The Obama Administration Moves to Suppress the Medieval Warming Period

If this comes as even a small surprise to you, you haven’t been paying attention. In the increasing fallout of the purloined East Anglia CRU data, emails are surfacing that illuminate the international attempts to suppress data that goes counter to the desired “hockey stick” upward tick result.

It is now revealed that the Obama administration’s “science czar”, John Holdren, was involved in trying to suppress inconvenient data concerning the warming period that occurred in medieval times, the Medieval Warming Period (MWP). This data, if valid, would cause the hockey stick to move from a different reference point, and demonstrate very warm periods without human CO2 as a cause. The MWP also falsifies the spurious claim that the current warming is the “warmest ever”.

The Medieval Warming Period was found and documented by physicist/astronomers Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, based on “many sources”.

According to the Harvard / Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics,

“Their report, covering a multitude of geophysical and biological climate indicators, provides a detailed look at climate changes that occurred in different regions around the world over the last 1000 years.
"Many true research advances in reconstructing ancient climates have occurred over the past two decades," Soon says, "so we felt it was time to pull together a large sample of recent studies from the last 5-10 years and look for patterns of variability and change. In fact, clear patterns did emerge showing that regions worldwide experienced the highs of the Medieval Warm Period and lows of the Little Ice Age, and that 20th century temperatures are generally cooler than during the medieval warmth."

And,

“Soon, Baliunas and colleagues analyzed numerous climate indicators including: borehole data; cultural data; glacier advances or retreats; geomorphology; isotopic analysis from lake sediments or ice cores, tree or peat celluloses (carbohydrates), corals, stalagmite or biological fossils; net ice accumulation rate, including dust or chemical counts; lake fossils and sediments; river sediments; melt layers in ice cores; phenological (recurring natural phenomena in relation to climate) and paleontological fossils; pollen; seafloor sediments; luminescent analysis; tree ring growth, including either ring width or maximum late-wood density; and shifting tree line positions plus tree stumps in lakes, marshes and streams. “

Holdren chose to take a public stand in opposition to the Baliunas and Soon findings, and brag about it to CRU AGW culprits, Mann and Wigley. When pressed as to why, Holdren claimed that it was based on “burden of proof”, and that,

“But, in practice, burden of proof is an evolving thing-it evolves as the amount of evidence relevant to a particular proposition grows.”

Dr Ball responds,

“No it doesn’t evolve; it is either on one side or the other.”

The truth is that Soon and Baliunas used data that is released, peer reviewed and available to public scrutiny, as opposed to the secrecy of the CRU and other AGW proponents. Which set of data should be considered valid in this situation?

Holdren threw his weight and the weight of the Obama administration behind the necessary choice: to suppress the MWP to keep AGW alive. No science necessary, so no science involved.

In an endeavor involving active suppression of conficting data and dissenting authors, science is not involved: it is politics, and Holdren is a politician.