren’s ‘personal’ Bi-Polar Vortex video

Holdren_polar_vortexOSTP rules Holdren’s video released by the White House was “personal opinion” and therefore not subject to Data Quality Act.

Guest essay by Sam Kazman 

Back in January, in the midst of one incredibly cold winter, John Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, posted a short video on the agency’s website entitled The Polar Vortex Explained in 2 Minutes.  In that video, Holdren claimed that a “growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues.”  In short, global warming was responsible for colder winters.

This, of course, would be yet another step towards galactic nonverifiability—If global warming is responsible for everything, it can be never be tested empirically.

But as a number of climate scientists soon pointed out, Holdren’s claim of a growing body of evidence on this issue was simply false.  In fact, from September 2013 on, three peer-reviewed studies appeared debunking the notion that polar warming had led to an increase in what are known as winter blocking episodes—situations where extremely low temperatures become locked in for exceptionally long periods of time.  That was why, in April, we filed a formal request for correction with OSTP under what’s known as the federal Data Quality Act.

After we filed our petition , by the way, yet a fourth study appeared disputing the global warming/polar vortex connection.

Yesterday, shortly before OSTP’s 90-day deadline for responding to correction requests, we received the agency’s denial (see below).  OSTP claims that Holdren was simply expressing his “personal opinion” rather than any “comprehensive review of the scientific literature”.

On its face, this response is shovel-ready nonsense.  Holdren, and others at OSTP who parroted his claim, at no point suggested that they were speaking personally rather than as agency employees.  To the contrary, they employed both the agency’s resources and stature to disseminate the polar vortex claim.

More importantly, the specific contention—of a “growing body of evidence”—can be tested by any kindergartner.  Four recent studies on this issue all contradict the global warming/polar vortex connection, more than countering the older studies that support Holdren—that at least balances, and more likely outweighs, whatever Holdren was relying on.  And the notion that the body of evidence supporting him is growing is nonsense.

If Holdren were selling pizza, the FTC would’ve been all over him long ago.

See the response: 229015759-OSTP-IQA-Response (PDF)

Now watch his video:

On the plus side, Holdren’s “personal opinion video” issued by the White House only has 230,662 views as of this writing. From an outreach perspective, it’s a big flop for the White House.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Government idiocy, Vortex. Bookmark the permalink.

110 Responses to John Holdren’s ‘personal’ Bi-Polar Vortex video

  1. The claim “growing body of evidence” seems approximately equivalent to something my mother often says while reporting the latest gossip: “People tell me…”

  2. Rick Bradford says:

    **If Holdren were selling pizza, the FTC would’ve been all over him long ago.**

    It seems questionable whether Holdren has enough common sense to deliver pizza, let alone sell it.

  3. Tom J says:

    My god I’ll bet Nixon is envious of this White House.

  4. Gamecock says:

    “Growing body of evidence ” is a marketing phrase.

  5. Steve R says:

    The phrase “What a maroon” was first used by Bugs Bunny in the 1940’s

  6. cnxtim says:

    This “personal” video shows all the signs of a very professional production, green screen, make-up, sound, editing and camera work.
    What a disgusting weasel post event cop out.

  7. Genghis says:

    This is just the beginning of the climate science showing that CO2 causes cooling as well as warming.

    Paradoxically they may finally be getting the science right.

  8. hunter says:

    Dr. Holdren’s video is typical of everything his entire career is based on.

  9. tadchem says:

    ‘Colder winters’ are on the Number Watch page “A Complete List of Things Caused by Global Warming”, which as of today includes 883 items.
    The previous record for any nameable First Cause able to cause absolutely anything else was held by “Yahweh”, Who was unfortunately limited by His Nature to be unable to contradict Himself.

  10. philjourdan says:

    So they are admitting that the top advisers to Obama are ignorant and incompetent?

    And of course Obama is totally unaware of the situation.

  11. Greg says:

    The official response is simply untruthful. At 0:14 into the video he is presenteds “President Obamah’s Science Advisor, the closing credits carry the White House logo.

    There is not way to pretend that this is Mr. John Holdren expressing his personal opinion.

  12. Tom in Florida says:

    “they employed both the agency’s resources and stature to disseminate the polar vortex claim.”

    Since this is a “personal opinion video” Holdren should be forced to repay all expenses incurred for using the agency’s resources including all the time he spent doing this personal thing while being paid for official business.

  13. Greg says:

    One interesting quote at 1:45
    “… and, as in all science, there will be continuing dabate about what is happening…..”

    Seems his boss is not listening to his own science advisor.

  14. Leigh says:

    The media that broadcasts the rubbish told by Holdren and co. is just as guilty as the one who speaks the lie.
    If the media is short of news worthy storys.
    Just exposing the lies as they are told should would keep the head lines ticking over.

  15. hunter says:

    Greg,
    Mr. Obama’s unquestioned reliance on Holdren and others of his ilk is making a reality of what Tolkien pointed out in his fantasy books: that bad things come by way of leaders who put themselves in the thrall of evil counselors. Holdren, Ehrlich, Schneider, and their gang have on balance done great harm to the world and to science, yet have never been held to account.

  16. Greg says:

    There is also something at 0:45 , that I picked up when I first saw the video when it came out:

    ” … is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues and the reason is this ..”

