Obama’s Science Advisors

In his inaugural speech, President Obama said that “We will restore science to its rightful place…” I took that to mean that policy would be based on good science. In April, he declared that “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.” But instead of the professed ideal, Obama appointed ideologues. His science advisors seem to be large on radical ideology and short on objective science.

Science Czar, physicist John Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, favors some radical cures for global warming and advocated population control. Holdren has proposed, “organized evasive action: population control, limitation of material consumption, redistribution of wealth, transitions to technologies that are environmentally and socially less disruptive than today’s, and movement toward some kind of world government” (Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and John Holdren, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment, San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1977). Also in that book, the authors proposed putting chemicals in the water supply to make women infertile and engineering society by taking away babies from undesirables and subjecting them to government-mandated abortions.

On climate change, Holdren’s long term goal is “equal per-capita emissions rights,” meaning that a country may emit only an amount of carbon commensurate to the number of its persons, not on the basis of its production. For example, the U.S. would be allowed to release only about 20 times as much carbon as Ecuador, although the U.S. produces 144 times the goods and services. (IBD)

More recently, Holdren said that global warmingis so dire, that the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth’s air. He is considering shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays. “It’s got to be looked at,” he said. “We don’t have the luxury of taking any approach off the table.” (AP) For the past 30 years we have spent billions cleaning up the air. Holdren’s proposal of once again polluting the air logically implies that removing the pollution itself was responsible for global warming, not CO2.

Physicist Steven Chu, Energy Secretary, said, “It is now clear that if we continue on our current path, we run the risk of dramatic, disruptive changes to our climate in the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren,” adding, “at the same time, we face immediate threats to our economy and our national security that stem from our dependence on oil.” (New York Times) See:Your Carbon Footprint Doesn’t Matter for a rebuttal.

Chu recently told the Los Angeles Times that global warming might melt 90 percent of California’s snowpack, which stores much of the water needed for agriculture. This, Chu said, would mean “no more agriculture in California,” the nation’s leading food producer. Chu added: “I don’t actually see how they can keep their cities going.”

And on a Fox News report, April 18, Chu said that Caribbean nations face “very, very scary” rises in sea level and intensifying hurricanes, and Florida, Louisiana and even northern California could be overrun with rising water levels due to global warming triggered by carbon-based greenhouse gases. Note that last December the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, in a country that is very concerned with sea level, reported: There is no evidence for accelerated sea-level rise.

Astronomer James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies of NASA (and a hold over from previous administrations), said, “The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.” Last June, Hansen called for coal and oil company CEOs to be “tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”

Lisa Jackson, head of EPA, is a chemical engineer. In her first move as EPA chief, Jackson pledged to make science “the backbone for EPA programs.” Really? Why then did the EPA just declare that CO2, a substance vital to all life on Earth, is a dangerous pollutant hazardous to human life and the environment? Where is the evidence? This move is the EPA’s most stupid, and most political; one that will trigger a regulatory maze unlike we’ve ever seen before.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s science advisor, Nina Fedoroff, biologist, (also advisor to Condoleezza Rice) told the BBC that, “humans had exceeded the Earth’s limits of sustainability… We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can’t support many more people… There are probably already too many people on the planet.”

To round out Obama’s science team, Carol M. Browner, a lawyer, not a scientist, became Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change (Energy Czar). According to a Michelle Malkin article, Browner is a neon green radical who until recently was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for “global governance” and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change. Browner was head of the EPA from 1993-2000. On her last day in office, nearly eight years ago, Browner oversaw the destruction of agency computer files in brazen violation of a federal judge’s order requiring the agency to preserve its records. Early in her first term as EPA head, Browner got caught by a congressional subcommittee using taxpayer funds to create and send out illegal lobbying material to over 100 grassroots environmental lobbying organizations. Browner exploited her office to orchestrate a political campaign by left-wing groups, who turned around and attacked Republican lawmakers for supporting regulatory reform.

It seems to me that President Obama is not getting the best of advice. These advisors, while they may have good credentials, seem to have let zealotry overcome sound science.


  1. And most folks think the loonies are all in Hollyweird. It sounds more like the governing board of the Church of Gore than a Presidential advisory panel.

  2. “Last June, Hansen called for coal and oil company CEOs to be “tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”

    And this would be wrong because?  Hansen should have also recommended a swat-type takedown at their own homes;  you know – shoot the dog, wrestle the offending CEO to the ground to apply the cuffs in front of the screaming wife and crying children, then park the shirtless and bleeding “perp” on the curb while you verbally berate him for letting down his family and not getting his attitude right.  All the while the video cameras are rolling for our entertainment later that evening on “When CEO’s Go Bad”. 

    1. Haha!  This said by someone typing on the internet, using electricity produced with energy from these evil companies.  Seems to be a tad on the hypocritical side.

      1. I guess I should be more deferential to corporations; those from whom all blessings flow.  After all, without unchecked greed by unaccountable private tyrannies, there would be no electricity or computers.  Life as we know it would never have evolved.  Indeed, “who ever heard of a poor person creating a job”; right?

  3. Most of the quotes from President Obama’s science advisors – a great team – make perfectly good sense to me, even if Holdren’s 32 year old cite is over the top.

    Bottom line: if you like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, you’ll love Wry Heat. His global warming blogs are drawn from material ginned up by the fossil fuel industry’s PR machine and extreme right sources. This one is a cobble-together from material at http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming that provides no info on who they are but is stuffed with global warming denier talking points. 

    Do you notice the pattern between this blog and the right’s attack on making health care more available and affordable? It’s the right-wing’s slash and burn strategy of scare the hell out of the American public. This particular entry is just the beginning. Once a climate bill comes up in the Senate, persumably after health insurance reform is passed, you’ll see a deluge of this stuff.

    Just because someone writes it, or says it (Death Panels), don’t necessarily believe it. Wry Heat is a bookend – way over on the right. Check out the full spectrum of this issue before you start repeating the stuff he’s trying to pump into your head.

    1. Hey thanks Ben, I was unaware of the website you note, but I’ll add it to my list.

      By the way, you are still using ad hominem, rather than factual rebuttals. 

    2. Right, Ben; like your buddies on the left haven’t been using fear tactics in scaring the uneducated and little school children with their “Gorebull warming”  gibberish!
      By the way, Ben, without the beard you look a little like Ed Schultz. 

      1. Referring to “Death Panels”, “Socialism” and “Government control of your health care” all sound like scare tactics that far exceed anything the liberals have to offer. 

        If you’re going to cast your lot with people who show up at rallies packing guns and holding pictures of the President with a Hilter moustache, you’re going to take some heat.

      2. “There you go again”…Lefty!
        What is a little heat to a patriotic Arizonan? Just more of the same, my friend.

    3. Now, now Ben…it is obvious to one and all that you will not be lining up to one of the first ‘removed’ to make way for population downsizing, right?
      Then, since that is the case, STFU until such time as you can remove your cranial encasing device from your peristalsis terminating organ and look at the world without the rose colored glasses of a ortho-challenged typical liberal.
      Yes Ben, your going along to get along, sure is one heck of a lot less brave than writing the truth in the face of deniers and lackeys and political hacks such as you.
      A non-pig-Limbaugh kudo to you Mr. DuHamel.

  4. Jonathan – I assume you are not being compensated in any way for your posts, because if you were, you’d tell us, right?

    As to your posts, do you claim you do not have a far right orientation?

    1. Another website you might want to check out is Doctors for Disaster Preparedness.  Mr. DuHamel has spoken to them on the issue of global warming in the past.  They have some interesting views on things.

    2. I  do not receive compensation for these posts.   Since I’m retired, I have lots of time to do research.  I write these because it is fun.  Politically,  I lean toward libertarianism, not the far right.

    3. LOL, ben you are the poster child of the typical Liberal who cannot win a rational, well thought and researched argument so you resort to the time tested, and failed, Liberal style of mud throwing, name calling and character assassination.
      You should be down on your knees thanking President Bush (King Loser of all American Presidents) for his “No Child Left Behind” policies. Where would you be without them?

Comments are closed.