Court Orders Release of White House Climate Documents


Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has won a case against the White House, forcing the release of documents pertaining a climate video created by White House Science Advisor John Holdren. When the content of Holdren’s climate video challenged under the federal Information Quality Act, the White House claimed the video was the “personal opinion” of John Holdren, not an official communication, and therefore not subject to the Act. The newly released emails allegedly cast doubt on this assertion.

On January 8, 2014, the White House posted a controversial video claiming that global warming causes more severe winter cold. Called “The Polar Vortex Explained in 2 Minutes,” it featured the director of the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP), John Holdren, claiming that a “growing body of evidence” showed that the “extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States” at the time was “a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues.”

This claim was questioned by many scientists and commentators. (See, e.g., Jason Samenow, Scientists: Don’t make “extreme cold” centerpiece of global warming argument, Washington Post, Feb. 20, 2014 (linking to objection by five well-known climate scientists in the Feb. 14, 2014 issue of Science magazine); Patrick J. Michaels, Hot Air About Cold Air, Jan. 16, 2014 (former state climatologist of Virginia rejected Holdren’s claim.))

In April 2014, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) sent a request for correction of this statement under the federal Information Quality Act, citing peer-reviewed scientific articles debunking it. In June 2014, OSTP rejected this request, claiming that Holdren’s statement was his “personal opinion,” not the agency’s position, and that it thus did not constitute “information” subject to the Information Quality Act, which excludes “subjective opinions” from its reach.

When OSTP produced the records on March 4, 2016 (they are at this link), they showed inconsistency in OSTP’s position over time. Although OSTP told CEI in June 2014 that Holdren’s claim was just his personal “opinion,” not “information” that is subject to the Information Quality Act (IQA), this was not the position it originally took in its draft response to CEI’s request back in Spring 2014.

Instead, OSTP described Holdren’s claim in these drafts as “information provided by the government [that] meet[s] ‘basic standards of quality, including objectivity, utility, and integrity,” and constituted “communications from the White House about climate science.” (see pages 1 and 5 of each draft). Accordingly, OSTP argued it complied with the IQA’s standards for the quality of official information.

Read more:

The following is the video at the centre of this controversy.

If President Obama and John Holdren genuinely think the evidence supports their position, that Climate Change is a serious threat, why don’t they simply stand by the evidence which they believe supports their case? Why did John Holdren, in my opinion, attempt to hide behind legal technicalities, and do everything in his power to obstruct transparency, when challenged about the defensibility of alarmist statements he made about climate change?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 24, 2016 8:17 pm

Watched the video. HaHaHaHaHaHa.

george e. smith
Reply to  csanborn
March 25, 2016 8:24 am

Hudat in the headline picture ??

Reply to  csanborn
March 25, 2016 9:19 pm

I visited Scary bad.
What is the statute of limitations on the crimes committed by those who wrote this garbage? I am guessing that by the time the wind and solar plants (and the shuttered coal plants) are covered by a hundred feet of snow, those people will be long dead. Sigh.

Reply to  Ken
March 27, 2016 11:38 am

If this was Holdren’s opinion, why was it posted in the official Whitehouse website? Doesn’t that venue itself make it official “information”?

Reply to  csanborn
March 25, 2016 10:16 pm

Many may not know who John Holdren is. He is basically one of the foremost elitist intellectual Malthusian top-down overlord advocates we have ever seen. He was one of the three authors of a recognized ecoscience textbook from the 1970s, “Ecoscience.” This text paints the Malthusian sky-is-falling picture and suggests a range of interventions such as the government deciding who gets to have kids and when, and the government adding birth control to the water supply to control population.
This is so outlandish you have to investigate and read it for yourself. Quotes are abundant on the web. Just google “Holdren” and “ecoscience.” Done. –For starters, you can look at this website:
One of Obama’s initial appointments was to name Holdren “Science Czar.” “Ecoscience” immediately appeared to discredit Obama’s choice, so the text “Ecoscience” immediately jumped in value.
I saw this news, and quickly bought two old copies at $15, and resold them soon after for $115. Thanks, Obama!
So, the actual text is quite expensive now (~$85). But, full text here!…
Holdren had to soft-pedal some of his views in order to get accepted into his position. But a leopard changing his spots – well tell me how often it happens.
Happy Reading!

mike restin
Reply to  csanborn
March 26, 2016 8:18 am

Were government employees required to watch the video?
I wonder?

March 24, 2016 8:19 pm

If President Obama and John Holdren genuinely think the evidence supports their position, that Climate Change is a serious threat, why don’t they simply stand by the evidence which they believe supports their case? Why did John Holdren, in my opinion, attempt to hide behind legal technicalities, and do everything in his power to obstruct transparency, when challenged about the defensibility of alarmist statements he made about climate change?

BobW in NC
Reply to  Tucci78
March 25, 2016 6:35 am

AGW proponents always have, always will “hide.” Not one proponent – not Al Gore, not James Hansen, no one – has ever accepted the request of an AGW “skeptic” to debate the issue. They cannot win and they know it.

