Skip to comments.Climategate: White House Involvement in Scandal Will Make It Harder for MSM to Ignore
Posted on 11/26/2009 5:28:16 AM PST by PJ-Comix
Yesterday Brian Williams delivered an NBC Nightly News report about President Obama attending the Copenhagen global warming summit. Guess what hot topic was left untouched? If you had guessed Climategate you would have been correct. Not only Williams but also the other TV networks, with the exception of FOX News, have completely ignored what is considered to be the biggest scientific scandal in history. However, new Climategate revelations made by the Canada Free Press about a White House connection to the scandal will soon make it much more difficult (and ridiculous) for the networks to ignore.
Canada Free Press editor Judi McLeod and Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball reveal the involvement of White House Science Czar John Holdren (photo) in the Climategate Scandal. The picture presented of Holdren is not a pretty one:
Lift up a rock and another snake comes slithering out from the ongoing University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) scandal, now riding as Climategate.
Obama Science Czar John Holdren is directly involved in CRUs unfolding Climategate scandal. In fact, according to files released by a CEU hacker or whistleblower, Holdren is involved in what Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball terms a truculent and nasty manner that provides a brief demonstration of his lack of understanding, commitment on faith and willingness to ridicule and bully people.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
actually the whole video is good.
Within one month of taking office President Obama secured $80 billion for renewable energy and green infrastructure and then just
two weeks ago the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey Bill also known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act which for all of its flaws does put a price on carbon and is very much a step in the right direction.
I just went and did a google news search for climategate.
Only overseas media and the only thing the American MSM are reporting is praise to their great Obama for going to copehopenhagen.
I just want to know how in the hell can Obama control so much media with such an explosive story?
Unless Rahm has a direct fax machine to them all to order what they can and cannot print, it leaves one other conclusion...
The media are guilty of this themselves. They have promoted this for so long they are in a huge spider web.How many have made monetary gain on the side or outright so this is their stock market of money. So they will remain silent. But woe to them, it won’t go away. America is wide awake.
Which in turn will develop more conspiracy theories about what ‘they’ are ‘really’ up to.
Computer hackers have obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. These e-mails, which have now been confirmed as real, involved many researchers across the globe with ideologically similar advocates around the world. They were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global warming claims. The academics here also worked closely with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and Professor Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny.
Among his e-mails, Professor Jones talks to Professor Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series...to hide the decline [in temperature]."..."
Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discusses in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that would otherwise be seen in the results. Professor Mann sent Professor Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he is sending shouldn't be shown to others because the results support critics of global warming. Time after time the discussions refer to hiding or destroying data. ..."
Lots more at link...
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
From the transcript (final paragraph):
President Obama: "But the journey is long and the journey is hard. And we don't have much time left to make that journey. It's a journey that will require each of us to persevere through setbacks, and fight for every inch of progress, even when it comes in fits and starts. So let us begin. For if we are flexible and pragmatic, if we can resolve to work tirelessly in common effort, then we will achieve our common purpose: a world that is safer, cleaner, and healthier than the one we found; and a future that is worthy of our children."
Obama makes U.N. debut on global warming (text, video here):
VENEZUELA: Chavez calls for global offensive for socialism
August 31, 2005
"The environment is suffering damage that could be irreversible global warming, the greenhouse effect, the melting of the polar ice caps, the rising sea level, hurricanes with terrible social occurrences that will shake life on this planet."
"I believe this idea has a strong connection with reality. I don't think we have much time. Fidel Castro said in one of his speeches I read not so long ago, 'tomorrow could be too late, let's do now what we need to do'."
"I believe it is time that we take up with courage and clarity a political, social, collective and ideological offensive across the world a real offensive that permits us to move progressively, over the next years, the next decades, leaving behind the perverse, destructive, destroyer, capitalist model and go forward in constructing the socialist model to avoid barbarism and beyond that the annihilation of life on this planet."
--Hugo Chavez, at the 16th World Festival of Youth and Students, held in Caracas on August 8-15, 2005
Obama's "Climate Czar" is on the same page with Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro...
