Holdren, John

<h3 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.333;">Fact-Checking the Attacks</h3>The administration and its allies appear to be repeating one main talking point in their effort to discredit the National Climate Assessment: They claim, inaccurately, that the report represents only a worst-case scenario. It actually reflects a broad range of possible future outcomes—along with an enormity of direct, present-day observations of the impacts of global warming.The naysayers are trying to build that falsehood on a number of misleading assertions:<ul style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em 3em; padding: 0px; list-style-position: initial; list-style-image: initial;"><li style="box-sizing: inherit;">White House <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/press-briefing-press-secretary-sarah-sanders-director-nec-larry-kudlow-nsc-advisor-john-bolton-112818/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent;">spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders</a> said "even Obama's undersecretary for science didn't believe the radical conclusions of the report that was released." This appears to be a reference to Steven Koonin, a former chief scientist for BP, who spent 18 months as an undersecretary in the Obama administration's energy department. Koonin has long maintained climate science is not "settled," and has argued the government should have a red-team/blue-team debate—an idea championed unsuccessfully by former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.  </li><li style="box-sizing: inherit;">Sanders also said that the National Climate Assessment "is based on the most extreme modeled scenario, which contradicts long-established trends." But in fact the report considered the <a href="https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent;">full range of climate scenarios</a> set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, looking at what will happen if carbon emissions decline, if they stabilize, and if they continue to grow unabated. As Hayhoe noted in<a href="https://twitter.com/KHayhoe/status/1067458211576496129" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent;"> her Twitter thread,</a> "the observed increase in global carbon emissions over the past 15–20 years has been consistent with higher scenarios."  </li><li style="box-sizing: inherit;">The Trump EPA put out a news release it called a "fact check" on Wednesday, citing an article on the conservative website The Daily Caller to try to bolster an assertion by Wheeler that Obama administration's science adviser John Holdren instructed the report's authors in 2015 to look at worst-case scenarios. "Mr. Wheeler's insinuation is absolutely false," Holdren, now at Harvard, responded in a <a href="https://mahb.stanford.edu/breaking-news/john-holdrens-comment-andrew-wheelers-allegation-fourth-national-climate-assessment/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;">statement.</a> "Assertions by high officials of the Trump administration that these are 'worst case' reports are nothing more than a flimsy attempt to discredit the careful and comprehensive work of some of the best climate scientists in the country, inside and outside of government," Holdren said.  </li><li style="box-sizing: inherit;">Wheeler, a former coal industry lobbyist, said the administration might intervene in future climate reports. "Going forward, I think we need to take a look at the modeling that's used for the next assessment," Wheeler <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/28/epa-trump-next-climate-study-992872" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent;">said.</a> But the report underwent<a href="https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/front-matter-about/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent;"> several rounds of technical and policy review </a>by the 13 federal agencies involved. There was a series of regional engagement workshops that reached more than 1,000 people in over 40 cities, with listening sessions, webinars and public comment. An<a href="https://www.nap.edu/read/25013/chapter/3" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent;"> expert external peer review</a> of the whole report was performed by a committee of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.  </li><li style="box-sizing: inherit;">Roger Pielke Jr., a political scientist at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Colorado, <a href="https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1067209652205641728" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent;">took issue with the report </a>for including a figure that was widely quoted in the media: that U.S. GDP could take a 10 percent hit by 2100 due to climate change. The estimate was derived from an innovative, cutting-edge modeling of climate impacts on the U.S. economy <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6345/1362" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent;">published in the journal Science</a>. Pielke, who often says he agrees with the core science on global warming but disputes how it is applied, argued this headline-grabbing data point should not have been included, since it reflected a scenario of more global warming than is commonly reckoned in modeling. Robert Kopp, a climate scientist at Rutgers University and co-author of the Science paper, said the team purposefully took into account the unlikely—though not impossible—scenario at the end of the charted curve because of its potentially large consequences. "We were deliberately trying to include tail risks, not just 'most likely' outcomes, because consideration of tail risks is crucial to sound risk management," Kopp said in an email.</li></ul>The arguments of the Trump administration have been <a href="https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2018-11-29-climate-deniers-found-themselves-on-tv" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent;">amplified in media</a> coverage in the aftermath of the report's release.  Danielle Pletka of the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute prefacing her remarks with the caveat, "I'm not a scientist," before delivering a blizzard of inaccuracies on Sunday's "Meet the Press" on NBC aimed at undermining the report's credibility. Pletka said the last two years have been the coldest on record, when in fact they have been among the warmest. She said the U.S. "is not using dirty coal anymore," when in fact about 30 percent of U.S. power is still generated by coal and only <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44902.