Am Assoc for Adv Sci AAAS
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">see Mann bk Holdren Harvard aaas prez support early, also EOS am geophy jrnl</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">around p 114</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);"><b>AAAS Runs Dishonest Glyphosate Story</b>, Then Deletes It. Is Politics to Blame?</span></div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);">
</span></div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);">The American Association for the Advancement of Science is one of the foremost pro-science organizations in the world. Not only does it advocate for good science and science policy, it publishes Science, the prestigious journal read globally by millions. Unfortunately, AAAS has gotten a bit weird in recent months.</span></div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);">Read more</span></div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">UK Parliament Endorses E-Cigarettes to Help Smokers. Will U.S. Follow?</div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">U.S. public health agencies struggle to endorse an obvious solution to a true public health menace. Hopefully, the UK Parliament will provide a much-needed boost to the forces of common sense.</div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Read more</div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b> </b></div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>Glyphosate </b>and Pesticides: Et Tu, Live Science?</span></div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</span></div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Normally a reliable source of information, Live Science published an article that is a dream for anti-pesticide and anti-chemical fearmongers.</span></div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Read more</span></div></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18052020/secret-science-epa-transparency-rule-wheeler-pollution-environment"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18052020/secret-science-epa-transparency-rule-wheeler-pollution-environment</font></a></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">lavelle</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><span id="docs-internal-guid-5b39110a-7fff-d078-d5b6-f9514de7d8ba" style="box-sizing: inherit;">As the deadline approached for public comment on a controversial "</span><a href="https://www.epa.gov/osa/strengthening-transparency-regulatory-science" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">transparency</a>" rule proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency, 39 top scientific organizations and academic institutions joined together on Monday to warn that if finalized, the regulation would greatly diminish the role of science in decisions affecting the environment and the health of Americans.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b><span id="docs-internal-guid-5b39110a-7fff-d078-d5b6-f9514de7d8ba" style="box-sizing: inherit;">In </span><a href="https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2020-05/EPA-Supplemental-MultiSociety-Comments.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">a letter </a>submitted to the EPA, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest scientific society, and a wide array of other professional groups and universities, strongly opposed the rule</b>, which they said is "not about strengthening science, but about undermining the ability of the EPA to use the best available science in setting policies and regulations." </font></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span id="docs-internal-guid-5b39110a-7fff-d078-d5b6-f9514de7d8ba" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The groups signing the letter included organizations as diverse as the American Psychological Association and the Crop Science Society of America, and universities from Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to the University of California, Los Angeles.</font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span id="docs-internal-guid-5b39110a-7fff-d078-d5b6-f9514de7d8ba" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The letter was part of an outpouring of opposition on the last day for public comment on the proposed rule, called "Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science." The rule would restrict the EPA's use of scientific studies relying on health data that excludes names or other identifying information to protect patients' confidentiality or that are not "capable of being substantially reproduced."</font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">critics say the regulation will knock out from consideration some of the most important human health research, while giving industry opponents of environmental protection rules a new avenue to challenge the agency's actions, even after President Donald J. Trump leaves the White House.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-5b39110a-7fff-d078-d5b6-f9514de7d8ba" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, who has vowed to finalize the rule this year, has characterized the plan as a "good government" effort that will increase public confidence in the agency's decisions.</b></font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-5b39110a-7fff-d078-d5b6-f9514de7d8ba" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> "I fundamentally believe in Community Right to Know and the American public has the right to know what scientific studies underline the Agency's regulatory decisions," Wheeler said in a statement last month, thanking the agency's Science Advisory Board for "their support of the concept of the proposed rule." </font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span id="docs-internal-guid-5b39110a-7fff-d078-d5b6-f9514de7d8ba" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>In fact, the 44-member board, made up of outside advisers, most of whom were appointed during the Trump administration, has expressed reservations about the proposed "transparency" rule. </b></font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span id="docs-internal-guid-5b39110a-7fff-d078-d5b6-f9514de7d8ba" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> "There is minimal justification provided in the Proposed Rule for why existing procedures and norms utilized across the U.S. scientific community, including the federal government, are inadequate," the board wrote in a report to Wheeler last month, referring to practices like peer review that are routinely used by scientific journals and have long been in use at the EPA. </font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span id="docs-internal-guid-5b39110a-7fff-d078-d5b6-f9514de7d8ba" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Moving forward with altered transparency requirements beyond those already in use, in the absence of such a robust analysis, risks serious and perverse outcomes," the advisory board added.</font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span id="docs-internal-guid-5b39110a-7fff-d078-d5b6-f9514de7d8ba" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The idea of challenging EPA science as lacking in "transparency" dates back more than 25 years to a strategy developed by tobacco and fossil fuel industry advisers to fight national air quality standards on particulate matter pollution produced by combustion</b>. Industry advisers took an approach of raising doubts about the original scientific studies on the grave health risks of so-called PM 2.5. </font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span id="docs-internal-guid-5b39110a-7fff-d078-d5b6-f9514de7d8ba" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The EPA eventually set fine particle pollution standards, but the fight over the science never quieted, in large part because a wide range of regulations affecting the fossil fuel industry, including those seeking to address climate change, have been based on that science. When Republicans were in control of Congress, the House three times passed legislation to rein in the EPA's use of science, but the bills were never taken up by the Senate.</font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Trump administration picked up the idea, and received 600,000 comments when the new rule was first proposed in 2018. Wheeler addressed some of the issues on public access to confidential data in a "supplemental" proposal initially released in March with an April 17 public comment deadline.</font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span id="docs-internal-guid-5b39110a-7fff-d078-d5b6-f9514de7d8ba" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That deadline was extended to May 18 after health and environmental groups blasted Wheeler for advancing the plan in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic.</font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span id="docs-internal-guid-5b39110a-7fff-d078-d5b6-f9514de7d8ba" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In public comments filed in the last eight weeks, scientific organizations have raised concerns that the changes that Wheeler made last month have substantially broadened the scope of the science that could be subject to challenge. For instance, the Seattle Aquarium, which conducts research on water quality and the impacts of pollution, said the revised plan could restrict the EPA's use of "situationally unique research" that by definition could not be reproduced—for example, science based on one-time events like the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.</font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span id="docs-internal-guid-5b39110a-7fff-d078-d5b6-f9514de7d8ba" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Our lives, ocean and planet depend on maintaining a strong, science-driven EPA," wrote Robert W. Davidson, president and CEO of the aquarium.</font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span id="docs-internal-guid-5b39110a-7fff-d078-d5b6-f9514de7d8ba" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But an EPA spokesman said in an email that in the revisions Wheeler made clear that such "situational" research would not be excluded simply because it could not be replicated. "Science transparency does not weaken science, and does not endanger health, quite the contrary," the spokesman said. "By requiring transparency, scientists will be required to publish hypothesis and experimental data for other scientists to review and discuss, requiring the science to withstand skepticism and peer review." </font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span id="docs-internal-guid-5b39110a-7fff-d078-d5b6-f9514de7d8ba" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Joel Green, water quality biologist for the Hoh Tribe in Washington State, said that the proposed rule raises concerns for the 20 Treaty Tribes of western Washington,</b> which rely on the harvest of fish from the Pacific Ocean and Washington rivers. Green included a list of 60 human health studies on the dangers of mercury that he said could be excluded from consideration or given less weight in future EPA rulemaking under the new "transparency" regulation.</font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span id="docs-internal-guid-5b39110a-7fff-d078-d5b6-f9514de7d8ba" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"The proposed rule does nothing to advance the EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment, but rather would be an invitation to polluting industries to legally challenge regulations protecting human health, and for the EPA to weaken those regulations," Green said.</font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span id="docs-internal-guid-5b39110a-7fff-d078-d5b6-f9514de7d8ba" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But other groups supported the proposed rule. The American Council on Science and Health, for example, a nonprofit advocacy group that often opposes EPA protections, submitted comments largely in favor of the transparency proposal.</font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span id="docs-internal-guid-5b39110a-7fff-d078-d5b6-f9514de7d8ba" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"External validation, checking someone's work, is a reasonable approach," wrote Chuck Dinerstein, senior fellow at the American Council on Science and Health.