From The Washington Times, January 12, 2009
Obama climate czar has socialist ties
Group sees 'global governance' as solution
by Stephen Dinan
Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama's pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.
By Thursday, Mrs. Browner's name and biography had been removed from Socialist International's Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group's congress in Greece was still available.
Here's a link to an image of a Google cache of the Socialist International's webpage that originally included Obama's "Climate Czar" Carol Browner. It was found by FReeper, Publius6961:
Well, he was arguing in favor Michael Mann's conclusions that were reached by hiding the Medieval Warm Period with a deliberately bad trick using Principal Components Analysis and he was doing so AFTER Mann had been exposed for it by statitsticians and had been publically admonished for the deception by official statistical bodies.
Holdren knew about Mann's fraud (he could not not have known) yet continued to assert the position). The guys Holdren were deriding (Soon et al) were the ones using actual data whose careers were damaged by the coordianted attack by the global warming bad guys. Holdren was a major part of that attack.
I believe this Climate-gate email fraud information will - finally - open the eyes and minds of several I know who are CERTAIN Global Warming is the gospel truth and we must do whatever these “scientists” like Algore say (vomit) to stop the warming and save the Polar bears and the world......
But I need something like a bulleted list of what has now been revealed in climategate plus links to sources.
Realize the story is still developing, new revelations coming in.
But if anyone has a link to such a concise, point by point summary of Climate-gate, please post here or Freepmail me.
Thanks in advance - and a very Happy Thanksgiving to you all!
"Science Czar". Now there's an oxymoron. Science, real science, is not dictated, but is proven by logic and evidence. Of course that is, I guess, old school thinking, replaced now by marxist ideas such as "scientific consensus".
Oh, I’m sure he was just a professor who happened to live nearby.
Thanks Freedom’sWorthIt. Have a great Thanksgiving.
China, US put climate targets on table
The Australian | November 26, 2009 | Brad Norington
Posted on 11/26/2009 6:37:48 AM PST by myknowledge
R.I.P. Global Warming. You’ve scared a lot of people, including innocent kids. You’ve tricked us into wasting untold precious resources on your imaginary crisis, while people were starving and desperate and dying. You’ve deprived them of help with your loud and incessant whining, demanding constant attention with all your drama and hype. You’ve deceived a generation. But now the game is over. Goodbye and good riddance. We won’t miss you.
P.S. I never believed in you anyway. Creep.
THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD
"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere [historically] is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well-known but under-appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2-rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere. Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation.
Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase.
If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere."
The graph above represents temperature and CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years. It is the same exact data Al Gore and the rest of the man-made global warmers refer to. The blue line is temps, the red, CO2 levels. The deep valleys represent 4 separate glaciation/ice-age periods. Look carefully at this historical relationship between temps and CO2 levels (the present is on the right hand side of the graph) and keep in mind that Gore claims this data is the 'proof' that CO2 has warmed the earth in the past. But does the data indeed show this? Nope. In fact, rising CO2 levels all throughout this 400,000-year period actually *followed* temperature increases -lagging behind by an average of 800 years! So it couldn't have been CO2 that got Earth out of these past glaciations. Yet Gore continually and dishonestly claims otherwise. Furthermore, the subsequent CO2 level increases due to dissolved CO2 being released from warming oceans, never did lead to additional warming, the so-called "run-away greenhouse effect" that Al Gore and his friends keep warning us about. In short, there is little if any evidence that CO2 had ever led to increased warming, at least not when the levels were within 10-15 times of what they are today. -etl
"The above chart shows the range of global temperature through the last 500 million years. There is no statistical correlation between the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through the last 500 million years and the temperature record in this interval. In fact, one of the highest levels of carbon dioxide concentration occurred during a major ice age that occurred about 450 million years ago [Myr]. Carbon dioxide concentrations at that time were about 15 times higher than at present." [also see 180 million years ago, same thing happened]:
So, greenhouse [effect] is all about carbon dioxide, right?
Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds [clouds of course aren't gas, but high level ones do act to trap heat from escaping, while low-lying cumulus clouds tend to reflect sunlight and thereby help cool the planet -etl]. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.
In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, 'Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,' Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).
The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other 'minor greenhouse gases.' As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.
Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many 'facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.
Water Vapor Confirmed As Major Player In Climate Change
ScienceDaily (Nov. 18, 2008) Water vapor is known to be Earth's most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.
Another Hitler comparison. Hitler came around at a time when Communists and their friends the rich liberal Jews were sucking the blood from Germany along with the French (does this sound familiar). To say that Hitler overreacted is an understatement, however - Liberalism causes nothing but war and suffering.
Spoke with my broker yesterday (he’s a buddy). He feels strongly that this is the one of the biggest stories of the year, and advised me to begin selling my green energy stocks.
Yup—as I said in another post, she mouthed the newest DEM talking points on crap and trade. Like Pelousy said—I don't care what they think. They are hell bent on shoving this through for monetary gain and power over companies and sheeple. This will bring in mega bucks to the govt. I read where Valero is now upset over this.
Which gives me an ever growing sick feeling in my gut that there will not be any 2010 elections. Not sure where the feeling comes from, I just know it's there.
No joke, I was in first grade back in 1990, when this stuff really started taking off. I remember distinctly my teacher telling us, “If you don’t pick up the garbage outside, the light will shine on that garbage and cause the Ozone to get bigger.” I believed that for a lot of years. Until I got old enough to realize, WTF? We also performed a musical on the effects of global warming and pollution, and this was in the early 90’s at public school of course.
I also remembered that in first grade the first Gulf War started, and the teachers tried to explain it to us like, “Saddam is a very bad man with oil. America and George Bush want that oil, so that’s what we are fighting to get over there.”
I believed that until high school, when I had a Republican American studies teacher, who taught us the real reason behind the war. My American Studies class was unique, we had 2 teachers in the class room, one was a Democrat the other a Republican. So we got both sides.
This Global warming bullshit has been a pack of lies from the get go, and they, the media included, will never admit it.
I think the tone of debate is going to get harsh, as it needs to. When someone is making up facts as they go along, you need to take off the goves and shove it down their throats.
Please be so kind as to add my name to your ping list. I’d appreciate it.
Seems to me that bus of Obama’s is about to receive another axle inspector, as apparently that is the Obama answer to any and all the personnel problems he encounters.
Toss ‘em under the bus.
Interesting that contrary to Obama’s statement during the campaign in which he said he chose his friends well that today he proves an extraordinary inability to choose at all, much less well.
Wow...basically it was Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon that broke the hockeystick before Steve McIntyre at Climate audit!
They deserve more credit than McIntyre for exposing this BS.
Sorry, but it does get complex when the documents are presented. Bottom line is that the presentations by the two physicists didn't fit in with the global warming agenda so Holdren was the one to mock them and call them into question.
It’s because the both work at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics...at Harvard. They are not professors but they are working scientists.
My guess; either at a flag or draft card burning.
this is even big news in the UK and yet nothing here.
Fox has covered it but they need to put up exclusive and a big banner saying this
Then run with this in a big way for days
I’ve called and sent mail off to all the networks including local channels asking why they will not show or report this in detail and why d they keep being biased as it is a great dis service to the public
I hope others have too.
I’m sure Charlie Gibson hasn’t heard about it yet.
I did a search of the email files and Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon are being trashed by these clowns.
Someone owes these two scientists an apology. Their like FReepers in the “climate science” world.
I’ve posted this story on Digg.
Stop by and give it a digg!
Something big is about to happen over there. This has gone to the House of Lords.
Forgive my ignorance, but what does that mean? Digg?
This is very poorly written...
It needs a flow chart to lead the reader from one reference to another reference. There are too many descending quotes, like a multigenerational genealogy chart, which make totally obscure the actual proofs of the accusation against Holdren.
PJ knew what he was trying to communicate, but it did not transfer to the article in an understandable fashion.
The link to the American Thinker article is valuable.
The NYT ignored the Swift Vets for about a month and then attacked them.
I just want to know how in the hell can Obama control so much media with such an explosive story?
