John Holdren’s Bi-Polar Vortex, Part II – appeal filed

(part 1 is here)

By Sam Kazman, CEI

Back on June 6th, OSTP (the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy) officially declined to reexamine its highly-publicized January explanation for the extremely cold winter.  According to that video, The Polar Vortex Explained In 2 Minutes, the likely culprit was global warming; this was supposedly demonstrated, in Director John Holdren’s words, by “a growing body of evidence”.

In a Data Quality correction petition that we filed with OSTP in April (since rejected), we pointed out that the body of evidence supporting Holdren was in fact shrinking, not growing.

(In fact, it shrank even more earlier this week, when yet another contrary study came out.)  But OSTP ducked the issue, claiming that its Director had only been expressing his “personal opinion”, and that therefore the Data Quality Act didn’t apply.

Note that the video is posted on the White House youtube channel and has been touted by other OSTP staff.  OSTP never corrected any of the many reporters who interpreted it as being the White House line.  If Holdren’s mere “personal opinion” was dressed up in this much official garb, then how much more formality would have accompanied an “official” statement?  Would herald angels have burst into song?

So today we filed an appeal with OSTP of its decision.  It’s reprinted below, but here’s the gist of it:

“OSTP’s rationale is sheer nonsense, concocted in order to escape its legal responsibilities for highly questionable scientific assertions that produced a huge number of self-aggrandizing headlines.  Moreover, even if its rationale is correct, OSTP still has a responsibility to prominently label the statements at issue as personal opinions, so that neither the media nor viewers of its web site continue to mistake them as official agency positions.”

That’s right, OSTP.  If you’re serious about this being your Director’s personal opinion, then put a fat red rubber-stamped disclaimer saying that on the video.  Better yet, take the video off your website before some government auditor asks why agency resources are being used to promote personal opinions.

You’ve got wonder whether global warming is affecting these people’s judgment.

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

Here is the appeal:

CEI’s OSTP Information Correction Appeal 6 19 14 (PDF)

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

35 Responses to John Holdren’s Bi-Polar Vortex, Part II – appeal filed

  1. Mark Bofill says:

    Better yet, take the video off your website before some government auditor asks why agency resources are being used to promote personal opinions.

    I don’t see how anyone can call that unreasonable.

  2. Steve Keohane says:

    You’ve got wonder whether global warming is affecting these people’s judgment.
    Nope, typical SNAFU.

  3. John F. Hultquist says:

    You’ve got wonder whether global warming is affecting these people’s judgment.

    The chain of causation is from MauriceStrong/AGore to “the team” and eventually to the president who seems woefully inadequate to carry out the duties he so badly wanted. “These people” you reference have so bought into the persona of the great leader that they no longer base actions on science, reason, common sense, or The Constitution.

  4. Shano says:

    Mark Bofill,
    The “Chicago Way” is a lot of things but reasonable ain’t one.

  5. Mike Maguire says:

    I have instead, used this video to illustrate to the non scientists, how far the White House will go to brainwash people with junk science, to convince them that global warming is causing everything, , the science is settled and we should believe everything they say.

    Greenhouse gas warming and everything this source had told us NEVER included extreme cold.
    Then, all of a sudden, when extreme cold hit, greenhouse gas warming all of a sudden was the reason and more of it is expected.

    There haa got to be at least a few million believers with enough objective/skeptical brain cells that thought “wait a second here, I seem to remember hearing that Winters would keep getting warmer and snow would disappear” “How is it now that increasing snow and extreme cold are caused by greenhouse gas warming”c

    If somebody has trust in you, then catches you in a lie or they suspect you’re deceiving them, the trust can never be regained.

  6. pokerguy says:

    “…if global warming is affecting these people’s judgment.”

    It continues to get even worse than we thought. though the ‘it” has nothing to do with the climate. The very notion of a call to arms against “climate change” is sheer lunacy, bringing to mind Don Quixote and his phantasmagorical windmills.

