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.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
hunter

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.

john

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

hunter

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.

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.

Lou

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….

“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.

TomRude

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

Bill Illis

Global Precipitation anomalies over the past year. Almost everywhere is perfectly normal and only very, very small areas have a significant difference from normal.
http://s9.postimg.org/dkzc3bppb/Global_Precip_Normal_365day_figb.gif

Greg

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

Robert in Calgary

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.

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:”

Latitude

I see he’s a member in good standing of the Democrat truth club…..

pokerguy

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

Mark Bofill

Holdren is a political hack masquerading as a scientist.

David L. Hagen

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.

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.

Mkelley

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.
.

rob m.

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

Sweet Old Bob

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 .
[

I blame government education, which teaches kids that “carbon” is bad. Czech President Vaclav Klaus shows where that leads.

Pamela Gray

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?

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.

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.

rob m.

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.

A C Osborn

I just hope this makes some headlines in the MSM somewhere in the world.

Tagerbaek

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

Wondering Aloud

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?

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.

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.

Quinn the Eskimo

Über pwnage.

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

kim

Hah, a three percenter, by Executive Order.
===============

Udar

Why is Holdren calling Roger Pielke Jr, “a University of Colorado political scientist”?

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.

Hot under the collar

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?

@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.

michael hart

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.

Steve from Rockwood

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…

The War on Science by politicians who are members of the Democratic Party in the USA continues unabated.

Louis Hooffstetter

“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!

Henry Galt

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

CRS, DrPH

I saw Holdren speak at the 2010 National Academy of Engineers “Grand Challenges Summit” in Chicago, here’s his powerpoint:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/jph-chicago-04212010.pdf
He is a strong proponent of “climate disruption,” a term we don’t often usually hear. He had a nice business card, that was about it.

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

Another Ian

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.

M. Hastings

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

Mac the Knife

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!

P. Berkin

I hope that this doesn’t lead to an IRS audit (with prejudice) for Dr. Pielke Jr.

David Ball

Huh, the “hippies” are now the “man”.

Berényi Péter

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?

DMA

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.