    Note how fast he cuts in with the follow up “and the reason is this” .

    This is an indication he is not very comfortable with what he has just said.

  17. johnmarshall says:

    We have a saying in the UK ”not qualified to run a winkle stall”
    Holdren falls neatly into that bracket with Obama close behind.

  18. Greg says:

    If Holdren was to make a pizza, he would almost certainly put the pastry on top and tell us that we can expect to see more of this kind of pizza “as the world continues to warm”.

  19. Gaylon says:

    In listening to Holdren the movie line, “He’s a pedantic, pretentious, ponificating ba$tard, a belligerent old fart, and a worthless steaming pile of cow dung, figuratively speaking”, came to mind immediately.

    And we all know that left to it’s own devices a steaming pile of cow dung will ‘grow’ until it reaches a “tipping point” of decomposition and then just fade away into the dirt from whence it came. Although I think he was amiss in referring to it as “evidence”.

  20. Gaylon says:

    oops: pontificating above @ 5:11 am…darn it!

  21. Santa Baby says:

    The claim “growing body of evidence from policy based studies” seems approximately equivalent to something my mother often says while reporting the latest gossip: “People tell me…”

    There fixed it?

  22. Clovis Marcus says:

    This is a dangerous precedent. It is quite clear that the propagation of Holdren’s views were sponsored by the government.

    I trust you are planning to appeal.

  23. Burch says:

    Typo up top “OSTP rules Holdren’s video released bu the White House ” think you meant “by the White House”…

  24. Tom J says:

    philjourdan
    June 11, 2014 at 4:28 am
    ‘And of course Obama is totally unaware of the situation.’

    That’s because he hasn’t read it in the newspapers yet.

  25. Chris B says:

    Perhaps John was making an extended twitter, twit, tweet or whatever they call it? The following definition sounds like the forerunner of the modern mode of soundbiting each other.

    per·son·al-o·pin·ion tel·egram [pur-suh-nl-uh-pin-yuhn]
    noun
    1.
    a type of domestic telegram sent at the lowest rate with a minimum charge for 20 words or less to elected federal or state officials on a subject of national or regional interest.
    2.
    the service offering such a telegram.

  26. Joe Public says:

    Presumably, zero Tax Dollars were spent in the dissemination of a ‘personal opinion’?

  27. Jason Calley says:

    John Holdren may have every right to use government time and money for presenting his personal opinion. After all he is one of the people who own the government.

    I know, I know… way back in the old days we were told in school that “We The People” own the government. “We” control it and tell it what to do. The government serves us! That, at least is what I was taught in school, but I am having a hard time finding evidence for that still being true.

  28. Tom J says:

    “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US.” – Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

    I wonder if that is what Obama meant when he said we’d have to “eat our peas.” Interestingly, I thought that man, was supposed to work for us. If an employee is not doing what the employer had in mind, has deliberately deceived that employer, well then it’s time to fire that employee. And the US Constitution provides for that remedy.

  29. Tim says:

    1. Enunciate the claim, using assertion from authority.
    2. Disperse the claim quickly, via the MSM
    3. Defer/refuse FOI requests for data from pesky scientists.
    Case closed. Sheeple have swallowed the bait.

  30. faboutlaws says:

    Perhaps Holdren will bake his pizzas with global warming if he could conveniently remove the polar vortex from it.

  31. Scott says:

    Basically if you can classify a lie as a personal opinion, then its OK…..I did not have … with that woman….

  32. The other Ren says:

    Why don’t you ask to post an “opposing” personal opinion video on the government web site?

  33. Chris B says:

    More personal opinion…..

    “It seems, however, that a competing effect has dominated the situation since 1940. This is the reduced transparency of the atmosphere to incoming light as a result of urban air pollution (smoke, aerosols), agricultural air pollution (dust), and volcanic ash. This screening phenomenon is said to be responsible for the present world cooling trend—a total of about .2°C in the world mean surface temperature over the past quarter century. This number seems small until it is realized that a decrease of only 4°C would probably be sufficient to start another ice age. Moreover, other effects besides simple screening by air pollution threaten to move us in the same direction. In particular, a mere one percent increase in low cloud cover would decrease the surface temperature by .8°C. We may be in the process of providing just such a cloud increase, and more, by adding man-made condensation nuclei to the atmosphere in the form of jet exhausts and other suitable pollutants. A final push in the cooling direction comes from man-made changes in the direct reflectivity of the earth’s surface (albedo) through urbanization, deforestation, and the enlargement of deserts.

    The effects of a new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large human populations scarcely need elaboration here. Even more dramatic results are possible, however; for instance, a sudden outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap, induced by added weight, could generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.”

    From: Global ecology : readings toward a rational strategy for man / edited by John P. Holdren, Paul R. Ehrlich

  34. Harry Passfield says:

    Perhaps the next time Holdren holds forth in a TV interview, say, the interviewer will have the nous to ask him: ‘Is this an OSTP opinion, or John Holdren’s personal opinion?’

    He should be done for misuse of tax-payer-funded facilities.

  35. JimS says:

    Propaganda is a beast. There is little one can do about it except let it run around amuck until it gets tired and dies a natural death.

