webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Nat'l Climate Assessment NCA

---

trump zeldin killed 4 25?!

REBOOT UNDER CURRY FOR FUCKERY SEE CWG RED TEAM WRIGHT ZELDIN

local adaptation efforts hurt by suppression

SEE PIELKE

NCA = NACC?  also a report we send to UN?

---

---

Trump dismantles critical ocean-floor observation network

The Trump administration is dismantling a $370 million ocean-floor observatory network installed a decade ago to collect critical climate data on coastal environments, marine ecosystems, and powerful global ocean currents.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) announced it will begin removing more than 900 deep-sea instruments this June. The decommissioning will pull monitoring hardware from the waters of Oregon, Washington State, Alaska, North Carolina, and a critical region between Greenland and Iceland known as the Irminger Sea.

The Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI) began full operations in 2016. The monitoring system was engineered to provide continuous, real-time climate data to global researchers for 25 years.

Jim Edson, a marine meteorologist who led the initiative, described the network as “the world’s most advanced continuously operating ocean observing systems.”

The closure of this climate data network follows policy laid out by conservative strategist the Heritage Foundation. The shutdown was recommended in their Project 2025 “Mandate for Leadership” document – a 900-page document designed specifically to act as a blueprint for the Trump presidency.

In 2024, Project 2025’s authors explicitly targeted the network, claiming the OOI was “the source of much of NOAA’s climate alarmism” and advising that “the preponderance of its climate-change research should be disbanded.”

Since taking office, Trump’s administration has consistently targeted the network’s budget, and proposed 80% funding cuts in both 2025 and 2026. While Congress successfully pushed back on both occasions to restore the necessary money, the NSF moved ahead with decommissioning, despite managers previously attempting to save the network by limiting data collection to cut costs....

//

‘Project 2025’ Would Be Disastrous for Our Nation and Our Climate - Union of Concerned Scientists

The Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025” is a dangerous and detailed guide to undermining our democracy and a broadside attack on our health and well-being, not to mention our economic prosperity. Among other things, it takes specific aim at the federal government’s ability to address the climate crisis and instead doubles down on actions to worsen it. Anyone sobered by the relentless rise in global average temperatures and the spate of devastating and costly extreme weather and climate disasters we’ve been experiencing, anyone who thinks policies to benefit the public should be informed by robust, independent science, should take this threat very, very seriously.

Project 2025 has four pillars: a policy agenda, a Presidential Personnel Database, a Presidential Administration Academy, and a (yet to be released) playbook for the first 180 days of the next Administration. For the purposes of this blogpost, I will focus on the policy agenda.

So, what’s in this 920-page monstrosity of a document?

The first thing that strikes one as one reads the policy agenda document is that it is rooted in opposition to many hard-fought social gains, especially advances in civil rights, and instead panders to the interests of the rich and powerful. The document is littered with harmful mischaracterizations and attacks against the rights of Black, Brown and Indigenous people, women, LGBTQ+ people, people forced to migrate, and more. While claiming to uphold the interests of ordinary people, the document seeks to eviscerate protections crucial to guarding against money and power being the ultimate arbiters of policy decisions.

Another strong undercurrent is the attack on multilateral organizations and our nation’s interest in, and responsibility for, helping to solve global challenges through diplomacy and fair, joint agreements. Instead, an insular and militaristic approach emerges from the document—one that would take us back to a nasty, brutish world order, completely out of step with what this moment in time calls for. In a deeply interconnected world with complex global challenges—including the threat of autocratic governments and the dangerous proliferation of misinformation and disinformation—rising above short-sighted self-interest and working together with other nations is essential to our shared well-being.

Quite simply, the recommendations, which are listed agency-by-agency, are designed to undermine the institutions and governance structures our democracy relies upon to protect the public interest. If implemented, “Project 2025” would make addressing issues like climate change—which touches practically every aspect of our lives and is an urgent, collective global challenge—practically impossible.

Cliched phrases like “woke agenda” and “climate fanaticism” are used liberally throughout the document, demonstrating the unseriousness of the proposals and the intended targets of this destructive agenda.

Below are a few specific examples that highlight the harms, using direct quotes from the document (*Fair warning: these quotes contain highly misleading or downright false information!):

  1. Attacks on the process of advancing climate science to inform policymaking

In a blatant effort to politicize climate science, Project 2025 states that ‘The President should also issue an executive order to reshape the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and related climate change research programs… The next President should critically analyze and, if required, refuse to accept any USGCRP assessment prepared under the Biden Administration. Downsize the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research…’And then it goes on to spread disinformation:‘OAR is, however, the source of much of NOAA’s climate alarmism. The preponderance of its climate-change research should be disbanded.’*

Here are the facts: The USGCRP is tasked by Congress (under the 1990 Global Change Research Act, passed under the Bush administration) to produce regular updates on the state of climate science via the National Climate Assessment (NCA), with the Fifth NCA being released last year. As my colleague Rachel Licker and former UCS-er Andrew Rosenberg point out in this blogpost, the NCA provides exactly the kind of information policymakers need, without being policy-prescriptive. The NCA is produced through the work of hundreds of scientists, relying on research done by thousands more. It is not a political document. Suggesting that a new President “critically analyze” the work of scientists or reject their work just because it was done under a different administration is a blatant attempt to politicize science and would leave us all worse off.

NOAA scientists are doing essential work to keep us safe, including generating the science we need to understand and prepare for the rapidly worsening impacts of climate change. Good governance and leadership require facing hard facts—like the reality of climate change—head-on and taking decisive action to address problems rather than pretending they don’t exist.

  1. A polluting fossil-fueled energy agenda

OMG

REF GRNWIRE

https://www.eenews.net/articles/its-the-gold-standard-of-us-climate-research-contrarians-could-write-the-next-one/

It’s the gold standard of US climate research. Contrarians could write the next one.

By Scott Waldman | 12/22/2025

Researchers who have downplayed the threat of global warming have been asked to author the next National Climate Assessment.

The Trump administration has invited a small group of climate contrarians to help write the next installment of the National Climate Assessment, the nation’s preeminent report on global warming, says one of the researchers involved.

The move would advance efforts by the White House to inject widely disputed ideas about climate change into the federal government’s official appraisal of global warming. And it would almost certainly provoke a response from the hundreds of mainstream climate scientists who have worked for years on the National Climate Assessment.

Judith Curry, a former climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, is one of the climate contrarians in line for the new assignment. Earlier this year, Curry joined with four like-minded researchers to produce a separate report for Energy Secretary Chris Wright that downplayed the threat of global warming and called into question the basic tenets of climate science.

Now Curry says that same team — known as the Climate Working Group — has been asked to write the next installment of the National Climate Assessment, or NCA, a congressionally mandated report that comes out every few years and outlines the many ways that global warming is expected to impact the United States and its people.

“The Climate Working Group has been contacted about the NCA,” said Curry, who added that she was open to the idea. “Personally, I would work with whoever’s in charge to get a reasonable outline and get reasonable authors.”

Curry said she expected all five members of the Climate Working Group to work on the National Climate Assessment.

Three of the other authors did not respond to requests for comment from POLITICO’s E&E News. The fourth, Canadian economist Ross McKitrick, said late Sunday that he had not yet been contacted about working on the assessment but declined to comment as to whether he would participate in the next version.

Curry also said that the Trump administration was looking to revive the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the initiative in charge of producing the National Climate Assessment. Earlier this year, the Trump administration dismantled the program and dismissed hundreds of scientists who were already at work on the sixth version of the National Climate Assessment.

Curry said the new effort is starting to take shape. She said the Trump administration already has interviewed candidates for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and she expected the administration would name a new program chief as soon as next month.

“I think in January, we should have a director of the USGCRP in place,” she said.

The White House did not respond to requests for comment from E&E News. Nor did the Energy Department nor the Office of Management and Budget.

But there’s at least one other sign the Trump administration is looking to write a new version of the National Climate Assessment.

Ryan Maue, who served as chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration during the first Trump administration, said last week on the social media site X that he was working on the new climate report.

He described it as a “volunteer effort” and said it would be “mostly completed before end of 2025.”

Maue did not respond to requests for comment from E&E News. But he wrote on X that he was enlisting artificial intelligence to help with the latest National Climate Assessment. He cited the Gemini 3 Pro program as well as Grok, an AI chatbot developed by xAI, the artificial intelligence company led by tech tycoon Elon Musk.

Grok in the past has downplayed the danger of global warming when compared with other AI programs.

The Trump administration’s push to revive the National Climate Assessment and resurrect the U.S. Global Change Research Program adds a new twist to the complicated history of the long-running research effort.

The program was created by Congress in 1990 and signed into law by Republican President George H.W. Bush. Its most visible product is the National Climate Assessment, which comes out roughly every four years and is used to help shape environmental rules, legislation and infrastructure projects.

Five installments of the National Climate Assessment have been published since 2000. The reports explore more than just climate change — they also examine land productivity, water resources, fisheries, ecosystems and the atmosphere.

But earlier this year, the Trump administration fired the federal employees who work for the research program — and it was effectively shuttered. The administration also deleted interactive webpages for the first five versions of the National Climate Assessment and then buried the documents on government websites.

The moves prompted a sharp outcry from the scientific community in part because the National Climate Assessment has earned a reputation for top-notch research. The document includes hundreds of peer-reviewed studies to inform its conclusions, and it relies on the work of hundreds of scientists to write its contents and review its findings.

In contrast, the Energy Department report written by Curry and her colleagues involved a much smaller group of researchers.

Her four co-authors were: McKitrick; Steven Koonin, a former chief scientist for BP who also served as an undersecretary at the Energy Department during the Obama administration; as well as John Christy and Roy Spencer, atmospheric scientists at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.

One climate scientist said the size of that group was indicative of how far the team members’ views fall outside the scientific consensus.

“Serious experts agree and action (on climate change) is needed as soon as possible,” said Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University who has served as a lead author on multiple versions of the National Climate Assessment.

If the Trump administration wants “people who are not going to tell them those truths,” she added, “those are the only people they have.”

The Energy Department report written by Curry and the rest of the Climate Working Group has been roundly criticized by climate scientists for its reliance on cherry-picked data and its omission of research that disproved its claims.

Scientists whose work was cited in the report said their research was distorted and manipulated. Dozens of scientists produced a 450-page report challenging its claims, and the National Academies offered its own rebuttal of the report as well.

Hayhoe said it’s critical the United States and its leaders get a clear-eyed view of climate change and its impacts.

“This is a matter of safety, security, well being, resilience and preparation for a better future for everyone,” she said. “Regardless of where they live and regardless of how they vote.”

Related Articles

Climatewire

DOE reframes climate consensus as a debate

by Scott Waldman, Benjamin Storrow | 07/31/2025 06:30 AM EDT

Climatewire

How Chris Wright recruited a team to upend climate science

by Benjamin Storrow | 08/11/2025 06:15 AM EDT

Climatewire

Trump team readies more attacks on mainstream climate science

by Scott Waldman | 08/18/2025 06:21 AM EDT

Climatewire

EPA attacks climate science. Here are the facts.

by Chelsea Harvey, Scott Waldman | 07/30/2025 06:20 AM EDT

EXPERIENCE E&E NEWS FIRSTHAND

At Climate Week, The New York Times has an opportunity to hold Energy Secretary accountable for recent remarks downplaying climate change and disparaging renewable energy

Here are three remarks climate journalists should press Chris Wright on

Special ProgramsClimate & Energy

Written by Allison Fisher

Published 09/23/25 mma

Wright often appears in supportive media, having appeared across Fox’s networks at least 57 times since his confirmation as head of the Department of Energy. Regularly giving interviews on networks known to be safe spaces for Trump administration officials has allowed Wright to shape the discourse around climate and energy issues while uncritically spinning some of the administration's most controversial actions, including its effort to overturn the endangerment finding and its all-out assault on clean energy.

And during a rare non-Fox appearance on CNN on August 5, Wright was allowed to spew climate denial, asserting that “nobody who is a credible economist or scientist” sees climate change as a major threat and characterized carbon dioxide as just “a fertilizer” that benefits plant growth.

But climate journalists at The New York Times who have covered these issues for years should be better positioned than TV anchors to challenge climate denial arguments, misinformation, and false narratives. And they must, as this interview represents a rare opportunity to set the record straight on the climate crisis, its impacts, and what we can do to mitigate them by demanding direct, public-facing accountability outside of the protective ecosystem Fox News creates for Trump administration officials.

Here are 3 things Secretary Wright recently said on Fox that The New York Times should hold him accountable for during his appearance at Climate Forward:

To author that report, which would serve as the basis for the endangerment finding’s repeal, Wright tapped five climate contrarians whose discredited and debunked arguments have been promoted by right-wing media in order to manufacture doubt about the science that compels climate action.

During the interview, Wright claimed that the goal of repealing the endangerment finding was to “restore confidence in science, in data, in rationalism.” He then touted his agency’s climate report as a key objective in reaching that goal, saying, “So at the Department of Energy, we released a report, which is sort of a critical overview on what do we know today about climate science, about climate data, and what impacts that might have on the American people.”

But the DOE’s climate report has been widely criticized by the scientific community, including by climate scientist Zeke Hausfather, whose work was cited and reportedly “cherrypick[ed]” by the authors. On September 3, in response to a lawsuit alleging that the group’s formation violated federal law “in several ways,” Wright dissolved the working group, but he notably did not withdraw the report.

Meanwhile, the agency “dismissed hundreds of scientists and experts who had been compiling the federal government’s flagship analysis of how climate change is affecting the country,” known as the National Climate Assessment, and “deleted all previous congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment reports from government websites.” As The New York Times reported:

To avoid those worsening effects, those scientists say that a rapid transition from deriving energy from coal, oil and gas to nonpolluting sources is necessary.

Wright dedicated substantial time in his response to the “environmental impacts” of the projects, as well as local opposition, claiming, “The problem with wind turbines, particularly offshore wind turbines, is their environmental impacts are pretty massive. You know, they’re out there in these critical fisheries, these breeding grounds for whales. Fishermen and local people who live near these projects do not like them. Those people were ignored and shut out of the conversation before.”

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is moving to expand offshore drilling, including by opening up 625 million acres along the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines for drilling. Offshore drilling, however, is significantly more harmful to the environment than offshore wind.

As the BBC reported: “Decades of research from around the world suggests that oil production affects birds, whales and other wildlife in many different ways. Apart from the climate factor, there is the risk of oil spills as well as smaller, chronic leaks, scientists say, which can harm seabirds, whales, dolphins and other wildlife.”

Politico reported that one oil and gas effort in particular, for example — a $44 billion Alaskan project to expand exports of liquefied natural gas — will harm the Beluga whale, resulting in “the same type of marine mammal disruption that Trump and his administration falsely claim is killing whales on the East Coast as developers build wind turbines.”

Pollution and spills are another risk associated with offshore drilling. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, thousands of oil spills occur annually in the U.S. alone, and the impacts of oil spills extend well beyond marine life. They are far-reaching, can last for decades, and include both harm to those exposed to the polluting materials and economic losses for coastal communities and industries that depend on clean beaches and oceans.

But Politico reports that states where wind and solar produce the greatest share of electricity are “among the 20 cheapest states for electricity, according to federal data,” and as Time reported, “A recent analysis by Heatmap found that, in states with higher adoption of renewables, prices have risen more modestly than average or even fallen."

In fact, per Forbes, solar energy combined with battery storage is the “cheapest and fastest-to-build option” to meet rising electricity demand. Clean energy technologies constituted93% of the new energy generation capacity added to the grid last year, and solar is the fastest growing source of new electricity generation — not only in the U.S., but across the globe.

In reality, a number of factors are impacting supply and demand in the electricity sector and driving up prices, including climate-fueled extreme weather events.

According to Heatmap: “In the Southeast, for instance, severe storms and hurricanes have knocked out huge swaths of the distribution grid, requiring emergency line crews to come in and rebuild. Those one-time, storm-induced costs then get recovered through higher utility rates over time.”

The New York Times also noted that, besides absorbing some of the costs incurred by data centers, utilities are also “spending billions of dollars to harden their systems against wildfires, hurricanes, heat waves, winter storms and other extreme weather.”

//

mma

  1. ### In March, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin denied NY Times reporting that the agency would eliminate its research arm. On Friday, the EPA did just that.

07/21/25

---

e and e politico

Trump administration on Monday dismissed all of the scientists working on the newest version of the National Climate Assessment, a sweeping report that outlines the growing dangers of rising temperatures for lawmakers, policy experts and the public.

The sixth installment of the congressionally mandated report, which was due to come out by 2028, has typically been put together by about 400 researchers, many of whom are top scientists at universities who volunteer their time. The assessment is used to craft environmental rules, legislation and infrastructure project planning. It seen by experts as the definitive body of research about how global warming is transforming the country.

Work had already begun on the sixth version. The Trump administration ended that with a note sent to researchers Monday.

“At this time, the scope of the NCA6 is currently being reevaluated in accordance with the Global Change Research Act of 1990,” contributors were told in an email obtained by POLITICO’s E&E News.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The move was roundly criticized by climate scientists late Monday as the news spread. The assessments help Americans “understand how climate change is impacting their daily lives already and what to expect in the future,” said Rachel Cleetus, one of the researchers who was dismissed.

“Trying to bury this report won’t alter the scientific facts one bit, but without this information our country risks flying blind into a world made more dangerous by human-caused climate change,” said Cleetus, a senior policy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a statement. “The only beneficiaries of disrupting or killing this report are the fossil fuel industry and those intent on boosting oil and gas profits at the expense of people’s health and the nation’s economic well-being.”

The plan closely tracks with a proposal by White House budget director Russ Vought, who has urged the Trump administration to toss out all work on the assessment that began under former President Joe Biden. Vought wants to help pick a new group of researchers to issue a report that reflects the administration’s claims that climate change is not a serious threat. That report might focus on how climate change “benefits” the U.S., according to a plan he outlined in Project 2025, the conservative policy proposal produced by the Heritage Foundation.

Earlier this month, the administration defunded the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which supports the assessment. The program, which coordinated the work of 13 federal agencies, had existed for 35 years through Republican and Democratic presidencies, including Trump’s first term.

Trump officials were caught by surprise by the timing of the fourth National Climate Assessment as it was being prepared for release in 2018. Some wanted to withhold the report and fire the scientists who worked on it, but that plan was scuttled. Instead, the White House tried to downplay the report by releasing it the day after Thanksgiving, but that only increased the attention it received.

It’s unclear whom Vought would try to recruit for the next assessment, if there is one.

There is a relatively small pool of credentialed researchers who downplay the scientific consensus that climate change could push the planet past a series of dangerous tipping points. Some have already told E&E News that they are willing to be involved with the new effort.

On Monday, some of the dismissed researchers pledged to continue their work in some fashion. That includes Bob Kopp, a climate scientist at Rutgers University, and an author of the chapter on ocean coasts that was being prepared for the sixth report.

“I know many of the authors would like to find a way to ensure that Americans can still have an updated, evidence-based assessment of our country’s climate,” he wrote on Bluesky.

---

ggl 9 25

American Enterprise Institute

A Close Look at Australia’s New Climate Assessments

Today's is the first in a series of posts for THB Australia Week. Coming soon, an update on trends in Australian normalized disaster losses...

.9 hours ago

Media Matters for America

At Climate Week, The New York Times has an opportunity to hold Energy Secretary accountable for recent remarks downplaying climate change and disparaging renewable energy

Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who recently called pledges to reduce greenhouse gases “silly” and said that climate change is “not...

.19 minutes ago

Science | AAAS

Contrarian climate assessment from U.S. government draws swift pushback

The report makes some points that mainstream climate scientists would acknowledge. It decries media hype and points out that global warming is...

.1 month ago

AGU Newsroom

AGU and AMS join forces on special collection to maintain momentum of research supporting the U.S. National Climate assessment

Congressionally mandated, the NCA draws on the latest scientific research to evaluate how climate change is affecting the United States.

.May 2, 2025

Washington State Department of Ecology (.gov)

Sept. 5 - Ecology debunks federal climate report, reaffirms commitment to real science

Today the Washington Department of Ecology issued an official rebuke of a draft report by the U.S. Department of Energy being used to...

.2 weeks ago

GlobeNewswire

NYAM and Yale Center on Climate Change and Health Partner to Address Sustainable Health Systems

Summit explores resilient healthcare systems that protect communities from climate-related health impacts...

.4 hours ago

NPR

White House dismisses authors of major climate report

The Trump administration dismissed all the scientists working on the next National Climate Assessment. The report is the most comprehensive...

.Apr 29, 2025

The New York Times

All Authors Working on Flagship U.S. Climate Report Are Dismissed

The Trump administration has dismissed the hundreds of scientists and experts who had been compiling the federal government's flagship report on how global...

.Jul 8, 2025

E&E News by POLITICO

Trump dismisses scientists writing the National Climate Assessment

The move was roundly criticized by climate scientists late Monday as the news spread. The assessments help Americans “understand how climate...

.Apr 29, 2025

Earth.Org

‘Maintain Momentum’: US Research Organizations to Keep National Climate Assessment Alive Amid Trump’s Cuts

Two major US research organizations have stepped up after the Trump administration dismissed all the scientists working on an assessment of climate change in...

.May 6, 2025

---

:{---

omfg

no lnx

Home | Breathing is now a political act — thanks to the GOP

Thom Hartmann April 24, 2025

Breathing is no longer a basic human right in America: it’s now a political battleground.

Over 156 million Americans are inhaling toxic air today, not because we don’t know how to fix it, but because the Republican Party has decided that clean air is something only Democrats care about.

While children gasp through inhalers and wildfires choke entire cities, Trump and his fossil-fueled allies are dismantling environmental protections with surgical cruelty. This isn’t ignorance — it’s policy. It’s profit. It’s war on your lungs, your family, and your future.

The American Lung Association just released a new report documenting how over 156 million Americans are breathing poisonous air. Trump and the Republicans don’t give a damn; if anything, they’re enthusiastic about it.

Fossil fuel billionaires and the industry that made them rich have been major patrons of Republican politicians ever since Ronald Reagan floated into the White House in 1980 on a tsunami of oil and coal money. Donald Trump is no different.

Claiming that climate science research “promotes exaggerated and implausible climate threats, contributing to a phenomenon known as ‘climate anxiety,’ which has increased significantly among America’s youth,” the Trump regime last week cut millions from a Nobel Prize winning scientist’s program’s collaboration between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Princeton University.

Last month they also attacked the Renew America’s Schools program that provides funding for more than 3,400 schools across the country to install heat pumps, insulation, electric school busses, and other efforts to reduce their carbon footprints.

Lost in the news of Trump’s latest stock market pump-and-dump scheme for insiders and his kidnapping legal US citizens for foreign rendition, they also announced last Friday that they were zeroing out funding for the nation’s premiere annual climate change analysis, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and the 13 agencies that collaborate on the National Climate Assessment. The report is mandated by Congress, but Trump is ignoring the law.

This follows by a few weeks EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin’s announcement that the official position of the US government’s warning of climate change will soon be reversed. As Politico reported on March 12th:

“President Donald Trump’s environmental chief announced Wednesday that he will seek to overturn the federal government’s core scientific finding about the dangers of greenhouse gases — along with 30 other key regulatory actions stretching back years or decades.”

The report added that that Zeldin will also be gutting CO2 limits for coal-fired power plants, tailpipe emissions, methane leaks, and ending a program requiring major industries to report their CO2 emissions. In other words, “To hell with the health of our children and our climate; there’s money to be made and campaign contributions to be solicited!”

Tuesday of last week, Trump signed an executive order declaring war on individual state initiatives to dial back carbon emissions, ordering the Department of Justice to “stop the enforcement” of such state laws. The EO specifically attacked “climate Superfund” programs in Vermont and New York that would have required fossil fuel companies to reimburse those states for damages caused by climate change-fueled storms, as well as going after California’s cap-and-trade carbon credit auctions.

Fossil fuel oligarchs are, no doubt, breaking out the champagne. And the dark money for attack ads against Democrats in 2026 and 2028.

This widespread and wholesale destruction of programs intended to research and fight climate change will directly damage the future of young people in America, but Trump and the GOP frankly don’t give a damn. There are, after all, big bucks to be made and campaign contributions to be collected.

This insanity began in its modern form when five corrupt Republicans on the US Supreme Court ruled in their 1978 Bellotti decision (written by Lewis Powell) that money was the same thing as “free speech,” protected by the First Amendment, and that corporations are “persons,” protected by the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment. That floated Reagan into office in 1980 on a tsunami of oligarch money, as I noted in The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America.

Five corrupt Republicans on the Court doubled down on that in 2010 with Citizens United, which led to an absolute explosion of billionaire money in politics. As a result, in 2024 just 150 billionaire families spent $2.6 billion to elect candidates, money that went to the GOP on a more than 2:1 basis.

And now, in a manner demonstrative of a fully corrupt banana republic mindset, the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are giving the fossil fuel industry everything they could want. In addition to the outrages listed above, in just the first three months of this regime, they have further gifted the industry by:

— Exempting Coal Plants from Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS): The Trump administration granted two-year exemptions to 47 coal-fired power plants, allowing them to bypass MATS regulations. This decision increases the risk of mercury pollution, which can cause neurological damage (particularly in children) and respiratory illnesses.

— Declaring a National Energy Emergency: Trump declared a national energy emergency to accelerate fossil fuel development, weakening environmental reviews and potentially increasing pollution.

— Rolling Back Vehicle Emissions Standards: The administration overturned emissions standards for vehicles, leading to increased air pollution and associated health risks.

— Reducing EPA Enforcement: Under Trump, the EPA brought fewer cases against polluters and sought lower penalties, diminishing deterrents against environmental violations. Now Musk and his Doge teenagers are further gutting the EPA itself.

— Weakening Methane Emission Regulations: The administration rolled back rules limiting methane emissions from oil and gas operations, contributing to climate change and air quality issues.

— Providing Direct Channels for Pollution Exemptions: Fossil fuel companies were given a direct email line to request exemptions from air pollution regulations, undermining public health protections.

— Eliminating Climate and Environmental Justice Webpages: The removal of federal climate and environmental justice webpages hindered public access to crucial information for addressing pollution and climate impacts and served to hide or cover up Trump’s naked corruption.

— Reversing the Clean Power Plan: The administration replaced the Clean Power Plan with the Affordable Clean Energy rule, which could lead to thousands of additional premature deaths annually due to increased air pollution.

— Cutting Funding for Environmental Protections: Significant budget cuts to the EPA and other environmental programs reduced the capacity to monitor and enforce pollution controls.

— Reducing Public Land Protections: The administration reduced the size of national monuments and opened protected lands to fossil fuel extraction, threatening ecosystems and biodiversity.

— Rolling Back Clean Water Protections: By narrowing the definition of “protected waters,” the administration allowed more pollutants to enter waterways, affecting drinking water and aquatic life.

— Undermining Scientific Research: Policies were enacted to limit the use of scientific studies in policy-making, particularly those related to environmental and public health research.

— Reversing the Paris Climate Agreement Commitment: The U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under Trump signaled a retreat from global efforts to combat climate change.

— Promoting Fossil Fuel Exports: The administration lifted restrictions on fossil fuel exports, encouraging increased production and consumption globally, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions.

— Reducing Air Quality Monitoring: Cuts to air pollution monitoring programs made it more difficult to detect and address harmful emissions, posing risks to public health but increasing the profits and impunity of the fossil fuel industry.

Trump and Republican cronies in his administration and Congress are committed to trading millions of cases of asthma, childhood cancers, and environmental damage — not to mention the thousands who are dying every year from climate-change-related violent weather, floods, and fires — in exchange for blood-money cash.

Republicans refuse to do town halls, refuse to answer questions about this, and hide behind a timid media that’s afraid to even ask serious questions about this criminal corruption of the protective role of government.

Which leaves it up to us.

— Get out in the streets as often as possible.

— Call your representatives, particularly if they’re Republicans (only 4 or 5 Republicans in the House and Senate could change the course of history).

— Make your voice heard on social media, letters to the editor, calling into to talk radio, and sharing messages like these with friends and family.

— Contribute, if you can, to politicians who are taking brave stands against the oligarchy.

This is not just politics — it’s a slow-motion slaughter disguised as deregulation.

Republicans won’t answer for it, won’t debate it, and won’t hold town halls to face the people they’re sacrificing. The media tiptoes. The billionaires cheer. And Trump signs away your children’s futures with a grin and a pen.

But here’s the truth they don’t want us to grasp: If we want our children to grow up with lungs that work, we better start working and voting like our lives — and theirs — depend on it.

This isn’t just about air. It’s about whether democracy itself can breathe.

Tag—you’re it.

===

maine timeline:

2018 (November) The Trump administration issues Volume II of the National Climate Assessment, dramatically challenging its own climate policies

The Global Change Research Act of 1990 mandates that U.S. federal agencies produce a report every four years assessing climate change science and impacts for the United States. Volume II of the Fourth National Climate Assessment [see Vol. I, 2017 (November] strongly affirms both the integrity of climate science and the seriousness of consequences of inaction. As characterized in The Washington Post, “while it avoids policy recommendations, the report’s sense of urgency and alarm stands in stark contrast to the lack of any apparent plan from President Trump to tackle the problems, which, according to the government he runs, are increasingly dire.”*

Highlights from the Report’s Summary Findings:“rising temperatures, sea level rise, and changes in extreme events are expected to increasingly disrupt and damage critical infrastructure and property, labor productivity, and the vitality of our communities;” “Changes in temperature and precipitation are increasing air quality and health risks from wildfire and ground-level ozone pollution. Rising air and water temperatures and more intense extreme events are expected to increase exposure to waterborne and foodborne diseases, affecting food and water safety. … Climate change is also projected to alter the geographic range and distribution of disease-carrying insects and pests, exposing more people to ticks that carry Lyme disease and mosquitoes that transmit viruses such as Zika, West Nile, and dengue…;” “continued warming that is projected to occur without substantial and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions is expected to cause substantial net damage to the U.S. economy throughout this century, especially in the absence of increased adaptation efforts.

With continued growth in emissions at historic rates, annual losses in some economic sectors are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century—more than the current gross domestic product (GDP) of many U.S. states.”**

Although the administration releases the report on “Black Friday,” one of the slowest news days of the year, a spokesperson for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration confirms that “This report has not been altered or revised in any way because of political considerations.” * Holman Jenkins, writing in the Wall Street Journal, argues that the media has generally ignored the good news in the report: “The clear lesson of last week’s U.S. government report and every other official assessment is that climate change is not the end of the world. We can handle the cost and we can also handle the cost of avoiding a portion of climate change through sensible tax policy. (It should not be necessary at this point to rehearse the case for acarbon tax that is simultaneously pro-growth and anti-carbon.).

*** *Brady Dennis and Chris Moody, “Major Trump administration climate report says damage is ‘intensifying across the country’,” Washington Post, November 23, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/23/major-trump-administrationclimate-report-says-damages-are-intensifying-across-country/?utm_term=.dfccbeb327fe

**U.S. Global Change Research Program, Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States, Summary Findings, 2018; https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

***Holman Jenkins, “Press is the Enemy of Climate,” Wall Street Journal,December 4, 2018, https://www.wsj.com/articles/press-isthe-enemy-of-climate-1543966906 2018 (Novem

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/10112020/trump-administration-national-climate-assessment-michael-kuperberg-david-legates

why would the Trump administration remove the leader of the program that produces the National Climate Assessment just as the president's time in the White House appears to be ending?

The dismissal of scientist Michael Kuperberg from his post as executive director of the U.S. Global Change Research Program makes little sense as a bid to exert control over the government's most comprehensive scientific report on climate risks in the United States. Any changes that promote the denial of climate science are not likely to stick in an incoming Biden administration, which fully supports the science of global warming.

But the Trump administration's lame duck move may cast a cloud over the report that lasts into the future, said Philip Duffy, a physicist and former White House policy adviser who helped coordinate the National Climate Assessment in the Obama administration.

"It suggests further politicization of science and that's not a good thing," said Duffy, executive director of the Woodwell Climate Research Center in Falmouth, Massachusetts. "It erodes the credibility of these agencies, so that even if the politically motivated folks are replaced, it still could have, I think, a long-term effect on the perceived credibility of the report."

he added, "This is the official United States government view of climate change and its effect. It's extremely important that it reflect the best scientific understanding and not be a political document."

On the evening before Democrat Joe Biden was declared winner of the presidential race, Kuperberg, who headed up the climate assessment for the past five years, was notified by email that he was being removed from his post as executive director for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, associates said.

Although his replacement has not yet been announced, sources close to the administration expect it will be David Legates, a vocal skeptic of climate science who was appointed to a top deputy position at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration by the Trump administration in September. NOAA is one of 13 agencies that participate in the climate assessment, a review and report on climate science that Congress has mandated the government produce every four years.

"It seems to me they're trying to push this climate denial approach as far as they can, while they can," said Donald Wuebbles, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Illinois who has participated in the National Climate Assessment process in the past. "But it can all be undone and redone after the new administration takes office."

The news of Kuperberg's dismissal comes on the heels of a Trump administration appointment that won praise in the climate science community: Betsy Weatherhead, a senior scientist for the consulting firm Jupiter Intelligence, was named as director of the National Climate Assessment, and would have reported to Kuperberg. She has decades of experience as a climate scientist, including as a co-author of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports on the Arctic. Her appointment was made by White House chief science adviser, Kelvin Droegemaier, who also is a widely respectedscientist.

The flurry of personnel moves, which seem to send conflicting signals, shows, if nothing else, that the final weeks of the Trump administration are likely to be as chaotic as the past four years.

The National Climate Assessment, which involves scientists both outside and inside the federal government, is meant to serve as a foundation for future decision-making, not only by Congress but by the states and localities that are experiencing the worst effects of a changing climate. The process of the fifth National Climate Assessment has just begun, with a deadline set for Saturday for the public to provide input to the administration about which scientists should serve as authors of the report and which scientific studies and technical data should be considered in the assessment.

"Since it was first mandated, the National Climate Assessment has been a well-respected gauge of the impacts climate change is having on our planet," said Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Texas Democrat who chairs the House Science Committee. "The removal of Dr. Kuperberg appears to be a clear attempt by the defeated Trump Administration in its waning days in office to politicize the assessment during a critical early stage of its development." 

Kuperberg, an environmental toxicologist and ecologist who specializes in the study of the carbon cycle and Arctic processes, was detailed to NOAA's Global Change Research Program from the Department of Energy's Office of Science, where he had managed environmental research programs for a decade. He is expected to return to the Energy Department.

Wuebbles, who served as climate adviser in the Obama White House at the same time Kuperberg was managing the National Climate Assessment, said he and Kuperberg are friends, who speak frequently by phone. In an unrelated conversation they had on Saturday, Wuebbles said, Kuperberg broke the news that he would no longer head up the global research program. "We were talking about other things going on in our lives, and he said, 'There's one thing I need to tell you,'" Wuebbles recalled.

Kuperberg could not be reached for comment.

Opponents of action to curb fossil fuel emissions have been pressing the Trump administration to exert more control over the National Climate Assessment.

Even though the administration has relentlessly rolled back climate policy and exited the Paris climate accord, government scientists have continued to produce work that bolsters knowledge on the human contribution to climate change. The fourth National Climate Assessment presented the most dire picture yetof the climate risks facing the United States, its population and its economy. The report gained perhaps even greater attention because of the Trump administration's effort to downplay its findings by releasing the final volume the day after Thanksgiving in 2018.

"One of Kuperberg's greatest achievements was to get the fourth National Climate Assessment released intact under a Trump administration," said Duffy. "I frankly don't know how he managed to do that, and it really was a service to all of us."

PUBLISHED UNDER:

POLITICS

CLIMATE CHANGE

DAVID LEGATES

DONALD TRUMP

NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT

MICHAEL KUPERBERG

POLITICS & POLICY

OMFG

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/10/trump-climate-change-denial-noaa

w/ Election Day just a single-digit number of days away, the Trump administration is moving on what could be their final chance to undermine government action against climate change. President Donald Trump recently delivered a series of blows to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the New York Times reported, starting with ousting the agency’s acting chief scientist last month. 

:{

}:

NOAA’s chief of staff Erik Noble, a former White House policy adviser and one of several employees recently installed by the Trump administration, removed agency scientist Craig McLean after McLean sent an email to some of the new appointees requesting their acknowledgement of the agency’s rules on scientific integrity, which “prohibits manipulating research or presenting ideologically driven findings.” Noble responded with an ask: “Respectfully, by what authority are you sending this to me?” McLean answered that as acting chief scientist, he was responsible for ensuring the scientific integrity policy was upheld. The next day, Noble wrote back to tell McLean that “you no longer serve as the acting chief scientist for NOAA” and that his replacement had already been appointed.

McLean’s replacement is Ryan Maue, a research meteorologist who, per the Times, “has criticized climate scientists for what he has called unnecessarily dire predictions.” Maue is not the only climate-change critic among the new political hires: David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who, like Trump, has long questioned the existence of human-caused global warming, joined as deputy assistant secretary last month, a role that reportedly did not exist before his appointment. “The positions that these individuals are in gives them the perfect opportunity to suppress, distort and cherry-pick information to make it whatever the party line is,” Jane Lubchenco, a former Obama-era NOAA administrator, said of the recent appointments. The eleventh-hour replacement is in line with Trump’s desired purge of the FBI, CIA, and Pentagon, post-election plans reported by Axios last week.

The Times notes that the NOAA “has, so far, remained remarkably independent in its ability to conduct research about and publicly discuss changes to the Earth’s climate” under an administration known for rolling back environmental protections and questioning climate science.But the freedom that the agency has enjoyed is now threatened under the administration’s recent changes, which are reportedly aimed at undercutting the National Climate Assessment, an account the government is legally required to issue every four years that sets the standard for American knowledge about climate change and underpins federal regulations to combat it.If Trump is re-elected, further changes at the NOAA reportedly include replacing longtime authors of the report with writers who argue against accepted facts about climate science, as well as “shifting NOAA funding to researchers who reject the established scientific consensus on climate change and eliminating the use of certain scientific models that project dire consequences for the planet if countries do little to reduce carbon dioxide pollution.”

Along with McLean’s removal, the installment of staff who have argued against accepted facts about global warming, and the threatened credibility of the climate assessment, the Trump administration is also placing restrictions on internal and external messages at the agency. The policy change requires all communications—from social media posts to press releases to agency-wide emails—to be approved by political staff at the Commerce Department at least three days before they are released, a move meant to ensure communications “serve the needs of your employees and mission while aligning with the over-arching guidance from the White House and Department,” a memo issued by the department said. The new limits underscore the environmental implications of next week’s vote—and offer a grim preview of what a second Trump term would look like for climate research.

https://cei.org/content/attorneys-general-base-epa-suit-over-carbon-dioxide-regulation-disowned-report

Attorneys General Base EPA Suit Over Carbon Dioxide Regulation On "Disowned" Report

CEI Staff • February 19, 2003

Washington, D.C., February 20, 2003—As seven attorneys general reportedly prepare a lawsuit to coerce EPA to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, the Competitive Enterprise Institute cited the Federal Data Quality Act in requesting a prohibition on continued dissemination of the lawsuit’s basis, the “National Assessment on Climate Change.”  The Assessment was actually disavowed in order to resolve a lawsuit filed by CEI, a U.S. Senator, and two Representatives.

The attorneys general today again cited the disgraced National Assessment as support for their lawsuit against EPA.  In October2000,on the eve of the incomplete and unlawful report’s politicized issuance, several lawmakers and public interest groups including CEI filed a lawsuit against the White House, which ultimately withdrew it, asserting it did “not [reflect] policy positions or official statements of the U.S. government.”  A letter from the Office of Science and Technology Policy explaining the Administration’s position is available here.

“The National Assessment was hurriedly slapped together in an incomplete and inaccurate form,” said Christopher C. Horner, a senior fellow at CEI and counsel to the Cooler Heads Coalition.  “The Bush Administration disavowed the report in return for CEI, Senator Inhofe, and the other plaintiffs withdrawing our lawsuit, yet continues to distribute it in flagrant violation of our agreement.”

This morning Mr. Horner filed a “Data Quality Act” petition with the White House Science Office, available here, to prohibit further dissemination of the National Assessment.

Global Warming Policy & Legal Expert Available for Interviews

Christopher C. Horner

Senior Fellow, CEI

Counsel, Cooler Heads Coalition

202.262.4458

chorner@cei.org

Recently seen on: MSNBC Live, At Large with Geraldo Rivera (Fox News Channel), and Market Wrap (CNBC).

CEI is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy group dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government.  For more information about CEI, please visit our website at www.cei.org.

horner calls thus a retractions/disavowal?

https://web.archive.org/web/20060216060117/https://cei.org/gencon/003,03045.cfm

September 6, 2001

Christopher C. Horner

Competitive Enterprise Institute

1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Suite 1250

Washington, DC  20036

Dear Mr. Horner:

The purpose of this letter is to explain the status of the national assessment of climate change sponsored by the U.S. Global Change Research Program and to explain how the Administration is developing its policies on global climate change.

The national assessment, titled Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, consists of an overview document of about 150 pages and a foundation document of about 600 pages. These documents were the product of the National Assessment Synthesis Team, an advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. As such, they are not policy positions or official statements of the U.S. government. Rather, they were produced by the scientific community and offered to the government for its consideration.

The formulation of a comprehensive policy addressing global climate change is an important priority for this Administration. Towards this end, the President has constituted a Cabinet-level working group to study this issue and assist in the development of such comprehensive policy. Among other things, this working group is conducting an extensive review of climate change science and technology, has commissioned and received a report from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences on climate change science questions and uncertainties, and is carefully examining how best to address the challenge of climate change. The efforts of this working group will form the basis of government decision-making on the important issue of global climate change.

Sincerely,

Rosina Bierbaum

Acting Director

Office of Science and Technology Policy

EI's Petition To The Office Of Science And Technoogy Policy To Cease Dissemination Of The National Assessment On Climate C

Christopher C. Horner • February 19, 2003

Full Document Available in PDF

Petition to Cease Dissemination of the National Assessment on Climate Change, Pursuant to the Federal Data Quality Act

Introduction

This document follows and incorporates by reference: 1) the information presented the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), Inhofe, et al. v. Bush (DC DC CV 00-02383), the complaint of which is presently withdrawn without prejudice expressly on the basis of OSTP assurances that the National Assessment does not represent a product of the federal government; 2) correspondence sent by CEI to Assistant Secretary of Commerce Dr. James R. Mahoney and Under Secretary of Commerce Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr (18 October 2002) requesting that the US Global Change Research Change Project’s (USGCRP) National Assessment Synthesis Team undergo housecleaning to remove members responsible for theunlawfully produced, incomplete and FDQA-noncompliant National Assessment on Climate Change; and 3) CEI’s Comments on NOAA/USCCSP’s “Strategic Plan for the Climate Science Program” (17 January 2003)(the latter two are attached).

Because “[t]he Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide oversight [of USGCRP] on behalf of the Executive Office of the President” (http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/GCRPINFO.html), OSTP retains responsibility for ensuring the compliance of USGCRP data, particularly the “National Assessment on Climate Change”, with FDQA requirements.  “One of the major activities for the USGCRP during the last several years has been the U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change.  Assessment of the potential consequences of global change was mandate [sic] by Congress in the authorizing legislation of the USGCRP.  OSTP requested the USGCRP to undertake this assessment, and played a key role in defining the assessment process, which included a series of regional workshops, USGCRP sponsorship of regional and sector vulnerability analyses, and creation of a National Synthesis Report, which will be published in late 2000” (http://www.ostp.gov/Environment/html/env_projBAK.html)(see also, e.g., “NSCTC Annual Report”, at http://www.ostp.gov/NSTC/html/annualrpt98.html).

Pursuant to the justification presented in the cited litigation and attachments, and incorporated by reference in this Request, the Competitive Enterprise Institute requests correction of information, under Section 515 of Public Law 106-554, seeking OSTP comply with the FDQA by immediately ceasing dissemination of any form of the flawed data specifically described herein,and all conclusions or assertions based upon same, which is most effectively obtained by ceasing dissemination of the document formally if inaccurately styled as meeting the requirements as a first statutorily required “Climate Change Impacts in the United States:  The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change”, orNational Assessment (NACC).

==

2019?!

https://www.epa.gov/quality/epa-response-rfc-federal-data-quality-act-petition-against-further-dissemination-climate

EPA response to RFC: Federal Data Quality Act Petition Against Further Dissemination of 'Climate Action Report 2002

EPA response to the Request for Correction (RFC)

You may need a PDF reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA’s About PDF page to learn more.

EPA response to RFC: Federal Data Quality Act Petition Against Further Dissemination of 'Climate Action Report 2002 (PDF)(2 pp, 524 K, 05/06/2003)

EPA response to the Request for Correction (RFC)

Christopher C. Homer Competitive Enterprise Institute 1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1250 Washington, D.C. 20036 MAY I 6 aJ03

 Re: Information Quality Guidelines Request for Correction#7428 

Dear Mr. Homer: OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION The purpose of this letter is to respond to your February 10, 2003, request to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency (Information Quality Guidelines) (IQG RFC #7428). You requested that EPA cease dissemination of the U.S. Climate Action Report 2002. 

This letter also responds to your June 4, 2002, letter requesting that EPA cease dissemination of the Report. The U.S. Climate Action Report 2002 is the U.S. Third National Communication that was prepared and submitted by the United States pursuant to its obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 

Since the UNFCCC was ratified by the U.S. in 1992, the State Department has been responsible for developing and submitting each of the U.S. national communications under the UNFCCC (i.e., in 1994, 1997, and 2002). In 2002, as in previous years, the State Department convened an interagency team to draft the document. This team included staff from the Office of Management and Budget, Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of State, Energy, Interior, Commerce, Defense, and Transportation, the US Global Change Research Program, U.S. Agency for International Development, and other federal agencies. The document was submitted by the State Department to the UNFCCC Secretariat on May 28, 2002. 

...

==

==

omfg

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/27/us/politics/trump-climate-science.html

some lnx below

Trump Administration Hardens Its Attack on Climate Science

May 27, 2019

WASHINGTON — President Trump has rolled back environmental regulations, pulled the United States out of the Paris climate accord, brushed aside dire predictions about the effects of climate change, and turned the term “global warming” into a punch line rather than a prognosis.

Now, after two years spent unraveling the policies of his predecessors, Mr. Trump and his political appointees are launching a new assault.

In the next few months, the White House will complete the rollback of the most significant federal effort to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, initiated during the Obama administration. It will expand its efforts to impose Mr. Trump’s hard-line views on other nations, building on his retreat from the Paris accord and his recent refusal to sign a communiqué to protect the rapidly melting Arctic region unless it was stripped of any references to climate change.

And, in what could be Mr. Trump’s most consequential action yet, his administration will seek to undermine the very science on which climate change policy rests.

[Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up here for Climate Fwd:, our email newsletter.]

Mr. Trump is less an ideologue than an armchair naysayer about climate change, according to people who know him. He came into office viewing agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency as bastions of what he calls the “deep state,” and his contempt for their past work on the issue is an animating factor in trying to force them to abandon key aspects of the methodology they use to try to understand the causes and consequences of a dangerously warming planet.

As a result, parts of the federal government will no longer fulfill what scientists say is one of the most urgent jobs of climate science studies: reporting on the future effects of a rapidly warming planet and presenting a picture of what the earth could look like by the end of the century if the global economy continues to emit heat-trapping carbon dioxide pollution from burning fossil fuels.

The attack on science is underway throughout the government. In the most recent example, the White House-appointed director of the United States Geological Survey, James Reilly, a former astronaut and petroleum geologist, has ordered that scientific assessments produced by that office use only computer-generated climate models that project the impact of climate change through 2040, rather than through the end of the century, as had been done previously.

Image

President Trump has pushed to resurrect the idea of holding public debates on the validity of climate science.CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times]

Scientists say that would give a misleading picture because the biggest effects of current emissions will be felt after 2040. Models show that the planet will most likely warm at about the same rate through about 2050. From that point until the end of the century, however, the rate of warming differs significantly with an increase or decrease in carbon emissions.

The administration’s prime target has been the National Climate Assessment, produced by an interagency task force roughly every four years since 2000. Government scientists used computer-generated models in their most recent report to project that if fossil fuel emissions continue unchecked, the earth’s atmosphere could warm by as much as eight degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. That would lead to drastically higher sea levels, more devastating storms and droughts, crop failures, food losses and severe health consequences.

Work on the next report, which is expected to be released in 2021 or 2022, has already begun. But from now on, officials said, such worst-case scenario projections will not automatically be included in the National Climate Assessmentor in some other scientific reports produced by the government.

“What we have here is a pretty blatant attempt to politicize the science — to push the science in a direction that’s consistent with their politics,” said Philip B. Duffy, the president of the Woods Hole Research Center, who served on a National Academy of Sciences panel that reviewed the government’s most recent National Climate Assessment. “It reminds me of the Soviet Union.”

In an email, James Hewitt, a spokesman for the Environmental Protection Agency, defended the proposed changes.

:{

}:

“The previous use of inaccurate modeling that focuses on worst-case emissions scenarios, that does not reflect real-world conditions, needs to be thoroughly re-examined and tested if such information is going to serve as the scientific foundation of nationwide decision-making now and in the future,” Mr. Hewitt said.

However, the goal of political appointees in the Trump administration is not just to change the climate assessment’s methodology, which has broad scientific consensus, but also to question its conclusions by creating a new climate review panel. That effort is led by a 79-year-old physicist who had a respected career at Princeton but has become better known in recent years for attacking the science of man-made climate change and for defending the virtues of carbon dioxide — sometimes to an awkward degree.

:{

}:

Image

The Beaufort Sea in the Arctic, a region that is warming rapidly. The United States recently declined to sign a communiqué on protecting the Arctic unless it omitted references to climate change.CreditAndrew Testa for The New York Times]

:{

}:

“The demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler,” the physicist, William Happer, who serves on the National Security Council as the president’s deputy assistant for emerging technologies, said in 2014 in an interview with CNBC.

Mr. Happer’s proposed panel is backed by John R. Bolton, the president’s national security adviser, who brought Mr. Happer into the N.S.C. after an earlier effort to recruit him during the transition.

:{

}:

Mr. Happer and Mr. Bolton are both beneficiaries of Robert and Rebekah Mercer,the far-right billionaire and his daughter who have funded efforts to debunk climate science. The Mercers gave money to a super PAC affiliated with Mr. Bolton before he entered government and to an advocacy group headed by Mr. Happer.

Climate scientists are dismissive of Mr. Happer; his former colleagues at Princeton are chagrined. And several White House officials — including Larry Kudlow, the president’s chief economic adviser — have urged Mr. Trump not to adopt Mr. Happer’s proposal, on the grounds that it would be perceived as a White House attack on science.

:{

}:

Even Stephen K. Bannon, the former White House strategist who views Mr. Happer as “the climate hustler’s worst nightmare — a world-class physicist from the nation’s leading institution of advanced learning, who does not suffer fools gladly,” is apprehensive about what Mr. Happer is trying to do.

:{

}:

“The very idea will start a holy war on cable before 2020,” he said. “Better to win now and introduce the study in the second inaugural address.”

But at a White House meeting on May 1, at which the skeptical advisers made their case, Mr. Trump appeared unpersuaded, people familiar with the meeting said. Mr. Happer, they said, is optimistic that the panel will go forward.

[Image

William Happer, who serves on the National Security Council, is pushing to create a climate review panel that would question scientific consensus.CreditPool photo by Albin Lohr-Jones]

The concept is not new. Mr. Trump has pushed to resurrect the idea of a series of military-style exercises, known as “red team, blue team” debates, on the validity of climate science first promoted by Scott Pruitt, the E.P.A. administrator who was forced to resign last year amid multiple scandals.

:{

}:

At the time, the idea was shot down by John F. Kelly, then the White House chief of staff. But since Mr. Kelly’s departure, Mr. Trump has talked about using Mr. Happer’s proposed panel as a forum for it.

:{

}:

For Mr. Trump, climate change is often the subject of mockery. “Wouldn’t be bad to have a little of that good old fashioned Global Warming right now!” he posted on Twitter in January when a snowstorm was freezing much of the country.

:{

}:

His views are influenced mainly by friends and donors like Carl Icahn, the New York investor who owns oil refineries, and the oil-and-gas billionaire Harold Hamm — both of whom pushed Mr. Trump to deregulate the energy industry.

[ImageThe Daily Poster

Listen to ‘The Daily’: The White House Plan to Change Climate Science]

After two years spent unraveling the policies of his predecessors, President Trump and his appointees are going after influential government reports.

TRANSCRIPT

0:00/0:00

Listen to ‘The Daily’: The White House Plan to Change Climate Science

Hosted by Michael Barbaro; produced by Rachel Quester and Luke Vander Ploeg, with help from Adizah Eghan; and edited by Paige Cowett and Marc Georges

After two years spent unraveling the policies of his predecessors, President Trump and his appointees are going after influential government reports.

[Music]

Michael Barbaro

From The New York Times, I’m Michael Barbaro. This is “The Daily.” Today, from the start, the Trump administration has tried to dismantle regulations aimed at curbing climate change. Now, in its latest attack, the administration is trying to dismantle climate science. It’s Wednesday, May 29. Coral, tell me about what happened in November of last year.

Coral Davenport

:{

}:

In November of 2018, the federal government put out what’s known as the National Climate Assessment.This is a huge, sweeping comprehensive assessment of the impact of climate change on the U.S. It’s over 1,000 pages long. It’s prepared by 13 federal agencies. It takes about four years to prepare. It’s a huge deal every time one of these comes out, because it is absolutely considered the most up to date, comprehensive, authoritative understanding of the impact of climate change on the U.S. And it’s a big deal when it comes out in the U.S. It’s a big deal around the world, because it’s also considered one of the most authoritative climate science documents in the world.

Michael Barbaro

So this is kind of like the Bible of U.S. climate science?

Coral Davenport

Yes, exactly.

Michael Barbaro

Coral Davenport covers environmental policy for The Times.

Coral Davenport

And so what the Trump administration decided to do with this is essentially to bury it. They are mandated by law to put it out. There’s a law that says the agencies have to put it out every four years. But they decided to put it online at about 2:00 or 3:00 PM on Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving.

[Music]

Michael Barbaro

So at a moment when just about everybody is either literally on vacation or on some vacation of the mind?

Coral Davenport

Yes. The people who were not on vacation were climate journalists.

Archived Recording 1

When most Americans are tucking into turkey leftovers and waiting in line for Black Friday sales, the government has released a huge report on the impact of climate change.

Coral Davenport

The strategy of trying to bury it didn’t work at all.

Archived Recording 2

The report wasn’t expected to be made public until next month, leading some to wonder if Friday’s release was an attempt to bury the story.

Coral Davenport

Mainly because it had such kind of stunning and deeply researched conclusions.

Archived Recording 3

A dire new forecast, more frequent and more devastating weather crises on the horizon.

Archived Recording 4

For the southeast, stronger hurricanes and more frequent flooding. The Midwest, agricultural catastrophe, extreme heat destroying crops. And in the west, increased fire danger.

Archived Recording 5

That predicts hotter temperatures will kill more people. Crop yields will decline dramatically. And ocean acidification will cause millions of dollars in losses to the seafood industry. According to those findings, rising sea levels will threaten public infrastructure and real estate along U.S. coasts.

