Obama picks climate specialist as science adviser

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By Ross Colvin

CHICAGO (Reuters) – President-elect Barack Obama underscored on Saturday his intent to push initiatives on climate change by naming John Holdren, an energy and climate specialist, as the new White House science adviser.

Holdren is a Harvard University physicist who has focused on the causes and consequences of climate change and advocated policies aimed at sustainable development. He has also done extensive research on the dangers of nuclear weapons.

Obama pledged to put a priority on encouraging scientific breakthroughs in areas such as alternative energy solutions and finding cures to diseases, as he announced the pick of Holdren and other top science advisers in the Democratic weekly radio and video address.

"Today, more than ever before, science holds the key to our survival as a planet and our security and prosperity as a nation," Obama said. "It's time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and worked to restore America's place as the world leader in science and technology."

"From landing on the moon, to sequencing the human genome, to inventing the Internet, America has been the first to cross that new frontier," Obama said.

Obama said that government has played an important role in encouraging those breakthroughs and could do so in the future.

The Bush administration has had a rocky relationship with the scientific community and was at times accused by critics of ignoring scientific evidence in its efforts to make political points on issues such as global warming.

Holdren, who teaches at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, will head the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. He is a former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Obama, who takes office on January 20, this week finished naming Cabinet secretaries for his incoming administration.

On Friday, he introduced his choices of Illinois Republican congressman Ray LaHood to head the Transportation Department and California Democratic Rep. Hilda Solis to be secretary of labor.

HAWAII VACATION

After working for weeks in his hometown of Chicago to assemble his team, Obama leaves on Saturday morning for Hawaii for a Christmas vacation with his family.

Obama has named Steven Chu, winner of the 1997 Nobel Prize in physics who was an early advocate for finding scientific solutions to climate change, to head the Energy Department.

He has also tapped former Environmental Protection Agency head Carol Browner for a new post that will coordinate White House policy on energy and climate change.

In addition to the pick of Holdren, Obama also announced that marine ecologist Jane Lubchenco of Oregon State University would be his nominee for head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Obama also named two people to work with Holdren to lead the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, also known as PCAST.

One of them, Eric Lander, is founding director of the Broad Institute, a collaboration of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University that focuses mapping the human genome.

The other is Harold Varmus, a former director of the National Institutes of Health who won a Nobel Prize for his studies on cancer and genetics. For the past nine years, Varmus has served as president and chief executive officer of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

(Writing by Caren Bohan; Editing by Eric Beech)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081220/pl_nm/us_usa_obama_33

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Why didn't he pick Al Gore?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Convincing the skeptics

By John P. Holdren

Monday, August 4, 2008

The few climate-change "skeptics" with any sort of scientific credentials continue to receive attention in the media out of all proportion to their numbers, their qualifications, or the merit of their arguments. And this muddying of the waters of public discourse is being magnified by the parroting of these arguments by a larger population of amateur skeptics with no scientific credentials at all.

Long-time observers of public debates about environmental threats know that skeptics about such matters tend to move, over time, through three stages. First, they tell you you're wrong and they can prove it. (In this case, "Climate isn't changing in unusual ways or, if it is, human activities are not the cause.")

Then they tell you you're right but it doesn't matter. ("O.K., it's changing and humans are playing a role, but it won't do much harm.") Finally, they tell you it matters but it's too late to do anything about it. ("Yes, climate disruption is going to do some real damage, but it's too late, too difficult, or too costly to avoid that, so we'll just have to hunker down and suffer.")

All three positions are represented among the climate-change skeptics who infest talk shows, Internet blogs, letters to the editor, op-ed pieces, and cocktail-party conversations. The few with credentials in climate-change science have nearly all shifted in the past few years from the first category to the second, however, and jumps from the second to the third are becoming more frequent.

All three factions are wrong, but the first is the worst. Their arguments, such as they are, suffer from two huge deficiencies.

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.)

Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative, they haven't even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they had one, which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the atmosphere is wrong.

Members of the public who are tempted to be swayed by the denier fringe should ask themselves how it is possible, if human-caused climate change is just a hoax, that:

The leaderships of the national academies of sciences of the United States, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Russia, China, and India, among others, are on record saying that global climate change is real, caused mainly by humans, and reason for early, concerted action.

This is also the overwhelming majority view among the faculty members of the earth sciences departments at every first-rank university in the world.

All three of holders of the one Nobel prize in science that has been awarded for studies of the atmosphere (the 1995 chemistry prize to Paul Crutzen, Sherwood Rowland, and Mario Molina, for figuring out what was happening to stratospheric ozone) are leaders in the climate-change scientific mainstream.

U.S. polls indicate that most of the amateur skeptics are Republicans. These Republican skeptics should wonder how the presidential candidate John McCain could have been taken in. He has castigated the Bush administration for wasting eight years in inaction on climate change, and the policies he says he would implement as president include early and deep cuts in U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. (Barack Obama's position is similar.)

