Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding “Climategate” scandal

by MegaDude 15 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  MegaDude

  http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17183

  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 CRU’s 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”.

  “The files contain so much material that it is going to take some time t o put it all in context,” says Ball. “However, enough is already known to underscore their explosive nature. It is already clear the entire claims and positions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are based on falsified manipulated material and is therefore completely compromised.

  “The fallout will be extensive as material continues to emerge. Reputations of the scientists involved are already destroyed, however fringe players will continue to be identified and their reputations destroyed or sullied.”

  While the mainstream media is bending into pretzels to keep the scandal under the rug, Climategate is already the biggest scientific scandal in history because of the global policy implications.

  A throwback to the intro of the television series Dragnet, “Ladies and Gentlemen: “The story you are about to hear is true, only the names have been changed to protect the innocent”, the innocent in Climategate have already been thrown to the ravening wolves.

  “There is a multitude of small but frightening stories in the massive files,” Ball writes. “For example I’ve known solar physicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon for a long time. I’ve published articles with Willie and enjoyed extensive communication. I was on advisory committees with them when Sallie suddenly and politely withdrew from the fray. I don’t know if the following events were contributing factors but it is likely.

  “Baliunas and Soon were authors of excellent work confirming the existence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from a multitude of sources. Their work challenged attempts to get rid of the MWP because it contradicted the claim by the proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Several scientists challenged the claim that the latter part of the 20 th century was the warmest ever. They knew the claim was false, many warmer periods occurred in the past. Michael Mann ‘got rid’ of the
• 

  MegaDude

  of the MWP with his production of the hockey stick, but Soon and Baliunas were problematic. What better than have a powerful academic destroy their credibility for you? Sadly, there are always people who will do the dirty work.”

  Indeed, Holdren’s emails show how sincere scientists would be made into raw “entertainment”.

  How the deed was done

  “A perfect person and opportunity appeared. On 16 th October 2003 Michael Mann, infamous for his lead in the ‘hockey stick’ that dominated the 2001 IPCC Report, sent an email to people involved in the CRU scandal; “

  Dear All,

  Thought you would be interested in this exchange, which John Holdren of Harvard has been kind enough to pass along…” At the time Holdren was 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. (Editor’s Note: He is now Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology—informally known as the United States Science Czar. )

  ““In an email on October16, 2003 from John Holdren to Michael Mann and Tom Wigley we are told:

  ”“I’m forwarding for your entertainment an exchange that followed from my being quoted in the Harvard Crimson to the effect that you and your colleagues are right and my “Harvard” colleagues Soon and Baliunas are wrong about what the evidence shows concerning surface temperatures over the past millennium. The cover note to faculty and postdocs in a regular Wednesday breakfast discussion group on environmental science and public policy in Harvard’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences is more or less self-explanatory.”

  The Wednesday Breakfast Group

  “This is what Holdren sent to the Wednesday Breakfast group.

  “I append here an e-mail correspondence I have engaged in over the past few days trying to educate a Soon/Baliunas supporter who originally wrote to me asking how I could think that Soon and Baliunas are wrong and Mann et al. are right (a view attributed to me, correctly, in the Harvard Crimson). This individual apparently runs a web site on which he had been touting the Soon/Baliunas position.”

  “The exchange Holdren refers to is a challenge by Nick Schulz editor of Tech Central Station (TCS). On August 9, 2003 Schulz wrote;

  “In a recent Crimson story on the work of Soon and Baliunas, who have written for my website [1 techcentralstation.com, you
• 

  MegaDude

  “In a recent Crimson story on the work of Soon and Baliunas, who have written for my website [1 techcentralstation.com, you are quoted as saying: My impression is that the critics are right. It s unfortunate that so much attention is paid to a flawed analysis, but that’s what happens when something happens to support the political climate in Washington. Do you feel the same way about the work of Mann et. al.? If not why not?”

  “Holdren provides lengthy responses on October 13, 14, and 16 but comments fail to answer Schulz’s questions. After the first response Schulz replies, “I guess my problem concerns what lawyers call the burden of proof. The burden weighs heavily, much more heavily, given the claims on Mann et.al. than it does on Soon/Baliunas. Would you agree?” Of course, Holdren doesn’t agree. He replies, “But, in practice, burden of proof is an evolving thing-it evolves as the amount of evidence relevant to a particular proposition grows.” No it doesn’t evolve; it is either on one side or the other. This argument is in line with what has happened with AGW. He then demonstrates his lack of understanding of science and climate science by opting for Mann and his hockey stick over Soon and Baliunas. His entire defense and position devolves to a political position. His attempt to belittle Soon and Baliunas in front of colleagues is a measure of the man’s blindness and political opportunism that pervades everything he says or does.

  “Schulz provides a solid summary when he writes, “I’ll close by saying I’m willing to admit that, as someone lacking a PhD, I could be punching above my weight. But I will ask you a different but related question. How much hope is there for reaching reasonable public policy decisions that affect the lives of millions if the science upon which those decisions must be made is said to be by definition beyond the reach of those people?”

  “We now know it was deliberately placed beyond the reach of the people by the group that he used to ridicule Soon and Baliunas. Holdren was blinded by his political views, which as his record shows are frightening. One web site synthesizes his position on over-population as follows, “Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A “Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death over American citizens.”

  “Holdren has a long history of seeking total government control. He was involved in the Club of Rome providing Paul Ehrlich with the scientific data in his bet with Julian Simon. Ehrlich lost the bet. Holdren’s behavior in this sorry episode with Soon and Baliunas is too true to form and shows the leopard never changes his spots,” Ball concludes.

  Meanwhile, even with an AWOL mainstream media, the Climategate snakes continue to slither out from under the rocks.
• 

  WTWizard

  How is this: When global warming is happening on Mars, that sort of lets human activity off the hook. Even if this was the warmest period ever (which is not true--the same conditions in the Arctic now developing were in place during the First Dark Ages), if it is also happening on Mars and other planets, I would now be inclined to blame either the sun itself or its proximity to other stars in nearby clusters.
• 

  Elsewhere

  > Climategate is already the biggest scientific scandal in history because of the global policy implications.

  As far as I'm aware, this incident was isolated to one group of researchers... not the entire group of all climate research scientists.

  Saying this is a massive scandal is like saying that cloning does not exist and is a fraud because of the scandal involving Hwang Woo-suk in South Korea who faked his cloning data.

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4554422.stm

  Cloning is real and so is Climate Change. One set of bad research does not change this fact.
• 

  SixofNine

  For more instances of bad behaviour by those horrible human beings known as scientist:LINK
• 

  MegaDude

  "Global warming isn't science. It's Scientology."
• 

  Simon

  ... and Texas isn't a state, it's a cult.
• 

  SixofNine

  Do you understand the greenhouse gas effect of the earth's atmosphere, Jerry?

  Would it be accurate to describe human contribution to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere currently, as compared to 100 years ago and all history previous, as A) massive, B) relentless, and C) relentlessly increasing?

  Also, I'd love to hear your opinion on specifically how much is too much, wrt carbon and methane? To your mind are there no limits to how much c02 and methane is acceptable to add to the earths atmosphere?
• 

  Mad Dawg

  It would be accurate to state that the amount of gases put in the air by man compared to nature is small.

  We won't find out from the yahoos involved in the scandle how much is too much.