Reply to  BobW in NC
March 25, 2016 9:54 am

Hence the modern meme of
(1)trying to identify anybody pointing out the WacKTarD phsyics
(2)trying to identify anybody pointing out the Quack-0 fake mathematics.
Stripping all the compression from atmospheric chemistry mathematics and inserting magic ”add X = hot” bullsh** even STUDENTS of the pseudo-science see and tell people they find appalling.
Nowhere on earth does anyone who believes in and teaches it assemble the opinions of citizen after citizen, simply explaining what field he comes from and why it’s impossible for any of that Green House Gas bullsh** – one single word of it – to be real.
It’s a temperature inversion con. The gases that constitute a parallel mass for radiant emission to lower-energy regimes
at earth frequency: joining the planet in emitting energy to space directly
even if some of that pings back, it all can’t do it and it therefore is cooling by them
And the fakes who thought it can be otherwise despise the scientific community for knowing them and their -practically speaking nearly criminal willful ignorance.
Everytime someone comes in with that mealy-mouthed apologist’s feel, you know it’s one of them. ”They mean well.” ”These are good people.”
People who conscientiously work together to systematically destroy the fabric of functioning scientific dialog aren’t good people they’re scam profiteering. That’s what that is, when a man sets upon scientific reality so clear his SOLE methods MUST be
limiting dialog
altering records
threatening people proceeding in everyday scientific inquiry.
They are a nation among all nations of mathematics cons and physics perpetuum mobim peddlers,
whose inversion of the basic thermodynamics of freezing cold water and air scrubbing a sun warmed rock,
created the international culture of getting math or physics degrees, then simply abandoning even the ruse of teaching real science to use government job printing presses as demands to be given ever more money or they’ll shake down the entire system again. With another round of scientific cleansings and hate generation using government funded, endless printing presses.
The never ending series of charts is designed: to create an industry of parasitic hangers-on, who are always angry they can’t make it change, but look forward for the opportunity to point out how simply scientifically fraudulent
every single word
of green house gas theory is.
Every single word.

BobW in NC
March 25, 2016 at 6:35 am
AGW proponents always have, always will “hide.” Not one proponent – not Al Gore, not James Hansen, no one – has ever accepted the request of an AGW “skeptic” to debate the issue. They cannot win and they know it.

Reply to  BobW in NC
March 25, 2016 10:10 am

BobW in NC
There have been many debates. Keep up. Monckton has been involved in a few.

NW sage
Reply to  Tucci78
March 25, 2016 6:08 pm

Could it POSSIBLY be because he was writing PROPAGANDA while he was disguised as the CHIEF WHITE HOUSE climate scientist? How could this possibly be true? And if true, how could any of us ever trust anything this white house says in the future?

Reply to  NW sage
March 25, 2016 6:37 pm

Chuckle. Now you get it!!

John C
Reply to  NW sage
March 26, 2016 8:12 am

My definition of propaganda….”The lies they tell and the truth that is withheld”. Almost all information from government is propaganda. Main stream media is part of it. Can’t say why so many participate, but it’s obvious it’s happening.

March 24, 2016 8:22 pm

Does this mean if the “information” is found to be not factual they must make an official statement? The false propaganda coming out of this administration, on many subjects not just AGW, is astounding. The American people need to wake up to what their government is becoming.

Mark T
Reply to  markl
March 24, 2016 10:49 pm

Has become.

William Astley
Reply to  Mark T
March 25, 2016 1:35 am

Ditto. There is a reason climate ‘scientists’ block freedom of information requests for the raw data and correspondence which indicates who was involved in the manipulation of data. The climategate emails were only a hint of the shenanigans which continue to present day.
Oh well, well, well, fibs, manipulation, and propaganda has not been called out as the planet had warmed and the cult of CAGW has been able to spin away the 18 year pause of no warming. The idiots have no idea what is going to happen next as they do not have a clue as what causes cyclic climate warming and cooling in the paleo climate record,
A observational hint to solving the puzzle is the fact that the Antarctic ice sheet cooled while the high latitude regions both hemispheres warmed. This phenomenon is called the polar see-saw as the Greenland ice sheet warms and Antarctic ice cools and vice versa. The polar see-saw has happened again and again and again.
The Antarctic ice sheet is isolated from high latitude ocean surface temperature changes by a four season polar vortex. The albedo of Antarctic ice is greater than that of cloud tops so an increase in cloud cover over the Antarctic ice causes slight cooling of the ice sheet.
The fact the highest amount of sea in recorded history occurred recently indicates that the solar mechanism that caused the warming in the last 150 years is reversing.
The following is Svensmark’s paper that explains the phenomenon. As Svensmark notes in his paper ice sheet bore temperature measurement shows there is no delay in the offsetting cooling and warming which rules out ocean current changes from pole to pole as the cause, as there would be a delay of a 1000 years of so, if ocean currents was the cause of the cooling. Other observation that rules out ocean current changes as the cause is the fact that probe data indicates there is no discrete deep ocean current, so there is no discrete global thermal haline converyor.

The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays
Borehole temperatures in the ice sheets spanning the past 6000 years show Antarctica repeatedly warming when Greenland cooled, and vice versa (Fig. 1) [13, 14]. North-south oscillations of greater amplitude associated with Dansgaard-Oeschger events are evident in oxygenisotope data from the Wurm-Wisconsin glaciation[15]. The phenomenon has been called the polar see-saw[15, 16], but that implies a north-south symmetry that is absent. Greenland is better coupled to global temperatures than Antarctica is, and the fulcrum of the temperature swings is near the Antarctic Circle. A more apt term for the effect is the Antarctic climate anomaly.
Attempts to account for it have included the hypothesis of a south-flowing warm ocean current crossing the Equator[17] with a built-in time lag supposedly intended to match paleoclimatic data. That there is no significant delay in the Antarctic climate anomaly is already apparent at the high-frequency end of Fig. (1). While mechanisms involving ocean currents might help to intensify or reverse the effects of climate changes, they are too slow to explain the almost instantaneous operation of the Antarctic climate anomaly.
Figure (2a) also shows that the polar warming effect of clouds is not symmetrical, being most pronounced beyond 75◦S. In the Arctic it does no more than offset the cooling effect, despite the fact that the Arctic is much cloudier than the Antarctic (Fig. (2b)). The main reason for the difference seems to be the exceptionally high albedo of Antarctica in the absence of clouds.

The following is a link to the Gerald Bond’s paper “Persistent Solar influence on the North Atlantic Climate during the Holocene”
Excerpt from the above linked paper:

“A solar influence on climate of the magnitude and consistency implied by our evidence could not have been confined to the North Atlantic. Indeed, previous studies have tied increases in the C14 in tree rings, and hence reduced solar irradiance, to Holocene glacial advances in Scandinavia, expansions of the Holocene Polar Atmosphere circulation in Greenland; and abrupt cooling in the Netherlands about 2700 years ago…Well dated, high resolution measurements of O18 in stalagmite from Oman document five periods of reduced rainfall centered at times of strong solar minima at 6300, 7400, 8300, 9000, and 9500 years ago.”

Davis and Taylor: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”
…We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … …. "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature , 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391),reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….

Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: As this graph indicates the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years.

Reply to  Mark T
March 25, 2016 3:05 am

You wrote:
There is a reason climate ‘scientists’ block freedom of information requests for the raw data and correspondence which indicates who was involved in the manipulation of data. The climategate emails were only a hint of the shenanigans which continue to present day.
I agree wholeheartedly.
The fact that the alarmists refuse to act in an open and honest way as real science demands tells me they know in their hearts that they are selling a very bad piece of propaganda. They know that the facts do not support their delusion.
I wonder what the next generation of scientists will be like. They are being taught that one should never ask penetrating questions that go against the “consensus”. They are being taught that all data needs “adjustment” to follow the politically correct outcome. Do we teach them about Stalin’s USSR so that they will know how to stay out of the modern gulag?

Janice Moore
March 24, 2016 8:24 pm

Thanks for this post, Eric. Good news, indeed.
Why would an Obama administrative official hide?
Well. Hm.
1. He has nothing to hide and he is just a dope who thinks hiding won’t make him look bad.
2. He has something to hide.
He should have fired up his gasoline (no way was that mere kerosene!) – fueled special effects… . All Holdren did was just scuttle away and hide behind the curtain and holler, “I am the great and terrible Oz!”
And funny.

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 24, 2016 9:34 pm

Now why would they do that? Why indeed? Very good advice is to follow the money, but sometimes there is no money to follow.
Case Study:
Some hackers were breaking into a news service organization’s computers and snatching press releases. Nobody at the news service could understand why the effort, as the press releases were all public anyway. It was thought perhaps some college IT brats screwing around.
Why indeed?
Turns out the hackers were after the press releases announcing corporate quarterly earnings reports, grabbing them a few days before their release date. That gave them a few days to front run Wall Street and clean up. All the rest of the mucking about they did was to obscure their real target.
Now, the administration is withholding information which manifestly has no reason to be withheld.
Why indeed?
(I am sure that J. Holdren thinks he is the Great and Terrible Oz, but I do not think it is the answer here.)

Janice Moore
Reply to  TonyL
March 24, 2016 9:55 pm

Then, again (look left… look right)… it could be…. there IS no “information.” (so far as any data to back up their AGW hot=cold claims, I mean). They would rather appear to be bad by “hiding” nothing than completely exposed as the l1ars they are.
TonyL — your humor is SO dry that I am not sure… so I’m going to tell you (just in case): I was making an analogy only up there … ONLY as to being deceptive….
I write because:
1. It appears that you did not understand me (my fault, no doubt, in trying to be funny and make a point at the same time); and
2. It appears from your informing me of some very basic facts that you think I’m kind of stupid and I value your opinion of me, so I wrote to correct that impression …. lol, and likely only confirmed it.
No more clarification. Think I’m stupid. That’s okay 🙂

Reply to  TonyL
March 24, 2016 10:04 pm

I would never insult you. I was building on the point you raised and offering up a point to ponder. I believe that *nothing* this administration does is by accident or oversight.
I do think your description of Holdren as the Wizard of Oz is inspired.

Janice Moore
Reply to  TonyL
March 24, 2016 10:15 pm

Well, ever since I found out that you were a chemistry professor, I have put you on a pedestal (with all the other science giants around here), thus, easily think you think you need to inform non-scientist me (for, most of the time, you scientists do need to!). Written communication is KIND OF CLUNKY sometimes. Thanks — for writing to me at all. And — THANKS 🙂
Bye for now. And always wear goggles in the lab. 😉

Janice Moore
Reply to  TonyL
March 25, 2016 6:44 am

P.S. TonyL: (thought of this after going to bed) Some of my commenting on this thread is directed at:
1. the deception/l1es in the creation of the video; and;
2. some of my commenting is directed at the cover-up….
….say…. that reminds me of something…… something-gate…. heh.

Warren in New Zealand
March 24, 2016 8:27 pm

Well, 2 minutes of my life gone and I feel dumber now than before

Reply to  Warren in New Zealand
March 24, 2016 9:02 pm

No disrespect intended, but this administration has become an expert at making everybody feel dumber about everything so they can consider themselves to be smarter and in the end, tell us all what we have to do.
It’s worked so far.
It won’t work forever.

Ziiex Zeburz
Reply to  RockyRoad
March 24, 2016 10:40 pm

Rockroad ended up in ;
” The United States of Africa ” ?

Reply to  RockyRoad
March 25, 2016 7:19 am

Do you mean “the end is nigh”???

Gunga Din
Reply to  RockyRoad
March 25, 2016 4:00 pm

barryjo March 25, 2016 at 7:19 am
Do you mean “the end is nigh”???

I think he means we’re being mooned fromn the White House.

March 24, 2016 8:34 pm

Trust me, I’m a government scientist.

Reply to  Joanna
March 25, 2016 4:36 am

“Trust me, I’m a government scientist.”
And backed by the EPA and IRS if you don’t comply.

stan stendera
March 24, 2016 8:40 pm

Words, at least those I can use on WUWT, fail me of the evil venality of the global warmists.

March 24, 2016 8:52 pm
Janice Moore
Reply to  ossqss
March 24, 2016 9:01 pm

lol — ossqss, you come up with some great ones. 🙂
The B. “Stal1n” Obama Administration bureaucrats:
“Clap. Or you lose your job.”

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 24, 2016 9:49 pm

As in North Korea?

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 24, 2016 9:56 pm

As in OBAMA “Stal1n” Administration, USA.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 24, 2016 9:58 pm

In North Korea you lose your head == Eugene WR Gallun

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 26, 2016 1:18 pm

I now know what a real dose of clap is!

Reply to  ossqss
March 24, 2016 9:47 pm

A scene from a bygone era. One might speculate that this is an audience at an Academy Awards show. That means the entire audience are Hollywood stars, and the rich and the famous.
Is that a young Andy Rooney front and center? A few others I feel I should know but can’t quite name.

stan stendera
Reply to  ossqss
March 24, 2016 9:50 pm

It worked!

chris moffatt
Reply to  ossqss
March 25, 2016 4:46 am

There’s a grim-looking old guy upper left who isn’t clapping. Must not have found the video convincing. I guess L Lynch will have to start an FBI investigation of him.

Janice Moore
Reply to  chris moffatt
March 25, 2016 7:15 am

Lol. GOG: “I’m retired. I don’t have to clap for that jerk anymore.”

Pamela Gray
Reply to  chris moffatt
March 25, 2016 8:18 am

The guy looks photo-shopped in. I am betting this is a political cartoon used in some kind of op-ed piece related to a political topic.

Janice Moore
Reply to  chris moffatt
March 25, 2016 8:44 am

Pamela, he does, indeed. There was a man there, a different man…. holding up a sign….. that said, “You l1e!”….. next thing you know….. the film was “stal1inized**!”
** referring to how Stal1in would “disappear” people out of photos.

FJ Shepherd
March 24, 2016 8:56 pm

Holdren in this video claimed that a “growing body of evidence” supported that extreme cold conditions can be expected due to climate change (i.e., global warming). It was not his “opinion,” upon which his claims were based.

Janice Moore
Reply to  FJ Shepherd
March 24, 2016 9:18 pm

Oh, sure, it is, F.J.. That was just good ol’ Johnny Holdren, taking a “personal day,” just sittin’ around the house, his 1960’s psychedelic mood lamp on in the background, in his suit and tie, hair glued in place with hairspray. You know, the way he ALWAYS is when he’s just kickin’ back at home, talkin’ off the top of his head, giving his personal opinion on this and that with his personal professional videographer running the camera, playing, “Documentary” as they usually do on Thursday nights.
On Fridays, they often play, “Scientist” — then, moving to another part of the house, Holdren gets out the white lab coat and goggles — even if you are just waving your hands a lot and talking about “basic physics,” you ARE in the kitchen, where you might get some chemicals in your eyes, so beeee careful….

Boulder Skeptic
Reply to  FJ Shepherd
March 24, 2016 10:33 pm

It was instilled in me when I was serving as an active duty USAF Officer that I was never to use my uniform, my position or my rank in conjunction with my expression of personal opinions and political positions.

OSTP rejected this request, claiming that Holdren’s statement was his “personal opinion,” not the agency’s position, and that it thus did not constitute “information” subject to the Information Quality Act, which excludes “subjective opinions” from its reach.

Personal opinion my a$$…
This thing has pasted into the top right corner for the duration. At running time 0:15, the speaker is identified as Dr, John Holdren, President Obama’s Science Advisor. OSTP funds and resources were used to generate this piece. Then we get the closeout screen urging us to “learn more at: WITEHOUSE.GOV/CLIMATE-CHANGE”.
Also, loved the cherry-picking moment at running time 1:05 where their Arctic sea ice graph stops at 2012.
I couldn’t quite make out the lapel pin Dr Holdren was wearing. Anyone else know?

Janice Moore
Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
March 25, 2016 7:42 am

RE: lapel pin — I do not know (and my attempts to look at it up close in a search online of images were unsuccessful). I do know this: it is not a U.S flag.

Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
March 25, 2016 7:48 am

Hammer and Sickle?

Joe Civis
Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
March 25, 2016 10:13 am

the lapel pin sure looks a lot like the presidential seal though can’t see enough detail to know for sure…. but all the “Presidential Science Advisor” stuff seems to back up that theory.

Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
March 25, 2016 4:44 pm

Perhaps?comment image

James Francisco
Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
March 25, 2016 8:01 pm

I think it is a Delta House pledge pin.

March 24, 2016 8:59 pm

At the end of the video is some White House “stuff” appears and is mentioned.
Yet they claim it was a personal opinion. Was it produced with government $$$?
I expect we will see a lot of crashed hard drives/servers.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Catcracking
March 24, 2016 9:24 pm

Uh, oh. J.H. had better get himself an attorney… “So! Mister Holdren! What is THIS you have been doing on your PERSONAL time?!! Using government property to make videos for fun, eh? SHOCKING. You were wasting public funds!! You may resign now… (AHEM!)……. would you rather be FIRED?”

James Bull
Reply to  Catcracking
March 25, 2016 1:31 am

Maybe they’ll let Anthony put up a personal opinion video on the White house website . HAHA
James Bull

March 24, 2016 9:17 pm

Typical Holdren and “Obama House”. With the “end” just <9 months away, Holdren and the other perverts will sit in their offices as Hitler and his cronies sat in their offices until their deaths.
Ha ha

Steve O
March 24, 2016 9:27 pm

“Computer models tell us that there are many different factors that influence these patterns.” BS! Computer models spew results they are programmed to produce. Another example of Political Science devoid of Natural Science.

Clyde Spencer
March 24, 2016 9:35 pm

So those sophisticated animations were just Holdren’s ‘opinion?’ Give me a break! This was professionally done and required money and authority to pull it all together.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 24, 2016 10:18 pm

Nah. It’s just Holdren’s little hobby.

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 25, 2016 1:59 am

He shouldn’t be doing his hobby in public, though.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 25, 2016 7:43 am

Hugs (ugh — that name…. shudder): it was a joke.

Steve Reddish
March 24, 2016 9:35 pm

There are two problematic issues within this post.
One is that the OSTP definitely changed its tune once the video was called into question. Funny what some people will say when they think no one will question them.
The other issue is that Holdren claims in the video that with the Arctic warming twice as fast as the mid-latitudes, the lessening temperature difference between the Arctic and the mid-latitudes weakens the polar vortex. This makes it wavier and sends cold air southward. Can someone ask Holdren to explain why then, aren’t southward excursions of polar air most frequent and strongest during the northern summer when the sun warms the Arctic 24 hours per day?

Steve Reddish
Reply to  Steve Reddish
March 24, 2016 9:45 pm

Is it his position that only differences in average temps matter, not actual temp differences? He states in the video that the warming world is detected by changes in average temps…

March 24, 2016 9:46 pm

Better call Saul.

stan stendera
March 24, 2016 9:55 pm

Leftists suck. Sorry mods, it’s true.

March 24, 2016 10:03 pm

The mention of the Polar Vortex in the article reminds me of a local (Toronto) TV weather report I watched back in late February, 2015. It was the Coldest February on record in Toronto, but apparently the Warmest everywhere else. I remember it because I was very surprised at what I heard. The meteorologist giving the weather report mentioned the Polar Vortex and said (I’m paraphrasing), “contrary to what you might of heard, the Polar Vortex causing the well below average temperatures this February is NOT unusual”. Other weather reports, on the weather channel for instance, were telling their viewers the Polar Vortex WAS unusual and was caused by that old Bugaboo, Climate Change. At least there is one honest meteorologist around today. And yes, he is still around today and gives the weather report each day. Other people on the station also give weather reports (called weather specialists), but he is the only meteorologist.

Reply to  3¢worth
March 24, 2016 10:18 pm

Ahhhhh another climate doom Nazi exposed for what he is !

March 24, 2016 11:15 pm

It is amazing how far an eugenicist can go in this world when they’re well connected. If there is no other reason for voting against the democrats in this election, just knowing we’ll be getting rid of Dr. Death should be reason enough. When you read his publications it leaves you wondering if you’re reading the works of Edgar Allan Poe or perhaps Heinrich Himmler. He’s pretty creepy.

Science or Fiction
March 24, 2016 11:45 pm

This one is worth repeating 🙂
Friday Funny – two guys with a ruler blow up the White House global warming video claims
The dishonesty by the white house representatives is alarming.

Reply to  Science or Fiction
March 25, 2016 12:29 am

I guess Beck would have been on his day off, these are 2 guys that are his co-hosts.

Reply to  Science or Fiction
March 25, 2016 2:36 am

another problem with that video is the graph misses out sharp record global cooling in the last few years

old construction worker
March 25, 2016 12:02 am

How, if we can get the feds to use the DQA (Data Quality Act).

Ian Macdonald
March 25, 2016 12:10 am

Most of the presentation goes smoothly but at 1:25 when he talks about ‘waviness’ notice his hesitancy and expression change. It looks as if he himself doesn’t believe what he is saying.
Anyway, I wondered why Obama has suddenly jumped on this bandwagon. I think we now know why. Same reason the UK government did, when being ‘advised’ by Greenpeace.

Peter Miller
Reply to  Ian Macdonald
March 25, 2016 2:40 am

It is clear from its actions that the UK government is still being ‘advised’ by Greenpeace. The Prime Minister’s wife is card carrying, the demonised coal fired power stations are rapidly being closed down and consequently the country is hurtling headlong towards rolling blackouts in winter, perhaps as early as next year.
Despite this, the UK will shortly be able to boast that it has no real power stations under construction anywhere in the country.
Thanks for the advice Greenpeace, as always it was complete BS.

Chuck Wiese
March 25, 2016 12:26 am

The flawed and incorrect “physics” of Rossby waves is presented here touted by Jennifer Francis and Steve Vavrus to tout the polar vortex. In my article published here two weeks ago, I took their incorrect interpretation apart and proved it wrong. I note with interest that questions regarding their flawed physics were questioned earlier in the released e-mails and Francis refered to those inquiring as “the usual suspects and contrarians”.
Here is an opportunity for Jennifer Francis and Steve Vavrus to set the record straight and disprove founding principles that I used in my article. Are they up to the challenge? My prediction is that they are not because they either don’t understand the waves themselves or incorrectly interpreted their use in their flawed paper concerning “Arctic Amplification” where they incorrectly use Rossby physics to claim Arctic warming is causing more severe weather and temperature extremes at mid latitude where most of us live.

March 25, 2016 12:32 am

Who produced the video and who paid it ? Was the video and Holden’s “opinion ” used by the EPA to justify their draft regulations ? Who edited and wrote the script ? Who authorized and approved the version released ? What if any peer review was done on the video contents considering it is assumed to be scientific fact coming from the OSTP ?
This is the tip of the ice berg . It is about time .

Chuck Wiese
March 25, 2016 12:40 am

Holdren is also incompetent. Just regurgitating in his video the eagerly sought after rot whose purpose is to continue to advance this corrupted, incorrect and rotted interpretation of atmospheric science in the name of promoting human caused “climate change”. These people are truly disgusting and have bastardized science with their fake religion. This is hard to watch when you know the truth.

phil cartier
Reply to  Chuck Wiese
March 25, 2016 5:47 am

Holdren is not really incompetent. He’s an adept and highly practiced propagandist and a very manipulative politican. The whole video is misrepresented by the government to be a summary of the prevailing view of the science. The history of it’s development would clearly show that it’s based only on climate models that can’t predict anything in the future and a few, contested publications that support his conclusions. The biggest fallacy is that somehow these weather patterns are unusual and are caused by recent human CO2 production.
The only support for that are weak correlations between CO2 and a weak temperature trend in some northern hemisphere air temperatures from poorly sited temperature measuring stations.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  phil cartier
March 25, 2016 10:37 am


Science or Fiction
March 25, 2016 1:31 am

I´m shocked to find that the Information Quality Act requires that each Federal agency shall issue their own guidelines. And, that Office of Science and Technology Policy excludes opinion and policy positions from the act – even though it is required by the act that the guidelines shall ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information. And that the act is referring to the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is bad from so many perspectives that I don´t even know where to start.
“SEC. 515. (a) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall, by not later than September 30,
2001, and with public and Federal agency involvement, issue guidelines under sections 3504(d)(1) and 3516 of title 44, United States Code, that provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by Federal agencies in fulfillment of the purposes and provisions of chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, commonly referred to as the Paperwork Reduction Act.
(b) CONTENT OF GUIDELINES.—The guidelines under subsection (a) shall—
(1) apply to the sharing by Federal agencies of, and access to, information disseminated by Federal agencies; and
(2) require that each Federal agency to which the guidelines apply—
(A) issue guidelines ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by the agency, by not later than 1 year after the date of issuance of the guidelines under subsection (a);”
Something is rotten in the United States of America. Americans – wake up – you are being had!

March 25, 2016 2:50 am

Every single thing this govt does is overlain by a thick layer of corruption.
Yet, the sheeple can’t wait to give it more power and scope.

March 25, 2016 2:50 am

Eric Worrall writes:

If President Obama and John Holdren genuinely think the evidence supports their position, that Climate Change is a serious threat, why don’t they simply stand by the evidence which they believe supports their case?