</font></span></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The pesticide industry, represented by CropLife America and including Bayer Crop Science, supports the rule and called for extra time to provide comments. </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">After the Obama administration proposed banning the widely-used insecticide, chlorpyrifos, which has been linked to brain damage in children, CropLife America in 2016 petitioned EPA to halt regulatory decisions that are based on science for which the raw data is not available. The Trump administration announced in 2019 it would not ban chlorpyrifos.</span></font></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-5b39110a-7fff-d078-d5b6-f9514de7d8ba" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Two members of the EPA's Science Advisory Board submitted comments that dissented from the board's report to Wheeler and supported the EPA's proposal, with some qualifications. <b>John Graham, a former senior official in the George W. Bush administration, wrote, " I believe the public at large (including affected interest groups) are entitled to access the information used by government to support the regulations (or deregulatory actions) that impact them."</b> But he noted that the EPA was likely to need a process for considering case-by-case waivers from the transparency requirements. And he suggested that the EPA set up a standing committee of its Science Advisory Board to assist the agency in addressing such situations.</font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span id="docs-internal-guid-5b39110a-7fff-d078-d5b6-f9514de7d8ba" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Working the kinks out of the process will require that the Agency take some time, meet with scientific organizations, engage in dialogue about key concerns, and do some consensus building," Graham wrote.</font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span id="docs-internal-guid-5b39110a-7fff-d078-d5b6-f9514de7d8ba" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The hundreds of comments filed in the last few weeks by scientific organizations overwhelmingly opposed the rule, suggesting that the EPA is a long way from building such consensus.</font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span id="docs-internal-guid-5b39110a-7fff-d078-d5b6-f9514de7d8ba" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>But Steve Milloy, a former coal industry executive who runs the website junkscience.com and has long called for a ban on the use of what he called "secret science" at the EPA, </b>said in an interview that the effort to enact the transparency rule already has had the kind of impact he and other proponents had hoped to see.</font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span id="docs-internal-guid-5b39110a-7fff-d078-d5b6-f9514de7d8ba" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"I think the most important thing about it is this issue has been moved to the forefront of the regulatory science debate," Milloy said. "That's all you can hope for in the end. This has drawn a lot of attention to the problem of secret science, and that's very gratifying."</font></span></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Georgina Gustin contributed reporting to this article.</font></span></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/08/how-one-judges-reply-all-attack-on-climate-science-cost-him-seat-on-climate-related-case/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://www.alternet.org/2019/08/how-one-judges-reply-all-attack-on-climate-science-cost-him-seat-on-climate-related-case/</font></a></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style=""><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">How one judge’s reply-all attack on climate science cost him seat on climate-related case</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Written by Daily Kos<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>August 19, 2019</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">We all live in constant fear of the button. The one button that, if accidentally hit, can trigger a chain reaction of unending pain, unleashing impossible-to-contain horrors with the power to end life as we know it.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">We’re talking, of course, about the “Reply All” button. (What, were you thinking of a different button?)</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While plenty has been written about reply-all horror stories, and the ways to avoid them, it seems they are doomed to continue happening. Last Friday offered a particularly enjoyable example of this Kafka-meets-Seinfeld type situation – this one involving US federal judges!</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Judges often have to rule on issues that are highly technical, and require very specific understanding of issues beyond just the law. To address that need, among others, famed Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren recommended the creation of an independent research and education body to serve the federal court system, which Congress created in 1967. Since then, the <b>Federal Judicial Center has offered continuing education</b> services for judges, access to independent social scientists and research, and recommendations on how the judiciary can better function.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style=""><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In light of the influx of climate change-related cases, the Federal Judicial Center apparently worked with </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">The American Association for the Advancement of Science </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">and The Environmental Law Institute to convene an event to provide judges with an overview of climate change science.</span></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But as the Washington Post reported Friday, when U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan sent around the notice to an email list of 45 other federal judges, trouble began.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In response to the rather innocuous offer of scientific training,<b> Judge A. Raymond Randolph of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit went full Fox News, fatefully hitting the “reply all” button to ask why Sullivan was “subjecting our colleagues to this nonsense” and “supposedly science” material, and remind him that “the jurisdiction assigned to [Sullivan] does not include saving the planet.”