The extent of unfounded skepticism about the disruption of global climate by human-produced greenhouse gases is not just regrettable, it is dangerous. It has delayed - and continues to delay - the development of the political consensus that will be needed if society is to embrace remedies commensurate with the challenge. The science of climate change is telling us that we need to get going. Those who still think this is all a mistake or a hoax need to think again.

John P. Holdren is a professor at the Kennedy School of Government and the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard and the director of the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts.

http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=14991915

[mox 298]

January 20th cannot come fast enough.

[NickD 203]

At the ripe old age of 28 was a victim of a chemical spill at work, called it an accident, was pure stupidity. Sinuses swelled up to over 3 times the size, did pass out, but woke up in with the most severe pain of my life. Developed a condition called MCS, multiple chemical sensitivities, well toxins that didn't bother me before would trigger that same condition again. Did learn via the web, that any medication prescribed for me not only made me more sensitive to toxins, but also caused rebound. Changed my life entirely by flushing those meds down the toilet.

Best preventative measure is staying away from toxic substances, do fine without them, but one of the worse areas for me to be at, is on the Dan Ryan on a hot windless day stuck in a traffic jam, head starts swelling up with unbearable headaches. This is the key reason why I have an interest in not burning gasoline in our vehicles, while emission standards have improved a few percentage points, the huge number of vehicles on the road more than counteracts what little is done.

Ha, a gasoline powered zero emission vehicle, dare any of you to start that vehicle in a closed garage and run the engine for 15 minutes, you will be dead, that is not zero emissions. Gasoline is a highly toxic filthy fuel, and there are alternatives that should be motivation for finding better ways. I consider myself lucky to have MCS, tells me right away to get the hell out of there, people that don't, die from other causes, strokes, heart attacks, and cancer.

Trips to Chicago today, park 40 miles away for a buck and take the train, least not in the middle of that huge concenstration and do okay. Started getting those dreaded headaches in Caracus, talked to my wife, we could also park outside of that city and take the subway, was much faster than sitting idle in huge concenstration of toxic fumes for literally hours.

[Ban Hammer 13,354]

Why didn't he pick Al Gore?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Convincing the skeptics

By John P. Holdren

Monday, August 4, 2008

The few climate-change "skeptics" with any sort of scientific credentials continue to receive attention in the media out of all proportion to their numbers, their qualifications, or the merit of their arguments. And this muddying of the waters of public discourse is being magnified by the parroting of these arguments by a larger population of amateur skeptics with no scientific credentials at all.

Long-time observers of public debates about environmental threats know that skeptics about such matters tend to move, over time, through three stages. First, they tell you you're wrong and they can prove it. (In this case, "Climate isn't changing in unusual ways or, if it is, human activities are not the cause.")

Then they tell you you're right but it doesn't matter. ("O.K., it's changing and humans are playing a role, but it won't do much harm.") Finally, they tell you it matters but it's too late to do anything about it. ("Yes, climate disruption is going to do some real damage, but it's too late, too difficult, or too costly to avoid that, so we'll just have to hunker down and suffer.")

All three positions are represented among the climate-change skeptics who infest talk shows, Internet blogs, letters to the editor, op-ed pieces, and cocktail-party conversations. The few with credentials in climate-change science have nearly all shifted in the past few years from the first category to the second, however, and jumps from the second to the third are becoming more frequent.

All three factions are wrong, but the first is the worst. Their arguments, such as they are, suffer from two huge deficiencies.

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.)

Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative, they haven't even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they had one, which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the atmosphere is wrong.

Members of the public who are tempted to be swayed by the denier fringe should ask themselves how it is possible, if human-caused climate change is just a hoax, that:

The leaderships of the national academies of sciences of the United States, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Russia, China, and India, among others, are on record saying that global climate change is real, caused mainly by humans, and reason for early, concerted action.

This is also the overwhelming majority view among the faculty members of the earth sciences departments at every first-rank university in the world.

All three of holders of the one Nobel prize in science that has been awarded for studies of the atmosphere (the 1995 chemistry prize to Paul Crutzen, Sherwood Rowland, and Mario Molina, for figuring out what was happening to stratospheric ozone) are leaders in the climate-change scientific mainstream.

U.S. polls indicate that most of the amateur skeptics are Republicans. These Republican skeptics should wonder how the presidential candidate John McCain could have been taken in. He has castigated the Bush administration for wasting eight years in inaction on climate change, and the policies he says he would implement as president include early and deep cuts in U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. (Barack Obama's position is similar.)

The extent of unfounded skepticism about the disruption of global climate by human-produced greenhouse gases is not just regrettable, it is dangerous. It has delayed - and continues to delay - the development of the political consensus that will be needed if society is to embrace remedies commensurate with the challenge. The science of climate change is telling us that we need to get going. Those who still think this is all a mistake or a hoax need to think again.