That has been the money question all along. It needs to be asked of all the “team” and the compliant alarmist media.
Why does “Dr.” Mann hid his data? Why does NASS/NOAA not share all the reasons for their so-called “adjustments” to the past? Why is there no one temperature for a given day in 1933 for example? Why do only papers considered supportive of the “consensus” get published? What are we hiding? Why are we hiding things?
Why is CO2 the ultimate villain even worse than nuclear war or the Prince of Darkness himself? Why have do they never mention H2O? We have plenty of that stuff and it does far more than CO2 ever did. Why hide that fact?
In other words, if they were really correct they would act differently than they do now.

David A
Reply to  markstoval
March 25, 2016 3:43 am

You are correct Mark, and of curse it is purely political ideology, politicians taxing the very air you breath in a few easy steps…
1. First eliminate the majority of stations. (This gives greater influence to the remaining)
2. Then manufacture a pseudo scientific study on why UHI does not matter. (Creating a false adjustment with “scientific” cover)
4. Then ignore about 50% of the remaining stations, further giving influence to those few that are left.
5. Then homogenize the urban and or parking lot stations, spreading their warmth up to 1200 K.
6. Then continue to make monthly unexplained .01 degree adjustments to past records, invariably cooling the past. (These add up)
7. Ignore the cooling southern ocean SSTs
9. Wait for a strong El Nino and generally warm SSTs (The fading blob) and proclaim the “warmest year ever” CAGW to all, while threatening to prosecute climate change “deniers.
Yes, that ought to do it.

Proud Skeptic
March 25, 2016 3:53 am

“the White House claimed the video was the “personal opinion” of John Holdren, not an official communication, and therefore not subject to the Act.”
Good God, where does one start? Why, if this is a matter of personal opinion is the American taxpayer paying for it? Why, if it is being paid for with tax dollars, aren’t all of the underlying information and research publicly available without a fight? And finally…what gives John Holdren the right to use public money and resources for his own personal project?
At least, the Obama administration is consistent. On day 1049 of the IRS scandal, the 6th Circuit Court ordered them to release records relating to the IRS’s alleged persecution of conservative groups.

Bob M
March 25, 2016 4:42 am

I used to think they were evil, now I’m pretty sure its stupidity. Holdren actually believes the hooey!

Reply to  Bob M
March 25, 2016 11:48 am

Bob M, They aren’t mutually exclusive.

March 25, 2016 4:45 am

Note that “growing body of evidence” does not equal “evidence.” Evidence is not a tumor.

March 25, 2016 4:56 am

Dr. John Holdren, the President’s Chief Science Advisor, likes to send periodic notes about scientific topics to White House senior staff. We thought you might like to be in on that, too.
Now we want to know: What do you want to hear about?
Share here and stay tuned.

March 25, 2016 5:18 am

Markstoval asks: “Why do only papers considered supportive of the “consensus” get published? What are we hiding? Why are we hiding things?
Well I do not know the answer , but like many here have dark suspicions about the motives , but in any case the question is becoming , IMO , almost irrelevant .
There are other nations ready and willing to tackle the issue of AGW without the idealogical constraints that US and EU scientists may encounter.
As evidence look at the contents of a recent issue of Science Bulletin , published by Springer Press , supported by the Chinese Academy of Sciences:
Note the following articles :
On GHG observation from satellites :
Although paywalled it refers to the TANSAT CO2 observing satellite due to be launched in 2015 (was it?) and the many refinements to the acquisition software to reduce errors .
Or the article on natural (PDO) as against anthropogenic contribution to warming in the 70s and 90s
Plus many articles , some free, on alternative energy materials science which is at least as good as anything published by , say , the Electrochemical Society.
Compare the impression these articles and many others published by chinese scientists to the state of science in Obama’s administration run by the pathetic Holdren and one either wants to weep at the state of western science or rejoice that a new,fresh , approach will take over the “consensus”. (They might of course eventually agree with the current western based consensus).

Kaiser Derden
March 25, 2016 5:23 am

He wants it withheld because in the beginning he pushing to do a video about the population bomb … until a staffer reminded him that he tried that decades ago and it was a bust …

Wilbert Robichaud
March 25, 2016 6:09 am

It should be ” A growing body of Adjusted Evidences”

Reply to  Wilbert Robichaud
March 26, 2016 3:11 am

Like Pinocchio’s nose.

Grant A. Brown
March 25, 2016 6:29 am

Wait a minute! This past winter has been the “warmest winter evah!!” According to Holdren’s theory, we should have had more Polar Vortex events this winter than evah before. Yet we experienced none, or at most one, in North America…. Hmmm….

James in Perth
March 25, 2016 6:36 am

I honestly didn’t recognize Dr. Holdren. He looks completely different when he’s showered and shaved (or groomed). Amazing.

March 25, 2016 6:45 am

Past science advisers never got their postings past certain internal bureaucrats. Now those bureaucrats are saying I told you so.

March 25, 2016 6:57 am

I’m not sure which is worse, unproven claims of evidence for extraterrestrial life from a meteorite announced by the Clinton WH or Holdren preaching that extreme cold is cause by global warming. Either way, they are not good role models for science education in America.

