Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

White House Science Advisor: Climate Change Skeptics Are ‘Heretics’
CNSNews ^ | February 17, 2011 | Chris Neefus

Posted on 02/18/2011 11:09:51 AM PST by jazusamo

 John Holdren, Director of White House Science and Technology Policy with President Barack Obama at The White House

John Holdren, Director of
White House Science and
Technology Policy with
President Barack Obama at
The White House

(CNSNews.com) – President Obama’s top science advisor, Dr. John Holdren, told a congressman asking about climate change skeptics that climate change is accepted science and that “there are always heretics” in the scientific community.

“This is not the view of a few isolated scientists, this is the overwhelming view of scientists who study this matter around the world,” Holdren said, adding,  “There are always skeptics, there are always heretics. That’s in the nature of science.

VIDEO 2:57 minutes

Holdren, who heads the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, appeared before the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology to discuss the president’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget request for research and development.

Holdren's comments were to Rep. Ralph Hall (R-Texas), the committee chairman who, referring to the spending levels for climate-change research, asked Holdren why the American taxpayer should put much stock in Holdren’s predictions of climate-related catastrophe, considering that he has been incorrect in the past.

The top scientist responded that the administration’s position on global climate change is in the “mainstream."

“Every major national academy of sciences in the world, and virtually all of the major professional societies that deal with the relevant disciplines have issued statements saying that the evidence for climate change outside the realm of natural variability is overwhelming, that we have very strong reason to believe that human activity is responsible for a large part of this change, that harm is already occurring from these changes and that the harm will grow unless and until we stabilize and begin to reduce our emissions,” Holdren said.

But Holdren also compared global warming skeptics to those who disparage the link between smoking and lung cancer.

“You will be able to produce on the witness stand a few who will say they don’t believe it, but they are very much in the minority,” Holdren said. “You could also produce people on this witness stand who will say, with PhD’s attached to their names, that they don’t believe cigarette smoking increases the risk of lung cancer.”

He added: “But public policy, in my judgment, should be based on the mainstream view because to base it otherwise is to risk the well-being of the public against very long odds.”

Congressman Hall was referring to a 2006 BBC television interview that Holdren gave as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), in which he suggested that there could be a “catastrophic” rise in seal level of up to 4 meters (or 13 feet) by roughly 2100.

A BBC article accompanying the interview reads: “(Holdren) added that if the current pace of change continued, a catastrophic sea level rise of 4m (13ft) this century was within the realm of possibility; much higher than previous forecasts.”

Since then, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that sea level rise this century would be more like seven inches to 23 inches.

With that in mind, Hall asked Holdren why Americans should believe his positions and spend tax dollars to do further research on climate change.

“Your projection of potential sea rise level was over 11 feet higher than even the worst scenario case projected by your colleagues less than a year ago, so this is more than just a few of us Republicans that need to be educated on the issue,” Hall said.

“Given the disparity of these projections, why should the American taxpayer have confidence in the administration’s assurance of global calamities to come or trust your climate change education campaign?” Hall asked.

In response, Holdren said: “Every major national academy of sciences in the world, and virtually all of the major professional societies that deal with the relevant disciplines have issued statements saying that the evidence for climate change outside the realm of natural variability is overwhelming, that we have very strong reason to believe that human activity is responsible for a large part of this change, that harm is already occurring from these changes and that the harm will grow unless and until we stabilize and begin to reduce our emissions."

“This is not the view of a few isolated scientists, this is the overwhelming view of scientists who study this matter around the world," said Holdren.

“There are always skeptics, there are always heretics; that’s in the nature of science," he said.

Another committee member, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), scolded the science advisor for using the term “deniers” – a term usually used to describe those who deny that the Holocaust occurred – to refer to global warming skeptics.

Rohrabacher asked: “Doctor, in the past you’ve made public statements referring to those who question your assessment on man-made climate change as – and you have labeled them as – ‘deniers.’ The term deniers is only commonly used in one other context and that is to question whether or not the Holocaust actually took place. Do you believe that this is an appropriate term, and what purpose does it serve except to stifle debate rather than to have an honest discussion?”

Holdren said he regretted using the term.

“Congressman Rohrabacher, when I used the term, I only intended to use it in its most straightforward interpretation,” Holdren responded. “These are folks who are denying the reality of a particular thing, namely climate change. It was not my intention to compare them to Holocaust deniers and to the extent that that’s the impression given, I regret it, and for that reason I will doubtless choose to use other words in the future.”

Holdren came to the committee to defend a budget request from President Obama that asks for a 20 percent increase in funding for “global change research.”

In his written testimony, Holdren stated, “Specifically, the 2012 Budget provides $2.6 billion for the multi-agency U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)—an increase of 20.3 percent or $446 million over the 2010 enacted level—to continue its important work of improving our ability to understand, predict, project, mitigate, and adapt to climate change.”

Hall, meanwhile, was skeptical about such spending in light out the United States’ $14 trillion national debt.

“This level of spending is simply not sustainable,” Hall said in his opening remarks, later adding, “(T)he administration’s FY12 research and development budget, at least as it pertains to a majority of the agencies within this committee’s jurisdiction, continues a heavily weighted focus on climate change, oftentimes taking money from other worthy investments.”

“From 2006 to now, we have spent $36 billion on climate change and what do we have to show for it? A lot of programs and pamphlets. We need to change that.”

The following is a partial transcript of the exchange between Rep. Hall and Dr. Holdren:

REP. RALPH HALL (R-Texas), chairman, House Science, Space and Technology Committee: "Your projection of potential sea rise level was over eleven feet higher than even the worst scenario case projected by your colleagues less than a year ago, so this is more than just a few of us Republicans that need to be educated on the issue. Given the disparity of these projections, why should the American taxpayer have confidence in the administration’s assurance of global calamities to come or trust your climate change education campaign?"

JOHN HOLDREN, director, Office of Science and Technology Policy: "Well let me say first of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify that in the interview you mentioned, I was not asked about Republicans as a whole; I was asked, what do you plan to do in relation to those members of Congress who believe that climate change is not a fact—is not real. And I said in relation to that particular question that I thought this was a matter of education because the scientific facts on the reality of climate change are very robust indeed."

DR. HOLDREN: "Every major national academy of sciences in the world, and virtually all of the major professional societies that deal with the relevant disciplines have issued statements saying that the evidence for climate change outside the realm of natural variability is overwhelming, that we have very strong reason to believe that human activity is responsible for a large part of this change, that harm is already occurring from these changes and that the harm will grow unless and until we stabilize and begin to reduce our emissions. This is not the view of a few isolated scientists, this is the overwhelming view of scientists who study this matter around the world. You will be able to produce on the witness stand a few who will say they don’t believe it, but they are cery much in the minority. You could also produce people on this witness stand, who will say, with PhD’s attached to their names, that they don’t believe cigarette smoking increases the risk of lung cancer. There are always skeptics, there are always heretics; that’s in the nature of science. But public policy, in my judgment, should be based on the mainstream view because to base it otherwise is to risk the well-being of the public against very long odds."



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: agw; catastrophism; climate; climatechange; corruption; democrats; economy; energy; envirofascism; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; godsgravesglyphs; heretic; holdren; junkscience; liberalfascism; liberals; obama; religion; scientism; warming; whadvisor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last
To: rogue yam

....................Holdren is not a “czar”. He is Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. He was confirmed to this position on March 19, 2009, by a unanimous vote in the Senate..........................

I did not know that he had his credentials submitted to the Senate for a vote.

Thanks for the clarification.

Now, I wonder whether 100 percent of the Senate supports AGW???


61 posted on 02/18/2011 1:55:02 PM PST by Noob1999 (Loose Lips Sink Ships)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Former MSM Viewer
"Is this the Obama guy who wants to give farm animals the right to sue? "

I think dogs should have the right to sue for a wrongful cop shooting.

62 posted on 02/18/2011 1:57:15 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


· GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach ·
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·

 
 Antiquity Journal
 & archive
 Archaeologica
 Archaeology
 Archaeology Channel
 BAR
 Bronze Age Forum
 Discover
 Dogpile
 Eurekalert
 Google
 LiveScience
 Mirabilis.ca
 Nat Geographic
 PhysOrg
 Science Daily
 Science News
 Texas AM
 Yahoo
 Excerpt, or Link only?
 


Thanks jazusamo.

Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
 

· History topic · history keyword · archaeology keyword · paleontology keyword ·
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword ·


63 posted on 02/18/2011 2:05:24 PM PST by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 75thOVI; aimhigh; Alice in Wonderland; AndrewC; aragorn; aristotleman; Avoiding_Sulla; BBell; ...

Thanks jazusamo. If this be heresy... :')
 
Catastrophism
 
· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe ·
 

64 posted on 02/18/2011 2:05:30 PM PST by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

I looked up heretic. It’s “a person believing in or practicing religious heresy.”

The man is right. He’s right because Manmade Global Warming is a religion, not a scientific theory. Heretic is the right word. I’m an MGW heretic!


65 posted on 02/18/2011 2:08:01 PM PST by RoadTest (Organized religion is no substitute for the relationship the living God wants with you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
Every major national academy of sciences in the world, and virtually all of the major professional societies that deal with the relevant disciplines have issued statements saying that the evidence for climate change outside the realm of natural variability is overwhelming, that we have very strong reason to believe that human activity is responsible for a large part of this change, that harm is already occurring from these changes and that the harm will grow unless and until we stabilize and begin to reduce our emissions. This is not the view of a few isolated scientists, this is the overwhelming view of scientists who study this matter around the world. You will be able to produce on the witness stand a few who will say they don’t believe it, but they are cery much in the minority. You could also produce people on this witness stand, who will say, with PhD’s attached to their names, that they don’t believe cigarette smoking increases the risk of lung cancer. There are always skeptics, there are always heretics; that’s in the nature of science. But public policy, in my judgment, should be based on the mainstream view because to base it otherwise is to risk the well-being of the public against very long odds."

A festival of fallacies.

Kind of - Appeal to authority, Appeal to belief, Appeal to Popularity - mixed together. 80% of dentists believe colgate ...

Appeal to adverse consequences

Red Herring (lung cancer)

Poisoning the well (lung cancer, heretics)

etc. etc.

66 posted on 02/18/2011 4:22:15 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

I couldn’t agree more (with you, not him).


67 posted on 02/18/2011 4:39:23 PM PST by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
I couldn’t agree more (with you, not him).

Especially in light of the fact that he didn't answer the question. Which was :

“Given the disparity of these projections, why should the American taxpayer have confidence in the administration’s assurance of global calamities to come or trust your climate change education campaign?” Hall asked.

The people he "attacked" had nothing to do with his erroneous predictions. And even if the "deniers" of global climate change were wrong, the answer was not an answer. It is based upon another fallacy, that of the false dichotomy.

68 posted on 02/18/2011 4:57:34 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
White House Science Advisor: Climate Change Skeptics Are ‘Heretics’

And Johnny Holdren is a LUNATIC.....

.....BTW, doesn't calling a skeptic a "heretic" ADMIT "human caused climate change" belief is a RELIGION?

69 posted on 02/18/2011 5:06:33 PM PST by SteamShovel ("Does the noise in my head bother you?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: olezip
The overwhelming view of real scientists who study this matter is that climate change is caused by the Sun, and not by a tiny, tiny fraction of carbon dioxide.

Actually, neither - we do Not understand what causes the climate to change really, Real scientists or not. The problem is at the moment beyond our understanding so Everyone has an opinion. But we do have good possibilities - the two most important factors being the solar radiation and the oceans. What Rich Lindzen is doing (his scientific duty) is Debunking the notion that AGW is the reason, because its not close to being established. He has no clue (like everyone else) what changes the climate. Observations of solar radiation are surprisingly hard to account for in theory or in the models.... The models are at least 10 years of computing power away from simulating reasonable climatic changes. Oceanic observations and accurate solar radiation measurements are maybe 20 years away...so thats at least the time frame to have a better understanding of the climate..
70 posted on 02/18/2011 5:07:04 PM PST by kroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

These fools have to be stopped, simple as that. They’re talking about creating a dark age for the sake of junk science.


71 posted on 02/18/2011 5:09:30 PM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BRK
that are given grants to prove global warming is real agree that global warming is real.

This is a little more complicated than that.....You would be surprised that only a fraction of scientists who study climate, oceans and the atmosphere actually Study or necessarily care about climate change. Most of them are doing basic climate science which would be useful for various reasons in the future....Many modelers are largely unconcerned about CO2 and don't solve cases with CO2 in it....They are more interested in accounting for solar forcing, the ocean-atmosphere interaction and so on....incredibly difficult problems on their own without some CO2 nonsense...But in applying for grants, it is convenient to make some extraneous comments about trying to study impact climate change to have a better chance of getting the grant. But they are still doing good science. But this is Always the case when basic science is concerned, you often have to play to choir to get funds to do good research in basic science...
72 posted on 02/18/2011 5:19:51 PM PST by kroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

I’d aver that you or I or dear Holden have no clue (yet)...which is a problem since Holden is the man with the mic and spewing some pretty ludicrous crap....


73 posted on 02/18/2011 5:31:04 PM PST by kroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: guerito1
Reminds me of pre-Nazi Germany.

Ah, Godwin's law and it only took Post 52.... Executions for opposing global warming? As moronic as the global warming movement (and the idiot Holden) is, your statement is far more ridiculous, no offense.

"First they came for the climate deniers....?" LOL!

Godwin's Law, FYI : "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
74 posted on 02/18/2011 5:55:33 PM PST by kroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

Excellent work pointing all the fallacies....normally one of my favorite hobbies.....


75 posted on 02/18/2011 5:59:03 PM PST by kroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: kroll
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

I guess that's a round about way of stating Murphy's law: "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong".... or Mom's dictum, "You'll shoot your eye out with that thing."

76 posted on 02/18/2011 6:39:24 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
"'Heretics', eh? Then by Holdren's own words it is now indeed plain that the whole 'Global Warming' thesis has mutated from science to religion."

Good catch! The smoking gun as it were ... but here's a warning "heretics" should allow for:

"If the individual, or heretic, gets hold of some essential truth, or sees some error in the system being practiced, he commits so many marginal errors himself that he is worn out before he can establish his point." - Ezra Pound

For my part I cannot believe that with the evidence of outright climate fraud that the system hasn't completely collapsed and its a testament to the power of the AGW crowd (financed by our US grants) and the media. We are not out of the woods yet.

77 posted on 02/18/2011 8:17:40 PM PST by Tunehead54 (Nothing funny here ;-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo; 11B40; A Balrog of Morgoth; A message; ACelt; Aeronaut; AFPhys; AlexW; America_Right; ...
HERETICS! YE GODS!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

Global Warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News Site

Latest from Greenie Watch

Latest from Real Climate

Latest from Climate Depot

Latest from Junk Science

Latest from Terra Daily

78 posted on 02/18/2011 9:51:58 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (up)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

He didn’t address his previous statements, AGW could be false, it is believed to be true, but if it does exist it can only theoretically be measured in computer models.


79 posted on 02/18/2011 11:25:57 PM PST by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #80 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson