House Republicans Grill Obama Science Advisor on ClimateGate

John Holdren, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy

John Holdren, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy

Yesterday in the U.S. House of Representatives, Republicans read from several of the leaked emails from the Climate Research Unit in England which illustrate scientific fraud relating to global warming.

One of them was from John Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar. It was written in 2003 when Holdren was at Harvard University.

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) pointed out that these email showing scientific monkey-business aren’t just something far away that only concerns the British, but has global–and American–impact.

It does end up putting into question all of the science of Climate Change.

Now, the data from the Climate Research Unit at the UEA in England is one of only three major data sets, but they considerably overlap, and they’ve been used as a basis for the IPCC report as well as the U.S. Global Change Research Program. And that means that these two booklets that were passed out this morning, you know, at best need to have a thorough review in the light of this information that has been disclosed. And at worst, it’s junk science, and it’s a part of a massive international scientific fraud.

Yes, I have long pointed out that the whole contention of anthropogenic global warming is pure junk science.

And the fraud of this sloppy hoax is multiplied exponentially when you realize that certain people are using it–and the illusion of credibility surrounding it–to curtail American’s freedom and prosperity through measures like the cap and trade global warming tax being considered by the U.S. Senate right now (the U.S. House has already passed it), and the UN Climate Change Treaty President Obama wants to chain the U.S. to later this month.

Here is what Sensenbrenner said to Holdren about Holdren’s involvement in this mess:

Now Dr. Holdren, you’ve been in the middle of a lot of this, and I’ve got a couple of questions, based upon your statements before you joined the Obama administration.

You gave an interview in August of 2006 with the BBC News in the UK, and you said that a sea level rise of up to thirteen feet was in the realm of possibility. However, that’s eleven feet higher than what the IPPC has estimated over this period of time, which is somewhere between seven and 23 inches.

Now with respect to the hockey stick theory, which the Chairman has referred to, um, that’s been pretty much discredited in the scientific community, and yet in your October 13 email, which is now in the public record, you aggressively attacked the two scientists that put this together, a Dr. Willie Soon and a Dr. Sallie Baliunas.

Now, I think it’s pretty clear that in both cases you were wrong, and I guess I’d like to know if you’re concerned now that you’re in the White House and representing all of the public, whether you’re concerned about the misrepresentation of the state of science with respect to Global Warming, and I’d also like to know if you still support the principal critic of the, of those who trash the hockey stick theory, that is a Dr. Michael Mann, knowing of his efforts now to hide his data and to encourage his colleagues to shut out journals like Climate Research to publish works contrary to his own bias.

Holdren follows with a lot of hemming and hawing about how “not all of the climate data has been discredited.”

Wow, that should fill the American taxpayer with confidence while you’re ripping them off with cap and trade global warming taxes and running their everyday lives for them.

Holdren also whips out the trusty liberal play about “McCarthyism” and “name calling.”  Any time you nail them on their silly ideas and un-American proposals, they squeal “McCarthyism.”  And when you call their bunk what it is, you’re “name calling.”  Uh huh.

I think based on the rather remarkable behavior seen from the apostles of global warming during this ClimateGate incident (both the little they’ve said and the massive silence that’s followed these revelations), that on some level they know the gig is nearly up–and they’re sweating bullets.

The number of people who believe in the silly idea of anthropogenic global warming has been dropping for some time, even as the number of scientists who care coming forward with their dissent has been growing.  Now, with the curtain drawn back and the manipulation of the data exposed, they are almost out of rope in their schemes to burden the American people under bogus climate regulations.

There is no better time than now to make your voice heard, to let those in Washington know that we’re not buying it and they’d better not sell our freedom and prosperity down the socialist river.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark
  • artesian
    Climategate Forecast...

    “• What is the current scientific consensus on the conclusions reached by Drs. Mann, Bradley and Hughes? [Referring to the hockey stick propagated in UN IPCC 2001 by Michael Mann.]
    Ans: Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on MBH98/99. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.”

    AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION, also known as The Wegman report was authored by Edward J. Wegman, George Mason University, David W. Scott, Rice University, and Yasmin H. Said, The Johns Hopkins University with the contributions of John T. Rigsby, III, Naval Surface Warfare Center, and Denise M. Reeves, MITRE Corporation.
  • As has been pointed out by several commentators, this scandal indicts not just the "science" of climate change, but all of science. Unless leading scientists of all disciplines get indignant and condemn all "junk science" they will soon lose the confidence of Americans, not to mention the grant dollars.

    I believe this scandal may continue to grow and eventually confirm what many of us have suspected for quite some time; that research concerning Darwinism, stem cell studies, AIDS, homosexuality and other politically charged subjects have been unduly influenced by interests other than scientific.
  • Global warming is obvious bunk, but trying to tie it to evolutionary is a foolish endeavor. There is no such scientific theory called “Darwinism”. The political charging you are speaking of are objections to real science based on religious dogma, and are an issue only to the right.

    If you try to tack on all of your right wing baggage to a legitimate scientific scandal, you will taint the issue with your bias and loose the support of the people in the middle. Stick with the true scandal and leave your dogma at home...... or lose the fight.
  • It's intresting that you can se that the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming is a lot of assumption, hype and guesswork built on a paper-thin foudation of sloppy "science"...yet don't see that the theory of evoluton exists in essentially the same state.

    The only real difference between the theory of AGW and the theory of evolution is that you've become comfortable accepting the notion that evolution is NOT comprised of 90+% assumptions and 10% or less actual science.

    I'm glad you see the naked truth about AGW, but I encourage you to try and step back from the theory of evolution for a bit and try your best to look at the so-called "evidence" for the theory with objective eyes. I think that if you do, you will, as I did some 10 years ago, realize it's a lot of smoke and mirrors.

    And then you may also realize how logically inconsistent it's key tenets are as well.
  • Mojo
    I have studied the subject over the course of over thirty years. One is science as it is supposed to be, and the other (global warming) is politics masquerading as science. I have looked very hard at the Creationism, arguments and found them to be silly, childish attempts to make the Bible the scientific document it was once considered.

    Again, if the right brings this garbage to the table, they will rightly be ridiculed. Stick to the real task of stopping this attempt at global governance. Get sidetracked with your pet theories based on dogma and you will lose the fight before it starts.
  • Adherents to the religion of evolution do indeed ridicule the assertions of creationists and ID proponents, but such ridicule is born of ignorance

    Actually both AGW and evolution theory are religion masquerading as science. Both presuppose man is the most powerful force in the known world, and that he alone can make or break this planet.

    Both are based on faith to support their assumptions and are no more scientific than is creation science or intelligent design.

    In fact, AGW and evolution are even less logical than creation science or ID.

    Evolution and its brother doctrine materialism require matter to come from nothing, life to spring from lifeless materials, and organisms to spontaneously gain new and coherent genetic information--none of which have been observed in nature, and as such violate the laws of nature. Evolution/materialism is impossible according to its own foundational assumptions.

    AGW is also illogical. It assumes the tiny contributions of CO2 from humans (which pale in comparison to natural sources of CO2) are able to significantly warm this planet. It also ignores the hot, burning star in our solar system as a source of temperature change, along with the data which clearly shows temperature correlation with solar activity. AGW theory also ignores hundreds of years of data which shows greater climate change than we have seen in the modern era, sticking religiously to the contention that while hundreds and thousands of years of temperature change have been natural, we are certain the warming of the last few decades is not natural, but man-made. AGW hypothesis also ignores the warming occurring on other planets in the solar system; obviously they are not man-made, yet somehow they are certain the earth is warming because of our evil capitalism.

    I realize that you are comfortable with the illogic and lack of proof in evolution, while AGW, being a newer theory, is easier for you to see through.

    Hopefully one day you can approach both objectively and logically and see both for the charlatans they are.
blog comments powered by Disqus