</b></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In response, other judges rose to defend Sullivan and express concern about the “quite disturbing” and “accusatory” message Randolph sent, which ethics experts the Washington Post talked to suggested call into question Randolph’s ability to be impartial on climate-relevant cases.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This is important: the Post pointed out that as of last Tuesday morning, Randolph was scheduled to be one of three judges to preside over the case challenging President Trump’s attempts to roll back the clean car standards. However, as of Tuesday evening, Randolph’s name had been replaced on the court calendar.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While both Randolph and the clerk declined to comment, the fact that someone skeptical, at best, to the scientific evidence justifying the need to reduce fossil fuel use is no longer judging a case about the issue means that for all the horrors of the reply-all, at least one good thing has come of it.</font></div></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">---</font><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change-trump-science-2571740964.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change-trump-science-2571740964.html</a></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">W<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">hite House Considered Ignoring Climate Science, Internal Memo Reveals</span></font></div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="js-scroll-trigger" data-target="body" data-triggers="render-rebelbar" data-toggle-class="with-floating-shares" data-loaded="true" style="margin-top: 10px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /></span></font><div id="utm_campaign" style="margin-top: 10px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="body js-expandable clearfix js-listicle-body js-update-url" data-elid="2571740964" data-authors="Climate Nexus" data-headline="White House Considered Ignoring Climate Science, Internal Memo Reveals" style="margin: 10px; line-height: 24px;"><div class="body-description"><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Trump</a> administration debated whether it should attack or simply ignore federal research on <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change" style="text-decoration-line: none;">climate change</a>, </b>the Washington Post reported Wednesday.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">A memo obtained by the Post written last September by former top White House energy and environmental aide Michael Catanzaro presented three pathways for the administration to approach climate science. The menu of options: conducting a red team/blue team exercise to "highlight uncertainties"; using the Administrative Procedure Act to formally attack scientific findings; or "ignor[ing], and not seek[ing] to characterize or question, the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/science/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">science</a> being conducted by federal agencies and outside entities." The memo did not present an option for endorsing federal climate science.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><span style="text-align: center;">As reported by the </span><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/05/23/in-an-internal-memo-the-white-house-considered-whether-to-simply-ignore-federal-climate-research/?utm_term=.366c2c2cd57f" target="blank" style="text-align: center; text-decoration-line: none;">Post</a><span style="text-align: center;">, the document "highlights the dilemma the administration has faced over climate change since Trump took office. Even as Trump's deputies have worked methodically to uproot policies aimed at curbing the nation's carbon output, the administration's agencies continue to produce reports showing that climate change is happening, is human-driven and is a threat to the United States."</span></font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"The scientific evidence about accelerating effects of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is so strong, and so prevalent, that it would be impossible to hush it up even if you wanted to," said Rush Holt, CEO of the <b>American Association for the Advancement of Science,</b> in a phone interview with the Post. "<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coral-reefs" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Coral</a>deaths and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glaciers" style="text-decoration-line: none;">glacier</a> melting and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/sea-level-rise" style="text-decoration-line: none;">sea-level rise</a>, and all of these things are just so well documented and there's just new evidence every day, whether it's from USGS, or [the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration], or NASA, or Department of Energy, or various academic institutions. It just can't be swept under the rug."</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></p></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/29/scientists-congress-climate-change/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>group of 31 of the country’s top science organizations sent a <a href="http://www.eurekalert.org/images/2016climateletter6-28-16.pdf" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">letter to Congress</a></b> this week highlighting the dangers of <a href="http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">climate change</a> and urging immediate action. The letter, representing millions of scientists, mentions several impacts of climate change, including <a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=extreme+weather" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">extreme weather</a>, <a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=sea+level+rise" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">sea level rise</a> and <a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=wildfires" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">wildfires</a>.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The severity of climate change impacts is increasing and is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades,” the letter goes on to say.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The effort was spearheaded by the<b> American Association for the Advancement of Science, whose leader, Rush Holt, is a former member of Congress. The signers of the letter range from the American Public Health Organization to the American Meteorological Society.</b></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">For a deeper dive:</strong> <a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7896fd54ea3c48a0ad77882589f85966/science-groups-congress-climate-change-real-threat" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">AP</a><span style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: " trebuchet="trebuchet" ms="ms" lucida="lucida" grande="grande" sans="sans" unicode="unicode" tahoma="tahoma" sans-serif="sans-serif">, </span><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/06/28/top-science-groups-tell-climate-change-doubters-in-congress-to-knock-it-off/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">Washington Post</a><span style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: " trebuchet="trebuchet" ms="ms" lucida="lucida" grande="grande" sans="sans" unicode="unicode" tahoma="tahoma" sans-serif="sans-serif">, </span><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-is-real-experts-tell-us-congress-global-warming-a7107531.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">Independent</a><span style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: " trebuchet="trebuchet" ms="ms" lucida="lucida" grande="grande" sans="sans" unicode="unicode" tahoma="tahoma" sans-serif="sans-serif">, </span><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-change-letter-congress_us_577293ece4b017b379f75f61" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">Huffington Post</a><span style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: " trebuchet="trebuchet" ms="ms" lucida="lucida" grande="grande" sans="sans" unicode="unicode" tahoma="tahoma" sans-serif="sans-serif">, </span><a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/28062016/science-organizations-again-urge-congress-take-climate-change-seriously-lamar-smith-science-committee" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">InsideClimate News</a></font></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 21px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></p></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">lamar:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 21px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span id="docs-internal-guid-65b92192-cb2f-d228-1c4c-ee4d103adec1">Ever since Smith gained control of the committee in 2013, its most conservative faction has </span><a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/03/07/lamar_smith_broadens_his_attacks_on_noaa_scientists.html">aggressively questioned climate science and funding</a>, including<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/11/25/3725782/scientists-scold-science-committee-chair/">charging the scientists</a> at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of misrepresenting climate data.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 21px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span id="docs-internal-guid-65b92192-cb2f-d228-1c4c-ee4d103adec1"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">That feud earned the committee an unusual rebuke last year in a joint letter from major scientific groups: the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American<b> Chemical</b> Society, the <b>American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society</b>, the American Statistical Association, the Ecological Society of America, and the Geological Society of America. </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">They said the committee's actions were chilling scientific inquiry—the very charge Smith is now making about the investigations into Exxon.</span></span></font></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 21px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Smith and his allies on the committee bitterly oppose the Paris climate treaty and action on climate change generally, with many of them vocally doubting the mainstream scientific consensus on the climate crisis. At hearings, the panel's majority often invites testimony weighted toward this view...</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="line-height: 21px;">http://insideclimatenews.org/news/28062016/science-organizations-again-urge-congress-take-climate-change-seriously-lamar-smith-science-committee</span></font></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="line-height: 21px;">
</span></font></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><span id="docs-internal-guid-0b6d40e9-97c6-1d16-9d8e-6acd9db96efc" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Thirty-one major American scientific organizations <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2923076-2016climateletter6-28-16-Pdf.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; background-color: transparent;">sent a letter to Congress</a> on Tuesday emphasizing the overwhelming consensus on climate change science and the urgent need for climate action. The letter served as a scientific counterpoint to recent actions by Congress designed to question that consensus.</font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><span id="docs-internal-guid-0b6d40e9-97c6-1d16-9d8e-6acd9db96efc" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Reminding members of Congress that "rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver" of global warming, they cited nearly universal support for the scientific consensus as expressed by the U.S. National Academies, the U.S. Global Change Research Program and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.</font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><span id="docs-internal-guid-0b6d40e9-97c6-1d16-9d8e-6acd9db96efc" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"To reduce the risk of the most severe impacts of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions must be substantially reduced," <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2923076-2016climateletter6-28-16-Pdf.html" target="_blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; background-color: transparent;">said the letter</a>, which was endorsed by institutions such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, a nonprofit consortium that includes more than 100 North American universities.