OSTP rules Holdren’s video released by the White House was “personal opinion” and therefore not subject to Data Quality Act.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Coincidentally, the NAS just today announced availability (free) of its report on how the Arctic affects Mid-latitude weather
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18727&utm_medium=etmail&utm_source=The%20National%20Academies%20Press&utm_campaign=Final+Book+2014.06.11+-+Permafrost+and+Arctic+Warming&utm_content=&utm_term=
Wasn’t that before the peanut butter incident?
(With apologies to ‘Josh Astin’ in his role as ‘Buddy Ryan’ on ‘Night Court’)
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
[… and you have never mis-typed a letter? .mod]
heavenf Know!
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
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
My eyes are playin’ tricks on me. Holdren is a dead ringer for Col. Sanders.
Time to declare war on EastAsia, Michael?
Unfortunately the highest IQ in this Administration was the Housing Secretary.
And he just left.
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!
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)
So what did the ‘gold standard’ of Climastrology say?
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.
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.
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.
John Holdren is a chameleon like creature. Am I allowed to LOL?
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
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?
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.
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.
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?????
From Jimbo in June 11, 2014 at 4:22 pm:
Oh come on, it’s clearly there in practically any paper that’s even tangentially related to the environment:
On a bright note, they normally omit the last line due to it being excessive or they preferring cats instead.
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.”
ren says:
June 11, 2014 at 10:57 pm (talking to ) Pamela Gray
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!
In fairness, “a big flop for this White House” is pretty much the status quo.
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
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.
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.