Left Turn Clyde

What three things do these three people have in common?


1 – They all have extremist left wing global warming backgrounds.

2 – They all support hard CO2 caps.

3 – They all have been recently nominated to top positions in Obama’s administration.

Click on the pictures for some bio information.

Advocates for Action on Global Warming Chosen as Obama’s Top Science Advisers

Like Energy Secretary-designate Steven Chu, who directs the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Holdren and Lubchenco have argued repeatedly for a mandatory limit on greenhouse gas emissions to avert catastrophic climate change. In 2007, as chairman of the board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Holdren oversaw approval of the board’s first statement on global warming, which said: “It is time to muster the political will for concerted action.”


It’s good to know that we have such strong American Values representing our future.

Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, predicted that Obama’s latest nominees would work with a Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and a Commerce Secretary Bill Richardson to change how government addresses global warming.

“You can see the elements coming together,” Meyer said. “It means you’ve got people in key places across the administration that get the urgency of the climate issue and get the need for aggressive policy to move climate solutions forward, both in the U.S. and internationally.”

All the pieces are coming together. We’ll soon be saved. Agressive expensive CO2 control policies are what we need. You bet. There is a voice of reason in the article linked above.

But Holdren’s reported selection inspired no joy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market advocacy group that denounces global warming “alarmists” and opposes many environmental laws. Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at CEI, said, “I think he’s a very bad choice. His views are extreme, they’re not based in fact, and he’s a ranter.”

Of the overall Obama team, Ebell said, “They will pursue an anti-energy agenda that is designed to constrict energy supplies and raise energy prices.”

These people are clearly pro-government anti-energy but what’s more is at least Lubchenco picked to run the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. I always hated that title, like you can administrate the atmosphere. Well the NOAA sets fishing limits also and the next little quote is pretty interesting.

Lubchenco did not draw the same level of criticism from conservative groups as Holdren yesterday, but she represents just as radical a departure for NOAA, which oversees marine issues as well as much of the government’s climate work. While NOAA has traditionally favored commercial fishing interests in policy disputes, Lubchenco has consistently called for conservation measures to safeguard ocean ecosystems in the face of industry opposition.

Joshua S. Reichert, managing director of the Pew Environment group, said NOAA officials have too often set aside scientific considerations when deciding how much fish to extract from the sea. “For too many years, politics has played a greater role in fisheries management than science,” he said. “This appointment carries with it the hope that this may soon change.”

Every aspect of the ocean does not need to remain unchanged. The concept that any disturbance caused by humans is bad is so off the wall it’s hard to fathom yet it’s deeply ingrained in the thinking of evironmentalwhackoism.

Don’t listen to the idiot talking heads on TV who are so eager to say Obama is governing from the middle. It’s all smokescreen covering for the shared agenda of the media. America is moving hard to port and it couldn’t come at a worse time.

23 thoughts on “Left Turn Clyde

  1. Of course you’re upset. A real scientist, with the top credentials, with integrity? What a horrible choice for science advisor. For the first time in eight years, we may actually have to listen to facts. Horrible!

  2. Louis,
    Oh please. About these three, you said “These people are clearly pro-government anti-energy but what’s more is at least Lubchenco picked to run the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.” How can you say something so blatantly untrue and claim to not be opposed to science?

  3. I’m no Republican

    Anyone ready to wreck our already broken economy with CO2 caps based on today’s AGW science is clearly not what we need. If they decide to build a whole pile of fission plants, I’ll change my mind. If they do what Obama has stated and pile a bunch of money into biofuels and solar implementation (not research). That ain’t science my friends.

    If they do “all of the above” that ain’t science either.

    Lubochenco is ready to go after the fishing industry to protect the fishes and the oceans. That isn’t science either. It’s protection of her space ahead of peoples lives. The fishing industry doesn’t need any more cost load on it right now either.
    ————–heres some holdren quotes
    “It is too late for avoiding dangerous climate change. We must focus now on avoiding catastrophic climate change.”

    2005_1223_holdren2.jpgThis quote comes from John Holdren, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He elaborated in an e-mail:

    “The impacts already being experienced — increased incidence of floods, droughts, heat waves, and wildfires, among other damaging effects — are already dangerous by any reasonable definition of that word.”


    Does that sound like science?

    Here’s more Holdren quotes

    He added that if the current pace of change continued, a catastrophic sea level rise of 4m (13ft) this century was within the realm of possibility; much higher than previous forecasts.

    To put this in perspective, Professor Holdren pointed out that the melting of the Greenland ice cap, alone, could increase world-wide sea levels by 7m (23ft), swamping many cities.

    You guys see any science in there?

