Romney's Global Warming Problem

IBD has this discussion of Mitt Romney, Global Warming, and Romney's relationship with John Holdren. For more on Holdren see these discussions here.

John Holdren, now President Obama's assistant for science and technology, once advised GOP presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney on environmental policy. . . .

On Jan. 1, 2006, Massachusetts became the first state to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants, something the Obama administration is trying to do to all states through the Environmental Protection Agency's draconian job-killing regulations and mandates.

A Dec. 7, 2005 memo from the governor's office announcing the new policy listed among the "environmental and policy experts" providing input to the policy one "John Holdren, professor of environmental policy at Harvard University." . . .

Climategate update

Despite universities beginning to suspend researchers, Congressional Democrats refuse to have a hearing to investigate research fraud and the destruction of documents. Given the amount of government money going to this research and given that the Congress has been debating spending trillions of dollars on Cap & Trade and other regulations, one would think that they have some duty to make sure that this research isn't tainted. The Obama administration was also defending the global warming claims.

In the first Capitol Hill airing of the issue, House Republicans Wednesday read excerpts from at least eight of the e-mails, saying they showed the world needs to re-examine experts' claims that the science on warming is settled. One e-mail from 2003 was by John Holdren, then of Harvard University and now the president's science adviser.

The exploding controversy led Phil Jones to step aside as head of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia, the source of the e-mail exchanges. The university is investigating the matter. Penn State University also is looking into e-mails by its own researcher, Michael Mann. House Republicans asked for a separate hearing or investigation into the issue, but were rebuffed by Democrats.

"These e-mails show a pattern of suppression, manipulation and secrecy that was inspired by ideology, condescension and profit," said U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. . . . .

The major TV networks are refusing to cover this issue.

ABC didn't cover it. CBS didn't either. And NBC apparently wouldn't go near it.

So the network news broadcasts, by ignoring a growing scandal over evidence of a potential climate cover-up, were scooped by the fake news at Comedy Central.

"The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" produced its "reporting" on Climate-gate Tuesday night, when Stewart quipped, “Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!”

Stewart described leaked e-mails from Britain's University of East Anglia, including one referring to a researcher's "trick" to "hide the decline" in some temperature readings in recent decades.

"It's just scientist-speak for using a standard statistical technique — recalibrating data – in order to trick you," Stewart said sarcastically.

Nearly two weeks since news broke of the e-mail scandal, climate change skeptics have gloated; a leading climate scientist has resigned; at least one U.S. lawmaker has called for an investigation, and countless prominent news outlets have deemed the story worthy of major reporting.

Still, according to a report Wednesday morning by the conservative Media Research Center, "none of the broadcast network weekday morning and evening news shows addressed Climate-Gate or the incriminating Jones development. ... This marked 12 days since the information was first uncovered that they have ignored this global scandal."

The Business & Media Institute had just as much trouble finding the networks' Climate-gate coverage.

"An examination of morning and evening news programs on ABC, CBS and NBC since Nov. 20 yielded zero mentions of the scandal, even in the Nov. 25 reports about Obama going to Copenhagen to discuss the need for emissions reductions," the Institute reported Wednesday. . . .

Bizarre quotes by John Holdren, Obama's science czar

Fox News has the collection here.

1) "The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being," Holdren wrote in "Human Ecology," a 1973 textbook he co-authored with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich.

2) Holdren heralded a "tightly reasoned essay" by law professor Christopher Stone, who said, "I am quite seriously proposing that we give legal rights to forests, oceans, rivers and other so-called 'natural objects' in the environment -- indeed, to the natural environment as a whole." Holdren, writing in 1977's "Ecoscience," which was also co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich, said the change would have "a most salubrious effect on the quality of the environment."

3) Holdren wrote that "it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

In a future society, "It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society," Holdren and his co-authors wrote

There are six more of these gems at Fox News.

Obama science adviser thinks that Trees Legal Should Have Standing to Sue in Court

Cass Sunstein has argued in favor of animals having the right to sue so I suppose that it is only fair that trees being able to sue also.

Since the 1970s, some radical environmentalists have argued that trees have legal rights and should be allowed to go to court to protect those rights.

The idea has been endorsed by John P. Holdren, the man who now advises President Barack Obama on science and technology issues.

Giving “natural objects” -- like trees -- standing to sue in a court of law would have a “most salubrious” effect on the environment, Holdren wrote the 1970s.