</font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><span id="docs-internal-guid-0b6d40e9-97c6-1d16-9d8e-6acd9db96efc" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"In addition, adaptation is necessary to address unavoidable consequences for human health and safety, food security, water availability, and national security, among others," the letter continued.</font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span id="docs-internal-guid-0b6d40e9-97c6-1d16-9d8e-6acd9db96efc" style="box-sizing: inherit;">Under Republican leadership, Congress has persistently worked to block President Obama's climate agenda. A report </span><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/03/07/3757435/climate-denier-caucus-114th-new-research/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; background-color: transparent;">released this spring</a> found that a third of current Congressional representatives and Senators publicly doubt the scientific consensus on global warming.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span id="docs-internal-guid-0b6d40e9-97c6-1d16-9d8e-6acd9db96efc" style="box-sizing: inherit;">Republican members of the House Science Committee, led by Lamar Smith (R.-Texas), </span><a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2016/0318/NOAA-should-focus-on-weather-not-climate-change-says-Rep.-Lamar-Smith" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; background-color: transparent;">subpoenaed federal scientists</a> last year after researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration published a study that debunked the idea of a recent "global warming hiatus." More recently, the committee demanded internal communications from the attorneys general investigating ExxonMobil for potential climate-related fraud. </font></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span id="docs-internal-guid-0b6d40e9-97c6-1d16-9d8e-6acd9db96efc" style="box-sizing: inherit;">Tuesday's letter to Congress echoes a </span><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/10/21/204838/18-leading-scientific-organizations-send-letter-to-senators-affirming-the-climate-is-changing-human-activities-are-the-primary-driver-impacts-are-projected-to-worsen-substantially-and-if-w/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; background-color: transparent;">previous letter</a> written in 2009, which was signed by 18 scientific societies. The updated version includes additional signatories including the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles and the National Association of Marine Laboratories.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><span id="docs-internal-guid-0b6d40e9-97c6-1d16-9d8e-6acd9db96efc" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The letter concluded with an offer to help legislators understand the science: "We, in the scientific community, are prepared to work with you on the scientific issues important to your deliberations as you seek to address the challenges of our changing climate."</font></span></p></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><a href="http://www.aaas.org/"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">http://www.aaas.org/</font></a><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">oppose gmo label 2012 <a href="http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf">http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf</a> no names</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">---</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">publishes jrnl Science</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">State College, Pa. — WITH world leaders gathered in Paris to address climate change, most of the planet seems to have awakened to the reality that the Earth is warming and that we’re responsible.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">But not Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who is chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. He has long disputed the overwhelming scientific evidence that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are changing the climate. Now he is using his committee chairmanship to go after the government’s own climate scientists, whose latest study is an inconvenience to his views.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In October, Mr. Smith issued a subpoena to <b>Kathryn D. Sullivan,</b> the administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, demanding all internal notes, emails and correspondence concerning a study its scientists published in the journal Science. The study found that the “rate of global warming during the last 15 years has been as fast as or faster than what was seen during the latter half of the 20th century.”</font></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">===</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">inside the wire:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Prof. Nina Fedoroff (Penn State) is the most prominent of all of the scientists looped into all of the Times emails. Nina Fedoroff was the 2011-2012 President of the <b>American Association for the Advancement of Science.</b></span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The AAAS is the foremost scientific body in the US. During her Presidency, Fedoroff, who is also a contributor to the NY Times, used her position to coordinate and sign a letter on behalf of 60 prominent scientists. This letter was </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">sent to EPA as part of an effort to defeat a pesticide regulatory effort.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> The real coordinator was <b>Monsanto</b> but Fedoroff participated in phone conferences and email exchanges with them (including with the prominent lobbyist</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Stanley Abramson) </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">and gets credit in the emails for “moving the ball far down the field”. Yet Nina Fedoroff is not once named in the main article and nowhere at all is her position noted.</span></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">--</font></div></div>