Climategate: Obama’s Science Adviser Confirms the Scandal — Unintentionally

Pajamas Media ^ | Dec. 6 | Myron Ebell

[AJKauf]

When the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held a hearing on the state of climate science on December 2, the Republicans were ready to focus it on the Climategate fraud scandal. And the first witness, President Obama’s science adviser, Dr. John P. Holdren, was ready to respond.

Instead of summarizing his written testimony in his oral remarks, Holdren read a prepared statement on Climategate. He said that the controversy involved a “small group of scientists” and was primarily about one temperature dataset. He said that such controversies were not unusual in all branches of science and that they got sorted out through the peer review process and continuing scrutiny. Holdren also said that openness and sharing of data was important, which is why the Obama administration is strongly committed to openness. In the case of the disputed dataset (the “hockey stick” graph), the National Academies of Science (NAS) undertook a thorough review of it and all other similar datasets and concluded that the preponderance of evidence supported the principal conclusion of the research. Holdren concluded by predicting that when the dust settles on this controversy, a very strong scientific consensus on global warming will remain.

Well, that sounds pretty plausible, but anyone who has followed Dr. Holdren’s amazing career knows that he is a master of plausible buncombe that disguises his “outlandish scientific assertions, consistently wrong predictions, and dangerous public policy choices,” as my CEI colleague William Yeatman has put it....

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off

Ping me if you find one I've missed.

---

[samtheman]

The “small group of scientists” up to their necks in Climategate include 12 of the 26 esteemed scientists who wrote the Copenhagen Diagnosis.

Look under the rock of AGW and you see the worms of climategate.

[Psycho_Bunny]

Gads, I’m sick of tagging a “gate” on words. It’s childish.

[Free State Four]

Gads, I’m sick of tagging a “gate” on words. It’s childish.

I'm sick of the a**hole who keeps pasting that anti-Romney crap on every thread. I don't like Romney, but I am sick to death of that repeated, repeated, repeated Romney crap. It's childish.

[Psycho_Bunny]

er......Think about that. It’s not being posted by a random member.

[Free State Four]

Well, if it's Jim Robinson, he can do what he wants; it's his site. I can still be irritated by it.

[olezip]

In the case of the disputed dataset (the “hockey stick” graph), the National Academies of Science (NAS) undertook a thorough review of it and all other similar datasets and concluded that the preponderance of evidence supported the principal conclusion of the research.

Was there really a NAS review? What were their sources of data; what methodology did the NAS use; what are the implications of their explicit and implicit assumptions?

I think the hockey stick data set was seriously flawed, and remains so.

It seems to me that the "preponderance" of evidence was produced by those with a vested interest in AGW, kind of like the fox guarding the hen house. The scientific method was not used.

[CottShop]

[[He said that the controversy involved a “small group of scientists” and was primarily about one temperature dataset.]]

IF these creeps ever told hte truth, their heads woudl explode- this isn’t a ‘small group of people’ this is a widespread SCAM and FRAUD- NOT just ‘one small group’ and this isn’t about ‘1’ temperature dataset- this is about code that was INTENTIONALLY constructed in a way to obscure, hide, sweep under the rug, facts that refute the claim that man is suppsoedly wamrign hte planet

[chris_bdba]

That seems to be the new mantra by the left that this is just a “small group of scientists”. Excuse me this small group was the primary reasearch team who shut anyone else out and are what all of this climate change policy is based on.

[FreeAtlanta]

I agree with you. I am sick of it. I used to be a Romney supporter, and I really wish we had him instead of that little communist punk teleprompter dependent fraud, but I really hope he doesn’t run in the next election.

[VOA]

bump

[Brilliant]

“small group of scientists”

I thought the lefties were telling us that virtually all scientists believed in global warming.

[highlander_UW]

He said that the controversy involved a “small group of scientists” and was primarily about one temperature dataset.

This flies in the face of the left's claims of widespread consensus. so either this is a small group or it's part and parcel of a large group. This group obviously are foisting a fraud on the world based upon deleted data that can't be checked. So if the world is building it's case on their data it's whacked. If the rest of the "consensus" has other data then they need to release all of the raw data immediately if they want to distance themselves from these frauds. All he's saying is the famous "fake but accurate" line. Bunk, don't buy it. The Obama admin is filled with liars from the top on down, they're going to have to better than "trust me".

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the ping.

[GOPJ]

-gate.

It's what liberals do to us - trust me - the MSM's not using the term. Think of it as "turn about's fair play"...

[GOPJ]

“small group of scientists”

thought the lefties were telling us that virtually all scientists believed in global warming.

Great catch, Brilliant.

[swheats]

Just more smoke and mirrors. Is there a reference that list the scientists that are global warmers/climate change and who are/where the skeptics?

http://globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id=0014

[Delacon]

"But when asked about some of his own extreme statements and predictions, Holdren replied that scientific research had moved on from the latest UN assessment report in 2007. The most up-to-date scientific research was contained in a report written by some of the world’s leading climate scientists and released last summer. Holdren mentioned and referred to this report, Copenhagen Diagnosis ^[5], several times during the course of the hearing".

 

"I’m sure it will come as a shock that the two groups largely overlap. The “small group of scientists” up to their necks in Climategate include 12 of the 26 esteemed scientists who wrote the Copenhagen Diagnosis. Who would have ever guessed that forty-six percent of the authors of Copenhagen Diagnosis ^[6] belong to the Climategate gang?  Small world, isn’t it"?

 

"Now, I wouldn’t want to jump to any conclusions here, but it kind of looks to me like the “small group of scientists” caught out by Climategate are pretty much the same people who make up the vast and strong scientific consensus on global warming and write the official reports that the U.S. and other governments rely on to inform their policy decisions. I’m sure Dr. John P. Holdren, President Obama’s science adviser, has a plausible alternative explanation. He always does".

 

Next time you hear someone in the MSM say that the CRU are just a few scientists and have no effect on the supposed consensus remember this.