John P. Holdren is a professor at the Kennedy School of Government and the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard and the director of the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts.

http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=14991915

Certainly puts it into perspective.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

January 20th cannot come fast enough.

Amen to that.

[Ban Hammer 13,354]

January 20th cannot come fast enough.

Amen to that.

i agree

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I can'tg wait until the 21st when everything will be good again.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I can'tg wait until the 21st when everything will be good again.

You're getting your shell waxed that day?

[HAL 9000 96]

At the ripe old age of 28 was a victim of a chemical spill at work, called it an accident, was pure stupidity. Sinuses swelled up to over 3 times the size, did pass out, but woke up in with the most severe pain of my life. Developed a condition called MCS, multiple chemical sensitivities, well toxins that didn't bother me before would trigger that same condition again. Did learn via the web, that any medication prescribed for me not only made me more sensitive to toxins, but also caused rebound. Changed my life entirely by flushing those meds down the toilet.

Best preventative measure is staying away from toxic substances, do fine without them, but one of the worse areas for me to be at, is on the Dan Ryan on a hot windless day stuck in a traffic jam, head starts swelling up with unbearable headaches. This is the key reason why I have an interest in not burning gasoline in our vehicles, while emission standards have improved a few percentage points, the huge number of vehicles on the road more than counteracts what little is done.

Ha, a gasoline powered zero emission vehicle, dare any of you to start that vehicle in a closed garage and run the engine for 15 minutes, you will be dead, that is not zero emissions. Gasoline is a highly toxic filthy fuel, and there are alternatives that should be motivation for finding better ways. I consider myself lucky to have MCS, tells me right away to get the hell out of there, people that don't, die from other causes, strokes, heart attacks, and cancer.

Trips to Chicago today, park 40 miles away for a buck and take the train, least not in the middle of that huge concenstration and do okay. Started getting those dreaded headaches in Caracus, talked to my wife, we could also park outside of that city and take the subway, was much faster than sitting idle in huge concenstration of toxic fumes for literally hours.

That's an unfortunate mixed blessing for you Nick. Hope you have a happy trip to Chicago. Its VERY cold here.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

On the OP, it will be nice to have an actual scientist as the science advisor, as opposed to the soothsayers that George Bush employed.

[NickD 203]

At the ripe old age of 28 was a victim of a chemical spill at work, called it an accident, was pure stupidity. Sinuses swelled up to over 3 times the size, did pass out, but woke up in with the most severe pain of my life. Developed a condition called MCS, multiple chemical sensitivities, well toxins that didn't bother me before would trigger that same condition again. Did learn via the web, that any medication prescribed for me not only made me more sensitive to toxins, but also caused rebound. Changed my life entirely by flushing those meds down the toilet.

Best preventative measure is staying away from toxic substances, do fine without them, but one of the worse areas for me to be at, is on the Dan Ryan on a hot windless day stuck in a traffic jam, head starts swelling up with unbearable headaches. This is the key reason why I have an interest in not burning gasoline in our vehicles, while emission standards have improved a few percentage points, the huge number of vehicles on the road more than counteracts what little is done.

Ha, a gasoline powered zero emission vehicle, dare any of you to start that vehicle in a closed garage and run the engine for 15 minutes, you will be dead, that is not zero emissions. Gasoline is a highly toxic filthy fuel, and there are alternatives that should be motivation for finding better ways. I consider myself lucky to have MCS, tells me right away to get the hell out of there, people that don't, die from other causes, strokes, heart attacks, and cancer.

Trips to Chicago today, park 40 miles away for a buck and take the train, least not in the middle of that huge concenstration and do okay. Started getting those dreaded headaches in Caracus, talked to my wife, we could also park outside of that city and take the subway, was much faster than sitting idle in huge concenstration of toxic fumes for literally hours.

That's an unfortunate mixed blessing for you Nick. Hope you have a happy trip to Chicago. Its VERY cold here.

Ha, born and raised in Chicago, but living about 300 mile north now, while our temps are lower, don't have that lake effect to deal with. Ha, that cuts through you like a knife.

We are over way populated with pine trees, make pretty nice neighbors. Lost a lot of friends and co-workers on the Edens and Dan Ryan, figured there has to be a better way.

Did take my wife all over that town when she first came here, museums, zoos, the lake front, Sear Tower, and that is where we go for the Venezuelan consulate. Was surprised to learn how the Metro has expanded and was a great pleasure to fly through intersections seeing lines of cars waiting for that darn train to pass, as far as the eye can see. Downtown Chicago is one big fat no parking sign, after driving around trying to find a spot, ended up paying 17 bucks an hour, train is a lot nicer.

[Ban Hammer 13,354]

I can'tg wait until the 21st when everything will be good again.

You're getting your shell waxed that day?

is that ken with a big snapper?