Climate Scientology Jihad—Obama Names “Aggressive” Climate Scientologist as Science Advisor

 In this Oct. 17, 2007 file photo, John Holdren, professor of ...

John Holdren: Junk Science Jihadist?


According to this report, John Holdren, who is slated to become Obama’s White House Science adviser (i.e., “Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy), and expected to advocate “forceful government action” on so-called anthropogenic global warming, stated last year,


Global warming is a misnomer. It implies something gradual, something uniform, something quite possibly benign, and what we’re experiencing is none of those…There is already widespread harm … occurring from climate change. This is not just a problem for our children and our grandchildren.


We need our own fossil fuel-based energy development (coal, natural gas, oil) now until it is feasible to develop alternatives. Appointing these kinds of ideologues puts our economy and our security at risk if their advice is heeded—all based on the most spurious “science” (see here, here, here I have ever witnessed in my lifetime.


Richard Lindzen is a Professor in MIT’s Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate. I just re-read the opening of his essay, Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? [From a paper prepared for a meeting sponsored by Euresis (Associazone per la promozione e la diffusione della cultura e del lavoro scientifico) and the Templeton Foundation on Creativity and Creative Inspiration in Mathematics, Science, and Engineering: Developing a Vision for the Future. The meeting was held in San Marino from 29-31, August 2008.]  It occurred to me that you could almost seamlessly replace “progress in climate science,” with “progress in [understanding] jihadism.”


For a variety of inter-related cultural, organizational, and political reasons, progress in climate science (in [understanding] jihadism) and the actual solution of scientific problems in this field [of jihadism] have moved at a much slower rate than would normally be possible.


The “hockey stick controversy” is one of many examples provided by Lindzen in his essay on the sheer fraudulent idiocy characteristic of the sham castle of anthropogenic global warming science. But it is pathognomonic of the overall travesty:


…In the first IPCC assessment (IPCC, 1990), the traditional picture of the climate of the past 1100 years was presented. In this picture, there was a medieval warm period that was somewhat warmer than the present as well as the little ice age that was cooler. The presence of a period warmer than the present in the absence of any anthropogenic greenhouse gases was deemed an embarrassment for those holding that present warming could only be accounted for by the activities of man. Not surprisingly, efforts were made to get rid of the medieval warm period (Demming, 2005). The most infamous effort was that due to Mann et al (1998, 1999– The 1998 paper actually only goes back to 1400 CE, and acknowledges that there is no useful resolution of spatial patterns of variability going further back. It is the 1999 paper that then goes back 1000 years.) which used primarily a few handfuls of tree ring records to obtain a reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperature going back eventually a thousand years that no longer showed a medieval warm period. Indeed, it showed a slight cooling for almost a thousand years culminating in a sharp warming beginning in the nineteenth century. The curve came to be known as the hockey stick, and featured prominently in the next IPCC report, where it was then suggested that the present warming was unprecedented in the past 1000 years. The study immediately encountered severe questions concerning both the proxy data and its statistical analysis (interestingly, the most penetrating critiques came from outside the field: McIntyre and McKitrick, 2003, 2005a,b). This led to two independent assessments of the hockey stick (Wegman, 2006, North, 2006), both of which found the statistics inadequate for the claims. The story is given in detail in Holland (2007; Holland, D. (2007) Bias And Concealment in the IPCC Process: The “Hockey-Stick” Affair and its Implications, Energy & Environment, 18, 951-983.). Since the existence of a medieval warm period is  amply documented in historical accounts for the North Atlantic region (Soon et al, 2003), Mann et al countered that the warming had to be regional but not characteristic of the whole northern hemisphere. Given that an underlying assumption of their analysis was that the geographic pattern of warming had to have remained constant, this would have invalidated the analysis ab initio without reference to the specifics of the statistics. Indeed, the 4th IPCC (IPCC, 2007) assessment no longer featured the hockey stick, but the claim that current warming is unprecedented remains, and Mann et al’s reconstruction is still shown in Chapter 6 of the 4th IPCC assessment, buried among other reconstructions.


Thus it appears that not only will jihad denial (and simultaneous appeasement of this annihilationist phenomenon—see appeasement of Iran and pressure on Israel) likely worsen under President Obama, we may experience a “domestic anti-energy jihad” (perhaps spearheaded by Mr. Holdren) waged against the one politically correct means of bridging the right and left divide in an effort to oppose Islamic jihadism—feasible development of our own domestic fossil fuel-based energy sources, freeing our nation from foreign imports that fund the global jihad.

7 responses to “Climate Scientology Jihad—Obama Names “Aggressive” Climate Scientologist as Science Advisor