John Holdren,
Climate
Posted on 01/18/2009 8:18:54 AM PST by EveningStar
IN NOMINATING John Holdren to be director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy - the position known informally as White House science adviser - President-elect Barack Obama has enlisted an undisputed Big Name among academic environmentalists. Holdren is a physicist, a professor of environmental policy at Harvard, a former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, director of the Woods Hole Research Center, and author or coauthor of many papers and books.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Like anyone is gonna question anything Bambi does....seriously....
Environmentalist. No further questions needed. Anything to empower the government....even more.
Jeff Jacoby is the token conservative at the Boston Fishwrap, and a good one he is, too.
Read the article...it asks some very good questions of this guy.
Not that he or the zero will pay attention, though.
I guess we can only excerpt from the Boston Globe, so here is an excerpt from this article...:)
1. You were long associated with population alarmist Paul Ehrlich, and joined him in predicting disasters that never came to pass. For example, you and Ehrlich wrote in 1969: “If . . . population control measures are not initiated immediately and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.” In 1971, the two of you were adamant that “some form of ecocatastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century.” In the 1980s, Ehrlich quoted your expectation that “carbon dioxide-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020.” What have you learned from the failure of these prophecies to come true?
I’m not saying there aren’t tons of legit questions to ask this guy (and all other nominees). I’m just saying that it matters not - this counterfeit president won’t be challenged.
How to make a bundle selling books and chicken little stories to the dumb-ass liberals....and whats great...is u can do it over and over and over....they never catch on!!!
Right. But this article DOES ask some very pointed and relevant questions...these are all the questions I would ask him if I were given the chance.
Jeff Jacoby is pretty good, but I think you are correct. The Zero won’t be answering any questions.
This needs more publicity!
The man’s an idiot.
Here’s what Lubos Motl, a former Physics professor at Harvard has to say about the nutcase Holdren, also a link to Motl’s most excellent blog, the reference frame:
John Holdren, a professional environmental judgment day doomsayer, was going to become Barack Obama’s top science adviser. Indeed, on Saturday, Barack Obama announced that Holdren was tapped.
John Holdren, a professional environmental judgment day doomsayer, was going to become Barack Obama’s top science adviser. Indeed, on Saturday, Barack Obama announced that Holdren was tapped.
John Holdren is the ultimate example of the pseudointellectual impurities that have recently flooded universities and academies throughout the Western world.
Population growth means death
Do you want to know what is his specialization? The easiest path to the answer is to look at his publication list at scholar.google.com. No, he hasn’t found anything about laser cooling, like Steven Chu, despite his PhD in plasma physics. Instead, he has only written 3 very well-known texts - with at least 100 citations - and all of them were concerned with the “catastrophic” population growth. A few additional, newer articles with 50 citations or so are about the “catastrophic” climate change.
By far the most famous article (400+ citations) is his and Paul Ehrlich’s 1971 text in Science magazine,
Impact of Population Growth.
The subtitle says that “complacency concerning this component of man’s predicament is unjustified and counterproductive”. In other words, it is an unforgivable crime not to be hysterical about the population growth. Wow. They study the “interlocking crises” in population, resources, and environment that have been the “focus of countless papers, dozens of prestigious symposia, and a growing avalanche of books”.
Recall that the second author, Paul Ehrlich, had predicted that 4 billions of people (90% of the 1980 total population), including 65 million Americans (28% of the 1980 figure), would perish of hunger in “Great Die-Off” in the 1980s. Well, Holdren and Ehrlich may have narcissistically talked about “prestigious symposia” but it’s hard to change the fact that events where people compete who is going to propose a more absurd die-off scenario are just gatherings of pompous loons.
Do I really have to argue that their forecasts have been proven remarkably wrong? Do I have to argue that all similar papers are likely to be wrong because the “arguments” in them are simply not rational? They’re clearly no science and all sane readers must see it.
In the particular Ehrlich-Holdren paper, they discussed five “theorems”, as they boldly call this retarded stuff. For example, the first “theorem” says that “population growth causes a disproportionate negative impact on the environment”. The last one argues that “theoretical solutions to the problem are often not operational and sometimes they are not solutions”.
These are great theorems! They’re so accurate, well-defined, rigorously proven, and universally valid! I am pretty sure that in insane asylums, the physicians would use different words than “theorems” to describe these manifestations of their anxiety disorders. The paper then studies variations of the I=PAT formula which is either completely vacuous or completely wrong, depending on your interpretation of the letters.
CO2 emissions mean death
The old predicted catastrophes about the “lethal population growth” have largely evaporated from the public discourse - “population growth” is no longer equated with “great die-off” and the world’s population is currently twice as high as the doomsayers found possible while its growth has decelerated naturally - but people like Holdren have simply found a new kind of a catastrophe that apparently hasn’t been fully discredited yet, the “climate change”.
Nowadays, they equate “CO2 emissions” with a “great die-off”. Details have changed but the dishonest, unscientific, extremely ideological, and political essence of their movement hasn’t. These people evolve just like the RNA viruses of flu. You may think that you have already gained immunity against this intellectual trap but instead, the viruses have mutated just a little bit and they’re back. They will probably always be with us.
These days, his main weapon is to articulate more radical and more scary forecasts about the climate than (almost) anyone else who uses a proper English grammar. ;-) And he is always careful to be called “Professor” and “big guy” by all the journalists, see for example this BBC piece where he blames President Bush for a 7-meter rise of the sea level (?) and his recent op-ed in the Boston Globe where he attacks the climate skeptics, again without a glimpse of a rational argument. There is absolutely no valuable content in anything that Holdren has ever produced. It’s just plain nonsense sold in such a way that gullible people happily swallow it and smack their lips.
I simply can’t stand pompous fools like that. Because of his Harvard affiliation, I may have talked to him during a Society of Fellows dinner and I may have forgotten: it’s hard to imagine that I could smile with the knowledge I have today. You may also see Richard Lindzen’s essay to learn more about the methods how John Holdren and others have elected themselves to the National Academy of Sciences and similar bodies. It’s plain disgusting.
Summary
It’s very bad that people whose approach to the world is the exact opposite of science - because they prefer irrational phobias, “prestige” of symposia, and visible jobs paid by gullible manipulated folks over rational, humble, careful, and ever more refined, accurate, and justified scientific arguments and findings - are being linked to science, and it is bad that President-elect Obama is helping to distort the definition of science and its proper role in the society in this way.
You have been dead wrong on many major issues that you presented to the public in apocalyptic terms, but you have never been called to account or asked to be responsible for your opinions. You disparage and insult with near-religious zealot invective (unbelievers, doubters, etc.) those who ask for some proof and do not automatically sign on to your agenda with open wallets. Why should we think it is a good thing that Obama wants to appoint you?"
A plasma physicist, what an appropriate choice.
The proof will be in the Obama energy and environmental policies and their results. We better be prepared to freeze or swelter in our darkened homes because we cannot afford electricity and to be standing in long lines for our ration of $5+ gasoline.
Wow-wee.
Talk about one Harvard professor lambasting another...and rightfully so. This is spot on.
All good questions bump! ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.