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background-color: transparent; box-sizing: inherit;">one</a> U.S. coal plant has technology in place to capture some of its carbon emissions.Hayhoe pre-taped an appearance on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 show to talk about the National Climate Assessment on Tuesday, but her appearance—<a href="https://twitter.com/windbarb/status/1068178498345418753" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent;">though posted online</a>—was bumped from the TV broadcast. CNN instead aired a segment with paid <a href="http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2017/01/18/cnn-adds-to-its-roster-of-commentators-and-contributors/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent;">contributor Rick Santorum</a>, a former Republican U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, who accused climate scientists of stoking alarm to make money.<div>=</div><div> Friday, the White House stunned many after it released a sweeping <a href="https://science2017.globalchange.gov/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">report</a> concluding that climate change is not only real, but it also poses a major threat to the U.S. and humans are "extremely likely" to be responsible.The 477-page National Climate Assessment, which was mandated by Congress and reviewed by 13 federal agencies, contracted with President Trump's notorious stance on global warming as a "<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-climate-change-hoax-2018812943.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;">hoax</a>." It also defied Trump's continued efforts to dismantle environmental regulations on both the national and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/cop23-thousands-march-2506729920.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;">international scale</a>.So why did the Trump White House release a report contradicting the president and much of his administration's stance on climate change?Well, as <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-06/how-the-trump-white-house-wound-up-releasing-dire-climate-report" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Bloomberg</a> reports, "don't read much into it":<blockquote style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Public drafts of the report have circulated for months, making it politically perilous to tinker with the findings. So, with editing a high-risk affair and the report required by Congress, the administration may have just decided to downplay it, said John Holdren, who ran the Office of Science and Technology Policy under President Barack Obama."It would do more harm to block this report than to let it out," Holdren, now a Harvard University environmental policy professor, said in an interview. "They're letting it out on a Friday afternoon, which is pretty much the standard approach for letting out something that you don't want to get a lot of attention."</blockquote>The other reason? Blame Obama. The report has been <a href="https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/climate/us-climate-report.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">in the works since 2015</a>."It is unfortunate that the Trump Administration has released these Obama-era climate reports, without attempting to remove the junk science—and the reports are full of junk science," fervent climate change denier and former Trump EPA transition team leader Myron Ebell told Bloomberg.The White House has also distanced itself from the main conclusion of the special report. In a <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-report-says-humans-extremely-likely-to-blame-for-warming/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Friday statement</a>, White House spokesperson Raj Shah used familiar climate-skeptic talking points to dismiss the findings."The climate has changed and is always changing. As the Climate Science Special Report states, the magnitude of future climate change depends significantly on 'remaining uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth's climate to [greenhouse gas] emissions,'" Shah said. "In the United States, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions have been declining, are expected to remain flat through 2040, and will also continue to decline as a share of world emissions."Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) has <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-climate-website-2498932391.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">removed the phrase</a> "climate change" from its websites and has <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-science-advisors-2504339714.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">prohibited its own scientists</a> from speaking about the issue.Additionally, Common Dreams <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/11/04/ahead-cop23-climate-talks-tens-thousands-march-demanding-end-era-fossil-fuels" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">reported</a> on Saturday that President Trump is looking to use the COP23 climate talks as a platform to sell fossil fuels—and coal in particular—as necessary and beneficial.</div><div> </div>mann bk says appalled by early hack BS while at harvard; later aaas prs, BO sci guy---<a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/sen-sheldon-whitehouse-wsj-caters-fossil-fuel-interestsagain" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">http://www.alternet.org/environment/sen-sheldon-whitehouse-wsj-caters-fossil-fuel-interestsagain</a>In recent weeks the right-wing attack machine has been up in arms regarding a letter sent by a group of 20 climate scientists to President Barack Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and White House science adviser John Holdren requesting that the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigate fossil-fuel companies that appear to have lied about the effects of their products on our world's climate. This week, the <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/shut-upor-well-shut-you-down-1444429915" target="hplink" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(241, 96, 44); outline: none; line-height: 32px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Wall Street Journal joined the fray</a>, writing that "[a]dvocates of climate regulation are urging the Obama Administration to investigate people who don't share their views... they want the feds to use a law created to prosecute the mafia against lawful businesses and scientists."As the Wall Street Journal and others have noted, and as the scientists' letter acknowledges, I myself raised the possibility of an investigation along these lines in a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fossil-fuel-industrys-campaign-to-mislead-the-american-people/2015/05/29/04a2c448-0574-11e5-8bda-c7b4e9a8f7ac_story.html" target="_hplink" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(241, 96, 44); outline: none;">Washington Post op-ed</a>earlier this year. The connection prompted the Journal to quote Georgia Tech's Judith Curry - a prominent climate denier - attacking both me and the scientists. "The demand by Senator Whitehouse and the 20 climate scientists for legal persecution of people whose research on science and policy they disagree with represents a new low in the politicization of science," she said.==

note BS

<h1 style="margin: 0.67em 0px 5px; font-weight: 600; font-style: normal;"><a href="http://cei.org/blog/cei-files-lawsuit-against-office-science-and-technology-policy" class="active" style="text-decoration: none;">CEI Files Lawsuit against Office of Science and Technology Policy</a></h1>

</div>

<div class="blog-post">By <a href="http://cei.org/expert/hans-bader" style="text-decoration: none;">Hans Bader</a> • May 5, 2014</div>

</div>

Today, the Competitive Enterprise Institute <a href="http://cei.org/legal-briefs/complaint-filed-cei-v-ostp" style="text-decoration: none;">sued</a> the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) for <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/5/white-house-sued-over-officials-email-records/" style="text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">flouting</a> the Freedom of Information Act. CEI's Chris Horner asked OSTP to produce work-related emails that OSTP's Director, John Holdren, stored in an email account at his former employer, the environmental-pressure group Woods Hole Research Center.

OSTP has resisted producing them. (The use of such non-official accounts for agency business frustrates federal open-government laws, and undermines government accountability, since such accounts are generally not searched in response to FOIA or congressional oversight requests seeking work-related communications or agency records. Moreover, the use of email accounts at a former employer that lobbies the federal government gives such pressure groups direct access to and control over public records, including highly sensitive information.)

What is ironic about this is that OSTP's Director, soon after taking office, lectured OSTP employees about not conducting official business using private email accounts, and about the need to forward all work-related communications to their agency email account in order to comply with federal record-keeping laws. (See May 10, 2010 Memo from OSTP Director John Holdren to all OSTP staff, Subject: Reminder: Compliance with the Federal Records Act and the President’s Ethics Pledge, at 1, available as Exhibit B to the letter <a href="http://cei.org/blog/www.citizensforethics.org/page/-/PDFs/Legal/Investigation/Request_for_Investigation_into_White_House_20100628.pdf?nocdn=1" style="text-decoration: none;">at this link</a>.) Apparently, the longer an official is in power, and the less he fears losing power, the less he cares about government transparency and the rule of law.

Meanwhile, OSTP has thumbed its nose at CEI's <a href="http://cei.org/legal-briefs/data-quality-act-request-ostp-about-holdrens-polar-vortex-comments" style="text-decoration: none;">request under the Information Quality Act</a> that it correct OSTP Director John Holdren's notoriously <a href="http://www.cato.org/blog/hot-air-about-cold-air" style="text-decoration: none;">false</a> <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2014/01/08/polar-vortex-explained-2-minutes" style="text-decoration: none;">claim</a>,<a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/07/is-global-warming-causing-the-polar-vortex/" style="text-decoration: none;">criticized</a> or disagreed with by <a href="http://www.cato.org/blog/hot-air-about-cold-air" style="text-decoration: none;">climate</a> <a href="http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2014/01/does-cold-wave-imply-anything-about.html" style="text-decoration: none;">scientists</a>, <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/01/08/we-geeks-polar-vortex-and-extreme-weather" style="text-decoration: none;">that</a> global warming is <a href="http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/matt-vespa/wh-scrambles-blame-polar-vortex-global-warming" style="text-decoration: none;">leading to more severe cold weather</a>. As of the time this blog post was published, OSTP's "Information Quality Guidelines" <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/library/compliance/infoquality" style="text-decoration: none;">website</a> continued to falsely claim that "OSTP has received no information quality correction requests. Any future requests will be posted on this page." It so claims even though CEI had submitted its most recent information quality request about a month ago (emailing it on April 13, and faxing it on April 14), and that same week, discussed that request by phone with an OSTP employee, who confirmed receipt of CEI's request, and stated that it would be posted on OSTP's web site.

OSTP made this false claim on its web site even though it was blatantly wrong at the time it was made: OSTP has received not one, but two CEI data quality correction requests, including a highly-publicized 2003 request that OSTP was sued over and resulted in a correction of OSTP's earlier climate change claims. See Chris Mooney, <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.mooney.html" style="text-decoration: none;">Paralysis by Analysis</a>: Jim Tozzi's Regulation to End All Regulation, Washington Monthly, May 1, 2004, at 23 ("Last August, the Competitive Enterprise Institute . . . filed suit under the Data Quality Act over a Clinton-era report on global warming, known as the National Assessment of Climate Change. Though the suit was ultimately settled out of court, government lawyers agreed to attach a disclaimer to the report.”).

OSTP's recent attempt to evade FOIA is equally disturbing. OSTP first claimed that CEI lawyer Chris Horner's FOIA request was not a FOIA request at all, even though it explicitly cited FOIA and FOIA statutory provisions and regulations. Then it interpreted Chris's request as covering only certain emails already found in Holdren'sofficial OSTP email account. The latter contention tortured the English language, while its former contention was legally just wrong: judges have ruled that agencies have to produce records reflecting agency activities, even if they were “neither created by agency employees, nor . . . currently located on agency property." Burka v. HHS, 87 F.3d 508, 515 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Here, the records were exchanged with an agency employee -- indeed, the agency's director! -- and recent rulings affirm that FOIA can be used to request agency records, even when they are in an official's private email account. (See, e.g., Landmark Legal Foundation v. E.P.A., 2013 WL 4083285, *6 (D.D.C. Aug. 14, 2013) (refusing to dismiss a FOIA lawsuit, because EPA failed to search agency officials' personal email accounts); CEI v. EPA, No. 12-1617, 2014 WL 308093, at *14 (D.D.C. Jan. 29, 2014) (noting that a requester "can simply ask for work-related emails and agency records found in the specific employees’ personal accounts; requesters” need not even identify the non-official email addresses at issue, which requesters may not know)).</div></div></div></div></div>

===

wow, gina and john come out swinging

==

In an unprecedented move, the President’s Science Advisor, Dr. John P. Holdren, has published a devastating <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/critique_of_pielke_jr_statements_on_drought.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">6-page debunking</a> of one of the country’s leading climate confusionists, Roger Pielke Jr.

