Based on this reporting by CFP’s Tim Ball, “Obama Science Czar John Holdren is directly involved in CRU’s unfolding Climategate scandal.” If that’s substantiated, no spin will prevent Holdren from falling on his sword. Here’s what CFP is reporting:

“There is a multitude of small but frightening stories in the massive files,” Ball writes. “For example I’ve known solar physicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon for a long time. I’ve published articles with Willie and enjoyed extensive communication. I was on advisory committees with them when Sallie suddenly and politely withdrew from the fray. I don’t know if the following events were contributing factors but it is likely.

“Baliunas and Soon were authors of excellent work confirming the existence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from a multitude of sources. Their work challenged attempts to get rid of the MWP because it contradicted the claim by the proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Several scientists challenged the claim that the latter part of the 20th century was the warmest ever. They knew the claim was false, many warmer periods occurred in the past. Michael Mann ‘got rid’ of the MWP with his production of the hockey stick, but Soon and Baliunas were problematic. What better than have a powerful academic destroy their credibility for you? Sadly, there are always people who will do the dirty work.”

Michael Mann’s infamous Hockey Stick Graph was challenged by scientists who were actually concerned with fact-checking. When Baliunas and Soon questioned Mann’s work, Holdren came to Mann’s defense:

”I’m forwarding for your entertainment an exchange that followed from my being quoted in the Harvard Crimson to the effect that you and your colleagues are right and my “Harvard” colleagues Soon and Baliunas are wrong about what the evidence shows concerning surface temperatures over the past millennium. The cover note to faculty and postdocs in a regular Wednesday breakfast discussion group on environmental science and public policy in Harvard’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences is more or less self-explanatory.”

This is where Nick Schulz, the editor of Tech Central Station (TCS), jumps into the discussion, questioning Holdren in this email exchange:

In a recent Crimson story on the work of Soon and Baliunas, who have written for my website [], you are quoted as saying: My impression is that the critics are right. It s unfortunate that so much attention is paid to a flawed analysis, but that’s what happens when something happens to support the political climate in Washington. Do you feel the same way about the work of Mann et. al.? If not why not?”

In other words, Holdren is talking out of both sides of his mouth, first questioning the findings of Baliunas and Soon, then being quoted as saying that Baliunas and Soon are right.

On the campaign trail, that’s known as a flip-flop. In DC, that’s known as spin. In the real world, that’s known as lying.

The blogosphere and talk radio isn’t going to let go of this story. In fact, this CFP article will just add fuel to the fire. Whether the Agenda Media picks up on this is fairly irrelevant. People questioned the validity of AGW prior to this scandal. Now they’re reading emails between agenda-driven scientists that say that they’re changing up their data to fit their conclusions.

This isn’t dissimilar in principle to a jury rendering a verdict right after the opening statements, then viewing the evidence and listening to the cross-examinations after the verdict has been reached.

This WSJ editorial shows how Mann and others rigged the game from the outset:

As anonymous reviewers of choice for certain journals, Mr. Mann & Co. had considerable power to enforce the consensus, but it was not absolute, as they discovered in 2003. Mr. Mann noted to several colleagues in an email from March 2003, when the journal “Climate Research” published a paper not to Mr. Mann’s liking, that “This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the ‘peer-reviewed literature’. Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal!”

The scare quotes around “peer-reviewed literature,” by the way, are Mr. Mann’s. He went on in the email to suggest that the journal itself be blackballed: “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.” In other words, keep dissent out of the respected journals. When that fails, re-define what constitutes a respected journal to exclude any that publish inconvenient views. It’s easy to manufacture a scientific consensus when you get to decide what counts as science.

This is the equivalent of calling someone who opposes President Obama’s health care legislation a racist. Mann is essentially saying that anyone who disagrees with him isn’t worthy of respect. How convenient that the scientist who’s been corrected is the scientist that determines what is or isn’t a respectable scientific viewpoint.

If Dr. Mann is the great scientist he says he is, then let him defend himself with more than temperamental diatribes and blacklisting those who disagree with him. In short, it’s put up or shut up time for Dr. Mann and his exposed colleagues.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

7 Responses to “When Will Holdren Resign?”

  • J. Ewing says:

    Do you have any sources confirming that Mann’s hockey stick produced the same results when fed random numbers? In other words, that it was an “analysis” with a predetermined outcome? It’s obviously flawed, on its face to anybody with the least bit of scientific knowledge, but if we knew it was rigged at the outset, it would be even easier to argue against.

  • Gary Gross says:

    Jerry, It’s irrelevant. The Hockey Stick Graph distorted reality to fit with the Far Left’s agenda.

    As for whether this debate “was rigged from the outset”, I think the hacked CRU emails have determined that issue.

  • J. Ewing says:

    It’s irrelevant to most folks of common sense and normal reason. But we’re talking about the “fake but true” crowd here. They will continue to insist that the hockey stick is a true picture of the situation until someone can show, as I believe they have, that the data was not only falsified but manipulated. I suppose you could reasonably argue that few of these leftist cloud-dwellers would recognize the truth even then, but it would satisfy my logical sensibilities. I don’t like winning an argument because the other side cheated. I prefer to win because they’re wrong, and have no truth on which to stand.

  • Gary Gross says:

    Jerry, my target isn’t the idiots that would make the fake but true argument. They’re irrelevant. All that needs to be done to defeat that agument is to mention the Medieval Warm Period, aka the MWP, then follow that with the subsequent mini-ice age. Throw in the fact that temps are declining again & their argument bites the dust.

  • J. Ewing says:

    I’m still arguing with people who deny that temps are declining again, and with others like the IPCC folks who claim that this decline is “temporary” and that temperatures are actually increasing “over the long term.” Then you’ve got the Argos scientists who, with the help of 600 sophisticated ocean-going buoys, have discovered that the ocean is cooling, and then insist that this data must be wrong because it doesn’t agree with the computer models.

    You’re probably right, you’re never going to convince the true believers, which unfortunately includes some scientists. Maybe all we’ve got to do is discredit them and point out obvious flaws in their data, so that the average person “gets it” and starts to see past the propaganda they’ve been fed over the years. My favorite is to quote Al Gore, who said twenty years ago that we only had ten years left to save the planet.

  • Gary Gross says:

    Jerry, Our first priority must be short-term, which means stopping the AGW movement & getting the government to stop funding it. The only way to do that is highlight the current corruption, then discredit the people spreading the corruption.

    Consider that the ‘Low Hanging Fruit’ Phase.

    Highlighting the corruption & discrediting the purveyors of corruption will win over lots of apathetic ‘semi-believers’ who actually think they’re following solid science.

    Once that’s done, THEN we can work on getting people involved who believe in following the evidence wherever it takes us instead of thinking that it’s taking us to their pre-determined outcome.

Leave a Reply