  36. ren says:

    If something has an effect on polar vortex, the sun, because the vortex is situated completely in the stratosphere and depends on the amount and distribution of ozone (temperature gradient in the stratosphere).

  37. Robin says:

    The really fascinating aspect of this duplicitous video is that Digital Promise (the K-12 digital learning push coming from the feds) reports to Holdren’s OSTP and Digital Promise and its associated League of Innovative Schools are all about changing what students believe and value and how (or whether) they think. It ties in perfectly as does this video not only with Holdren’s career work but also with Paul Ehrlich’s, as this explained. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/digital-promise-and-21st-century-skills-as-the-long-sought-rapid-change-of-minds-for-the-future/

    It’s not a personal video if it is designed to be picked up by the K-12 educators and administrators already working with OSTP. Take a look at the link in that post on how practitioners and policy makers should be working together to innovate and tell us again how this is a personal video. To me that video is about transforming and creating culture–a culture that believes in catastrophic AGW.

  38. Chris B says:

    Scott says:
    June 11, 2014 at 6:44 am
    Basically if you can classify a lie as a personal opinion, then its OK…..I did not have … with that woman….
    ——————————–

    Didn’t he also say something like, “it depends on what the definition of “is” is.”?

  39. Kenny says:

    “Remember….If you believe it…then it’s not a lie”……George Castanza

  40. AndyZ says:

    Other than the subject of the film, the most distressing thing about this video is the awful green screening… I would hope my tax dollars could make something slightly more polished for the cost I’m sure we paid.

  41. Resourceguy says:

    The key here is the two-minute length. It should be viewed on the same level as grocery store music and messaging to manipulate the shoppers.

  42. Greg says:

    “Remember….If you believe it…then it’s not a lie”……George Castanza

    If Holdren “believes” there is “growing evidence” he is totally incompetent to hold the position he does and should resign. If he’s does not believe it he is lying and should resign.

    Take your pick.

  43. Pamela Gray says:

    Holdren is a politician. He opened his mouth and spoke words. Therefore I know none of those words were facts. How do I know that anything coming from a politician’s mouth is a nonfact? I looked for a fact in a politician and found none. Instead I found spin, propaganda, opinion, and money, representing the entire components of a politician, which can easily be calculated:

    [(s + p)o]m = politician.
    where s = spin, p = propaganda, o = opinion, and m = money

  44. Dave D says:

    I think all this is missing the point. Follow the money! If he was posting a personal opinion as a private citizen, let’s see who and how this was payed for. This was obviously an official response, paid for by taxpayers, they have painted themselves into a corner. The suit should seek the financials and go for the throat!

  45. The Other Phil says:

    Time for a FOIA, which I bet will confirm that agency money was used for the video.

  46. Nancy C says:

    Could “A growing body of evidence” ~= “a boner of evidence”?

    So if he was really just basically saying he has a boner for the idea, I think that would be more an expression of personal opinion that anything else. Good call OSTP.

    And yeah, glad I could class this discussion up a little.

  47. Jim G says:

    You just can’t make this shit up! Lord, what a sad comment on how low the US political scene and our overall culture/intelligence level has sunk when one realizes that somewhere around 50+or-% of our voting citizens buy this stuff.

  48. Greg says:

    On the question of whether he believes what he is saying look 0:40 onwards:
    “…a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequenctly as global warming continuesANDthe reason is ……”
    note how quickly he cuts in on the false statement. That is a sign that he uncomfortable with what he has just said.

    Just after that he breaks eye contact with the viewer by closing his eyes : 0:46 , another reflex of a lier.

    Immediately after opening he eyes his eyebrows shoot up into a momentary, innocent, wide-eyed “honest guv’ , I’m not lying ” expression.

    This man would not do well on a polygraph test.

  49. ossqss says:

    Next Holdren will be saying that climate change just caused the 3, count them, (3) X class flares in the last 24 hours.

    Leif WUWT? Is that unprecedented?

    From SWPC – http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/index.html

    2014-06-11 10:56 UTC Region 2087 picks back up

    After producing a pair of R3 (Strong) Radio Blackouts in quick succession yesterday morning (10/1142 and 10/1252 UTC), active Region 2087 produced yet another R3 event today at 11/0906 UTC. Impacts from this activity were short lived and affected HF communications for the daylit side of Earth at the time of the flare. Continuing chances for more events R3 or greater events exists. Unlike yesterday, a Coronal Mass Ejection (CME) is not believed to be associated with this latest impulsive event. A CME assoicated with the activity yesterday morning has been observed moving at a flank from Earth and a glancing blow to Earth from this event is expected on June 13. An outside chance of at most G1 (Minor) Geomagnetic storms remains in the forecast.

  50. Bill Hutto says:

    Kevin Trudeau gave us his personal opinion. Look where he is.

  51. Oldseadog says:

    TomJ:
    Obama reads newspapers

  52. Oldseadog says:

    Dang, that should have a ? after it.