Coral Davenport

And the impacts of that could be devastating specifically to the United States economy.

Archived Recording 6

The report states if greenhouse gases continue to rise, the country will see labor-related losses of $150 billion a year by 2090. Damage to coastal property due to the rise in sea levels and storm surges could reach nearly $120 billion a year.

Coral Davenport

And the report actually found that these impacts could knock as much as 10 percent off the U.S. G.D.P. by the end of the century, which is a huge economic hit. And I think that was the kind of thing that really sort of stunned the administration. Essentially, the conclusions of this report totally undermine the policy agenda, the regulatory agenda of this administration. This administration’s policy agenda, very specifically, is about, literally, emitting more greenhouse gas emissions.

Archived Recording (Donald Trump)

We’re eliminating unnecessary regulations so we can create more jobs and wealth right here in America. I’ve ended the Obama administration’s war on coal. And we’re putting our wonderful coal miners back to work, producing beautiful clean coal.

Coral Davenport

Under President Trump, we have seen the rollback of a couple of key greenhouse gas emissions regulations that were put in place in the Obama administration. One is a major E.P.A. regulation on greenhouse gas pollution from vehicles.

Archived Recording 1

Regulations put in place by the Obama administration call for new vehicles to get 36 miles per gallon by 2025. The Trump administration says that’s too high.

Coral Davenport

There’s another major E.P.A. regulation from the Obama administration that would have drastically reduced greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants, leading to shutdown of power plants, freezing construction of future power plants. The Trump administration is rolling that back.

Archived Recording 2

President’s move ends a moratorium on coal mining on federal land and eases restrictions on coal-fired power plants.

Coral Davenport

And the interior department is rolling back protections on public lands and federal waters in order to not just allow but aggressively promote the exploration and extraction of more fossil fuels, more oil, more gas, more coal, with the specific intent of driving the consumption and the burning of more fossil fuels, producing more greenhouse gases. I mean, this is a very explicit policy agenda. And this report says the results of this policy agenda are going to devastate the U.S. economy. I mean, these two sets of facts are in total conflict.

Michael Barbaro

So not only does this report make the case that these policies will worsen carbon emissions and therefore be bad for the environment, but this report is suggesting that these policies that are meant to strengthen the U.S. economy will, because of the environmental damage that they will inflict, actually hurt it.

Coral Davenport

Precisely.

Michael Barbaro

So what happens after this, for the Trump administration, pretty embarrassing report comes out?

Coral Davenport

Well, at first, the White House and the president slammed it.

Archived Recording (Donald Trump)

I don’t believe it.

Archived Recording 1

You don’t believe it?

Archived Recording (Donald Trump)

No, no. I don’t believe it.

Coral Davenport

And then kind of tried to move on from it. And that was kind of what happened with the public face at the White House. In the background, it’s important to remember that this is kind of a moment where there was a transition happening among top Trump environmental officials. Previously, we had seen top officials like Scott Pruitt, who was the first head of the E.P.A. under Trump who had spent his tenure pretty much constantly fighting off accusations of scandal and corruption. Or Ryan Zinke, the former Secretary of the Interior, same thing, was forced to resign after multiple allegations of scandal as well. These guys had been these big, high-profile, very politically flashy officials. They had left. And their replacements were these two senior officials who were much less flashy, much less scandal-plagued, much less in the headlines, not public figures, but really, really smart at the inside Washington game.

The new head of the E.P.A. is Andrew Wheeler, who is a former coal lobbyistwho has also worked as a senior official on the Hill, also worked in the E.P.A. in the George W. Bush administration. David Bernhardt is the new Secretary of the Interior. He used to be an oil lobbyist. [drain the swamp!] Used to work at the Interior Department under the George W. Bush administration. These are guys who aren’t trying to pursue political careers in a big way. They do know how to pull the levers and get policy done. These guys and some of the other top officials look at this report and say, there’s a bigger problem here. This is not just embarrassing. This is not just a couple of bad headlines for us. And this is why.

Lawyers looking to fight these Trump regulatory rollbacks can use this document in court, in the Supreme Court, essentially saying, look, if your own administration says adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere hurts the U.S. economy, how can you make the legal justification to put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The law says you can’t do these regulatory changes if they’re going to substantially hurt the economy. There’s a very clear legal argument to be made. And so these guys are kind of realizing this is a big problem for us, the fact that this thing is out there and exists, and we’re trying to do this policy agenda. This is more than just embarrassing.

Michael Barbaro

So in other words, they’re seeing this report as a potential legal blueprint for their opponents to challenge their policies in court.

Coral Davenport

Opponents of these policies have already said explicitly that once these regulatory rollbacks are done and they go to court, they absolutely intend to use this report to challenge them all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Michael Barbaro

Hmm. So they will take this giant climate report, the one that the Trump administration doesn’t like but know by law it has to put out. And they will introduce this as evidence that these regulatory rollbacks should be invalidated?

Coral Davenport

Exactly.

Michael Barbaro

So what do these officials in the Trump administration do once they realize that this legal exposure exists?

Coral Davenport

Well, they can’t do anything about the current report. That’s out there. That’s done.

[Music]

Coral Davenport

But they start thinking, all right, well, work on the next report, which is coming out in four years, has just started. And they can change the outcome, they think, of the next scientific report.

Michael Barbaro

Well, how exactly does that work? Because you can’t exactly change climate science.

Coral Davenport

Right. And they’re not saying we’re going to fundamentally change the methods by which we do climate science, because, keep in mind, it’s not just the National Climate Assessment. That’s the major report that’s put out by the federal government. But the federal government does climate science reports across the agencies. So they are having a discussion that asks the question, how much information can we leave out. How much does the public really need to know?

Michael Barbaro

We’ll be right back. So Coral, what does the Trump administration decide to do to limit what makes it into these official government reports on climate science?

Coral Davenport

There’s a couple of different ways that this is happening. In one agency, the U.S. Geological Survey, all they do is scientific reports. They’re inside the Interior Department. There is a new policy in place already happening that all of that climate science and all their reports have to include some element of how climate change impacts public lands and waters and the different things that they do. There’s a new policy that climate projections can’t go past the year 2040.

Michael Barbaro

What’s significant about that?

Coral Davenport

If you look at a climate science model, a projection, what’s going to be the impact of the warming planet. If you look at those, the worst impacts, the biggest difference all happen past 2050. After 2050, that’s when you start to see the really dramatic bad impacts of a lot more greenhouse gases. So this policy of saying, our climate science is not going to include any projections after 2040 creates, essentially, scientists say, a falsely optimistic, falsely positive idea. It doesn’t show you the bad stuff that happens if we keep polluting.

Michael Barbaro

So the worst this, the worst impacts of the emissions policies that are currently being pursued by the Trump administration would make themselves apparent in projections after 2040. And what this proposal would do is just keep those projections before 2040 and therefore keep the worst, most dire predictions out of these reports?

Coral Davenport

Precisely. And this isn’t a proposal. This is already happening at the U.S. Geological Survey, which is a scientific agency inside the Interior Department.

Michael Barbaro

O.K., so what else is the administration doing to limit the public’s exposure to this information in these reports?

Coral Davenport

So there’s another major proposal, and this is more of a proposal. This hasn’t happened yet. Specifically focused on the National Climate Assessment. In these big climate science reports, there’s usually a range of options based on how much greenhouse pollution goes into the atmosphere. There’s a worst case scenario, things get really hot, things get really bad. And then there’s a best case scenario, we keep the worst of it under control, we just warm up a little bit, things aren’t so bad. And then there’s usually a couple of middle scenarios. So the proposal is essentially: don’t include the worst case scenario. [doom rhet scam]

...

==

(CNN)The Trump administration may have shut down the government advisory committee on climate change started by President Barack Obama, but its members considered the work so important that they did not stop working.

TheAdvisory Committee for the Sustained National Climate Assessment was created in 2015 by the Obama administration to help local leaders and policymakers figure out how to apply lessons from the National Climate Assessment. The latest version of that report, released in November, determined that climate change is already hurting the United States and that it could cost the economy hundreds of billionsof dollars and will kill thousands of Americans.

Trump is making the warming of Alaska even worse

Trump allowed the charter of the advisory committee to expire in August 2017 after his administration showed concern about the political makeup of the 15-member panel.

"It only has one member from industry," wroteGeorge Kelly, then deputy chief of staffat the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in a June 2017 email, the Washington Post uncovered. Kelly said officials needed to decide whether to let the committee "expire as soon as possible," as the "process to gain more balance would take a couple of years to accomplish."

Tackling climate change could save millions of lives, report says

At the invitation of New York's governor, Andrew Cuomo, most of the members of the committee reconvened and became the Science to Climate Action Network, also known as SCAN.

On Thursday, it released its report and recommendations to help policymakers and community leaders better tackle the daunting problems brought by climate change.

With the support of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, the state of New York and the American Meteorological Society, the panel warns that the country continues to be in harm's way because of its failure to act. For instance,local leaders don't have enough data on climate change to make informed decisions, something that the Government Accountability Office has noted in its investigations.

Calling climate change a "global catastrophe," Cuomo said that he supports the committee's efforts to help local leaders because the problem needs urgent attention.

[pix]

Access denied: 2 climate change pages removed from DOT's website

"While the federal government continues to deny climate change and ignore the dire need to strengthen the resilience of our communities, New York and the U.S. Climate Alliance are taking action," he said in a statement published with the report. "This report will provide important recommendations to communities across the country as we work to address climate change."

Committee Chairman Richard Moss, a visiting senior research scientist at the Earth Institute, said he hopes the work will make local action possible.

The committee is working with university groups and regional research networks and will continue to advise local leaders. It will continue to help leaders determine which climate data sets are reliable. It will give technical advice, advising on practical matters like what engineering designs will be more resilient in the face of climate change, and it will help leaders think through the costs and benefits of climate change plans.

In the face of problems like flooding, a problem that has already cost the country billions, it will bring together a collaborative group of experts and leaders to help communities figure out what works and what doesn't and will help them craft local solutions.

"The point is to take what we know, make it usable for the communities and increase their confidence in weighing the tradeoffs and opportunities that come with different strategies for adaptation and mitigation," Moss said. "We're trying to produce something that adds value for those on the front lines of preparing their communities for climate change."

==

In November, the U.S. government released a daunting report that warnedclimate change could kill thousands of Americans each year and slash the GDP by more than 10 percent by 2100.

President Donald Trump infamously dismissed his own government's study, saying "I don't believe it."

https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-report-takeaways-2621535494.html

no lnx many graphics

What’s in the Climate Report the Trump Administration Doesn’t Want You to Read?

As families across the U.S. gathered together to enjoy Thanksgiving weekend, the government released an urgent report on climate change Friday, warning that human-caused global warming could have dire consequences for American lives and livelihoods.

"Earth's climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities," the report begins. "The impacts of global climate change are already being felt in the United States and are projected to intensify in the future—but the severity of future impacts will depend largely on actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the changes that will occur."

The report marks volume II of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, the work of 1,000 people, 300 top scientists and 13 federal agencies operating under the auspices of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, CNN reported. The report's clear and urgent message on climate change runs counter to President Trump's climate denialism and decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris agreement to keep global temperatures "well below" two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

Director of the Technical Support Unit at the NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information David Easterling told CNN there was "no external interference in the report's development," but some speculated the report's content was why the administration chose to release the report on Friday, when Americans would be distracted by the biggest shopping day of the year,as EcoWatch reported.

The report was originally scheduled to be released in December at a large scientific conference, and its early release took its authors by surprise, The Atlantic reported. But Climate Central reporter John Upton tweeted that any attempt to bury the news "backfired."

"The news is everywhere," Upton wrote Saturday. "After details of the plan leaked, the government confirmed the release in advance, giving outlets time to prepare. And yesterday was a slow news day."

So what's in the report that the Trump administration doesn't want you to read? Here are some key takeaways.

1. Climate Change Kills

The report found that in the Midwest, the region projected to see the biggest temperature increase, 2,000 more people could die a year by 2090 because of heat waves, CNN reported. Any decrease in deaths due to warmer winters will be offset in most regions by an increase in deaths due to warmer summers, Vox reported. Other health hazards that will increase due to climate change include mosquito and tick-borne diseases and air pollution due to an increase in wildfires.

The report's findings on wildfires, which it says could burn up to six times more forested area by 2050, are especially timely in light of the Camp Fire that has now killed at least 85 people in Northern California, as USA Today reported Sunday.

  1. It's the Economy, Stupid

Trump's argument for withdrawing from the Paris agreement centered around the idea that it would hurt the U.S. economy, but climate change could cost the U.S. more than 10 percent of its GDP by 2100 in the worst-case-scenario, CNN reported. Climate change will devastate agriculture and fisheries. Some Midwest farmers will grow less than 75 percent of the corn they produce today, and the shellfish industry could see a $230 million loss by 2100 because of ocean acidification. On the flip slide, rapidly reducing fossil fuel use could actually raise the country billions of dollars in benefits.

3. Environmental Injustice

As usual, the report found that low-income and marginalized communities would suffer the worst health and economic impacts from climate change, The Guardian reported. This includes indigenous communities, as the report explained in its summary of key findings:

Many Indigenous peoples are reliant on natural resources for their economic, cultural, and physical well-being and are often uniquely affected by climate change. The impacts of climate change on water, land, coastal areas, and other natural resources, as well as infrastructure and related services, are expected to increasingly disrupt Indigenous peoples' livelihoods and economies, including agriculture and agroforestry, fishing, recreation, and tourism. Adverse impacts on subsistence activities have already been observed. As climate changes continue, adverse impacts on culturally significant species and resources are expected to result in negative physical and mental health effects.

==

see sci supp 3 on suppression blk friday 2018

icn

... eg

Fact-Checking the Attacks

The administration and its allies appear to be repeating one main talking point in their effort to discredit the National Climate Assessment: They claim, inaccurately, that the report represents only a worst-case scenario. It actually reflects a broad range of possible future outcomes—along with an enormity of direct, present-day observations of the impacts of global warming.

The naysayers are trying to build that falsehood on a number of misleading assertions:

The arguments of the Trump administration have been amplified in media coverage in the aftermath of the report's release.

Danielle Pletka of the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute prefacing her remarks with the caveat, "I'm not a scientist," before delivering a blizzard of inaccuracies on Sunday's "Meet the Press" on NBC aimed at undermining the report's credibility. Pletka said the last two years have been the coldest on record, when in fact they have been among the warmest. She said the U.S. "is not using dirty coal anymore," when in fact about 30 percent of U.S. power is still generated by coal and only one U.S. coal plant has technology in place to capture some of its carbon emissions.

Hayhoe pre-taped an appearance on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 show to talk about the National Climate Assessment on Tuesday, but her appearance—though posted online—was bumped from the TV broadcast. CNN instead aired a segment with paid contributor Rick Santorum, a former Republican U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, who accused climate scientists of stoking alarm to make money.

...

https://www.alternet.org/heres-dire-climate-change-report-trump-white-house-didnt-want-you-see

[another art'l on blk friday release AN]

in a move environmentalists and journalists denounced as a blatant effort to bury facts that conflict with the president's denialism and pro-fossil fuel agenda, the Trump administration used the Friday after Thanksgiving to quietly release Volume II of the Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), which warned "Earth's climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization" and concluded that "greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the only factors that can account" for planet-threatening warming.

:{

}:

"Climate change is spawning more extreme weather, causing irreparable harm to communities, costing billions of dollars a year, and leading to countless deaths. We can stop climate destruction, but only if we act quickly to end the use of fossil fuels."

—Wenonah Hauter, Food & Water Watch

"The decision to release this damning report when families are beginning to celebrate the holidays and newsrooms are short-staffed is a brazen attempt to bury the truth from the public that we must act now to move off fossil fuels and stabilize the climate," Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, said in a statement.

"Releasing this report when no one is looking, tweeting his annual nonsense about global warming and cold weather, and announcing that he'll use the upcoming U.N. climate meetings as a fossil fuel tradeshow, Trump is doubling down on his climate denial for the holidays—as many families are still reeling from unnatural climate disasters across the country," Hauter continued. "The science is way past in on climate change... We must prepare for our climate future in spite of Trump."

From deadly wildfires to catastrophic hurricanes and other extreme weather events, the "impacts of global climate change are already being felt in the United States and are projected to intensify in the future," notes the congressionally mandated report—the first of its kind released since President Donald Trump took office in 2017.

Authored by officials from over a dozen federal agencies, the report warns that in the absence of aggressive action to quickly slash carbon emissions, the climate crisis will continue to have increasingly devastating effects on the environment, wildlife, and human health.

"It is very likely that some impacts, such as the effects of ice sheet disintegration on sea level rise and coastal development, will be irreversible for many thousands of years, and others, such as species extinction, will be permanent," the report warns.

Using the hashtag #ClimateFriday, environmentalists worked to overcome the Trump administration's attempt to hide the NCA4 amid the chaos of the holidays by highlighting the report's findings and stressing its dire implications if ambitious and global climate action is not taken.

"This report makes it clear that climate change is not some problem in the distant future,"  Brenda Ekwurzel, the director of climate science at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), said in a statement. "It's happening right now in every part of the country."

The Washington Post summarized the report's key findings with regard to major regions of the U.S.:

Already, western mountain ranges are retaining much less snow throughout the year, threatening water supplies below them. Coral reefs in the Caribbean, Hawaii, Florida, and the U.S.'s Pacific territories are experiencing severe bleaching events. Wildfires are devouring ever larger areas during longer fire seasons. And the country's sole Arctic state, Alaska, is seeing a staggering rate of warming that has utterly upended its ecosystems, from once ice-clogged coastlines to increasingly thawing permafrost tundras.

The federal report comes as climate activists and progressives like Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) are pushing for the Democratic Party to combat the Trump administration's fossil fuel agenda with ambitious climate action centered around a Green New Deal.

"It's not enough to think it's 'important.' We must make it urgent," Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter. "That's why we need a Select Committee on a Green New Deal, and why fossil fuel-funded officials shouldn’t be writing climate change policy."

"Climate change is spawning more extreme weather, causing irreparable harm to communities, costing billions of dollars a year, and leading to countless deaths. We can stop climate destruction, but only if we act quickly to end the use of fossil fuels and transition to 100 percent clean renewable energy," concluded Hauter of Food & Water Watch. "This transition is not only possible, but necessary for the health and prosperity of people and the planet."

Friday, the White House stunned many after it released a sweeping report concluding that climate change is not only real, but it also poses a major threat to the U.S. and humans are "extremely likely" to be responsible.

The 477-page National Climate Assessment, which was mandated by Congress and reviewed by 13 federal agencies, contracted with President Trump's notorious stance on global warming as a "hoax." It also defied Trump's continued efforts to dismantle environmental regulations on both the national and international scale.

So why did the Trump White House release a report contradicting the president and much of his administration's stance on climate change?

Well, as Bloomberg reports, "don't read much into it":

Public drafts of the report have circulated for months, making it politically perilous to tinker with the findings. So, with editing a high-risk affair and the report required by Congress, the administration may have just decided to downplay it, said John Holdren, who ran the Office of Science and Technology Policy under President Barack Obama.

"It would do more harm to block this report than to let it out," Holdren, now a Harvard University environmental policy professor, said in an interview. "They're letting it out on a Friday afternoon, which is pretty much the standard approach for letting out something that you don't want to get a lot of attention."

The other reason? Blame Obama. The report has been in the works since 2015.

"It is unfortunate that the Trump Administration has released these Obama-era climate reports, without attempting to remove the junk science—and the reports are full ofjunk science," fervent climate change denier and former Trump EPA transition team leader Myron Ebell told Bloomberg.

The White House has also distanced itself from the main conclusion of the special report. In a Friday statement, White House spokesperson Raj Shah used familiar climate-skeptic talking points to dismiss the findings.

"The climate has changed and is always changing. As the Climate Science Special Report states, the magnitude of future climate change depends significantly on 'remaining uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth's climate to [greenhouse gas] emissions,'" Shah said. "In the United States, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions [meaning? transportation? agribiz?]have been declining, are expected to remain flat through 2040, and will also continue to decline as a share of world emissions."

Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) has removed the phrase "climate change" from its websites and has prohibited its own scientists from speaking about the issue.

Additionally, Common Dreams reported on Saturday that President Trump is looking to use the COP23 [bonn 2017] climate talks as a platform to sell fossil fuels—and coal in particular—as necessary and beneficial.

==

==

8/17 deja vu

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive:{/2017/08/07:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html

but

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html

==

==

commissioned by b41, suppressed by b43

==

inconvenient assessment

Seven years ago, scientists published a pioneering study

to help Americans understand the implications of climate

change. Here’s why you’ve never heard of it.

BY CHRIS MOONEY

40 BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2007

Vol. 63, No. 6, pp. 40-47, 63

saved as Mooney Nat Assessment

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Mooney-BAS-National-Assessment.pdf

==

In October 2000, CEI sued the Clinton administration over a National Assessment on Climate Change produced by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. A news release announcing the lawsuit claimed that various procedural rules had been violated during the process of developing the report, labeling it "junk science" and a "$14 million compilation of global warming scare stories." [4] also Ebell

CEI sued over nat'l assessment in 2000 p 96, w/ CEI [?] sued clinton admin on nat'l asess

Kazmanlawyer for Simberg. CEI sued

==

ebell wiki:

Litigation

In 2000, Ebellwas a plaintiff, along with several members of Congress, including Sen. James Inhofe (R, OK), who sued the National Science and Technology Council, President Bill Clinton, and the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs asserted that the NationalAssessmenton Climate Change report—which details likely state-by-state consequences of anthropogenic climate change—violated several federal open-meeting, appropriations and research statutes.

In June 2002 he wrote a memo to Philip Cooney, which Greenpeace later obtained,[12] outlining their strategy for dealing with what Ebell saw as problems caused by the ClimateAction Report 2002,[13] which the US government had submitted to the UN. The crucial paragraph of this memo reads:

“As I said, we made the decision this morning to do as much as we could to deflect criticism by blaming the EPA for freelancing. It seems to me that the folks at the EPA are the obvious fall guys, and we would only hope that the fall guy (or gal) should be as high up as possible. I have done several interviews and have stressed that the president needs to get everyone rowing in the same direction. Perhaps tomorrow we will call for [Christine Todd Whitman] to be fired.I know that that doesn't sound like much help, but it seems to me that our only leverage to push you in the right direction is to drive a wedge between the President and those in the Administration who think they are serving the president's best interests by publishing this rubbish.”

When two state attorneys general obtained this email they wrote to John Ashcroft, the US attorney general:

“

It appears that certain White House officials conspired with an anti-environmental special interest group to cause the lawsuit to be filed against the federal government.

The idea that the Bush Administration may have invited a lawsuit from a special interest group in order to undermine the federal government's own work under an international treaty is very troubling.

We believe an investigation is necessary to determine whether the idea of this lawsuit came from the White House itself, and if so, whether it represents improper conduct by public officials.[14]

==

Associated Press November 14,2006

Environmentalists sue Bush [43] administration over global warming report

by TERENCE CHEA, Associated Press Writer

Environmentalists sued the Bush administration for failing to produce a report on global warming's impact on the United States' environment, economy and public health.

Tuesday's lawsuit seeks to compel the U.S. Climate Change Science Program to issue the national assessment, which should contain the most recent scientific data on global warming and projections for its future impacts. The plaintiffs claim the government must complete such a report every four years under the Global Change Research Act of 1990.

"Global warming is one of the most serious threats facing humanity today," according to the complaint. Without the report, decision makers and the public "are without one of the most important tools to grapple with this complex, potentially overwhelming and yet all important issue."

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, which was named in the lawsuit, had not received the complaint Tuesday and could not comment on it, said spokesman Ben Fallon.

But Fallon defended the administration's record on combating global warming, pointing to increased funding for alternative energy research and partnerships with other countries.

"We feel very positive about our record on climate change," Fallon said. "The president has been focused on results-driven research and looking for practical ways to address climate change in ways that aren't damaging to the economy."

Officials at the Climate Change Science Program, also named in the complaint, did not immediately respond to calls seeking comment.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in San Francisco by the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace.

The assessment, which plaintiffs allege was due in November 2004, is the "first step in crafting solutions to the devastating consequences of climate change if we don't act now," said Julie Teel, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

Sen. John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat and former presidential candidate, who has also been calling on the administration to issue the assessment, expressed support for the lawsuit.

"It's the right time to push Washington to grapple with this issue," Kerry said in a statement. "For too many years, action on global climate change has been stopped dead in its tracks by government foot-dragging, hiding information and smothering science."

Environmentalists have accused the administration of trying to suppress dissemination of the previous assessment, issued in 2000, which predicted a dramatic rise in catastrophic storms, floods, droughts and heat-related deaths.

==

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The **National Climate Assessment** (NCA) is a United States government interagency ongoing effort[1] on climate change science conducted under the auspices of the Global Change Research Act of1990.[2][3] 

NCA is a "major product"[4] of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) which coordinates a team of hundreds of experts guided by a sixty-member Federal Advisory Committee. NCA research is integrated and summarized in the mandatory ongoing National Climate Assessment Reports. The reports are "extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.

The First National Climate Assessment was published in 2000.[5][Notes 1] Between 2002 and 2009, USGCRP previously known as the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), produced twenty-one Synthesis and Assessment Products (SAPs).[6] The second NCA was published in 2009[6]and the third was released in 2014.[7]

NCA's overarching goal according to their May 20, 2011 engagement strategy summary, "is to enhance the ability of the U.S. to anticipate, mitigate, and adapt to changes in the global environment (NCA 2011:2)."[8]

The vision is to advance an inclusive, broad based, and sustained process for assessing and communicating scientific knowledge of the impacts, risks, and vulnerabilities associated with a changing global climate in support of decision-making across the U.S.

—NCA May 20, 2011 page2

According to the USGCRP official website the NCA,[9]

Informs the nation about already observed changes, the current status of the climate, and anticipated trends for the future; integrates scientific information from multiple sources and sectors to highlight key findings and significant gaps in our knowledge; establishes consistent methods for evaluating climate impacts in the U.S. in the context of broader global change, and provides input to Federal science priorities and is used by U.S. citizens, communities, and businesses as they create more sustainable and environmentally sound plans for the nation’s future.

In 2013, the President's Climate Action Plan[10] released by the Executive Office of the President specifically noted the importance of the National Climate Assessments in achieving the goal of "Using Sound Science to Manage Climate Impacts".[11]

Contents

Global Change Research Act

The National Climate Assessment (NCA) is conducted under the auspices of the Global Change Research Act of 1990. The GCRA requires a report to the President and the Congress every four years that integrates, evaluates, and interprets the findings of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP); analyzes the effects of global change on the natural environment, agriculture, energy production and use, land and water resources, transportation, human health and welfare, human social systems, and biological diversity; and analyzes current trends in global change, both human-induced and natural, and projects major trends for the subsequent 25 to 100 years.[12]

The Federal government is responsible for producing these reports through the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), a collaboration of 13 Federal agencies and departments.

National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee (NCADAC)

The National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee (NCADAC) is a 60-person U.S. Federal Advisory Committee which oversees the development of the draft NCA reports and makes recommendations about the ongoing assessment process. The Department of Commerce established the NCADAC in December 2010 as per the Federal Advisory Committee Act (1972). 1972. The NCADAC is supported through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).[13]

National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST)

In 1998, the first National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST) was formed under the auspices of the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (SGCR), through the Committee on Environmental and Natural Resources (CENR) and the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) with members from "government, academia, and private enterprise." Its mandate was to broadly "design and conduct" "national efforts to assess the consequences of climate variability and climate change for the United States."[14] NAST is an advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act to help the US Global Change Research Program fulfill its legal mandate under the Global Change Research Act of 1990.

The National Science and Technology Council forwarded the report to the President and Congress for their consideration as required by the Global Change Research Act. Administrative support for the US Global Change Research Program is provided by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, which is sponsored by the National Science Foundation."[15] In their 2001 assessment, the NAST concluded in the United States, "natural ecosystems appear to be the most vulnerable to the harmful effects of climate change."[16][17] In their 2001 report they also described long-term major trends in climate change in the twenty-first century.[16] The first NAST co-chairs were Dr. Jerry M. Melillo[18] of the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, Tony Janetos, and Thomas Karl.

First National Climate Assessment 2000

The First National Climate Assessment prepared by National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST), entitled "Climate Change Impacts on the United States: the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change", was released in 2000.[15] The first National Assessment on Climate Change (NACC) was published in 2000. The report was a multidisciplinary effort to study and portray in regional detail the potential effects of human-induced global warming on the United States. The project was articulated into some 20 regional studies - each involving dozens of scientific and academic experts as well as representatives of industry and environmental groups.[19]

The Second National Climate Assessment 2009

The Second National Climate Assessment, entitled "Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States", was published in 2009.[6] The second National Climate Assessment, entitled Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, was published in 2009. In addition to synthesizing, evaluating, and reporting on what was known about the potential consequences of climate change, the report also sought to identify potential measures to adapt to climate change and to identify the highest research priorities for the future.[20]

Third National Climate Assessment 2014

The Third National Climate Assessment report entitled "Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States"[7] was delivered to the Federal Government for review in 2013 and became available to the public in May 2014.

The Third NCA report was written by more than 300 authors drawn from academia; local, state, tribal, and Federal governments; and the private and nonprofit sectors. The NCADAC selected these authors based on criteria that included expertise, experience, and ensuring a variety of perspectives.

After review by the NCADAC, the draft Third NCA report was released for public review and comment on January 14, 2013. By the time the public comment period closed on April 12, 2013, more than 4000 comments had been received from 644 government, non-profit, and commercial sector employees, educators, students, and the general public.[21]

Concurrently, the National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, reviewed the draft and submitted feedback. The NCADAC produced a final draft of their report and provided it to the federal government for review in late fall of 2013; a final public version of the report was released on May 6th 2014.[22][23][24] A number of derivative products, including a printed “Highlights” document, have been produced in addition to the full interactive electronic NCA document that is available on the web.[25]

Participating Federal Agencies

The following is a list of participating agencies:.[26]

NCAnet

In preparation for the 2013 NCA, the USGCRP began in 2011 to call for wider participation and reinforced the long-term goal of improving climate literacy.[1] Recruitment began in 2011 for NCAnet, a network of organizations working with the NCA, to further engage producers and users of assessment information across the United States.[27] NCAnet was officially established and registered at the Federal Register on April 13, 2012.[28]

Notes

  1. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ The First National Climate Assessment Report was "prepared by the National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST), an advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act to help the US Global Change Research Program fulfill its mandate under the Global Change Research Act of 1990. The National Science and Technology Council forwarded the report to the President and Congress for their consideration as required by the Global Change Research Act. Administrative support for the US Global Change Research Program is provided by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, which is sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NCA 2000)."

See also

==

older

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The National Climate Assessment (NCA) is a large-scale national project that is conducted under the auspices of the Global Change Research Act of 1990, and is one of the many activities of the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), a program which coordinates and integrates federal research on changes in the global environment and their implications for society. The next National Climate Assessment is due to produce a report for the President and Congress in 2013.

Contents

History

The first National Assessment on Climate Change (NACC) was a multidisciplinary effort to study and portray in regional detail the potential effects of human-induced global warming on the United States. The project was articulated into some 20 regional studies - each involving dozens of scientific and academic experts as well as representatives of industry and environmental groups. The final reports synthesizing regional and national findings were published in November 2000, titled "National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change."[1]

Criticism[see talk, cut for lack of refs?]

The National Assessment received criticism from many of those who were involved in its early review.

"Critics claimed that many of the model-projected impacts of possible future climate changes were overstated and unsubstantiated. The National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST), with overall authority for the report, countered that much of the criticism it had received did not take into account the time scales upon which the report was based; the report targeted the effects of climate toward the middle of this century to the end of the next. Also, seemingly contradictory outcomes were produced by the two climate models selected for making the climate projections, casting some lingering doubt on the overall value and utility of the results for decision makers at the local, regional, and national levels. Various regional and resource-focused assessments are now available at the USGCRP website [1]. http://globalchange.gov/publications/371

The National Assessment was criticized upon publication by the Competitive Enterprise Institute on the grounds that the research does not meet the requirements of the Federal Data Quality Act (FDQA).[3

http://cei.org/outreach-regulatory-comments-and-testimony/ceis-petition-against-further-dissemination-epas-climate-    sic

[]](http://cei.org/outreach-regulatory-comments-and-testimony/ceis-petition-against-further-dissemination-epas-climate-) CEI filed lawsuits against the Bush administration, seeking to have the NACC report declared unlawful based on its lack of adherence to FDQA. The parties eventually reached mutual agreement to drop the case.[4

kazman & horner, dismissed with prejudice, both sides pay own cost http://www.sejarchive.org/foia/dismissal11403.pdf tony coppolino doj

] In an interview, James R. Mahoney, admitted that the Climate Change Science Program has been constrained in its ability to use information in the National Assessment.[citation needed]

The NACC report has also been criticized by other organizations, including the American Enterprise Institute. Its critics claim that the report is flawed in its methodology and conclusions.[citation needed]

Successors

The National Assessment was followed in 2002 by a new program, the Climate Change Science Program. That program produced 21 reports, yielding its first in May, 2006.[see stauber talk?]

In June 2002, the United States Environmental Protection Agency produced its own, separate report on climate change, titled the "Climate Action Report." [5]

404 http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsUSClimateActionReport.html

It reached conclusions similar to the NACC report and was also criticized by CEI, which called for the firing of EPA head Christine Todd Whitman. [6] http://dynamic.greenpeace.org/smoking-gun/CEImemo.swf  404

http://web.archive.org/web/20060623085616/http://dynamic.greenpeace.org/smoking-gun/CEImemo.swf  ebell to cooney memo/email thx for cya?   myron calls for ctw firing "i know you're in crisis mode"

See also

Global warming portal
Ecology portal
Environment portal

References

  1. ^ NACC "National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change."

External links

There are few who understand the ins and outs of the U.S. government's climate-change research program better thanRick Piltz. A political scientist by training, Piltz moved to Washington, D.C., from Texas during the scorching summer of 1988, when NASA climatologist James Hansen put global warming on the map with his famous congressional testimony warning that the greenhouse effect had been triggered by humans. Piltz eventually wound up working for a decade as a senior official in the climate research program, launched in 1989 and now a $ 2 billion dollar a year enterprise. An insider who coordinated the editing of many program documents,Piltz resigned in March, charging that White House politics has undermined the credibility and integrity of the program. Now he has some very revealing stories to tell.

On Wednesday, June 8, The New York Times told some of those stories to the American public. Based on documents provided by Piltz and the Government Accountability Project, the paper reported that a White House official [cooney] formerly with the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry's trade association, had edited the text of government scientific documents on climate change. The changes, according to the Times, generally had the effect of casting doubt on the increasingly strong scientific conclusion that human beings are causing global warming and its attendant environmental effects.

In a 14-page complaint memo written following his resignation from the government, Piltz went further: "I believe the overarching problem is that the administration … does not want and has acted to impede forthright communication of the state of climate science and its implications for society." As Piltz goes on to say, although he has worked in different administrations, none has been so bad: "I have not seen a situation like the one that has developed under this administration during the past four years, in which politicization by the White House has fed back directly into the science program in such a way as to undermine the credibility and integrity of the program in its relationship to the research community, to program managers, to policymakers, and to the public interest."

To hear Piltz tell it, the White House has essentially broken the back of the U.S. climate-change science program by suppressing one of its key documents: the U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, a 2000 report loathed by industry that explains national and regional vulnerabilities to global warming (decreased snowpack in the West, for instance, will lead to dwindling water supplies for an already parched region). Piltz relates in his complaint memo that references to the report have been "systematically" edited out of government scientific documents, and claims that the administration has deliberately sent the report into "a black hole." As Piltz put it to me in an interview, "There's got to be a special circle in hell reserved for people who play games with scientific information."

The stories we're now hearing from Rick Piltz sound highly credible to anyone who's followed previous accusations about the way the Bush administration handles science, especially climate science. Such charges have come from multiple government insiders (though few have put their names alongside the charges as Piltz has), and have been reported on by many different major newspapers. They have even prompted an unprecedented protest against the administration's scientific stewardship by a stunning cast of luminaries organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

This is when the GOP turned away from climate policy

Scott Waldman and Benjamin Hulac, E&E News reportersPublished: Wednesday, December 5, 2018

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060108785/

the start of the George H.W. Bush presidency, the Republican Party fretted about the dangers of climate change. By the end, it was focused on doubt and inaction.

Since then, the party has drifted further away from the conclusion of scientists and from policies to address global warming.

Bush embraced climate science in the 1980s and campaigned on protecting Americans from its dangers.

"Those who think we are powerless to do anything about the greenhouse effect forget about the 'White House effect,'" Bush said in a 1988 campaign speech. "As president, I intend to do something about it."

But as soon as Bush got into office, the administration started to work against meaningful policy on climate change, observers say, even as it crafted strong positions on air pollution to defeat the threat of acid rain.

After his decision on the Clean Air Act amendments, Bush had to be "dragged kicking and screaming" to international climate talks and ceded a chance to make meaningful policy at a time when the world had not yet politicized climate science, said Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton University geosciences professor who attended some of the early climate talks as an observer.

"I wish we had gotten more leadership out of him, the kind of leadership that he showed on acid rain," he said. "If he had exerted the same kind of leadership on climate change, we would be further along today."

The Bush presidency was a "debate over denialism in microcosm," saidJerry Taylor, president of the Niskanen Center and a former climate skeptic who now works to convince conservatives about the dangers of climate change.

Conservatives around the world, including former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, were worried about climate change and looking for policy solutions. Instead, skeptical forces grew stronger, pushed by Washington-based think tanks such as the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. While Bush ignored those groups on acid rain, he acquiesced on climate change.

"The GOP during the Bush presidency pivoted from a position of being torn on how to respond to climate change," Taylor said. "This issue could have gone either way, but we know which way it went. The party could have been on climate change where the party is on acid rain, which is accepting it as a real thing and with some responsibility for a government response and total peace with the decision."

Bush aides wanted to establish the administration as having strong environmental credentials, topping the leaders of England, Canada and France in advance of an economic summit held in July 1989. In a State Department memo that has been declassified, the agency recommended that the United States focus on policies that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions,including supporting nuclear power.

"The theme which runs through these proposals, and which I recommend the President stress, is that of wise, active stewardship over the resources of our planet," a State Department official wrote. "This is a responsibility we have to ourselves and as our legacy to future generations. Every man, woman and child can make a meaningful contribution to carrying out this responsibility. This approach links individual responsibility with national and international responsibility."

Bush used his presidency to foster stewardship in minor ways.

He continued work already underway at the Council on Environmental Quality and the White House science and technology office. And he created the Environment and Conservation Challenge Awards — a program to highlight environmental protection and generate "environmental awareness" — and a recycling network for federal agencies, which hadn't existed before.

While Richard Schmalensee, an economic adviser to Bush, described climate change in a 1990 memo as a theory, the president had already warned of its dangers.

Before reaching the White House, he stumped before a crowd on the banks of Lake Erie in southeast Michigan, where he said he would make climate change a centerpiece of his administration.

"In my first year in office, I will convene a global conference on the environment at the White House," Bush said at the Lake Erie Metropark in 1988, adding that he would invite the Chinese, the Soviets and officials from emerging economies.

"The agenda will be clear," Bush said. "We will talk about global warming. We will talk about saving our oceans and preventing the loss of tropical forests. And we will act."

Months earlier, James Hansen, a NASA scientist, had testified before a Senate committee that the Earth was warming and that humans were the reason.

In his remarks in Michigan, Bush appeared to reference that testimony.

"1988 is the year the Earth spoke back," Bush said. "Our land, water and soil support a remarkable range of human activities. But they can only take so much. We must remember to treat them not as a given, but as a gift."

As then-President Obama argued on a 2015 trip to the Everglades, Bush came from a period when addressing environmental threats — climate change included — was bipartisan in America.

"George H.W. Bush was the first president, globally, to acknowledge the impacts of climate change and that we needed to do something about it," Obama said. "This is not something that historically should be a partisan issue."

In the spring of 1990, Bush did hold a White House summit on the science and economics of "global change" — climate change — a fact he highlighted in a letter the next year to Congress.

The White House wrote in the letter that scientists at the time warned that temperatures could rise "10 to 50 times faster than anything in recorded history" if humans continued to burn fossil fuels.

Still, the administration underscored uncertainties in the science, specifically over sources of greenhouse gases, sea-level rise, and connections between power plants and carbon emissions.

"Significant scientific uncertainty still attends global climate change," the White House said.

Despite Bush's endorsement of Hansen's work on the campaign trail, his administration would later interfere in the public presentation of that research. In 1989, Hansen complained that the Bush administration's Office of Management and Budget toned down the severity of his conclusions before they were delivered to a Senate committee headed by then-Sen. Al Gore (D-Tenn.). That move would foretell later efforts by the administration of President George W. Bush to water down conclusions by climate scientists before they were publicized.

Hansen blames the elder Bush's chief of staff, John Sununu, for misleading the president on climate science.

Sununu was more interested in those who rejected the emerging climate science, including a number of researchers who have continued to battle against consensus science today. Some of them, includingPat Michaels of the Cato Institute, continue to have influence in the Trump administration and have encouraged the rollback of climate protections. Sununu ran his own rudimentary climate models and said that scientists were wrong.

Still, Hansen said Bush pushed forward with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was a meaningful step forward at the time, and one that President Clinton and the younger Bush neglected to push ahead on.

"The Framework Convention on Climate Change, the product of Rio in 1992, was exactly the right response to all that was revealed in the 1980s," Hansen said in an interview yesterday. "The elder Bush deserves much credit for that. He was being pushed in a very bad direction by the elder Sununu, a real jackass from my perspective as a scientist."

Bush showed hints of taking climate action again near the end of his presidency. But he punted.

Bush was immersed in a tough campaign, which he would ultimately lose, when he bucked members of his party and spoke at the Earth Summit in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro. Bush said he had come with a climate plan in hand. It would focus on energy efficiency, forestry, new technologies and clean air.

He signed an agreement to create a "framework convention on climate change" — the U.N. body that would go on to become the UNFCCC.

"I invite my colleagues from the industrialized world to join in a prompt start on the convention's implementation," Bush said. "Let us join in translating the words spoken here into concrete action to protect the planet."

Bush pledged environmental funding to poorer nations."We come to Rio recognizing that the developing countries must play a role in protecting the global environment but will need assistance in pursuing these cleaner growth," he said.

But then, his administration did little to follow through with those pledges or to fight for something more concrete than a framework. In the end, Bush balked at the most meaningful part of the Rio gathering — setting specific emissions reduction targets.

It turns out Bush was correct. The models showing warming have been borne out, and the problem has worsened, as Hansen predicted. According to the most recent version of the National Climate Assessment, the models may have underpredicted the worst effects. This year and the past three have been the warmest in recorded human history.

So, for all his talk, Bush's climate legacy is that he walked away from pushing a policy that would restrict greenhouse gases at the very moment that the top scientists in the world were saying it posed a crisis for humanity, said Oppenheimer, the Princeton professor.

The resulting void was filled with political fights that have worsened under the Trump administration.

"The real shame is that we saw this coming and we had a chance to get ahead of the impacts of climate change before they manifest themselves, and we just didn't do it," Oppenheimer said.

www.scientificamerican.com › article › bush-had-a-lasti...

:{:(style="border-color:#70757a;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-3px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

1.

:{Dec 3, 2018 - The late 41st president started the :{national climate assessment:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: and ... The late President :{George H.W. Bush:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: is the reason why President Trump ...:(style="overflow-wrap:break-word"):}:

The National Climate Assessment | Union of Concerned ...

www.ucsusa.org › resources › national-climate-assessm...

:{:(style="border-color:#70757a;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-3px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

1.

:{Why a :{National Climate Assessment:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:? In 1990, President :{George H.W Bush:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: signed into law the Global Change Research Act and established the U.S. ...:(style="overflow-wrap:break-word"):}:

What is the National ... · ‎Why a National Climate ... · ‎How does the National ...

Climate change policy of the George W. Bush administration ...

en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Climate_change_policy_of_t...

:{:(style="border-color:#70757a;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-3px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

2.

:{Similarly, according to the testimony of senior officers of the Government Accountability Project, the White House attempted to bury the report ":{National Assessment:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: ...:(style="overflow-wrap:break-word"):}:

Kyoto Protocol · ‎Influence of industry groups · ‎Political pressure on ...

This is when the GOP turned away from climate ... - E&E News

www.eenews.net › stories

:{:(style="border-color:#70757a;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-3px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

1.

:{Dec 5, 2018 - At the start of the :{George H.W. Bush:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: presidency, the Republican ... the most recent version of the :{National Climate Assessment:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, the models may ...:(style="overflow-wrap:break-word"):}:

What Is The National Climate Assessment And Where Did It ...

www.forbes.com › sites › marshallshepherd › 2018/11/26

:{:(style="border-color:#70757a;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-3px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

1.

:{Nov 26, 2018 - What is this :{National Climate Assessment:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: report, and where did it ... was established during President :{George H.W. Bush's:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: administration in ...:(style="overflow-wrap:break-word"):}:

The Surprising Climate And Environmental Legacy Of ... - Forbes

www.forbes.com › sites › marshallshepherd › 2018/12/01

:{:(style="border-color:#70757a;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-3px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

1.

:{Dec 1, 2018 - President :{George H. W. Bush:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: had important contributions for climate ... is related to the recently released 4th :{National Climate Assessment:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:.:(style="overflow-wrap:break-word"):}:

==

The big picture, in short, is nothing new. But in the case of the revelations that have come courtesy of Rick Piltz, it's the details that count -- as well as the timing.

Even though Piltz's complaints were far broader, journalists immediately latched on to a key nugget: A lawyer formerly with the American Petroleum Institute named Philip Cooney, who had previously lobbied against the Kyoto Protocol, had been the White House editor of the scientific documents in his role as chief of staff on the Council on Environmental Quality. Here was a classic fox-guarding-the-henhouse story that everyone could understand and get easily outraged about. The blogs went nuts over the news.Moreover, the charges came just asTony Blairarrived in the United States to pressure George W. Bush to do something about global warming. Blair's visit -- a prelude to the coming G8 meeting in Gleneagles, Scotland, where more pressure will be applied -- catapulted the issue from an environmental obscurity to the center of pack media coverage.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan was thrust into a journalisticfeeding frenzy, where his defenses of the White House's "interagency review process" for scientific reports did not impress. McClellan uttered that phrase as if the mere fact that such a process exists provided an automatic justification for the routine editing of scientific content by political actors. It didn't wash. Before long, The Daily Showwas mocking the Bush White House for its willful and devious denials of global warming, Cooney had resigned from his government post (promptly moving to work for Exxon Mobil, a key corporate sponsor of global-warming skepticism), and USA Today was declaring, "The debate's over: Globe is warming."

What hath Rick Piltz wrought? It's too soon to tell, but there's a new feeling in the air about global warming. It's a sense that the Bush administration may finally be held to account, by the media and by Congress, for four years of obstruction and denial while a planetary problem steadily worsened.

Chris Mooney is Washington correspondent for Seed Magazine and a TAP Online columnist. His first book, The Republican War on Science, will be published in September by Basic Books. His daily blog and other writings can be found at www.chriscmooney.com.

===

ggl 9/14

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:8.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

-

Wikipedia:{:(style="border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;top:8.5px;position:absolute;margin-left:6px;margin-top:-3px;border-color:#aaaaaa;"):}:

:{Myron :{Ebell:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: (born in Baker County, Oregon) is an American climate change skeptic. ....:{sued:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: the National Science and Technology Council, President Bill :{Clinton:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, ... In the:{lawsuit:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, the plaintiffs asserted that the :{National Assessment:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: on Climate ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise...

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:8.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

-

:{Feb 5, 2010 - In March 2001, the nonprofit Clean Air Trust named :{Ebell:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: its "clean air ... CEI :{sued:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: the :{Clinton:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: administration over a :{National Assessment:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: on ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

cei.org/.../cei-files-lawsuit-against-office-...

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:8.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

-

Competitive Enterprise Institute:{:(style="border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;top:8.5px;position:absolute;margin-left:6px;margin-top:-3px;border-color:#aaaaaa;"):}:

:{May 5, 2014 - Today, the Competitive Enterprise Institute :{sued:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: the White House Office of Science ... the Data Quality Act over a :{Clinton:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:-era report on global warming, known as the :{National Assessment:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: of Climate Change. ... Myron :{Ebell:(style="font-weight:bold"):}::(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

cei.org/news-letters.../vol-iv-no-20-0

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:8.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

-

Competitive Enterprise Institute:{:(style="border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;top:8.5px;position:absolute;margin-left:6px;margin-top:-3px;border-color:#aaaaaa;"):}:

:{Oct 5, 2000 - Administration :{Sued:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Over :{National Assessment:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: ... the National Science and Technology Council, President Bill :{Clinton:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, and the ... More information can be found in an article by Cooler Heads editor Myron :{Ebell:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: in the current ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/.../index.cfm?ID=4447...

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:8.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

-

:{Aug 11, 2003 - The :{lawsuit:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: was filed by CEI against the White House Office of Science and ... In the suit, CEI argues that the :{National Assessment:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: of Climate Variability ... and private scientists - mostly during the :{Clinton:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: administration - who had a slim ... ''They don't have to try to unring a :{bell:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:,'' he said, noting that the report ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

www.heatisonline.org/.../index.cfm?...National%20Assessment%20Targe...

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:8.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

-

:{A conservative group :{sued:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: the Bush administration yesterday in an effort to force the ... The challenged report is the :{National Assessment:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: of the Potential ... of government and private scientists - mostly during the :{Clinton:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: administration - who had a ... ''They don't have to try to unring a :{bell:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:,'' he said, noting that the report has ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

ecoamerica.typepad.com/files/mccright-dunlap-tcs-2010.pdf

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:8.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

-

by AM McCright - ‎Cited by 140 - ‎Related articles

May 25, 2010 - tute's Myron Ebell, Bush administration officials immediately disparaged the document ... Clinton-era National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate .... members of the environmental community sued the Bush ...

www.desmogblog.com/competitive-enterprise-institute

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:8.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

-

DeSmogBlog:{:(style="border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;top:8.5px;position:absolute;margin-left:6px;margin-top:-3px;border-color:#aaaaaa;"):}:

:{May 23, 2012 - Myron :{Ebell:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: — Director, Center for Energy and Environment. ... CEI filed a :{lawsuit:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: over the :{National Assessment:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: with Senator James Inhofe as ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

history.ucsd.edu/_.../Anti-reflexivity...

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:8.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

-

University of California, San Diego:{:(style="border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;top:8.5px;position:absolute;margin-left:6px;margin-top:-3px;border-color:#aaaaaa;"):}:

by AM McCright - ‎Cited by 140 - ‎Related articles

Oct 31, 2010 - a critical analysis of conceptualizations of reflexivity or an exegesis of RM theories.1 ...... tute's Myron Ebell, Bush administration officials immediately ... Clinton-era National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate .... sentative Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO), among others – sued Clinton to suppress.

www.climatesciencewatch.org/.../Mooney-BAS-National-Assessment.pdf

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:8.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

-

:{:{National Assessment:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: like nothing else in ... to build within the :{Clinton:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: administra- .... tration soon settled the :{lawsuit:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: with .... 23 On the first point, at least, :{Ebell:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:.:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

*===**heat is online*

AGs: White House, Right Wing Group Conspired to Stifle Science (Aug. 2003)

FROM MAINE ATTORNEY GENERAL STEVEN ROWE

Aug. 11, 2003

MAINE, CONNECTICUT AGs CALL ON ASHCROFT TO INVESTIGATE WHITE HOUSE ROLE IN LAWSUIT

Email suggests conspiracy between White House and conservative think tank.

In a letter sent today, Maine Attorney General Steven Rowe and Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal called on United States Attorney General John Ashcroft to investigate whether officials at the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) solicited a conservative Washington think tank to sue the federal government in order to invalidate a government document warning of the impacts of global warming.

The two state attorneys general obtained an email document through a Freedom of Information Act request that revealed a great intimacy between CEQ and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) on strategizing about ways to undermine the United States' official reports and the authority of its officials.

(The Competitive Enterprise Institute is funded in part by ExxonMobil. Editor's note).

Rowe and Blumenthal called for the investigation after discovering an email sent in June 2002 by an executive at CEI, Myron Ebell, to Phil Cooney, the Chief of Staff at CEQ, thanking Cooney for "calling and asking for our help." The email goes on to suggest strategies for minimizing the problem of global warming, including finding a "fall guy (or gal)...as high up as possible" in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to blame for the report, and indicating that CEI might call for then-EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman to be fired.

The lawsuit was filed by CEI against the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the National Science and Technology Council. In the suit, CEI argues that the National Assessment of Climate Variability and Change (National Assessment) and EPA's Climate Action Report 2002 should be invalidated. The National Assessment is a peer-reviewed study documenting global warming and identifying its dangers. Its findings were relied upon in the EPA's Climate Action Report 2002, which was produced by the United States pursuant to its obligations under the 1992 Rio Treaty on climate change. CEI alleges that the federal report failed to meet scientific standards for objectivity and utility.

Maine Attorney General Steven Rowe stated, "It appears that certain White House officials conspired with an anti-environmental special interest group to cause the lawsuit to be filed against the federal government."

"The idea that the Bush Administration may have invited a lawsuit from a special interest group in order to undermine the federal government's own work under an international treaty is very troubling," he said. Rowe added: "We believe an investigation is necessary to determine whether the idea of this lawsuit came from the White House itself, and if so, whether it represents improper conduct by public officials."

Suit Challenges Climate Change Report by U.S.

The New York Times, Aug. 7 2003

An antiregulatory group sued the Bush administration yesterday in an effort to force the government to stop distributing a report on climate change that the group contends is inaccurate and biased.

It was filed in Federal Court in Washington by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a group with industry backing that contends global warming poses no significant risks.

The suit says the continued use of the report, which was published in 2000, violates the Federal Data Quality Act, a law enacted that year that requires information disseminated by the government to pass standards for objectivity, quality, and utility - meaning the data are reliable enough to be used by the public.

Officials at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, which was named along with President Bush, declined to comment yesterday, saying the White House had not yet received a copy of the lawsuit.

The challenged report is the National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, a region-by-region analysis of likely impacts of rising temperatures that was commissioned by Congress in 1990. The aim was to generate scenarios showing possible impacts of global warming from building levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

It is available on the Web at http://earth.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc.

The suit says the report's results were generated by flawed computer models and portrayed some historical climate data without including ``error bars'' showing the potential range of error in temperature readings for past centuries.

The report in question was the product of nearly a decade of work by dozens of government and private scientists - mostly during the Clinton administration - who had a slim budget and tight deadlines that forced them to compromise sometimes on their choice of computer models and other tools, several study authors said.

Because of the inherent weaknesses, the study quickly became a prime target of industry lobbyists, conservatives, and a small group of scientists who deny that greenhouse emissions pose a significant threat.

Yesterday, Christopher C. Horner, a senior fellow and lawyer at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said that the suit would finally put ``alarmism'' on trial.

''They don't have to try to unring a bell,'' he said, noting that the report has already been broadly distributed and reprinted and posted on dozens of Web site. ``They just have to cease in disseminating it until they correct it.''

===