Dr. Holdren is certainly entitled to his views, but what concerns me is his tendency to conflate the science of climate change with prescriptions to cut greenhouse emissions. Even if most climate scientists agree on the anthropogenic causes of global warming, that doesn’t imply that the best way to deal with the problem is through drastic cuts in greenhouse emissions. There are other ways to cope, and there’s no “scientific consensus” on which path looks best.

This is essentially the “only WGI part of the IPCC exists and is legitimate” fallacy. Two thirds of the reports are on what the damage will be and how to ameliorate it (ameliorate is Eli thinks the better word, capturing both mitigation, which we will have to do, and adaptation, which we will have to do because the denialists have delayed any action for twenty years).

Some time ago Rabett Run did a search in Google Scholar on the string global climate change” The interesting result was that
a large majority of the references dealt with the economic and biological consequences of global climate change showing the wide scientific consensus agreeing with the IPCC AR4. Moreover, in the first 200 or so listings there were none that argued against the conclusions of the IPCC AR4.

While policy plays a vital role in this, science, physical, behavioral and biological informs policymakers about which interventions would have what effect and be effective as well as where the damage from inaction will fall.

Also, please check out Climate Matters, a new blog from the Columbia University Climate Center offering original research and unique commentary, at http://climate.columbia.edu/blog.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

we must remember that there is no “contrarian” (denialist) body of evidence. There is, perhaps, a handful of papers, none of which have withstood peer review (IR iris included).

Best,

D

That’s how you define good science??!? (or any science for that matter). Scientific work should follow the data, the results. NOT only those results that support a previously held theory or agenda. By your definition, climate science would not have gotten very far in its early days.

To really stand out from that soon-unemployed crowd of former journalists, watch for Tierney to throw his shoes at Holdren during the Inaugural.

Holdren allowed his bias favoring the survival of humanity to color his scientific detachment. For shame. That’s *political*.

Tierney would never allow his bias favoring his own economic survival to color his journalistic objectivity.

Does anyone know if Tierney attends Grover Norquist’s early morning strategy meetings? The outlines of a new disinformation campaign seem to be forming, to wit: Obama is too popular to attack directly. (RNC’s attempt to smear him with Blagojevich slime failed.)

So until Obama weakens, they attack the *advice* given him by his evil Science Advisor, Holdren Wormtongue. If nothing sticks, then re-program the dittoheads to attack Carol Browner … repeat as necessary.

Benefits: Keep provoking an immune response among their base. So dittoheads learn the new players (kinda like the Iraqi-Most-Wanted playing cards issued to US soldiers in Iraq). Also, dittoheads less likely to get distracted by reality-based things like economic collapse.

Thanks for sticking with the facts, Joe.

That reminds me of an old joke that was allegedly popular with the Muslims back in the days of the Crusades:

Q) Why are there no cedars left in Lebanon?

A) Because every Frank (Christian) has a piece of the true cross!