March 25, 2016 6:58 am

He does look like a Global Warming televangelist.

March 25, 2016 7:37 am

The movie says that as the world warms the temp extreme differences lessen, Doesn’t that lessen the probability of extreme weather (amplitude and frequency)? They want their cake and eat it too.

Chip Javert
Reply to  Stephen Greene
March 25, 2016 8:01 am

Just because the US President’s science advisor said warming lessens the probability of extreme weather does not mean it actually lessens the probability of extreme weather. It simply means he said it lessens the probability of extreme weather.
See the difference?
We have definitely fallen down Alice’s rabbit hole on this one.

March 25, 2016 8:18 am

Holdren would be a better pick over at Census. There he could control population growth… least on paper.

Pamela Gray
March 25, 2016 8:34 am

All that said and put aside for a minute, the eastern pattern of encroaching cold does mimic glacial advance quite well. A fairly stable blocking high West of the Rockies could set this looping Arctic vortex pattern up. But that blocking high would need a fairly stable heat source to keep it going. That could be a Northern Pacific blob that has built up over time from left over El Nino waters circulating and getting stuck off the coast for a long time. The outer edge of the huge gyre that is a permanent feature of the Northern Hemisphere’s Pacific Ocean could continuously feed warm water to that location.
In summary, I have often wondered how cold air from the polar vortex gets stuck into a fairly stable loop that allows glacial advance in the pattern we see from left over geologic evidence. A blocking high caused by a warm blob off the North Pacific coast could be it.

John Robertson
March 25, 2016 12:39 pm

This “private opinion” parallels the New Zealand experience, of official government temperature records being not official government temperature records ,when the court case started.
Never mind that the taxpayer fully funded these creations, when held to the light, suddenly taxpayers discovered they had been paying for the “personal opinion of a grad student.”
Suffering legislation imposed, citing this opinion as fact.
Yet no one in the massive bureaucracy was ever held responsible.
Climatology is beyond parody.
The mockery of the CAGW meme was written long before this latest mass hysteria.
The Emperors New Clothes, being the title of that fable.

Reply to  John Robertson
March 26, 2016 3:14 am

The emperor’s new clothing is a lab coat.

March 25, 2016 2:15 pm

This administration is dishonest and secretive. Think IRS scandal.
EPA pretends they do not make digital records and must copy hand-written notes and explain observers’ “shorthand”.
Hillary hired new College Graduates with basket weaving degrees who “researched” videos then pretended the videos were available on Egyptian internet. Conflated that concocted nonsense with Benghazi in LYBIA.
The list of deception and obfuscation is endless. The defenses in Court are so ridiculous Judges are threatening sanctions. Judges appointed by Clinton and Obama are losing patience.
It seems in the UK the problem of illegal secrecy is about as bad. New Zealand seems to be infected as well as Australia. The French Government fires people for exposing what they hide.
Leftists lie: it is what they do. Robespierre, Hitler, Lenin and Stalin, Mao, the Castros and the “NEW LEFT”.
It may not be all politics as it seems Government employees cannot be disciplined if they pretend not to possess knowledge ( yes some sarcasm too).

March 26, 2016 9:47 am

Is it me or does it seem like the pejorative alarmist and others fail to fully describe the sheer evil and ignorance of these people and their ilk?

Gary Pearse
March 26, 2016 1:36 pm

“A growing body of evidence..”
Yes, and look, it’s changing again. The evidence is getting stronger and stronger. Remember the “Pause”? Look again, it’s gone! ARGO float evidence not performing the write song and dance? Gone! replaced by engine intake thermometers that get the real thing. 9,000 thermometers not holding their end up? Two thirds of them deserted, now you can feel the heat! Remember in 2007, GISS still had the mid 1930s as the record high for the USA? Not gone, but pushed down 0.6C to make 1998 the hottest year. Oops, new adjustments make 2014 and 2015 the hottest years. No wonder Moshe is so grizzly these days, he probably has to spend his time bending the BEST to the consensus fit every year so it doesn’t become SECOND BEST.

Lars Tuff
March 27, 2016 12:25 am

Well if the surface has not warmed since 1998, and the oceans have not warmed since 2003, how come we see the signs of “global warming” now?
The growing circumpolar vortexes have been explained in a multitude of different ways, but this one falsifies itself. Since there is no premise (global warming) there can be no conclusion (growing vortexes). The logic is flawed. It is a false syllogism.
The other problem with Holdrens assumption is that growing polar vortexes are just as likely to appear if the Artic cools more than latitudes south of it, by Holdrens own logic, because this too would cause a temperature / pressure difference between these two areas.
Now since the same effect can be a result of both warming and cooling, Holdrens “evidence” falls flat on it’s face. growing vortexes can therefore not prove anything about cooling OR warming.
So we are bact to the temperature data to find out weather it is warming or cooling.
What would You look for to find out if it is warming outside:
a) The termometer
b) Melting ice / snow
c) Sunshine
d) More wind
Holdren would choose d), where the rest of us probably would choose a), b) and c), one of these thre or any combination, but NOT d).

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights