Somehow, you just knew there were more of Obama's people

involved in the climate fakery mess:
You haven’t heard it from America’s mainstream media yet – even Fox News hasn’t covered it – but the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Dr. John P. Holdren, is a key player in the Climategate e-mails flap, which is shaping up as the biggest scandal in the history of modern science.
...
But the Canada Free Press this week revealed that the former Harvard professor and Al Gore global warming adviser features prominently in the thousands of e-mails and other files made public after the hacking last week of a computer server used by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit.

The most embarrassing item for the Obama Administration may be a 2003 exchange between Holdren and TCSDaily.com editor-in-chief Nick Schulz. Schulz challenged Holdren on whether downplaying the significance of the Medieval Warm Period required “what lawyers call the burden of proof.”

Holdren’s retort contained a remarkable assertion coming from a scientist: “In practice, burden of proof is an evolving thing – it evolves as the amount of evidence relevant to a particular proposition grows.”

Canada Free Press columnist and Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball says of the correspondence with Schulz that Holdren’s “entire defense and position devolves to a political position.”
Wonderful, isn't it? And, yet again, there's more!
The CRU documents also find Holdren disparaging solar physicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, contrarians regarding surface temperatures over the past millennium, who were colleagues of Holdren at Harvard, and Ball wonders if Holdren may have intimidated the two scientists before they “suddenly and politely withdrew from the fray,” as Ball describes it.
That is a guess; wouldn't surprise me, considering Holdren.
Not long before the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion-on-demand throughout America, Holdren co-authored “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions,” which seems to argue that even years after birth a baby is not yet a human being.

“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth,” claims the book’s “Population Limitation” section, “and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.”
Which sounds disturbingly like the "Until it's considered an actual human, you can 'abort' it at any time" argument from the real screwballs. Which Holdren seems to be.

Pointed to by Sondra