> Home > Blog > CO2 Scam Blog > Unsound Advice: A critique of John Holdren`s speech on climate-change science and policy, by Christopher Monckton
>  Blog
Unsound Advice: A critique of John Holdren`s speech on climate-change science and policy, by Christopher Monckton
Date 23/10/2010 15:11  Author webmaster  Hits 2453  Language Global
23 OCT 2010

A critique of John Holdren’s September 2010 speech entitled “Climate-Change Science and Policy: What Do We Know? What Should We Do?”


By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, UKIP co-deputy leader

On 6 September 2010, Dr. John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor, gave a speech in Oslo, Norway, entitled Climate-Change Science and Policy: What Do We Know? What Should We Do? The speech contained numerous scientific errors and exaggerations, all pointing towards invention of a “climate crisis” where none exists, and overstatement of those problems that may exist.
Dr. Holdren’s main point is that “The world is getting most of the energy its economies need in ways that are wrecking the climate its environment needs.” This is a catchy phrase, but it begs the question how much “global warming” Man is likely to cause – a question that Holdren is careful not to address. Instead, we are merely invited to assume that there is a problem, and that the problem is substantial.

In this speech, Dr. Holdren says he dislikes the phrase “global warming” and prefers “climate disruption”. Of course, it is of the essence of climate that it changes, and changes naturally, just as it always has. From now on, however, the world having failed to warm as predicted, the climate-extremist movement is going to attribute every climatic change to Man.

Dr. Holdren’s earliest slides are intended to show that “the Earth is getting hotter”.

Unfortunately, that is not the case. Since late in 2001, when a naturally-occurring reduction in cloud cover that had caused rapid warming over the previous 18 years came to an end, there has been nearly a decade with virtually no change in temperature:

Read full analysis (PDF)

Source: Science and Public Policy Intitute