  53. Pamela Gray says:

    To be serious, Holdren speaks of the decrease in the temperature differential between the upper and mid latitudes being caused by anthropogenic global warming. What he and many other opinionated folks from both the CO2 and solar crowd always fail to reject is the null hypothesis: There are natural processes on Earth that also produce an extremely loopy [polar] vortex. If one were to look at each of these extreme cold events, those natural processes were indeed in place. Since both the natural intrinsic trigger and increased CO2 were in place at the time of this extreme weather event, you cannot reject the null hypothesis. Period. End of the debate. And this guy is a scientist? You are kidding me. He makes a type 1 error in front of God and everybody.

  54. Pamela Gray says:

    oops: polar vortex, not volar vortex. I made a spelling error in from of God and everybody. Dang.

  55. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    There is a growing body of evidence this Administration does not select people based on competency and technical proficiency.

  56. Resourceguy says:

    Holdren has turned that office into the equivalent of a side parlor of freakish delights at the circus.

  57. romue says:

    He is right, because he does not mix up climate and weather. Despite the unusual cold weather we´ve had the last 17 years, the climate still continued to heat up. You´ll sizzle, once this cold whether spell stops.

  58. ATheoK says:

    OSTP director’s personal opinion; Take One.
    Hi!
    I’m a, ah, um (who has my cue cards!?)
    Oh, there, I see now.
    I’m a, John, ahh, Holding, no, Holdren.
    I’m the current director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. (Did I get that right? OK, we’ll fix it the next take.)
    Now I represent the Office of Science and Technology Policy, but I’m going to tell you my personal infallible opinions. My opinions are science based and I do not lie to you. (you ignorant idiots.) So you will all love our ever loving tyrant in office and we’re going to degrade your education plus tax you into serfdom.

    What we have going on is the magic of the Polar Vortex; (like that? I got the Polar name idea from that Tom Hanks Santa belief movie)…

    /sarc (necessary when doing Holdren imitations)

  59. Pieter F. says:

    We may get round two of this. The DMI High Arctic mean is running behind again this year. This week is when the mean High Arctic temps typically rise above freezing, but this year, as in last, the mean temp is so far below freezing that the start of the serious summer melt will be delayed. If a colder than typical summer in the High Arctic leads to a polar vortex kind of cold winter in the east, then we may have a repeat of last year. In the entire DMI data set (going back to 1958), this year and last have been the lowest for this calendar date and have led (will lead) to the latest starts of the above-freezing Arctic summer in the data set.

  60. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From romue on June 11, 2014 at 8:08 am:

    Despite the unusual cold weather we´ve had the last 17 years, the climate still continued to heat up.

    Ah yes, global warming has been stopped statistically for nearly eighteen years, we are seeing a possible cooling trend taking hold, yet the government says the climate is still warming, the global warming goes on.

    This is like how the government will say my savings have generated profit they want to tax, but due to skyrocketing costs from their policies they claim are really the markets’ fault, my savings will buy much less so my net effective wealth has dropped considerably. I was made poorer and now the government will take some of my new riches.

    How can we trust government to do climate math when they can’t hack simple economic math?

  61. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Resourceguy said on June 11, 2014 at 8:07 am:

    Holdren has turned that office into the equivalent of a side parlor of freakish delights at the circus.

    Freakish delights? You make it sound like he could be recording pr0n videos for a small select audience.

    Oh wait, he did. Climate pr0n.

  62. leon0112 says:

    Holdren is anti-science.

  63. herkimer says:

    The pattern of colder annual weather in United States has been happening for 16 years.The trend of Winter temperatures in United States has already been declining since 1998 or 17 years at -1.79F/decade

    This pattern has very little to do with global warming as the global temperatures have paused now for 17 years . Polar vortex dips south are periodic isolated events and not due to global warming

    Annual Contiguous l US temperatures have been declining at (-0.36 F/DECADE) since 1998. This is happening in 7 of the 9 climate regions in United States. Only the Northeast and the West both of which receive the moderating effect of the oceans had slight warming trend of 0.2 and0.3 F/decade respectively

    8 months of the year are declining, 1 month is flat, and 3 months are rising

    WINTER AND FALL have DECLINING TEMPERATURES
    SPRING AND SUMMER have RISING TEMPERATURES [Spring is almost declining with 2 months out of three declining and even MARCH has been declining the last few years. March temperature has dropped a full 10 degrees F since 2012

    What Holdren needs to come to grip with is why the Administration is predicting rising temperatures and heat waves but the observable temperatures are dropping . Their false science is now for everyone to see.

  64. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Pamela Gray said on June 11, 2014 at 8:00 am:

    oops: polar vortex, not volar vortex. I made a spelling error in from of God and everybody. Dang.

    Be glad you didn’t go full Freudian and type “vulvar vortex”.

  65. John F. Hultquist says:

    2 thoughts:
    a. I’m from the government and I’m here to help.
    b. They wonder why we don’t trust them.
    —————————————————–

    Pamela seems to be hitting the hard cider again –“in from of God”

    [... and you have never mis-typed a letter? .mod]

  66. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From John F. Hultquist on June 11, 2014 at 8:58 am:

    Pamela seems to be hitting the hard cider again –“in from of God”

    I’d sooner bet on age-related vanity, doesn’t want to admit she now needs reading glasses to see the computer screen, or that she already needs stronger ones.

