Separating climate fact from opinion is the focus of a free-market think tank's lawsuit against the White House science office over a video asserting that last winter's bone-chilling polar vortex originated from climate change.Let us, as they say, unpack this.
In its lawsuit, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is demanding documents related to the video, featuring White House science czar John Holdren blaming the bitter cold on climate change, contrary to peer-reviewed studies, The Daily Caller reports. In the video Mr. Holdren says the extreme weather “is a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues.”
While Holdren's statement isn't an “outright lie,” it's a “half-truth and even a stretch at that,” according to two scientists with the Cato Institute.
First the Scaife money the Trib's braintrust never gets around to mentioning:
But back to the second paragraph. did you see it? Did you see how they're "debunking" Holdren? I'll give you the sentence again with the appropriate emphasis:
In its lawsuit, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is demanding documents related to the video, featuring White House science czar John Holdren blaming the bitter cold on climate change, contrary to peer-reviewed studies...Yea those "peer-reviewed studies" would probably be included in these "peer-reviewed studies" - you know the ones. They're the "peer-reviewed" studies that show that 97% of climate scientists affirm the existence of climate change.
And yet our friends on the braintrust have the audacity to still cling to this:
After CEI petitioned for a correction, the White House acknowledged that Holdren's statement was “personal opinion” and exempt from data quality laws, The Hill newspaper reports. So much for the administration's “settled science.” [Emphasis added.]Fact of the matter is, it's probably too early to link last year's polar vortex to climate change (in fact Holdren starts the video by saying that no single event can either prove or disprove global climate change) but using the peer-reviewed science that supports climate change as a way to try to undermine that same science is simply laughable.
And it shows either a shocking disregard for science, if they believe it's an adequate argument) or a shocking disdain for their audience, f the Tribune-Review's editorial board thinks it can fake them out so blatantly.
So which is it, guys? Are you just ignorant or are you assuming your audience is?