Jordan:

1) What is you accusation of Obama on this point? You merely mentioned his name and that of Blago with no discernible argument, only speculation. Besides, the GOP has NO business talking about corruption. Before you speculate about what Obama might do worry about the long corrupt line from Bush, Cheney, Delay, Cunningham, Foley, the K Street Project, Vitter, etc.

2) It’s spelled “supporters” for starters and the housing market crashed during the Bush presidency.

3) Bush came into office picking a fight with China.

4) Oh, ho am I kidding?! You are just too full of it and I don’t have the time or patience to argue with willful idiocy.

Imagine that, a scientist occupying a scientific post!

The irony is that right wing pundits have the nerve to criticize this pick because those positions "ought to be occupied by businessmen"! How did that work on the last eight years? For the love of Christ...

I can't believe that in the most advanced country in the world, in 2008, I choke with emotion because a scientist will finally be allowed to do a scientist's job in the White House.

Our Obligatory Objections Over Obama's Obvious Obscene Obsessions.  PART 1.

By: Jordan C. Fan, Prophet Of Environment.

Since Barack Obama is the bigggest villian of all time.   It is certainly our obligation to expose his criminal acts:

(1)  Black Got To Be Rich Illegally - Blagojevich and Obama Corruption Scandal.    Even before Obama start office, his corruptions have begun.  Just wait until Obama step into his office, he will rob all the White people of all they have.  Blagojerich or "Black got to be rich" illegally or criminally should well be Obama's campaign slogan.

(2)  Obama has conspired with his supportors especially Black to cause the crash of the housing and stock market bring the Great Depression II just to get elected.

(3)  Opening Of Old Olympic Offenses wounds.   Obama had supported those Tibetan dissidents in boycotting the Beijing Olympic will certainly make him the biggest enemy of China.

Obama must be impeached from politic at all cost. Obama is worse than Hitler, he is planning a holcaust for White and Asian people.  He certainly will not get any support from China.

More Obama criminal exposes will come later.  Or you can add to all the crimes committed by Obama.l

Obama's Obituary Omens:

Not long after he was elected to destroy his own people, the Obama Obituary Omens has struck again.

(1) In the months of November and December 2006, more than 2000 East Africans have died of Cholera.  They have predicted that more than one million will died in East Africa of Cholera  before the end of 2009.

(2) Obama's grandmother immediately before November 4, 2008.

(3) Chicago was hit by record snow storm in December 2008.

(4) His mother died of cancer at young age.

(5) The United States went into deep irreversible Great Depression II during Election 2008.

(6) After he made his speech at the 2003 Democratic Convention, Hurricane Katrina had killed more than 2000 mostly Africa Americans in New Orlean.  Katrina cost more than $50 billions.

(7) Disasters attack those states that have voted for him during this election.

(8) There after drought and locust have destroyed all the agricultural crops in Africa.

(9) Civil wars, coups, wars and other arm confrontation spread through out Africa this year and next years.

(10) Large hail stones continue to hit Washington DC throughout this fall whenever he was there, and will continue this winter..

Just to name a few of the troubles he is causing.  Obama is the curse of the Egyptian Mummy.

We should not be surpreise to see the entire population of the United States of America tortured and destroyed before the end of Obama's four years term even through he could have the unlikely chance of surviving that long.

Um, drp (what is that, deranged renal pablum?), I have studied the "scioentific arguements" (or even the "scientifidc" ones) quite well. Of course not all the science is settled -- it never is. But the preponderance of the evidence is very obvious.

And you clearly do NOT understand the way scientific careers are built. NOBODY goes into science because they want to make a buck and have a safe career. When have "PhD jobs" ever been easy to get? You are the worst kind of parasite to make this argument, since you clearly know very very little about the dynamics of academic or indurstrial scientific employment. Yet are willing to expound as if you had wide experience. Turn off Rush on the radio, or spend all your time listening to that sycophantic bozo, and stay out of anything requiring above average intelligence.

Science is the ONLY profession where you advance by discovering NEW stuff. Get it? Do you possibly understand what "new" means? Sure, a scientist has to be on solid ground before advancing a heretical position. But ask someone like E. O. Wilson, or hundreds of others. The way to respect and esteem is to NOT be afraid of controversy. The idea that towing the party line is the way to a safe career in science is such incredible bunk.

Why don't you people go back into the holes you came out of? If you want to make an interesting scientific argument, discuss something that is truly unknown. To someone who tries to be unbiased, seeing pathetic religious or conservative arguments against evolution or anthropogenic climate change is such a huge joke. And to be told that WE'RE the political ones? The world is laughing up it's collective sleeves at you clowns -- except that in the case of global warming we face a real crisis and having dogmatic people getting in the way of progress is not just frustrating, it's downright dangerous. Go peddle your little mind somewhere where it will only hurt your kind, will you?

Speaking of "jackasses".   If you accept human-activity as the well-defined primary cause of global worming,  you haven't been playing a lot of attention or likely do not understand the scientifidc issues.   This is not a settled matter.  

Unfortunately the contrary voices have been silenced by political and not scioentific  arguements.    PhD jobs are hard to get these days.     Researchers with heretical views learn to tow the party line.  

One admittedly-peripheral example of the problems with climtate models-- These days,  weather forecasts are still pretty accurate to only about three days ahead.  

Similarly,   The undeniable facts are:   The earth has had long-term periods of equivalent cooling and warming that seem completely-independent of human activity     The two major factors in this seem to be volcanic activity and solar output.  In comparison to these,  human activity is pretty minor..  

We are now emerging from a centuries-old cooling period that began about 1300.  This ended a centuries-long period of medieval agricultural prosperity-- e.g., wine grapes grew in England and.      This cooling also eventually ended the Norse settlements in Greenland.    The issue is whether  present-day "global warming" is just a return to more a normal climate or if human activity really does play a significant role.     Whatever the assertions,  this is by no means a settled issue.

These jackasses who turn climate-change into a political issue -- where the f--- do they come from? Is it some weird religious agenda? Like you think your space god wouldn't allow people to screw up the planet?? Do you also doubt that species extinction is a bad thing? Are you agains the "theory" of gravity?

You want to pollute - do it in your own bedroom. We all breathe shared air and walk on shared ground. I just hope you people don't have any children.

The real problem is that Holdren seems to have made his career by supporting the "politically-correct" opton that global warming is primarily due to human activity and not (eg) the normal working of the climate cycle   This may well be the case.  However,  remeber that CO2 is only responsible for a few percentage of the total greenhous effect.  

It is pretty clear that historically the world has been this warm before-- eg, in the middle age "warm period",  up truough about 1300.   Similarly,  above and beyond any effects of human activity,  it is pretty clear that in the last century or so,  the world has emerged from a period of abnormal low temeratures,  the so-called "little ice age",  exetnding into the early 19th century.   Originally,   the latter seems to be related to low solar activity,  the so-calleld "Maunder Minimum.    Further,  the present warming trend started well before extensive industrialization raised CO2 levels.

Point being-- because of the extreme politicisation of this issue,  how are we to know wha tis good science and what is merely politics..

Global warming is not uniformly harmful.  Northern nations such as Russia, Canada and Greenland would benefit greatly from warmer temperatures.

THIS ARTICLE IS A JOKE. IF HOLDEN UNFLINCHINGLY HOLDS TO EVIDENCE BASED POLICY HE WOULD BE REJECTING THE ENTIRE GLOBAL WARMING CULT. AT THE VERY LEAST HE WOULD HAVE THE INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY TO ADMIT THE SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED. I ENCOURAGE YOUR READERS TO SEE THE SENATE MINORITY REPORT ON GLOBAL WARMING. EVEN UNIPCC CO-AUTHORS OF THE UN CLIMATE REPORT ARE DOING AN ABOUT FACE AND REVEALING WHAT A "SCIENTIFIC" FRAUD THAT IS.

How science is used is almost always political; because in very few cases are there clear-cut answers to what should be done - even when the science itself is clear.  However, by ensuring the the best possible science (and its interpretation) is used to inform decisions, fewer mis-steps and bad calls are likely.

And in this respect, John Holdren certainly seems an excellent choice - as someone who is committed to the science, and understands it's translation and use in the policy arena.

http://2020science.org/2008/12/18/john-holdren-obamas-new-science-advisor/

There is little question that at the moment the earth is warming.   For the first time since the middle age warm period,   the UK produces significant wine,  grain can grow in Greenland,  etc.

The only issue is how much human actrivity is contributing to this.and how much we ar elooking at the action of a normal long-tern cycle.        Unfortunately, this issue has become so policised that contrary debate has become a career killer..   Even raising a contrary view means your grant doesn't get funded and you don't get tenure.     So how is anyone to judge what is politics and what is scinece.