    [This web site is no longer responsible for the sudden death by venison-eating redheads of any short-lived members of the former kadaka species. .mod]

  67. Tom J says:

    Pamela Gray
    June 11, 2014 at 8:00 am
    ‘oops: polar vortex, not volar vortex. I made a spelling error in from of God and everybody. Dang.’

    Hate to say it Ms. Gray but you just made another one. I’m an atheist but I’m not going to argue about a Creator’s existence except to say that if there is one it’s unlikely to be offended by any spelling errors such a delightful person may make in “from” of him. Although the Creator will probably sentence spellcheck to eternal damnation.

    [The mods point out that a large omnipotent being would not have a "from" or "to" side for a red-hair lass to stand "in from of" 8<) .mod]

  68. Robertvd says:

    It is not who is wrong or who is right it is who has the most power. History is always written by the winner and the loser therefore is always the bad guy.

  69. Tom J says:

    [The mods point out that a large omnipotent being would not have a "from" or "to" side for a red-hair lass to stand "in from of" 8<) .mod]

    The secrets of the world reside within this website.

  70. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Tom J on June 11, 2014 at 9:21 am:

    I’m an atheist but I’m not going to argue about a Creator’s existence except to say…

    Amazing how they like work that into where they don’t have to mention it. The barely-concealed self-righteous pomposity is mutely astounding.

    I was a smoker, so I know you should stop, I just threw away the pack and quit, and so can you.

    Well I was a drug addict too, and I don’t care if Colorado legalized it, it’s a horrible life. You’ll know it too when you wake up and all the Cheetos bags are empty.

    Now I’m an atheist, I’m convinced believers are weak-minded simpletons who reject the truth of science, but I’m not here to argue you out of being a moron.

    Oh trust me, I know what it’s like to know exactly what you’re doing, to have absolute certainty in the perfect morality of your principles. I was a Democrat. I got better.

  71. Tom J says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel)
    June 11, 2014 at 10:23 am

    I used to be a smoker too!

  72. more soylent green! says:

    Kevin Trudeau was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison for making false claims about his diet books. (http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/17/justice/illinois-pitch-man/)

    How are any of these charlatans like Holdren immune to prosecution?

  73. ren says:

    Pamela Gray
    Where do you see mixing of the troposphere and the stratosphere?
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2014.gif
    Polar vortex starts at a height above 200 hPa.

  74. ATheoK says:

    “…Oh trust me, I know what it’s like to know exactly what you’re doing, to have absolute certainty in the perfect morality of your principles. I was a Democrat. I got better.”

    Wasn’t that before the peanut butter incident?
    (With apologies to ‘Josh Astin’ in his role as ‘Buddy Ryan’ on ‘Night Court’)

  75. ren says:

    Observational evidence discussed at the workshop
    included:
    • Arctic warming faster than the Northern
    Hemisphere
    • Decrease in the temperature gradient between the
    Arctic and the mid-latitudes
    • Slowing of upper-level zonal winds (west-to-east
    winds)
    • Upper-level flow becoming more meridional
    (north-south)
    • Increase in the amplitude of large-scale waves (in
    the jet stream)
    • Increase in blocking events (stagnant weather
    episodes)
    • Large-scale waves (jet stream) progress more
    slowly eastward
    • Increase in extreme events
    • Weakening of the polar vortex (the circle of winds
    in the polar region)
    http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Arctic-Linkages-Highlights-final.pdf

  76. John F. Hultquist says:

    [... and you have never mis-typed a letter? .mod]

    heavenf Know!

  77. Pamela Gray says:

    ren, in case you needed more information on how the semi-permanent Arctic pressure systems affect northern hemisphere climate:

    The Arctic Oscillation during the cold season is going negative…like it did in the past:
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/JFM_season_ao_index.shtml

    So what is the weather like when the oscillation is in negative territory during the winter, causing a loopy Jet Stream:

    https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/weather_climate_patterns.html

    And this is not known by Holdren????? It took me 2 seconds to get this information (tho I already knew it but I wanted to give you the links).

    Cue Chicken Little

  78. Wally says:

    Congress established the Office of Science and Technology Policy in 1976 with a broad mandate to advise the President and others within the Executive Office of the President on the effects of science and technology on domestic and international affairs. The 1976 Act also authorizes OSTP to lead interagency efforts to develop and implement sound science and technology policies and budgets, and to work with the private sector, state and local governments, the science and higher education communities, and other nations toward this end.

    OSTP’s Mission
    The mission of the Office of Science and Technology Policy is threefold; first, to provide the President and his senior staff with accurate, relevant, and timely scientific and technical advice on all matters of consequence; second, to ensure that the policies of the Executive Branch are informed by sound science; and third, to ensure that the scientific and technical work of the Executive Branch is properly coordinated so as to provide the greatest benefit to society.

    Strategic Goals and Objectives
    Ensure that Federal investments in science and technology are making the greatest possible contribution to economic prosperity, public health, environmental quality, and national security
    Energize and nurture the processes by which government programs in science and technology are resourced, evaluated, and coordinated
    Sustain the core professional and scientific relationships with government officials, academics, and industry representatives that are required to understand the depth and breadth of the Nation’s scientific and technical enterprise, evaluate scientific advances, and identify potential policy proposals
    Generate a core workforce of world-class expertise capable of providing policy-relevant advice, analysis, and judgment for the President and his senior staff regarding the scientific and technical aspects of the major policies, plans, and programs of the Federal government

  79. Kevin Kilty says:

    My eyes are playin’ tricks on me. Holdren is a dead ringer for Col. Sanders.