It is not a question of control. It is a situation of like minds agreeing on an ideological principle. No one is forcing ‘reporters’ to write certain things and ignore other things. They do the censoring by themselves.
Corruption has spread without end...
You ask good questions. I believe the thoughtfulness of your questions and the progress I believe we are making in this interchange contain the seeds of the answer to your final question, which, if I may paraphrase just a bit, is whether there's any hope of reaching reasonable public-policy decisions when the details of the science germane to those decisions are impenetrable to most citizens.
This is a hard problem. Certainly the difficulty is not restricted to climate science and policy, but applies also to nuclear-weapon science and policy, nuclear-energy science and policy, genetic science and policy, and much more. But I don't think the difficulties are insurmountable. That's why I'm in the business I'm in, which is teaching about and working on the intersection of science and technology with policy.
Most citizens cannot penetrate the details of what is known about the how the climate works (and, of course, what is known even by the most knowledgeable climate scientists about this is not everything one would like to know, and is subject to modification by new data, new insights, new forms of analysis). Neither would most citizens be able to understand how a hydrogen bomb works (even if the details were not secret), or what factors will determine the leak rates of radioactive nuclides from radioactive-waste repositories, or what stem-cell research does and promises to be able to do.
But, as Amory Lovins once said in addressing the question of whether the public deserved and could play a meaningful role in debates about nuclear-weapon policy, even though most citizens would never understand the details of how nuclear weapons work or are made, "You don't have to be a chicken to know what to do with an egg." In other words, for many (but not all) policy purposes, the details that are impenetrable do not matter.
There CAN be aspects of the details that do matter for public policy, of course. In those cases, it is the function and the responsibility of scientists who work across the science-and-policy boundary to communicate the policy implications of these details in ways that citizens and policy makers can understand. And I believe it is the function and responsibility of citizens and policy makers to develop, with the help of scientists and technologists, a sufficient appreciation of how to reach judgments about plausibility and credibility of communications about the science and technology relevant to policy choices so that the citizens and policy makers are NOT disenfranchised in policy decisions where science and technology are germane.
How this is best to be done is a more complicated subject than I am prepared to try to explicate fully here. (Alas, I have already spent more time on this interchange than I could really afford from other current commitments.) Suffice it to say, for now, that improving the situation involves increasing at least somewhat, over time, the scientific literacy of our citizens, including especially in relation to how science works, how to distinguish an extravagant from a reasonable claim, how to think about probabilities of who is wrong and who is right in a given scientific dispute (including the question of burden of proof as you and I have been discussing it here), how consulting and polling experts can illuminate issues even for those who don't understand everything that the experts say, and why bodies like the National Academy of Sciences and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change deserve more credibility on the question of where mainstream scientific opinion lies than the National Petroleum Council, the Sierra Club, or the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.
Regarding extravagant claims, you continue to argue that Mann et al. have been guilty of this, but the formulation of theirs that you offer as evidence is not evidence of this at all. You quote them from the NYT in 1998, referring to a study Mann and co-authors published in that year, as saying "Our conclusion was that the warming of the past few decades appears to be closely tied to emission of greenhouse gases by humans and not any of the natural factors."
and you ask "Does that seem to be careful in the nature of a claim?" My answer is:
Yes, absolutely, their formulation is careful and appropriate. Please note that they did NOT say "Global warming is closely tied to emission of greenhouse gases by humans and not any of the natural factors." They said that THEIR CONCLUSION (from a particular, specified study, published in NATURE) was that the warming of THE PAST FEW DECADES (that is, a particular, specified part of the historical record) APPEARS (from the evidence adduced in the specified study) to be closely tied... This is a carefully specified, multiply bounded statement, which accurately reflects what they looked at and what they found. And it is appropriately contingent --"APPEARS to be closely tied" --
allowing for the possibility that further analysis or new data could later lead to a different perspective on what appears to be true.
With respect, it does not require a PhD in science to notice the appropriate boundedness and contingency in the Mann et al. formulation. It only requires an open mind, a careful reading, and a degree of understanding of the character of scientific claims and the wording appropriate to convey them that is accessible to any thoughtful citizen. That is why I'm an optimist.
You go on to quote the respected scientist "Tom Quigley" as holding a contrary view to that expressed by Mann. But please note that: (1) I don't know of any Tom Quigley working in this field, so I suspect you mean to refer to the prominent climatologist Tom Wigley; (2) the statements you attribute to "Quiqley" do not directly contradict the careful statement of Mann (that is, it is entirely consistent for Mann to say that his study found that recent warming appears to be tied to human emissions and for Wigley to say that that there are limits to how far one can go with this sort of analysis, without either one being wrong); and (3) Tom Wigley is one of the CO-AUTHORS of the resounding Mann et al. refutation of Soon and Baliunas (see attached PDF file).
I hope you have found my responses to be of some value. I now must get on with other things. Best,
JOHN P. HOLDREN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy & Director, Program in Science, Technology, & Public Policy, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- HARVARD UNIVERSITY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- mail: BCSIA, JFK School, 79 JFK St, Cambridge, MA 02138 phone: 617 495-1464 / fax 617 495-8963 email: email@example.com assistant: Patricia_McLaughlin@ksg.harvard.edu, 617 495-1498 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN P. HOLDREN ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy & Director, Program in Science, Technology, & Public Policy, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- HARVARD UNIVERSITY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- mail: BCSIA, JFK School, 79 JFK St, Cambridge, MA 02138 phone: 617 495-1464 / fax 617 495-8963 email: firstname.lastname@example.org assistant: Patricia_McLaughlin@ksg.harvard.edu, 617 495-1498
The switch in doctrine from the Earth going into terminal cooling to terminal warming happened as abruptly as the “hockey stick” designed by these so-called scientists.
The UK Govt is involved with all of this and so are the media and yet one would think that nothing has happened with our state run media.
You know just to vent my frustration.
I am so pissed off with this elitist media .
If they had done their job we would not have had this idiot in the white house, they still do not fact check him and his past.
It’s not like there are no questions about his past.
I mean off the top of me head there is.
Who paid for his Kenya /Odinga visit?
Why did he go there?
Has he been in touch this year?
Why was he so quick to seal his past records like even his school records?
Why does no one know him from Columbia and there are no .
How much was he involved with Van Jones?
How much in the Navy seals charges ?
How about the Ft Hood shooting and what did he know?
How much involved is he about the terrorist coming to NY and IL?
Why did it take so long for a decision about a war he said it was vital to win?
Does he feel bad that he is always playing golf like Bush did while men and women die?
WHY CAN’T HE FIND A CHURCH?
Why was the MSM not invited to the second swearing in on Jan 20th?
Why has he not mentioned about this climate gate and how much does he know?
Why does he persist in pushing bills onto the public when the public doe snot want it and it is his job to represent the people?
Why did he not go to a war zone to see the troops for thanksgiving like others have in the past?
Who was on that fly over of NY city and why was the flight manifest not released still?
Why is he not getting rid of those radical in his admin and does he share those views, if not fire them?
What did he mean by the 57 states and the comment of typical white people and greedy white folk?
Why does he keep spending and the saying we have to get debt under control/
Why did he send out asking for donations against Sarah when he is president?
Why did he say that is doe not know about ACORN getting fed money when he worked for them?
Why is the SEIU always at the white house?
Why has his wife not took the first lady duties yet like Hillary for womens rights and Laura for reading and education?
This off the top of my head and there are much more the media could look into to.
It’s not like they have nothing to report on.
sorry for the rant and questions but this really pisses me off.
We have a man who came from no where.
We have only two books which he wrote with the help of a terrorist and the elitist media refuses to do any work on any of this
Climate czar rejects doctored data claims (czar Carol Browner)
Where’s that NY Times special panel that is supposed to keep an eye on “right wing” blogs for info that they missed?
From: John P. Holdren [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 11:06 AM
To: Nick Schulz
Subject: Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas controversy
Dear Nick Schultz —
I am sorry for the long delay in this response to your note of September 12. I have been swamped with other commitments. As you no doubt have anticipated, I do not put Mann et al. in the same category with Soon and Baliunas.
If you seriously want to know “Why not?”, here are three ways one might arrive at what I regard as the right conclusion:
(1) For those with the background and patience to penetrate the scientific arguments, the conclusion that Mann et al. are right and Soon and Baliunas are wrong follows from reading carefully the relevant Soon / Baliunas paper and the Mann et al. response to it:
W. Soon and S. Baliunas, “Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years”, Climate Research, vol. 23, pp 89ff, 2003.
M. Mann, C. Amman, R. Bradley, K. Briffa, P. Jones, T. Osborn, T. Crowley, M. Hughes, M. Oppenheimer, J. Overpeck, S. Rutherford, K. Trenberth, and T. Wigley, “On past
temperatures and anomalous late-20th century warmth”, EOS, vol 84, no. 27, pp 256ff, 8 July 2003.
This is the approach I took. Soon and Baliunas are demolished in this comparison.
(2) Those lacking the background and/or patience to penetrate the two papers, and seriously wanting to know who is more likely to be right, have the option of asking somebody who does possess these characteristics — preferably somebody outside the handful of ideologically committed and/or oil-industry-linked professional climate-change skeptics — to evaluate the controversy for them. Better yet, one could poll a number of such people. They can easily be found by checking the web pages of earth sciences, atmospheric sciences, and environmental sciences departments at any number of major universities.
(3)The least satisfactory approach, for those not qualified for (1) and lacking the time or initiative for (2), would be to learn what one can about the qualifications(including publications records) and reputations, in the field in question, of the authors on the two sides. Doing this would reveal that Soon and Baliunas are, essentially, amateurs in the interpretation of historical and paleoclimatological
records of climate change, while the Mann et al. authors include several of the most published and most distinguished people in the world in this field.
Such an investigation would also reveal that Dr. Baliunas’ reputation in this field suffered considerable damage a few years back, when she put her name on an incompetent critique
of mainstream climate science that was never published anywhere respectable but was circulated by the tens of thousands, in a format mimicking that of a reprint from the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in pursuit of signatures on a petition claiming that the mainstream findings were wrong.
Of course, the third approach is the least satisfactory because it can be dangerous to assume that the more distinguished people are always right. Occasionally, it turns out that the opposite is true. That is one of several good reasons that it pays to try to penetrate the arguments, if one can, or to poll others who have tried to do so.
But in cases where one is not able or willing to do either of these things — and where one is able to discover that the imbalance of experience and reputation on the two sides of the issue is as lopsided as here — one ought at least to recognize that the odds strongly favor the proposition that the more experienced and reputable people are right. If one were a policy maker, to bet the public welfare on the long odds of the opposite being true would be foolhardy.
PS: I have provided this response to your query as a personal communication, not as fodder for selective excerpting on your web site or elsewhere. If you do decide that you would like to propagate my views on this matter more widely, I ask that you convey my response in its entirety.
Screw you Holdren. You’re done you arrogant assh_ole!
“Forgive my ignorance, but what does that mean? Digg?”
No problem; Digg is a social networking site where people vote on various news articles. Typically, the liberal perspective dominates, yet a vociferous group of conservatives prevails there. If I could activate the thousands of Freepers into digging conservative stories, the conservative news will become more available.
Call me Don Quixote.
Good summaries, here and above with respect to Holdren’s attacks on earlier researchers.
It's made for some wonderfully psychedelic cognitive dissonance, you can well believe :-)
The AGW scam is something Big Lib Media has invested billions of dollars into promoting. They’re not going to ditch it just because a few of the fraudsters got caught with their hands in the cookie er climate jar so to speak. They’ll stonewall this as best they can and hope they can suppress it like they’ve suppressed the role of the FM’s in the housing market caused financial disaster.
John Holdren wrote-
“U.S. polls indicate that most of the amateur skeptics are Republicans. These Republican skeptics should wonder how the presidential candidate John McCain could have been taken in. He has castigated the Bush administration for wasting eight years in inaction on climate change, and the policies he says he would implement as president include early and deep cuts in U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. (Barack Obama’s position is similar.)”
The real Republican Party is again saving the Union.