John Holdren characterized Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. as being outside the 'scientific mainstream' at a Senate climate hearing for his views on extreme events and climate change
Pielke Jr. Fires Back at Holdren, calling his attack an 'epic fail': 'When a political appointee uses his position not just to disagree on science or policy but to seek to delegitimize a colleague, he has gone too far.'
Pielke Jr. responds: 'It is rare for political appointee in any capacity -- the president's science advisor no less -- to accuse an individual academic of holding views are are not simply wrong, but in fact scientifically illegitimate. Very strong stuff.'
'Holdren's response is sloppy and reflects extremely poorly on him. Far from showing that I am outside the scientific mainstream, Holdren's follow-up casts doubt on whether he has even read my Senate testimony. Holdren's justification for seeking to use his position as a political appointee to delegitimize me personally reflects poorly on his position and office, and his response simply reinforces that view.'
'Is this really coming from the president's science advisor? Holdren is flat-out wrong to accuse me of omitting a key statement from my testimony. Again, remarkable, inexcusable sloppiness.'
'The bottom line here is that this is an extremely poor showing by the president's science advisor. It is fine for experts to openly disagree. But when a political appointee uses his position not just to disagree on science or policy but to seek to delegitimize a colleague, he has gone too far.'