  80. rogerknights says:

    Tom J says:
    June 11, 2014 at 6:22 am

    “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US.”
    – Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

    Time to declare war on EastAsia, Michael?

  81. Mike McMillan says:

    Unfortunately the highest IQ in this Administration was the Housing Secretary.

    And he just left.

  82. David G says:

    Being an acolyte of Agenda 21 creator Maurice Strong and a lifelong crackpot, should have made him a complete failure muttering on a park bench, intead he’s the Idiot in Chief’s Science Czar!

  83. Joel O'Bryan says:

    The Left’s new justification for using such lies as “a growing body of evidence” is that they are throw-away lines for spin. They used that term last week after Susan Rice and Jay Carney claimed that despite Sgt Bergdahl’s obvious desertion from his unit in a combat area, he “served with honor and distinction.” (Their words). Now the Left supporters just claim this term is a throw-away line, and everyone realizes it is merely spin, meaningless fluff.

    So the “growing body of evidence” claim by Holdren is a throw-away line. Meaningless fluff.
    My contention is that John Holdren and the OSTP now engages in meaningless fluff for a “science policy ” based on nothing more than fiction and contrived peer-reviews. We saw that in vivid clarity with the National Climate Assessment, a fluff-based spin to enable more Executive power grabs via environmental regulations.

    Also on the issue of the Holdren lie of “Polar Vortex is caused by human-caused increasing CO2 via a warming Arctic”, he jumped on a climate science dissertation by Jennifer Francis that made that claim. Even Trenberth voiced disagreement with the dissertation’s supposed claims. Science magazine highlighted the kerfluffle here:
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6181/250.summary
    (paywalled)

  84. Jimbo says:

    In that video, Holdren claimed that a “growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues.” In short, global warming was responsible for colder winters.

    So what did the ‘gold standard’ of Climastrology say?

    IPCC – AR4
    Assessment of projected climate change for North America:
    All of North America is very likely to warm during this century, and the annual mean warming is likely to exceed the global mean warming in most areas. In northern regions, warming is likely to be largest in winter, and in the southwest USA largest in summer. The lowest winter temperatures are likely to increase more than the average winter temperature in northern North America, and the highest summer temperatures are likely to increase more than the average summer temperature in the southwest USA.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch11s11-5.html

    There have been many predictions / projections / scenarios for WARMER WINTERS for the rest of this century. Now Holdren ‘the mad’ says nooooooooo, expect colder winters! What a jackass!

    Holdren once thought about sterilizing people via drinking water. He was of the view in the 1970s that we were on the precipice of a new ice age due to pollution. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

  85. Jimbo says:

    Let us assume that Holdren’s fairy tale is in fact correct. HAS HE CORRECTED THE IPCC???? Who should we believe? What if observations show the IPCC to be wrong and Holdren to be correct? How must the world act? What if the IPCC is correct? What does the SPM mean if Holdren is correct? Is the IPCC a waste of time afterall?

    HEADS WE WIN, TAILS YOU LOSE. This is NOT science.

  86. Jimbo says:

    In that video, Holdren claimed that a “growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold…..

    Someone in the right place needs to ask Holdren just one question: WHERE IS THE GROWING BODY OF EVIDENCE? Citations please. And it needs to be growing too.

  87. Jimbo says:

    John Holdren is a chameleon like creature. Am I allowed to LOL?

    John Holdren in 1971: “New ice age” likely
    “This number seems small until it is realized that a decrease of only 4°C would probably be sufficient to start another ice age. Moreover, other effects besides simple screening by air pollution threaten to move us in the same direction. In particular, a mere one percent increase in low cloud cover would decrease the surface temperature by .8°C. We may be in the process of providing just such a cloud increase, and more, by adding man-made condensation nuclei to the atmosphere in the form of jet exhausts and other suitable pollutants. A final push in the cooling direction comes from man-made changes in the direct reflectivity of the earth’s surface (albedo) through urbanization, deforestation, and the enlargement of deserts.

    The effects of a new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large human populations scarcely need elaboration here. Even more dramatic results are possible, however; for instance, a sudden outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap, induced by added weight, could generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.”
    http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=873

    Why should I listen to a word that Dr. John Holdren has to say? His record of prediction is terrible. World population was in 1969 was around 3.7 billion. Today it stands at just over 7 billion and rising.

    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.”
    [Population and Panaceas A Technological Perspective]
    http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1294858?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103744199291
    http://tinyurl.com/kgbopfj

    It looks like “all the technology man can bring to bear” DID “fend off the misery to come” John Holdren does not know what he is talking about. The US government needs to fire this man ASAP. Much is at stake, like being lead in the wrong direction. He is a demonstrated failure. Why does the US employ and listen to failures??? Why?