  7. Claude Harvey says:

    You people are making a mountain out of a molehill. The White House was simply conveying in good faith and in layman’s language its highly technical, climate science conclusions, to wit:

    “The Aardvarkian Constant is perpendicular to the Polar Vortex. This rare condition is only temporary. Soon, the Equatorial Jimjam will migrate northward, displacing the Polar Vortex so that it and the Aardvarkian Constant are no longer orthogonal. The vector sum of the Aardvarkian Constant, the Polar Vortex and the Equatorial Jimjam will then fry them penguins at the opposite pole like Georgia catfish on a Saturday night. Gotta’ stop all this before it’s beyond the Lipshitz Barrier, which is the only thing standing between humanity and the “tipping point” of its utter destruction.

  8. philjourdan says:

    High fever has that effect (diminishing cranial capacity). The earth does not have a fever – warmists do.

  9. Tom J says:

    I’m speaking strictly off the record here and I would like to be quoted as nothing other than an anonymous source.

    As we know, former Presidential candidate, possible future Presidential candidate, former supporter of the Iraq invasion whilst a former Senator, former non supporter of the Iraqi invasion whilst a former Senator, and now Secretary of State, John Kerry, replacing former Presidential candidate, likely future Presidential candidate, former supporter of the Iraq invasion whilst a former Senator, and former Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, has traveled throughout the world informing the world that whereas the US will no longer kick anybody else’s butt, but (I know that’s a little confusing) will lead from behind except where it comes to Climate Change where the US will lead from the front and kick our own butt.

    Anyway, this well-heeled, “ready for duty” statesman has just been sent to Iraq to forge (that is waaay to strong a word) a diplomatic solution. Now, as anyone who was foolish enough, and unfortunate enough, to listen to much of the ISIS propaganda video knows, these are people, within spitting distance of Baghdad, for whom their negotiating strategy is to determine how many additional bullets to pump into you after you’re already deceased.

    Now, nobody takes us seriously after Obama’s red line remarks. Or, on one whole heckuvalot of other things. And, we don’t have diddly squat in the way of a troop presence in Iraq. But, thankfully, however, John Kerry has a veritable Ace card to play in negotiating a settlement between Baghdad and the ISIS. Yep: it’s the threat of climate change.

    Now, do you wanna take that ace card away from Kerry by questioning his boss’s science advisor’s claims?

  10. earwig42 says:

    Press Release from: The Office of Climate Reality
    Situated in the recently vacated Environmental Protection Agency
    1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
    Washington, DC 20460The Museum of Climate Agnotology

    The Museum of Climate Agnotology, which is in the former U.S. Global Change Research Program Offices 1717 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 250 has added the video “The Polar Vortex Explained In 2 Minutes” from 2014 to its online collection, It was a risible attempt by then EPA director ( now disgraced ) John Holdren to deflect the growing evidence of the Climate Hoax.

    Our growing growing list of online videos regarding the history of the Great Climate Hoax contains over 1700 videos showing the rise and fall of the climate gravy train that so damaged 2 generations of scientific research. Videos from True Believers such as Dana Nutticello, Bill Lye, and James Hansen as well as Gravy Train Riders such as Michel Mann, Al Gore, and many many more.

    Suggestions for additional exhibits, videos, contests, are welcomed.

  11. Billy Liar says:

    The appeal is a nice piece of work. Will OSTP dig themselves an even bigger hole?

  12. more soylent green! says:

    Perception is reality. Facts are opinions. Whomever can repeat the message the firstest, the fastest and the loudest is the winner. Big lies trump little truths.

  13. mpcraig says:

    Here’s science that says the exact opposite: “Climate Change: Arctic Amplification Phenomenon Leads To Fewer Cold Weather Extremes” http://www.science20.com/news_articles/climate_change_arctic_amplification_phenomenon_leads_to_fewer_cold_weather_extremes-138564

    By the way, four years ago, NASA blamed the cold winter on the “Arctic Oscillation.” http://climate.nasa.gov/news/270

    So which is it? Polar vortex? Arctic oscillation? Or fewer cold weather extremes in mid to high latitudes? I’m going with “don’t know”.

  14. Resourceguy says:

    Are we supposed to be thankful Holdren was not in charge of the VA or foreign policy? It does show how little they value the OSTP to put a hack there.

  15. John in L du B says:

    Strangely, Claude Harvey’s explanation made more sense to me than Holdren’s.

