Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
In discussing President Obama’s latest boondoggle, the one billion (with a “b) dollar Climate Resilience Plan, The US Under-Assistant Minister of Scientific Silly Walks, John Holdren, wandered way off of the party line. The party line in question, of course, is …
“Although we can’t ascribe any given weather event to climate change, we still insist that blah blah blah …”
Perhaps Holdren’s teleprompter was broken, but anyhow, here’s what he said (emphasis mine):
During a call with reporters on Thursday evening, the assistant to the president on science and technology, John Holdren, said, without any doubt, the severe drought plaguing California and a number of other states across the country is tied to climate change.
Now, that quote was bad enough, since everyone from the IPCC to my cat agrees that
• There is no link between historical post-Little-Ice-Age warming and extreme weather, and
• Droughts are more common in colder times than in warmer times, and
• For the last decade and a half there’s been no statistically significant warming, certainly not enough to cause increased extreme weather.
• We have neither the understanding nor the information necessary to ascribe ANY single weather event to climate change, and we’re a long ways from having either one.
But despite Holdren going way off piste in his comment, it wasn’t truly of the quality needed for a quote of the week. It wasn’t concise enough for an epigram … or for an epitaph, for that matter.
However, just when it all looked hopeless, Holdren rallied, came back and captured the gold by uttering the deathless words that will ring forever in the halls of climate academe:
Weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change.
There you have it, folks, Holdren’s Law of Climate Causation, all you need to know about droughts and such … weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change.
…
… and people wonder why the alarmists are having trouble these days peddling their nostrums? Well, mostly it’s not a communications failure. Mostly, it’s because we’ve been lied to before by these same folks (including Holdren), and Holdren’s current pathetic shilling for the Obamaclimate program is just more of the same.
The issue is not how the science is being communicated, as Judith Curry and many others seem to think.
The issue is that what is being communicated is so obviously not science, but merely poorly framed and scientifically absurd scare tactics, that as in this case, the communication just makes people point and laugh …
Regards to all,
w.
I think the time is long overdue to put into action a suggestion by the great Leo Szilard.
National Science Foundation should pay second-rate scientists NOT to conduct research and NOT to publish articles.
Why doesn’t Obama throw some money into that idea?
Willis writes: “Now, consider … climate doesn’t exist, it’s just the long-term average of the weather.
Since climate is the average of the weather … then how can it cause the weather as Holdren claims?”
******
Come on Willis, I’m on your side, but you have to be more careful. The above is simply sophistry. Also, it seems you got the money quote wrong. Which, since this is called, “quote of the week” is rather key.
You might be hurting more than helping when we add it all up. Let them make the own goals. They’re so good at it.
If all this crappy weather is caused by “warming” two questions:
1) Why does it manifest in WINTER? Surely that should be the period of the most perfect weather
2) Why are all these “unprecedented, chaotic etc” weather events happening in 2013-14? Why didn’t they happen in 2001 when the troposphere was ~0.1C hotter (according to the satellites), or in 1998 when it was nearly 1/2 degree hotter during the el Nino spike? Why aren’t the warmist zombies saying “It’s worse than we thought, but thank Gaia it’s nowhere near as bad as in 1998”?
Nah climate has nothing to do with weather. You just need to elect the right man for the job to drive those warmies catatonic-
‘[Prime Minister] TONY Abbott arrived in the NSW outback town of Bourke today to talk drought — but instead brought more rain with him than the district has seen for two years.
As a thunderstorm pelted down on the shearing shed of 40,000-hectare Jandra station, the Prime Minister promised local farmers his government wanted to do more help them cope with the current drought.
“This is a great Australian sound, rain on a tin roof, but I am very conscious this has been a severe drought; it’s a natural disaster and a lot of people are doing it tough,” said Mr Abbott, who is on a two-day tour of drought-hit western NSW and northwest Queensland.
“The important thing is that the government has a (farm assistance package) response that is intelligent, fair and (fiscally) responsible.
“But there will be better income support, better access to the loans people need and an emphasis on social support that farmers and rural communities need in times like this.”
Jandra station owner Phillip Ridge welcomed Mr Abbott as a rainmaker.
“If I had known what he would bring; I’d have asked him here months ago,” Mr Ridge said, as giant rain puddles, a sea of red mud and rows of bogged cars collected outside.’
(from The Australian)
Willis,
I would alter slightly your conclusion
“The issue is not how the science is being communicated, as Judith Curry and many others seem to think. The issue is [NOT just] what is being communicated”
The issue is that those in power are doing the communicating.
All this “science” is giving us lawyers a good name.
Re: One Quarter Mistaking Orbits
I don’t take polls. I have checked in my social circle, there is a remarked absence of anyone who takes polls.
This is, of course, far from a statistical proof, but I personally do not take polls too seriously (in this context, anyway – as far as political polls instructing officials by how much they will be able to cheat, that’s another matter).
Spadecat says:
February 16, 2014 at 8:40 am
“All this “science” is giving us lawyers a good name.”
Definition of mixed emotions: a bus full of climate scientists going over a cliff with 4 empty seats.
Nope, works better with “lawyers” instead of “climate scientists”.