  88. herkimer says:

    JIMBO
    When it comes to predicting colder winters in the future for US, I agree with Holdren . But I strongly disagree with his logic that the cause will be global warming . The cooling of winters has been happening already for 17 years in US, CANADA, EUROPE and the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE and will continue as the Northern HEMISPHERE oceans cool due to changing deep ocean currents and more upwelling of colder water due to stronger MOC . AMO has gone negative and will contribute further to this cooling in the future . The negative PDO pattern that is associated with cooler weather in North America will likely return to the negative state once the projected ElNino is over by mid 2015 .Global warming has nothing to with the colder winters as Holdren claims as Northern Hemisphere winters have been cooling when there has been no global warming for 17 years now. I posted earlier on this track evidence of cooling winters in US. I have no use for IPCC winter forecasts as their forecasts have been consistently wrong.

  89. Eamon Butler says:

    Behind this piss poor response, is an admission of guilt. They’ve been found out and now trying to back pedal out of their attempt to deceive the public at large.
    There was no statement made at the time that this was purely Holdren’s personal opinion, and not officially endorsed. There should be an immediate Clarification together with a full retraction of his nonsense. Prosecutions should follow.
    I won’t hold my Co2 laden breath.

    Eamon.

  90. Jimbo says:

    FAILURE.
    In 1980 Dr. Holdren along with Paul R. Ehrlich made a bet with Julian Simon called the ‘Simon–Ehrlich wager’. To cut a long story short Holdren and Ehrlich LOST when the price of metals had decreased by 1990. If I were a betting man I would bet AGAINST any alarmism that comes out of Holdren’s lips.
    http://www.stanford.edu/group/CCB/Pubs/Ecofablesdocs/thebet.htm

    Holdren is the same chap who considered sterilizing people via their drinking water back in the 1970s. What is going on?????

  91. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Jimbo in June 11, 2014 at 4:22 pm:

    Someone in the right place needs to ask Holdren just one question: WHERE IS THE GROWING BODY OF EVIDENCE? Citations please. And it needs to be growing too.

    Oh come on, it’s clearly there in practically any paper that’s even tangentially related to the environment:

    We expect this trend to increase as a detriment due to the indisputable fact of climate change. This will make puppies die.

    On a bright note, they normally omit the last line due to it being excessive or they preferring cats instead.

  92. ren says:

    Pamela Gray
    “The National Research Council held a workshop in September 2013 to review the connections between Arctic warming and mid-latitude weather patterns, to discuss gaps in understanding, and to explore future research needs. Presenters and participants at the workshop ( see list of participants ) included many leading researchers in this realm with a diverse array of perspectives. Several hypotheses for how Arctic warming may be influencing mid-latitude weather patterns have been proposed. For example, Arctic amplified warming could lead to a weakened jet stream, resulting in more persistent weather patterns in the mid-latitudes. These linkages are the subject of active research. Many workshop participants noted that research on the Arctic influence on mid-latitude weather is still young, making it difficult to draw conclusions regarding the existence of such linkages or their mechanisms.”

  93. RACookPE1978 says:

    ren says:
    June 11, 2014 at 10:57 pm (talking to ) Pamela Gray

    “The National Research Council held a workshop in September 2013 to review the connections between Arctic warming and mid-latitude weather patterns, to discuss gaps in understanding, and to explore future research needs. Presenters and participants at the workshop … noted that research on the Arctic influence on mid-latitude weather is still young, making it difficult to draw conclusions regarding the existence of such linkages or their mechanisms.”

    So, the “scientific consensus” is “We Do Not Know” about links between Arctic warming and Arctic cooling (Alaska is getting colder) and the mid-latitude weather ….. But Holdren claims HE knows!

  94. Boris_Badenoff (@Boris_Badenoff) says:

    In fairness, “a big flop for this White House” is pretty much the status quo.

  95. Ulric Lyons says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    “So what is the weather like when the oscillation is in negative territory during the winter, causing a loopy Jet Stream:”

    The reverse of what the IPCC models say that increased GHG forcing will do to the AO:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html

  96. Pamela Gray says:

    ren, the affects on mid latitude weather are known, so I don’t know what these participants were going on about. No need for CO2 to be part of the discussion, besides there is no plausible CO2 driven mechanism with enough energy to affect such a large semi-permanent pressure system.

    I remember when the scare was that human warming was causing a positive AO and we were all going to die because the oceans were going to boil out from under us. Now they are apparently trying to insinuate that human warming is causing the AO to go negative which causes these loopy cold and hot weather systems.

    Idiots, every last one of them. Just idiots.

  97. Pamela Gray says:

    The reason for the loopy jet stream when the AO is negative is known. The mechanism between the two entities is well grounded in physics. What is not completely figured out is what makes the JanFebMar AO metric demonstrate the beginnings of what looks like an oscillating pattern. Teleconnections with some of our ENSO metrics are showing up. The chicken/egg issue as in which drives the other is a current discussion. But as far as the connection between the AO and the behavior of the Jet Stream, that one has been put to bed.

  98. Pamela Gray says:

    Here ya go. Researchers were saying the positive AO could be linked to AGW. The models said so. Holdren and all the AGW idiots are grasping for straws and hoping the sheeple will eat them straws.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999GL900317/pdf

  99. Ulric Lyons says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    “No need for CO2 to be part of the discussion, besides there is no plausible CO2 driven mechanism with enough energy to affect such a large semi-permanent pressure system.”