  16. Keith says:

    Claude Harvey for Director of the President’s White House Office for Science and Technology Policy

  17. DD More says:

    Has CEI tried getting Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Esq. of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State on this case, since is has clearly been documented that CAGW is defiantly a religion. Oh wait, I see his Wiki includes – “a prominent leader of the us left in the United States.” so that may not work after all.

    Tom J says: June 20, 2014 at 9:13 am
    Anyway, this well-heeled, “ready for duty” statesman has just been sent to Iraq to forge (that is waaay to strong a word) a diplomatic solution. Now, as anyone who was foolish enough, and unfortunate enough, to listen to much of the ISIS propaganda video knows, these are people, within spitting distance of Baghdad, for whom their negotiating strategy is to determine how many additional bullets to pump into you after you’re already deceased.

    Great comments, but did you see where ‘The Tele’ is reporting – Isis jihadists ‘seize Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons stockpile’
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10910868/Iraq-crisis-Obama-may-launch-air-strikes-without-Congress-amid-calls-for-Maliki-to-go-live.html

    But fear not because –

    State Department officials have told the Wall Street Journal:
    U.S. officials don’t believe the Sunni militants will be able to create a functional chemical weapon from the material. The weapons stockpiled at the Al Muthanna complex are old, contaminated and hard to move, officials said.
    Nonetheless, the capture of the chemical-weapon stockpile by the forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, known as ISIS or ISIL, the militant group that is seizing territory in the country, has grabbed the attention of the U.S.
    “We remain concerned about the seizure of any military site by the ISIL,” Jen Psaki, the State Department spokeswoman, said in a written statement. “We do not believe that the complex contains CW materials of military value and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to safely move the materials.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10910868/Iraq-crisis-Obama-may-launch-air-strikes-without-Congress-amid-calls-for-Maliki-to-go-live.html

    You can now clear be relaxed because it’s old, hard to move and our great leaders believe its not wepons grade. No word if it may be civilian grade. Did anyone else miss the report that they had finally found Saddam’s chemical weapons?

  18. Oldseadog says:

    Claude Harvey:
    Regarding penguins, should that read “South Georgia catfish”?
    (Sorry.)

  19. Lee says:

    What is even scarier is the fact that Gina McCarthy never lets scientific fact get in the way of her opinions. I wonder if the same tactics could be used to make Ms. McCarthy retract some of the many baseless opinions she has been tossing around recently.

  20. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:

    I would have worded that differently. Starting out by accusing the OSTP of promulgating “sheer nonesense” is likely to get the rest of your appeal tossed without even being read. Start out by noting what the OSTP is legally obligated to do. Then point out how either their previous action does not fulfil that obligation, or that their response contains factual errors. All of that will play much better if this goes on to a higher level of review. Something like:

    The vast majority of the public will find it impossible (as do we) to reconcile the manner this report was presented and promoted with the OSTP’s assertion it was merely Dr. Holdren’s “personal opinion”. The public will also find it difficult (as do we) to believe that Dr. Holdren could have been unaware this “personal option” would be taken as an official finding. It seems equally difficult to believe this was not his intention. It is certainly the case that whether intended or not, the presentation has been circulated in the press as an official OSTP finding.

    Since Dr. Holdren’s presentation has become de facto an official finding of the OSTP, regardless if it was originally intended as such, then the OSTP must treat it as one and apply the provisions of the Data Quality Act.

    Steve McIntrye does this sort of thing extremely well.

  21. Doug Proctor says:

    If the video is the Director’s personal opinion, then why is it on an official government site?

  22. 4TimesAYear says:

    Don’t know if anyone else noticed, but Holdren was at odds with the IPCC statement which is, ah, the “polar opposite” view. :) https://www.flickr.com/photos/101666925@N02/12822503164/in/photostream

  23. inMAGICn says:

    Claude Harvey is not qualified to become head of OSTP. In his explanation, he left out the Roche Limit, phlogiston reflexes, and hovering lights over Sarcobatus Flat. These are essential.

  24. inMAGICn says: These are essential.

    Indeed. ;-)

  25. StuartMcL says:

    > If the video is the Director’s personal opinion, then why is it on an official government site?

    Ask Leith, He can explain that it is just the same as Hathaway’s solar predictions which are also, according to Leith, a personal opinion and not NASA’s .

    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

  26. sabretruthtiger says:

    “But OSTP ducked the issue, claiming that its Director had only been expressing his “personal opinion”, and that therefore the Data Quality Act didn’t apply.”

    Wow. There are overwhelming legal grounds to claim that the White House science advisor broadcasting publicly holds the weight of authority and thus is deceptive in not stating that it’s merely his opinion. Not to mention that ‘a growing body of evidence’ is extremely deceptive as it’s untrue.

    oh wait…I forgot the courts are owned by the same people pushing the global warming scam.

  27. Joel O'Bryan says:

    I have long noted that the ethical problems of lying as means to an end has never stopped a Progressive.
    John Holdren and his OSTP is lying because with his boss, he is encouraged to provide justification for the EPA’s abandonment of scientific rationale for its rules on CO2.

  28. Clovis Marcus says:

    While I I can see this had to be pursued and I commend the authors for doing it, I have just done a few searches on this. And I can’t find a single mention outside of sceptic sites and the government sites who publish the complaints and appeals.

    I can make a prediction with a 95% confidence level: OSTP will, in response to the appeal, restate their position and close the matter. That’s how much contempt ‘they’ have for ‘you.’

    Depressing, but that’s reality.

  29. David Chappell says:

    Tom J
    “… to forge (that is waaay to strong a word) a diplomatic solution”

    Not too strong if you use the other meaning of forge (as in to fake) because that’s what’s likely to happen.

  30. Bill Hutto says:

    OSTP’s rationale is sheer nonsense

    Let’s not mince words…

    WOW! Somehow, I don’t think this was written as a format appeal. Not that any appeal is going to make a difference. But I sure laughed out loud when I read that. Very frustrating, I’m sure, when you’re dealing with the Ministry of Truth!

  31. Bill Hutto says:

    That should be formal appeal above.

  32. The definition Guy says:

    Imagine if the AGW theory was instead a theory predicting the stock market. Your broker assures you that as long as co2 rises, your portfolio will grow. The system is infallible. You’re shown impressive charts showing their stocks rising steadily along with the co2. So you commit €200,000 plus €2,000 a month to their strategy. At first the strategy appears to work. After three years your money has grown to €300,000. Then something happens. The stocks stop following the co2. Your investment flatlines. The only growth is the money you add each month. After fees your money actually starts to decline. Alarmed, you call your broker.
    The expert broker scoffs at your naivetė. He reminds you that you were warned there might be long periods of no growth. He explains that the stagnation of your stock prices are the result of the stock market going up and your stocks strengthening.
    97% of the brokers agree. The fund makes money.

    After 18 years of fees and taxes the small profit you made in the beginning is now gone. You turn to the brokerage firm and ask them to explain. They tell you that the past 18 years with no profit means they can up their level of confidence from 90% to 95%. They have a theory that your money is hiding in the ocean, they assure you, the theory us sound. When it emerges it’ll be huge profits, you’ll see.

    Would anyone with half a brain invest with this group? How long do you think the brokers would stay in business?

    Yet the IPCC marches on.

  33. Claude Harvey says:

    Re: inMAGICn says:
    June 20, 2014 at 4:48 pm er

    “Claude Harvey is not qualified to become head of OSTP. In his explanation, he left out the Roche Limit, phlogiston reflexes, and hovering lights over Sarcobatus Flat. These are essential.”

    Oh, ye of little faith. The Aardvarkian Constant is the normalized, levelized and homogenized composite of all those essential elements while employing Fourier transforms to eliminate spurious noise from the Goracle Conglomeration.

    I stand ready to serve.

  34. inMAGICn says:

    Claude Harvey

    I stand ready to support you. I have used the Cambrian regression to analyze your Monophysite calculus and find it satisfactory. You have indeed found the key the Climate Science, in a phrenological context, of course. On to climate change victory!

  35. Claude Harvey says:

    Re: inMAGICn says:
    June 22, 2014 at 6:43 pm

    Tell it like it is, brother! Tell it like it is.

Comments are closed.