Holdren of the Obama administration:
Deniers no, Ignorant yes!

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The following story is why the advocates of global warming are losing the debate: At House hearings yesterday, Obama’s science advisor John Holdren admitted that using the term “deniers” to describe scientists who had doubts about global warming is inappropriate. “It was not my intent to compare them to Holocaust deniers, and I regret it,” he replied. “In the future I will find other terms to use.”

Sounds good, doesn’t it? Shortly thereafter, however, during the same hearing, Holdren then said this about a list of 100 climate scientists [word file] who remain skeptical about global warming:

“I haven’t seen the list,” Holdren began. “But in the past, most of the names on such petitions have turned out not to be climate scientists, and one could assume that they had not spent much time reviewing the literature.”

Without any knowledge, he slams these scientists, accusing them of being ignorant of the science.

Well, I have reviewed the literature, and in my opinion it is absurd to state that the science is “settled.” There are so many areas of doubt and confusion that any honest appraisal of the science must conclude that we as yet don’t know what exactly is going on with the Earth’s climate. Above all, we certainly don’t know enough to take any aggressive actions in response. Anything we do might actually cause more harm, merely from our own lack of understanding.

Moreover, I have looked at the list, and can state that it contains some of the most important names in climate research, all published researchers in all areas of the field. This includes people such as David Deming (University of Oklahoma), David Douglass (University of Rochester), Gerhard Gerlich (Technische Universitat Braunschweig), Richard Lindzen (MIT), and Roy Spencer (University of Alabama-Huntsville), to name just a few. These are big names in climate research, whose opinions must not be dismissed lightly if you are honestly serious about understanding the science.

That Holdren dismisses the opinions of these scientists so nonchalantly suggests that it is he who hasn’t reviewed the literature, and it is his opinion which we should not take very seriously.


One comment

  • It’s not about making things “worse”… at least not in terms of the global climate.

    The problem is that almost everyone who is versed in the field agrees that the effect of climate change over the next 100 years will be minor – they just don’t like to admit it because it dejustifies their political influence. Those few who make dire predictions in the press and to policy makers have continually failed to publish anything to the scientific literature. Simply, there is no evidence to justify the attention climate change is getting from policy makers around the world.

    Arguments such as “just because we don’t know what is going to happen doesn’t mean we should do nothing about it” only make sense if the “something that must be done” has no consequences. Cap-And-Trade has consequences. Carbon taxes have consequences.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *