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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Freak. http://www.examiner.com/article/science-czar-john-p-holdren-s-disturbing-beliefs-about-america-capitalism-and-humanity
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.
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.
Could you please add the links to the studies?