(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)
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
That should be formal appeal above.
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.
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.
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!
Re: inMAGICn says:
June 22, 2014 at 6:43 pm
Tell it like it is, brother! Tell it like it is.