I’ll excerpt Holdren’s comprehensive critique, “Drought and Global Climate Change,” below. Worsening drought may be the climate impact that affects the most people in the coming decades, as I discussed in my 2011 <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/31/3223791/climate-change-california-drought/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">literature review</a> in the journal Nature. It is valuable to see the the subject laid out so clearly by the nation’s top scientist.

Our understanding of drought and climate change is evolving pretty rapidly, so even the latest IPCC reports are already out of date. Having read much of the recent drought literature and interviewed many of the leading drought experts in the last few years, I can say that Holdren’s views are right in the mainstream of climatologists’ view of drought. I can think of no climate scientists who share Pielke’s startling assessment of Holdren’s views as “zombie science.”

In fact, some drought experts believe the situation is considerably worse than is widely understood. As one top researcher on the climate-drought link <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/31/3223791/climate-change-california-drought/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">confirmed</a> with me recently, “The U.S. may never again return to the relatively wet conditions experienced from 1977 to 1999.”

HOLDREN AND PIELKE

John Holdren is one of the most distinguished scientists in America. He is a past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Author of over 200 articles and papers, Holdren is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and a foreign member of the U.K.’s Royal Society.

I have known Holdren for more than two decades, and not only does he have more breadth of knowledge on all things climate than most, he is very judicious in his choice of words.

Roger Pielke Jr. is a political scientist who has publicly questioned the scientific integrity of more climate scientists than just about anyone else on the planet. He has smeared literally hundreds of scientists (as I document <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/02/28/205559/foreign-policys-guide-to-climate-skeptics-includes-roger-pielke-jr-meanwhile-andy-revkin-campaigns-for-him-to-be-an-ipcc-author/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">here</a>).

That is no doubt a key reason Pielke was included on Foreign Policy‘s “<a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/25/the_fp_guide_to_climate_skeptics" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">Guide to Climate Skeptics</a>.” No doubt that’s why the websites that most prominently feature or reprint Pielke’s attacks are climate denial sites like WattsUpWithThat and ClimateDepot. It is also why he is probably the single most disputed and debunked person in the science blogosphere, especially on the subject of extreme weather and climate change (see <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/02/28/205559/foreign-policys-guide-to-climate-skeptics-includes-roger-pielke-jr-meanwhile-andy-revkin-campaigns-for-him-to-be-an-ipcc-author/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">here</a> and <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/05/07/208042/roger-pielke-jr-false-accusation-gore-exaggerating/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">here</a>). Typical are:

<li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 5px 0px; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.6em; vertical-align: baseline;">A Few Things Ill Considered: “His [Pielke's] latest effort at <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2009/02/pielke_jr_how_low_can_he_go.php" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">sabotaging productive discourse on climate science and policy</a> is a really low blow, putting to rest any lingering hopes one might have had that he still had some integrity stashed away in there somewhere.”</li>

</ul>

Before his death, the widely revered climatologist Stephen Schneider described one of his run-ins with Pielke this way <a href="http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2012/07/31/stephen-schneiders-criticism-of-roger-pielke-jr-a-self-aggrandizer-trickster-and-careerist" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">five years ago</a>:

<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0.4em 0px; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.6em; vertical-align: baseline;">It is typical of a trickster and a careerist–which is how I personally see him–and so do most of my colleagues these days who I have discussed it with.

</blockquote>

Now Pielke has embraced the<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/04/3018051/bjorn-lomborg-carbon-pollution/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;"> widely discredited</a> Bjorn Lomborg argument that climate action is bad for the poor, when the science makes clear that climate inaction would be devastating to the poor. Climate action is the only sustainable path out of poverty, as climate expert and development practitioner John Abraham explains in a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/feb/28/global-warming-action-good-for-poor" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">UK Guardian piece</a> that Pielke has yet to respond to.

It should be obvious that if you’ve garnered a 6-page debunking by the nation’s top scientist, then you’ve moved into the elite ranks of climate confusionists.

If you want the full story on how Pielke has attempted to scandalize his personal quibbles with Holdren (to use a phrase Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/comment-page-1/#comment-159627" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">first applied</a> to Pielke), HotWhopper has a<a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/03/a-skilful-counterstrike-john-holdren.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">must read post</a>. Here’s the short version.

Back in December, Pielke criticized Holdren for pulling his punches on climate science,<a href="https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/279294596398338048" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">tweeting</a>, “Since becoming sci advisor Holdren has always stayed on safe (boring) ground in his public remarks.”

Then, in mid-February, when Holdren offered some straightforward well-grounded scientific statements about how climate change is worsening Western droughts, Pielke <a href="https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/statuses/434323780555395072" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">slammed him</a>, tweeting “it is brazen for zombie science to show up in the White House!”

Talk about damned if you do and damned if you don’t!

As Holdren explains, in a February 25 hearing, “Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) suggested that I had misled the American people with comments I made to reporters on February 13.” In particular, Sessions quoted testimony Pielke had given in July:

Drought has “for the most part, become shorter, less, frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U.S. over the last century”. Globally, “there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.”

</blockquote>

The first quote in the second paragraph is from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program’s 2008 report, “<a href="http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/_{kossin/articles/sap3-3-final-all.pdf}" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate</a>,” and the second is from a 2012 paper by Sheffield et al. in the journal Nature.

As an important aside, Sheffield’s paper has been disputed. I recently interviewed Aiguo Dai, and he thinks the Sheffield analysis is flawed. Dai stands by his conclusion in a <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n1/abs/nclimate1633.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">2012 paper in Nature Climate Change</a> that “Historical records of precipitation, streamflow, and drought indices all show increased aridity since 1950 over many land areas.”

When Holdren rebutted Pielke’s charges in Senate testimony, Pielke demanded “If you do indeed believe that my views are ‘outside the scientific mainstream’ could you substantiate that claim”?

Holdren’s full devastating reply is “<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/critique_of_pielke_jr_statements_on_drought.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">Drought and Global Climate Change: An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr</a>.”

Besides reviewing the drought literature, Holdren makes a crucial point that “any reference to the CCSP 2008 report in this context should include not just the sentence highlighted in Dr. Pielke’s testimony but also the sentence that follows immediately in the relevant passage from that document and which relates specifically to the American West.” Here are the two key sentences from <a href="http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/_{kossin/articles/sap3-3-final-all.pdf}" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">the report</a> in their entirety):

<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0.4em 0px; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.6em; vertical-align: baseline;">Similarly, long-term trends (1925–2003) of hydrologic droughts based on model derived soil moisture and runoff show that droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U.S. over the last century (Andreadis and Lettenmaier, 2006). The main exception is the Southwest and parts of the interior of the West, where increased temperature has led to rising drought trends (Groisman et al., 2004; Andreadis and Lettenmaier, 2006).

</blockquote>

Amazingly, Pielke’s testimony did include the second sentence about rising drought trend in the SW and West — which would seem to render most of his attack (and Sen. Sessions’ attack) on Holdren moot — but Pielke buried it in a footnote. Again, Hotwhopper <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/03/a-skilful-counterstrike-john-holdren.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">explains</a>just how head-exploding this all is.

Holdren makes a key point that I have <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/31/3223791/climate-change-california-drought/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">made repeatedly</a> — severe drought is much more than just a reduction in precipitation. He explains: “In my recent comments about observed and projected increases in drought in the American West, I mentioned four relatively well understood mechanisms by which climate change can play a role in drought. (I have always been careful to note that, scientifically, we cannot say that climate change caused a particular drought, but only that it is expected to increase the frequency, intensity, and duration of drought in some regions ― and that such changes are being observed.)”

These four mechanisms are:

<li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px 20px; padding: 5px 0px; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.25em; vertical-align: baseline;">In a warming world, a larger fraction of total precipitation falls in downpours, which means a larger fraction is lost to storm runoff (as opposed to being absorbed in soil).</li>

<li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px 20px; padding: 5px 0px; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.25em; vertical-align: baseline;">In mountain regions that are warming, as most are, a larger fraction of precipitation falls as rain rather than as snow, which means lower stream flows in spring and summer.</li>

<li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px 20px; padding: 5px 0px; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.25em; vertical-align: baseline;">What snowpack there is melts earlier in a warming world, further reducing flows later in the year.</li>

<li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px 20px; padding: 5px 0px; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.25em; vertical-align: baseline;">Where temperatures are higher, losses of water from soil and reservoirs due to evaporation are likewise higher than they would otherwise be.</li>

</ol>

Holdren reviews the scientific literature on those statements in his reply, noting “the second, third, and fourth mechanisms reflect elementary physics and are hardly subject to dispute (but see also additional references provided at the end of this comment).” Holdren states:

<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0.4em 0px; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.6em; vertical-align: baseline;">As I have also noted in recent public comments, additional mechanisms have been identified by which changes in atmospheric circulation patterns that maybe a result of global warming could be affecting droughts in the American West. There are some measurements and some analyses suggesting that these mechanisms are operating, but the evidence is less than conclusive, and some respectable analysts attribute the indicated circulation changes to natural variability. The uncertainty about these mechanisms should not be allowed to become a distraction obscuring the more robust understandings about climate change and regional drought summarized above.

</blockquote>

Holdren is being characteristically conservative in his language here. <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/31/3223791/climate-change-california-drought/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">As I’ve written</a>, climate scientists specifically predicted a decade ago that Arctic ice loss would bring on worse droughts in the West — and California is now in the death-grip of a brutal, record-breaking drought, driven by the very change in the jet stream that scientists had anticipated.

But Holdren’s main point is the important one — quite separate from any changes in precipitation that climate change may cause, there is little dispute that human-caused climate change is worsening droughts in the West and Southwest. I recommend his <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/critique_of_pielke_jr_statements_on_drought.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">entire paper</a> to readers interested in this important subject.

<li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.33em; padding: 5px 0px; border: 0px; font-size: 0.9em; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.6em; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline-block;"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/tag/climate-change/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 1px 0.5em; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; border-top-left-radius: 6px; border-top-right-radius: 6px; border-bottom-right-radius: 6px; border-bottom-left-radius: 6px; background: rgb(221, 221, 221);">Climate Change</a></li>

<li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.33em; padding: 5px 0px; border: 0px; font-size: 0.9em; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.6em; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline-block;"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/tag/climate-change-deniers/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 1px 0.5em; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; border-top-left-radius: 6px; border-top-right-radius: 6px; border-bottom-right-radius: 6px; border-bottom-left-radius: 6px; background: rgb(221, 221, 221);">Climate Change Deniers</a></li>

<li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.33em; padding: 5px 0px; border: 0px; font-size: 0.9em; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.6em; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline-block;"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/tag/drought/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 1px 0.5em; border: 0px; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; border-top-left-radius: 6px; border-top-right-radius: 6px; border-bottom-right-radius: 6px; border-bottom-left-radius: 6px; background: rgb(221, 221, 221);">drought</a></li>

</ul>

</div>

<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/03/3349411/john-holdren-roger-pielke-climate-drought/">http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/03/3349411/john-holdren-roger-pielke-climate-drought/</a>

===

==

media matters:

Morano Falsely Suggested That Former Romney Global Warming Advisor Favored Forced Sterilization. Last year on Alex Jones' show, Morano expressed concern that Romney would accept manmade global warming if he were elected President, noting that he was advised by John Holdren -- now President Obama's senior science advisor -- while he was governor of Massachusetts. Morano went on to suggest that Holdren supported forced sterilization, when in fact he had merely co-authored a book 32 years prior that catalogued such methods among many others but did not endorse them. From The Alex Jones Show:

MORANO: [Romney] had John Holdren as one of his advisors in Massachusetts when Romney was on his global warming kick.

[...]

AARON DYKES, ALEX JONES GUEST HOST: So just for the viewers who may not be following the name game here. You're talking about John P. Holdren, Obama's global warming and white house czar, who calls for a $4 billion 4 billion person genocide over overpopulation and is experimenting with this geoengineering in the atmosphere -

MORANO: Yes.

DYKES: --over global warming.

[...]

===

forbes bailey

<h1 style="margin: 9px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 48px; white-space: pre-line; word-wrap: break-word; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">John Holdren, Ideological Environmentalist</h1></hgroup><div class="comment_bug" style=" margin: 14px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; position: relative; clear: both; z-index: 12; height: auto; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><div class="no_comment_bugs_exist_yet" style=" margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><div id="leftRail" class="fleft clearfix article" style=" margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; float: left; width: 620px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><div class="body" style=" margin: -15px 0px 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; position: relative; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">

<p style="line-height: 24px; margin: 15px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; word-wrap: break-word; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">President Barack Obama has nominated a Green Dream Team to guide the implementation of his ambitious climate and energy policies. John Holdren, a fierce ideological environmentalist, will be the leader of this team as the assistant to the president for science and technology and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Holdren’s political environmentalism has been amply rewarded over the years. Today, he is the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, director of environmental research group the Woods Hole Research Center and a past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

In his salad days, Holdren was a fully paid-up member of The Limits to Growth club. For example, in his 1971 Sierra Club book, <em style=" margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Energy: A Crisis in Power, Holdren declared that “it is fair to conclude that under almost any assumptions, the supplies of crude petroleum and natural gas are severely limited. The bulk of energy likely to flow from these sources may have been tapped within the lifetime of many of the present population.” This sounds very much like contemporary prognostications of “peak oil.”

In keeping with his dogmatic limits-to-growth convictions, Holdren joined his frequent co-author, eco-doomster Paul Ehrlich, in a famous bet against cornucopian economist Julian Simon.

In 1980, Holdren, Ehrlich and Stanford colleague John Harte picked a basket of five commodities–chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten–that they were sure were going to rise in price as they became increasingly scarce. They drew up a futures contract obligating Simon to sell Holdren, Ehrlich and Harte the same quantities of five metals that could be purchased for $1,000 10 years later at 1980 prices.

If the combined prices rose above $1,000, Simon would pay the difference. If they fell below $1,000, Ehrlich would pay Simon. Ehrlich mailed Simon a check for $576.07 in October 1990. Simply put, the combined real prices of the metals selected by Holdren and his colleagues fell by more than 50% during the 1980s, confirming cornucopian claims that the supply of resources over time becomes more abundant, not scarcer.

Despite his early peak-oil proclivities, Holdren did acknowledge in <em style=" margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists back in 1975 that “civilization is not running out of energy; but it is running out of cheap energy.” But even then, he was clearly convinced that energy supplies would become ever more expensive. More recently, Holdren has declared that even “peak oil” is debatable.

Also near the beginning of his career, Holdren introduced in 1971–with his colleague and perennial population-alarmist, Ehrlich–the concept of the I=PAT identity. Human Impact on the environment is equal to Population x Affluence/consumption x Technology. All of which are supposed to intensify and worsen humanity’s impact on the natural world.

History shows that the I=PAT identity largely gets it backward. Population is at worst neutral, while affluence and technology actually promote environmental flourishing. It is in the rich, developed countries that the air becomes clearer, the streams cleaner and the forests more expansive.

Holdren now apparently recognizes the power of human creativity to solve environmental problems by means of technological progress and economic growth. In his 2006 inaugural lecture as the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, he noted, “Advances in technology help meet basic human needs and drive economic growth through increased productivity, reduced costs, reduced resource use and environmental impact, and new or improved products and services.”

Unfortunately, Holdren doesn’t appear to have an adequate understanding of the economic process through which these technological advances are achieved. He seems to think new technologies arise full-blown from government agencies and university laboratories.

Holdren early on exhibited an unlovely tendency to try to enforce ideological conformity on his fellow scientists and activists. Back in 1972, he and Ehrlich disagreed with environmentalist Barry Commoner on whether population or technology was worse for environment. This dispute exploded into the public when Commoner disclosed a letter Ehrlich and Holdren had sent to numerous scientific colleagues revealing that the two had pressed Commoner not to debate in public which of the factors was most important because that would undermine the realization of environmental goals.

Commoner was outraged that the two wanted to shut down debate and enforce an environmentally correct united front. If this is what Holdren would attempt to do to an errant fellow environmentalist, it’s no surprise the fury he visits upon those who don’t accept the environmental litany of doom, such as Bjorn Lomborg, author of <em style=" margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">The <em style=" margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Skeptical Environmentalist.

Lomborg had the temerity to cite Holdren’s humiliating lost bet with Simon in his book. In a 2002 <em style=" margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Scientific American attack piece, Holdren characterized Lomborg’s chapter on energy as being “devoted almost entirely to attacking the belief that the world is running out of energy,” which “only a handful of environmental researchers, if any at all, believe this today.”

=

<h1 style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(17, 17, 17); line-height: 34px; letter-spacing: -0.9px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Lawmakers Probe Science Czar Holdren's Links to Climategate</h1>

<h3 style="margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); letter-spacing: -0.3px;">Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, November 30, 2009, 4:39 AM</h3>

<p style=" margin: 15px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; word-wrap: break-word; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2009/11/lawmakers-probe-science-czar-holdrens-links-to-climategate/

Republican lawmakers are probing Science Czar John Holdren’s links to the Climategate documents.

Obama’s <a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2009/11/2009/09/obamas-radical-science-czar-says-us-should-redistribute-the-wealth-video/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: bold; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline: none;">socialist</a> Science Czar John Holdren, who once said that <a href="http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: bold; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline: none;">forced abortions were needed</a> to save the planet, is also involved in the Climategate Scandal.

Holdren, <a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2009/11/2009/10/china-scholar-shocked-at-obamas-communications-directors-admiration-of-mao-tse-tung/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: bold; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline: none;">another</a> socialist in the White House, was <a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2009/11/2009/09/obamas-socialist-science-czar-john-holdren-in-1971-new-ice-age-likely/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: bold; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline: none;">pushing global cooling</a> before he was pushing man-made global warming.

His name is linked to the Climategate scandal.

<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125902685372961609.html" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: bold; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline: none;">The Wall Street Journal</a> reported:"Congressional Republicans have started investigating climate scientists whose hacked emails suggest they tried to squelch dissenting views about global warmingAn aide to Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), the ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said investigators are studying the documents, which unknown hackers stole last week from the computer of a prominent British climate-research centerInvestigators are focusing on the correspondence of White House Science Adviser John Holdren, he said. Dr. Holdren, a point man for the Obama administration on climate change, sent one of the hacked emails. In the 2003 email, Dr. Holdren, then at the Woods Hole Research Center in Woods Hole, Mass., defended research by Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, a scientist who believes global warming is man-made and who also sent some of the hacked emails.On Monday, Dr. Holden said: “I’m happy to stand by my contribution to this exchange. I think anybody who reads what I wrote in its entirety will find it a serious and balanced treatment of the question of ‘burden of proof’ in situations where science germane to public policy is in dispute.”The aide said investigators are also probing the contributions of dozens of climate scientists to reports published by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Environmental Protection Agency, in its recent move to boost regulation of greenhouse gases, based its conclusions on IPCC reports.The IPCC has said the climate is heating up and humans are almost certainly to blame. Those who disagree that the globe is warming, or on the cause or extent of any warming, complain that their views have been excluded.
Previously:MAN-BEAR-PIG Is Dead!… Emails Prove Global Warming Junk Science Conspiracy (Updated)“Hockey Stick” Creator Implicated in Global Warming ConspiracyMainstream Media Ignores Greatest Scandal In Modern ScienceInhofe Will Call For Investigation Into Global Warming Email ScandalMedia Ignores Climategate Even as NASA Is Dragged Into the ScandalClimategate Video & Children’s Book Released Explosive– Climategate Files Leaked to BBC -They Refused to Cover StoryObama’s Science Czar John Holdren Involved in Climategate ScandalRenowned Statistician & Software Engineer Says Hockey Stick Data Was “Fudged”“Hockey Stick” Graph Creator Mann to Be Investigated by Penn State
===<div class="apd_static_banner writebinapdel991961 apd_writebin" id="writebinapdel991961" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0px; border: 0px; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; clip: auto; height: 250px; width: 300px; float: right; padding: 5px 10px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><blockquote apd-event="load" apd-width="300" apd-height="250" apd-type="static" apd-zoneid="99196" apd-id="apdel991961" apd-contenttype="html" apd-filename="" apd-logurl="http://cdn.appendad.com/ox/www/delivery/lg.php?bannerid=1574&campaignid=31&zoneid=99196&loc=%2F2009%2F11%2Flawmakers-probe-science-czar-holdrens-links-to-climategate%2F&cb=d51cc06ce0" apd-clickurl="http://cdn.appendad.com/ox/www/delivery/ck.php?oaparams=2bannerid=1574zoneid=99196cb=d51cc06ce0oadest=" apd-bannercontent=""><ins class="" adsbygoogle="adsbygoogle" style="display:inline-block;width:300px;height:250px" data-ad-client="ca-pub-3622156405313063" data-ad-slot="99196.5196">Congressional Republicans have started investigating climate scientists whose hacked emails suggest they tried to squelch dissenting views about global warming.

An aide to Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), the ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said investigators are studying the documents, which unknown hackers stole last week from the computer of a prominent British climate-research center.

Investigators are focusing on the correspondence of White House Science Adviser John Holdren, he said. Dr. Holdren, a point man for the Obama administration on climate change, sent one of the hacked emails. In the 2003 email, Dr. Holdren, then at the Woods Hole Research Center in Woods Hole, Mass., defended research by Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, a scientist who believes global warming is man-made and who also sent some of the hacked emails.

On Monday, Dr. Holden said: “I’m happy to stand by my contribution to this exchange. I think anybody who reads what I wrote in its entirety will find it a serious and balanced treatment of the question of ‘burden of proof’ in situations where science germane to public policy is in dispute.”

The aide said investigators are also probing the contributions of dozens of climate scientists to reports published by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Environmental Protection Agency, in its recent move to boost regulation of greenhouse gases, based its conclusions on IPCC reports.

The IPCC has said the climate is heating up and humans are almost certainly to blame. Those who disagree that the globe is warming, or on the cause or extent of any warming, complain that their views have been excluded.

</ins></blockquote>

Previously:

<a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2009/11/2009/11/2009/11/man-bear-pig-is-dead-emails-prove-global-warming-junk-science-conspiracy/" style="color: rgb(0, 110, 187); margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: bold; font-style: inherit; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline: none;">MAN-BEAR-PIG Is Dead!… Emails Prove Global Warming Junk Science Conspiracy (Updated)</a>

<a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2009/11/2009/11/2009/11/mann-bear-pig-hockey-stick-creator-michael-mann-implicated-in-global-warming-conspiracy/" style="color: rgb(0, 110, 187); margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: bold; font-style: inherit; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline: none;">“Hockey Stick” Creator Implicated in Global Warming Conspiracy</a>

<a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2009/11/2009/11/2009/11/mainstream-media-ignores-greatest-scandal-in-modern-science/" style="color: rgb(0, 110, 187); margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: bold; font-style: inherit; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline: none;">Mainstream Media Ignores Greatest Scandal In Modern Science</a>

<a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2009/11/2009/11/2009/11/senator-inhofe-will-call-for-investigation-on-global-warming-scandal/" style="color: rgb(0, 110, 187); margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: bold; font-style: inherit; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline: none;">Inhofe Will Call For Investigation Into Global Warming Email Scandal</a>

<a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2009/11/2009/11/2009/11/media-ignores-climategate-even-as-nasa-is-dragged-into-the-scandal/" style="color: rgb(0, 110, 187); margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: bold; font-style: inherit; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline: none;">Media Ignores Climategate Even as NASA Is Dragged Into the Scandal</a>

<a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2009/11/2009/11/2009/11/just-in-time-for-copenhagen-junk-science-summit-the-climategate-video/" style="color: rgb(0, 110, 187); margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: bold; font-style: inherit; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline: none;">Climategate Video & Children’s Book Released </a>

<a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2009/11/2009/11/2009/11/explosive-climategate-files-were-leaked-to-bbc-but-they-refused-to-cover-the-story/" style="color: rgb(0, 110, 187); margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: bold; font-style: inherit; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline: none;">Explosive– Climategate Files Leaked to BBC -They Refused to Cover Story</a>

<a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2009/11/2009/11/breaking-obamas-science-czar-john-holdren-involved-in-climategate-scandal/" style="color: rgb(0, 110, 187); margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: bold; font-style: inherit; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline: none;">Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren Involved in Climategate Scandal</a>

<a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2009/11/2009/11/death-knell-to-global-warming-renowned-statistician-software-engineer-says-hockey-stick-data-was-fudged/" style="color: rgb(0, 110, 187); margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: bold; font-style: inherit; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline: none;">Renowned Statistician & Software Engineer Says Hockey Stick Data Was “Fudged”</a>

<a href="http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/11/hockey-stick-graph-creator-mann-to-be-investigated-by-penn-state/" style="color: rgb(0, 110, 187); margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: bold; font-style: inherit; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline: none;">“Hockey Stick” Graph Creator Mann to Be Investigated by Penn State</a>

===

</div>

</div>