Yeah, right. Isn’t a fuss supposed to be made when the incoming White House Science Adviser has a history of getting so much so embarrassingly wrong? Any chance that an enterprising journalist might ask John Holdren just what in his background and track record of predictions, arguments and hypotheses should justify the nation’s trust in him as Barack Obama’s Science Guy? I mean, we know that the media would be making a big deal about the White House Science Adviser getting schooled on a regular basis by his critics if the Science Adviser in question worked/works for George W. Bush. There is no reason why standards should be different here.
Julian Simon’s ghost would make a better White House Science Adviser than would John Holdren. It’s high time more people made that point. The incoming Administration should get no plaudits whatsoever for this appointment. Quite the contrary; John Holdren’s views and record should be laughed out the court of respectable public opinion.
(Thanks to David Boaz–who gives us more things to worry about–for the link.)
Insanity
momac Wednesday, December 24th at 10:14AM EST (link)It’s not even just being wrong, although that’s the way they’d like to play i. Like it was a bad stock pick or something.
It’s a fundamental disconnect with history, with human ingenuity, and with reality. And somehow I doubt he’s recanted his beliefs about the sustainability of civilization in general.
He’s just another static-pie, pessimistic, idealogue. Nothing scientific about him.
Mad mad world
Alberta Wednesday, December 24th at 1:30PM EST (link)“Julian Simon’s ghost would make a better White House Science Adviser than would John Holdren.”
Is it a joke when its true?
Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.
Abraham Lincoln
yep
deepredpatriot Wednesday, December 24th at 3:41PM EST (link)All this so called evidence for global warming, etc is obviously bogus. Any person with common sense can understand the Earth is too big to be affected by a 1% change in it’s atmosphere. I don’t buy it.
Two thoughts
scarshapedstar Thursday, December 25th at 4:35PM EST (link)1) The earth is big. The atmosphere is not. If the earth were a typical elementary school globe, and you put a layer of saran-wrap over it, that’s how thick the atmosphere is.
2) A “1% change in it’s [sic] atmosphere”? I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean, but I’m going to assume that you didn’t study much environmental science or biology, or even math, for that matter. CO2 makes up less than one percent of the atmosphere; nobody disputes that. However, when the CO2 concentration increases by 35%, as it has since the industrial revolution, that is not “a 1% change”. That is a 35% change.
If you think my reasoning is faulty, here, I propose a simple experiment. Your water supply contains considerably less than 1% lead, I hope. Anyway, by the “1% hypothesis” you’re proposing, if you added 1% lead to your water supply, it should be perfectly drinkable. After all, it’s only 1%! Do you want to test this? Why or why not?
Sorry, folks
scarshapedstar Thursday, December 25th at 4:37PM EST (link)You’re going to have a really hard time convincing anyone that Obama is doing a worse job than a guy who claimed - in the 21st century - that the “jury is still out” on evolution.
A really, really, really hard time.