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


  1. 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 Comment

Your email address will not be published.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