“One change in (legal) notions that would have a most salubrious effect on the quality of the environment has been proposed by law professor Christopher D. Stone in his celebrated monograph, ‘Should Trees Have Standing?’” Holdren said in a 1977 book that he co-wrote with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich.

“In that tightly reasoned essay, Stone points out the obvious advantages of giving natural objects standing, just as such inanimate objects as corporations, trusts, and ships are now held to have legal rights and duties,” Holdren added.

According to Holdren and the Ehrlichs, the notion of legal standing for inanimate objects would not be as unprecedented as it might sound. “The legal machinery and the basic legal notions needed to control pollution are already in existence,” they wrote. . . .

Obama science adviser: Babies are not "human beings" until "years after birth"

From CNS:

Obama’s Science Czar Said a Born Baby ‘Will Ultimately Develop Into a Human Being’
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

(CNSNews.com) - President Obama’s top science adviser said in a book he co-authored in 1973 that a newborn child “will ultimately develop into a human being” if he or she is properly fed and socialized.

“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,” John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, wrote in “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.” . . . .

JPL caught "lying" about Global Warming data?

David Friedman has the information in two excellent posts here and here. David has made a convincing case that the information put out by the JPL has been deliberately distorted and misreported by the agency.

Here is another discussion by the SciGuy that also mentions the increase in ice in the Antarctic Sea.

Remember that two days after the JPL info came out John Holdren, Obama's science advisor, told the Associated press that a complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic will produce "really intolerable consequences."

"The Obama White House spews climate hysteria"

The Washington Times has this editorial. I think that it has a lot of interesting information.

Not even the sky is the limit to crackpot environmental theories these days. On Wednesday, presidential science adviser John P. Holdren told the Associated Press that it might be necessary to blow pollution into the atmosphere to shield the sun's rays and stave off global warming. His hyperbole is even scarier than his science. According to Mr. Holdren, the planet is in so much trouble that it is like a "car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog." Not only is the world at a "tipping point," but we also face "really intolerable consequences" if drastic action isn't taken immediately.

The hysterics could be humorous if so much were not at stake. Mr. Holdren's humble recommendation is to try to engineer the world's climate. One idea is to manufacture a giant artificial volcano big enough to envelope the world with its ash cloud. Behind all this weird science are government plans that will cost billions of dollars. Already, President Obama has proposed a radical cap to cut carbon-dioxide emissions by 80 percent, which White House staffers have estimated could cost the economy as much as $2 trillion over the next eight years alone.

Mr. Holdren is a habitual harbinger of doom, . . . .

Scare Tactics on Climate Engineering

I think that all this is just to terrify people.

The president's new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air.

John Holdren told the Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Mr. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.

"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table."

Mr. Holdren outlined several "tipping points" involving global warming that could be fast approaching. Once such milestones are reached, such as complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, it increases chances of "really intolerable consequences," he said.

Twice in a half-hour interview, Mr. Holdren compared global warming to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog." . . . . .

It reminds me of the solutions proposed during the mid1970s when the fear of global cooling was all the rage.

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972. . . .

such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers

"Obama looks at climate engineering"

This reminds me of the suggestions during the 1970s that coal dust be spread over the polar ice caps to help cause them to melt. Of course, back then the concern was a new global ice age.

The president's new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air.

John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.

"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table."

Holdren outlined several "tipping points" involving global warming that could be fast approaching. Once such milestones are reached, such as complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, it increases chances of "really intolerable consequences," he said.

Twice in a half-hour interview, Holdren compared global warming to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."

At first, Holdren characterized the potential need to technologically tinker with the climate as just his personal view. However, he went on to say he has raised it in administration discussions. . . . . .

Among the solutions proposed during the mid1970s when the fear of global cooling was all the rage are these.

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972. . . .

such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers

"Flawed Science for Obama?"

John Tierney has done a great job pointing out the problems with Obama's science advisor, John P. Holdren. This is one of the guys who famously bet Julian Simon during the "energy crisis" in the 1980s. Tierney notes:

In 1980 Dr. Holdren helped select five metals — chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten — and joined Dr. Ehrlich and Dr. Harte in betting $1,000 that those metals would be more expensive ten years later. They turned out to be wrong on all five metals, and had to pay up when the bet came due in 1990.

Tierney also goes after Holdren for his attacks on Bjorn Lomborg.