    Sounds like Al Gore scare tactics to me. Don’t forget Hansen is considered a scientific expert on global warming also.

  4. Great post Jeff! Unfortunately it looks like under Obama our quality of life here in America is going to decline and cost us more to boot. Wonderful.

    Here where I live our local electrical utility just set a record for winter electrical usage due to the cold we are experiencing. The peaking power plants used in the summer are gas-fired and cannot be used in the winter because the gas is unavailable (its being used for heating). We need another coal-fired plant that we probably wont get. Gonna be some unnecessary rough times ahead.

    I am a Republican and I respect sound, unbiased science. It’s unfortunate that Obama does not.

  5. “Warning uncontrolled rant”

    You know what makes me even madder. The media going on and on how the obama administration is going to govern from the middle, like a Clinton administration would.

    What a twofold load of crap. Every post in US government is being headed up with an AGW extremist, one after another. Even positions which don’t seem to have any relationship to AGW. We’re being set up for the big move toward “green” living. When was the last time a senior senate chair of the ruling party was replaced? If you think the politicians care at all about green (like tamino thinks), you’re kidding yourselves. They have other bigger motives in mind.

    The IPCC politicians are using the scientists who agree to expand world government (the left’s ideal situation). Everyone under one government. There’s not much science driving this situation.

    I don’t know about the rest of you conservatives but I don’t want anyone raised under socialist propaganda systems having a vote in my life. They don’t get us in Iran for sure. They don’t understand in China or Russia. They don’t understand across most of the world. The concept that the Department of Education is unnecessary is beyond their imaginations. They can’t even consider it. Government is the answer to everything.

    “end rant”

  6. Jeff, you’ll be in good company. 11 years of socialist government in the UK has dragged us down and we’ll soon be a 3rd world economy. They’ve taxed us to the hilt and blown it all on big bureacracy. School children are not taught anymore – they’re indoctrinated. Our new government department of Energy and Climate Change is run by an extreme environmentalist who things our economy can be run on wind. Mind you, by the time they’ve finished ruining the economy, there will be very little left to run. Come along and join us.

  7. Jeff,

    I get why you are upset about the AGW crap, but why so upset about more stringent fishing quotas? If things go on as they are, we really will have no fish left, because the government had short-term worries about jobs, rather than long-term sustainable fishing quotas. For the fishing stocks that have already collapsed elsewhere, they have shown no sign of recovery even when fishing them has been banned. Unlike the AGW scare, this is a very real problem.

  8. BTW, unlike AGW scare story, where models rule over reality, scientists have been setting sustainable quotes based on models – and have then been repeatedly surprised when fishing stocks have still crashed. So in this case the (quite real) scary story is based on failure of the models.

  9. Chris H

    You may be right. I have become a bit overwhelmed with the bovine scatology I read every day in the news. I would really rather work on the numbers but I have a blog and instead of internalizing my frustrations, it comes out. I am highly suspicious of increased govt. limits because industry would be stupid to fish itself out of inventory. That doesn’t mean I’m right though.

    What would the paper industry do differently if they had no regulation on trees? I wonder. no sarc.


    I’ve watched some of it happen in the news. I wish the liberals were paying attention to your situation. Maybe they are but want it anyway. It is so stupid I will never understand how people buy it. Our countries didn’t succeed because of our governments.

  10. My question is for “Scientist.” His was the first response (dated Dec 20, 2008 ) to your post, and quoted here:

    “Of course you’re upset. A real scientist, with the top credentials, with integrity? What a horrible choice for science advisor. For the first time in eight years, we may actually have to listen to facts. Horrible”

    John Holdren’s PhD was in Plasma Physics. How did he contribute to that field? Please list the papers and explain in your own words your understanding of his work in this area.

    What other work of any kind of value has John Holdren produced during his scientific career? Again, please site the scientific papers that justify his appointment as “Science Advisor.” Also, please explain in your own words why these works are important.

    On the basis of what information do you conclude that Holdren has “integrity.”
    Have you based this assessment on your own personal knowledge of him? Explain in your own words.

    Finally, anyone who would identify himself/herself as “Scientist” for the purposes of commenting on a blog, must surely have scientific credentials. So, “Scientist,” what are they?

  11. One more thing.

    Here is a quoted protion of Holdren’s essay published in an op -ed piece in the Boston Globe (April, 2008):

    “First, they have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit for the disruption of global climate that is being observed, for example, a culprit other than the greenhouse-gas buildups in the atmosphere that have been measured and tied beyond doubt to human activities. (The argument that variations in the sun’s output might be responsible fails a number of elementary scientific tests.)”

    What he has expressed here is essentially the same argument that has been proferred (throughout history) by the religious to “prove” the existence of God (we can’t explain natural phenomena any other way; therefore, it must be God). Ironically, it was science that at one time (during its heyday) debunked this kind of thinking.

    The flaws in the thinking are the same now as they were then.

    Holedren as “Science Advisor.” Run for the hills. Be afraid. Be very afraid!

  12. page48 Says:
    December 21, 2008 at 3:21 am,

    This is the classical logical fallacy known as the false dichotomy. Too bad nobody teaches logic any more.

  13. I know there are classes in logic, but I’m not sure classes are the problem.

    I read a post on Watts Up recently (too lazy to look up the name) where external known effects were removed from temp trend. When he was done with really quite good quality analysis, the remaining upslope was attributed to CO2. I pointed out two separate times that the fact that he couldn’t explain the remaining signal was no reason to assume CO2. I didn’t get a response.

    Here’s an altruistic, idealistic comment. Sorry I’m in the mood.
    We assume we have progressed scientifically from the time of Galileo, yet history seems to repeat itself. Remember it was Hansen who said ‘to congress’ people who disagree should be imprisoned! Sound familiar? I bet Galileo would think so. Maybe a post on Hansen is in order when I get in a bad mood again.

  14. Chris,
    Yes, those items you complain about sound like science-based claims, being familiar with the literature. You also conclude: “Sounds like Al Gore scare tactics to me. Don’t forget Hansen is considered a scientific expert on global warming also.”

    And you still claim that you’re not opposed to science??

  15. Just to clarify: Yes, An Inconvenient Truth is sound science – check the literature. Hansen is also a sound scientific expert, and his 1988 predictions have been thoroughly verified. So why do you dislike scientists so much?

  16. IMO, the thing that has made America unique in history is that it made the liberty of the individual it’s cornerstone principle. Throughout human history, the masses have always existed to serve a king, or a pharaoh, or a god, or the state. In fact, I think it is fair to say that subjugation is the natural state of human societies. We have the founders to thank for our 200 years or so of individual freedom. They understood all to well the nature of government, and devised a system whose main objective was to limit it’s power and growth. To perpetuate an “unnatural” state. That it succeeded for so long is a testament to their foresight and brilliance. However, it seems to me that individual liberty is finally giving way to the “natural state” of man. Obama is not the cause, just the culmination of a movement that has been building for some time. I never thought I would see the day when a majority of Americans would prefer the nanny state, a benevolent tyranny, over their own freedom. We have chosen freedom from responsibility over actual freedom. I think the America my children grow up in will be a reasonably pleasant place, but stagnant and restricted, without the opportunities and choices than I had. And that is sad.

    Jeff – keep up the amazing work. Your blog is becoming one of my favorites — better than most full-time bloggers. Where do you find the time?

  17. Thanks Matt, I spend far too much time doing this lately.


    Your quotes are from my comments not Chris. He’s much more even minded/tempered than myself. You are not correct about Hansen or Inconvenient Truth. These people are the reason that those of us who believe there may be a certain amount CO2 based global warming are skeptics of the science. These individuals extreme rhetoric has no basis in science. The data and even most model output’s I’ve seen don’t support their rhetoric.

    I’m a little mad at the extremist left this morning so I’ll add, the ignorance of individuals on this subject is going to result in very expensive mistakes. The claim that Inconvenient Truth is science prompted me to stop by your blog and see you are over the top on this issue. You have good friends in government.

    With a science background you should be able to pick out several major errors and exaggerations in the movie quite easily. How you make this claim is beyond me. Also for the record, Hansen’s extremist predictions from 88 did NOT come true (or even close really), check the literature.

    BTW:I’m sitting here doing an ARIMA trend analysis on some data I downloaded before we go Christmas shopping. What were you up to this morning– any Science?

  18. Hi Dan (comment #16),

    You said:

    “Just to clarify: Yes, An Inconvenient Truth is sound science – check the literature. Hansen is also a sound scientific expert, and his 1988 predictions have been thoroughly verified. So why do you dislike scientists so much?”

    You sound like a very reasonable person and an expert of some sort, yourself.

    Please explain, in your own words, why you consider Al Gore’s work to be good science. Be specific. I will admit that I didn’t see the movie, but I did read his book, published under the same name (An Inconvenient Truth). Be sure to explain the “validations” from the literature in your own words (cite the papers if you wish, and do give links if you feel so inclined, but please don’t just do a cut and paste affair – show in your own words what you mean).

    Also, in your own words, please define your term “sound, scientific expert.”

    Thanks so much

  19. Hilarious thread! As usual, no real damning facts about the individuals or science involved, just a lot of politicial gossip, quickly thrown up. Especially funny is the “in your own words” gotcha guy. lol

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s