![\"\"](\"http:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/36\/2014\/03\/holdren1.jpg\")
Roger Pielke, Jr. was quoted in The Washington Times on Science Advisor, John Holdren.<\/p>\nRoger Pielke, Jr. was quoted in The Washington Times on Science Advisor, John Holdren.<\/p>\n
Mainstreaming fringe science with John Holdren<\/strong> In recent months, White House science adviser John Holdren has repeatedly pushed the link between extreme weather events and human-caused climate change well beyond the bounds of established science. Now, veteran climate scientists are pushing back.<\/p>\n Mr. Holdren\u2019s efforts started in January, as much of the nation was shivering in the midst of an excursion of arctic air into the lower 48 states.<\/p>\n Anyone with a passing interest in the climate of the United States knows that is hardly an unusual occurrence (\u201ccitrus freeze\u201d anyone?), but outfit the chill with a new, scarier-sounding moniker and a blase-sounding \u201ccold-air outbreak\u201d goes viral as the \u201cpolar vortex.\u201d<\/p>\n Apparently, sensing the time was ripe for a bit of global-warming alarmism, the White House released a video titled \u201cThe Polar Vortex Explained in 2 Minutes,\u201d featuring Mr. Holdren describing how \u201ca growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues.\u201d<\/p>\n Although this statement is not outright false, it is, at its very best, a half-truth \u2014 and a stretch at that. In fact, there is an ever-larger and faster-growing body of evidence that directly disputes Mr. Holdren\u2019s contention.<\/p>\n This was pointed out last month in a letter to Science magazine authored by five veteran climate scientists, who are all experts in the field of atmospheric circulation patterns.<\/p>\n The scientists disputed Mr. Holdren\u2019s explanation, writing that \u201cwe do not view the theoretical arguments underlying it to be compelling\u201d and concluded that while such research \u201cdeserves a fair hearing to make it the centerpiece of the public discourse is inappropriate and a distraction.\u201d<\/p>\n One of the letter\u2019s authors, atmospheric science professor John Wallace from the University of Washington, even wrote a guest post at the popular Capital Weather Gang blog run by The Washington Post, to proclaim, \u201cI disagree with those who argue that we need to capitalize on recent extreme weather events to raise public awareness of human-induced global warming.\u201d<\/p>\n Such pushback didn\u2019t stop Mr. Holdren, though.<\/p>\n A couple of weeks ago at a congressional hearing, Mr. Holdren attacked the views of University of Colorado professor Roger Pielke Jr. concerning the connection between anthropogenic global warming and the ongoing drought in the Southwest.<\/p>\n Mr. Pielke, an expert on the relationship between natural disasters and climate change, had previously testified to Congress that the best science regarding many types of extreme weather, including hurricanes, tornados, floods and droughts, indicated no detectable tie-in to global warming.<\/p>\n Mr. Holdren described Mr. Pielke\u2019s views as being outside of \u201cmainstream scientific opinion\u201d and submitted a six-page explanation to the Senate subcommittee describing why he thought so, focusing on drought and specifically California drought (a copy of which was also posted at the White House website).<\/p>\n In response, Mr. Pielke defended himself, laying out a strong and overwhelming scientific case in a lengthy essay for The New Republic and accusing Mr. Holdren of \u201cwielding his political position to delegitimize an academic whose views he finds inconvenient.\u201d<\/p>\n Mr. Pielke was not alone in his defense. Recently, Martin Hoerling, lead scientist of the Interpreting Climate Conditions Team of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, expressed surprise at Mr. Holdren\u2019s response to Mr. Pielke in the DotEarth blog hosted by The New York Times.<\/p>\n Mr. Hoerling wrote that the type of drought currently facing California \u201chas been observed before\u201d and that \u201c[i]t is quite clear that the scientific evidence does not support an argument that this current California drought is appreciably, if at all, linked to human-induced climate change.\u201d Read more \u2026<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Roger Pielke, Jr. was quoted in The Washington Times on Science Advisor, John Holdren. Mainstreaming fringe science with John Holdren The White House science adviser confuses global-warming fact and fancy The Washington Times, March 18, 2014 by Chip Knappenberger In … Continue reading
\nThe White House science adviser confuses global-warming fact and fancy<\/em>
\nThe Washington Times<\/a>, March 18, 2014
\nby Chip Knappenberger<\/p>\n