Posts Tagged ‘John Holdren’

The John Holdren File

Monday, September 27th, 2010

‘Global climate disruption has apparently changed the fundamental properties of water’

(posted 5 days, 13 hours ago)

Global warming is dead. Long live, er, ‘Global climate disruption’!

Saturday, September 18th, 2010

Source:  Telegraph of London

By James Delingpole

President Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren is worried about global warming. Having noticed that there hasn’t actually been any global warming since 1998, he feels it ought to be called “global climate disruption” instead. That way whether it gets warmer or colder, wetter or drier, less climatically eventful or more climatically eventful, the result will be the same: it can all be put down to “global climate disruption.”

And that will be good, because it will give Holdren the excuse to introduce all the draconian measures he has long believed necessary if “global climate disruption” is to be averted: viz, state-enforced population control; a rewriting of the legal code so that trees are able to sue people; and the wholesale destruction of  the US economy (“de-development”) as he put it in the 1973 eco-fascist textbook he co-wrote Paul and Anne Ehrlich Human Ecology: Global Problems And Solutions). (more…)

Two Lies Make A Truth In Green and Liberal Views on Climate Science

Thursday, September 9th, 2010

Source:  Canada Free Press

by Dr. Tim Ball

In the dogmatically blind worlds of liberalism and environmentalism, the truth is irrelevant

In the world of green and liberal politics, where they practice extreme environmentalism, nothing bears examination: two lies make a truth. We now learn that Bjorn Lomborg, who was never a climate skeptic, has magically disavowed that status. As the entire mockery of human induced global warming collapses, it is a convenient conversion.

The Guardian tells us that Bjorn Lomborg, ”The world’s most high-profile climate change sceptic is to declare that global warming is “undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today” and “a challenge humanity must confront”, in an apparent U-turn that will give a huge boost to the embattled environmental lobby.” The problem is it is completely false. His message on climate in his new book is exactly the same as it has been all along. (more…)

Population Bomb’ author Paul Ehrlich suggested adding a forced sterilization agent to ‘staple food’ and ‘water supply

Monday, February 22nd, 2010

Source:  Climate Depot

by Marc Morano

A 1972 article about “The Population Bomb” biologist Paul Ehrlich reveals a nascent environmental movement grappling with mass sterilization, climate fears, “international policy planning” and redistribution of wealth. The article reveals dramatic parallels to today’s modern environmental movement.

According to the June 16, 1972 article in the Boca Raton News. The article, part of the Newsweek Feature Service, was written by William J. Cook and was titled “Expert on population pleased by response.”

The article reported: “In 1969, [Ehrlich] said if voluntary birth reduction methods did not work a nation might have to resort to ‘the addition of a temporary sterilant to staple food or to the water supply.’ The proposal brought a charge from one newspaper critic that Ehrlich was ‘worse than Hitler.’” [Climate Depot's Editor's Note: Ehrlich has had a few moments of candor in recent times and apparently admitted his lack of basic scientific training. See: An Admission finally! 'The Population Bomb's' Paul Ehrlich: 'I wish I'd taken more math in high school and college. That would have been useful' -- 'If he were writing 'The Population Bomb' now, he'd be more careful about predictions' October 8, 2009 & Also see: Relax: Laugh at silly predictions of overpopulation: Climate Depot's Factsheet on Overpopulation – 'Is too few people the new 'population problem?'] (more…)

The sound of alarm

Friday, February 19th, 2010

Source: Boston Globe

by Dr. Richard Lindzen

KERRY EMANUEL’S Feb. 15 op-ed “Climate changes are proven fact’’ is more advocacy than assessment. Vague terms such as “consistent with,’’ “probably,’’ and “potentially’’ hardly change this. Certainly climate change is real; it occurs all the time. To claim that the little we’ve seen is larger than any change we “have been able to discern’’ for a thousand years is disingenuous. Panels of the National Academy of Sciences and Congress have concluded that the methods used to claim this cannot be used for more than 400 years, if at all. Even the head of the deservedly maligned Climatic Research Unit acknowledges that the medieval period may well have been warmer than the present. (more…)