    Especially considering the short time scales in which the AO changes. But there’s nothing internal to the system that will vary it at such scales and amplitudes either.

  100. Joseph Bastardi says:

    Holdren was all concerned about the ice age in the 1970s. So how does this kind of warmth in the 1970s in the polar area , for instance 1976 which had a higher peak than this year, mean an ice age then, but now it mens co2. I am convinced guys like Holdren are so delusional or arrogant, that they believe because they say something it means its right. How can he have not gone back to the 1970s and looked at how warm the arctic was off the DMI site, before trying to pull this?. Its charitably very sloppy, certainly not worthy of somewhat with a PHD and objectively, probably because he simply thinks he will not be called out except by people who are looking, and are very small in number compared to those willing to follow along with him because of his position. Its simply stunning.

    Joe D Aleo has shown in his writings the reasons for the warming arctic and blocking from time to time, including the linkage to the low AP index. There are various natural causes for this, any one of them by itself far outweighing any calculatable measurement from co2, yet alone the entire natural forcing all together. As I said, such comments show that the person either knows the facts and simply is deceptive, or doesn’t know and is ignorant. But given the free pass many of these people have been given, to them they probably think they wont be called on it and proceed without any regard for reality.

    It seems that from his youth through now, the president on many things has surrounded himself with people with a very different take on reality, so Holdrens position can be no surprise

  101. Mike Maguire says:

    To go with Pamela:

    At this link, you can get weather maps going back to 1948. For the last 5 months(since Holdren came out with his damage control video), I’ve been using the Winter of 1976/77 as an example of 1970’s type extreme cold, when we were being effected by a natural cycle, similar to the effects of recently cold US Winters with extreme -AO’s.

    Just put in a starting date of 1976 and month of 11(Nov) if you want to view the entire cold season.
    Leave the end date along(unless you want a loop).
    Advance by hitting the + button above the day and you will go forward by 24 hours each time.

    Focus on the top right map.
    http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/ncepreanal/

    Most impressive is the extreme southerly location of the Polar Vortex in late-Dec, then mid-Jan, then again in late-Jan. There are other big cold outbreaks within the overall pattern that WInter as well as other Winters of the 1970’s that featured this kind of pattern.

    Not coincidentally, California had a severe drought in the Winter of 76/77.

    I would prefer Holdren’s video get as much circulation as possible. People can believe global warming can cause alot of things(even when it isn’t) but when the forecast had been for milder and milder Winters that suddenly feature the opposite(2009/10 was very cold also) then, the position for greenhouse gas warming suddenly morphs into extreme cold in Winter becoming more likely.

    At the same time, people are paying the highest heating bills of their lives, then finding out that Obama is shutting down coal generation of power/electricity(which is used for residential heating and cooling)
    To me, this video seems to be a major strategic blunder, from getting carried away with the bs, into a realm that causes people to wonder how greenhouse gas warming will now cause an increase in extreme cold.

    I understand the theory but that’s not the point. Most people won’t. Telling people that greenhouse gas warming will increase extreme cold in the WInter is like warning somebody to put on extra sunblock in a thunderstorm.

  102. Hot under the collar says:

    When they say “a growing body of evidence” and the data is not there, instead of checks on the data quality I fear more may be revealed if the checks were ‘from the neck up’. :)

    On the same ‘mental health’ theme when they were talking about the ‘Bi-Polar vortex’ – perhaps they were referring to a Bi-Polar condition – worrying about catastrophic global cooling one minute and then catastrophic global warming the next? About as believable as the “not subject to the Data Quality Act as it was personal opinion” excuse.

  103. Pamela Gray says:

    Ulric, sure there is. The capacity of the oceans to store heat and then belch it out can be done over short and long term scales of time. And trust me, ocean action has a great deal of power to teleconnect with large pressure systems and drive them into a longer trend.

  104. Ulric Lyons says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    “Ulric, sure there is. The capacity of the oceans to store heat and then belch it out can be done over short and long term scales of time. And trust me, ocean action has a great deal of power to teleconnect with large pressure systems and drive them into a longer trend.”

    You could end up with a positive feedback loop if it SST driven, e.g. as the Arctic ocean warms, it causes a negative AO which pushes the jet south, which in return pushes more warm water poleward. And yet have no explanation for why it warmed in the first instance.
    So if the AO goes rapidly and deeply negative for two weeks causing strong incursions of Arctic air into the Temperate Zone, and then returns to normal within days, you’re saying SST’s cause that? I don’t think so, if anything the change in atmospheric circulation will lead and drive changes in regional SST’s.
    Yes the regional distribution of warm and cool SST’s effects the jet stream track, but I don’t see how that can control the large excursions that take place with the AO on a daily to weekly basis. They are two separate issues, though the latter does effect the former in driving oceanic modes and SST patterns, which then feeds back to effect regional jet stream meridionality, but not to the AO phase.

  105. Ulric Lyons says:

    Joseph Bastardi says:

    “Joe D Aleo has shown in his writings the reasons for the warming arctic and blocking from time to time, including the linkage to the low AP index.”

    Exactly, it takes a drop in solar forcing for the AO to go negative. CO2 forcing doesn’t drop.

  106. Keramadohal says:

    Could you please add the links to the studies?

Comments are closed.