Obama’s science advisor hates science

In remarks that could come direct from the dogmatists in the Curia, Prof. Holdren shows that he prefers the “public discourse” that is science (and democracy, for that matter) to be a chorus.

“The few climate-change ‘skeptics’ with any sort of scientific credentials continue to receive attention in the media out of all proportion to their numbers, their qualifications, or the merit of their arguments. And this muddying of the waters of public discourse is being magnified by the parroting of these arguments by a larger population of amateur skeptics with no scientific credentials at all… It has delayed – and continues to delay – the development of the political consensus that will be needed if society is to embrace remedies commensurate with the challenge.”  extract from: John Holdren
His claims about the lack of an evidentiary basis for ‘skepticism’ are simply wrong. See this summary from climate researcher Prof. Robert Carter, in the Journal of the Ecomnomic Society of Australia (.pdf, about 1.8mb)


p>Update:Thanks to <a href=”http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/12/crackpot-john-holdren-will-become.html” title=”link to Lubo


  • So John Holdren now believes that

  • Ian,

    What a blessing it is to have a long memory. Of course you’re right about the evidence for ‘demographic transition’. I’m surprised to learn (from the Wikipedia article) that the model dates to 1929.

    I was going to say that it’s uncanny how the language of the malthusians of the 1970s is echoed by the CO2 catastrophists today: “even were we to slow emissions dramatically we could not be sure of avoiding the ‘tipping point’ etc etc.”.

    But then, they’re the same people making these wild claims; at least in Holdren’s case.

Leave a Reply

Your email is never shared.Required fields are marked *