NASbak

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">see assessment suppressed by b43</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">see PNAS for jrnl</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><span style="color: rgb(38, 38, 38); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 17px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">One of the&nbsp;</span><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/red-wolf-endangered-2563600067.html" target="self" style="color: rgb(38, 38, 38); text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; font-size: 17px; line-height: 1.5; font-family: Helvetica; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">most endangered wolves in the world</a><span style="color: rgb(38, 38, 38); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 17px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">&nbsp;is indeed its own species. That's the important finding of a&nbsp;</span><a href="http://www.nationalacademies.org/" target="blank" style="color: rgb(38, 38, 38); text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; font-size: 17px; line-height: 1.5; font-family: Helvetica; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine</a><span style="color: rgb(38, 38, 38); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 17px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">&nbsp;</span><a href="https://www.nap.edu/resource/25351/Wolf%20Genetics%204-Pager.pdf?utm_source=Division+on+Earth+and+Life+Studies&utm_campaign=60b79d7b1a-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_11_27_07_13_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3c0b1ad5c8-60b79d7b1a-262639785&mc_cid=60b79d7b1a&mc_eid=2aa6438be6" target="blank" style="color: rgb(38, 38, 38); text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; font-size: 17px; line-height: 1.5; font-family: Helvetica; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">report</a><span style="color: rgb(38, 38, 38); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 17px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">&nbsp;released Thursday, which determined that red wolves are genetically distinct from gray wolves and coyotes.</span></div><div><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;=</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/nuclear-power-cost-renewables-2625524662.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/nuclear-power-cost-renewables-2625524662.html</a></font></p><h1 class="widgetheadline h1" style="margin: 10px 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; cursor: pointer; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a class="widgetheadline-text custom-post-headline" href="https://www.ecowatch.com/nuclear-power-cost-renewables-2625524662.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; line-height: 31px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Nuclear Power Is Economically Obsolete</font></a></h1><div class="body js-expandable clearfix js-listicle-body js-update-url css-listicle-body-2625524662 expanded" data-elid="2625524662" data-authors="Environmental Working Group" data-headline="Nuclear Power Is Economically Obsolete" style="margin: 10px; line-height: 24px;"><div class="body-description"><div class="widgetbrief"><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 10px 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By Grant Smith</font></p><p style="margin: 10px 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Last year the&nbsp;<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Trump</a>&nbsp;administration's Energy Department announced the launch of a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/03/06/stories/1060075577" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">media campaign</a>&nbsp;to counter what an official called "misinformation" about&nbsp;<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/nuclear" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">nuclear</a>&nbsp;power. We haven't noticed an upsurge in pro-nuclear news—because there is none to report.</font></p></div><div class="js-appear-on-expand" style="transition: all 350ms ease 0s; height: auto; overflow: hidden; opacity: 1;"><p style="margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">On the first day of 2019, the energy industry trade journal&nbsp;<a href="https://www.powermag.com/debate-continues-can-new-technology-save-nuclear-power/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Power</a>&nbsp;asked whether new technology can save nuclear power by making new reactors economically feasible—not only to replace&nbsp;<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">coal</a>&nbsp;and natural gas but also to compete with the rapidly dropping cost of&nbsp;<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">renewable energy</a>. The verdict from Peter Bradford, a former member of the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission:</font></p><blockquote style="margin: 1em 0px 1em 25px; border-left: 5px solid rgb(82, 149, 70); padding: 0px 0px 0px 25px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">. . . [N]ew nuclear is so far outside the competitive range. . . . Not only can nuclear power not stop global warming, it is probably not even an essential part of the solution to global warming.</span>
</font></blockquote><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 10px 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">His bleak outlook is shared by the authors of a recent article in the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326140294_US_nuclear_power_The_vanishing_low-carbon_wedge" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</a>. The authors—an engineer, an economist and a national security analyst—reviewed the prospects for so-called advanced designs for large nuclear reactors, and for much smaller modular reactors that could avoid the billions in construction costs and overruns that have plagued the nuclear energy industry since the beginning.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 10px 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">They concluded that no new designs can possibly reach the market before the middle of the century. They cite the&nbsp;<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">breeder reactor</a>&nbsp;that, according to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/articles/Time-to-give-up-BAS-May_June-2010.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists</a>, received $100 billion in public development funds worldwide over six decades and still did not get off the ground.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 10px 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">The authors say there may be an opening for small modular reactors but that it will be very difficult to find a market for these reactors without—as is always the case with nuclear power—a massive infusion of taxpayer dollars. "For that to happen," they argue, "several hundred billion dollars of direct and indirect subsidies would be needed to support their development and deployment over the next several decades, since present competitive energy markets will not induce their development and adoption."</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 10px 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Despite the past failure and poor future outlook, support for more nuclear funding persists. In a recent&nbsp;<a href="https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/11/f57/Examination%20of%20Federal%20Financial%20Assistance%20in%20the%20Renewable%20Energy%20Mark...1.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">study</a>, the Energy Department pointed to the $50 billion in federal incentives provided to renewables like&nbsp;<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/solar" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">solar</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wind" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">wind</a>power between 2005 and 2015, implying that such policies can have a similar impact on modular nuclear reactors. But unlike nuclear power, the costs of wind and solar have dropped dramatically, to the point where the cost of new, unsubsidized utility-scale wind and solar power investment can now&nbsp;<a href="https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">compete</a>&nbsp;with that of existing coal and nuclear power plants.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 10px 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">The bigger question is whether nuclear power is needed at all.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 10px 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Nuclear advocates' claims that nuclear power is required to fight&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">climate change</a>&nbsp;falls short.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/07/california-years-ahead-schedule-cutting-global-warming-causing-pollution" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">California</a>&nbsp;met its climate goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 four years early by turning off its nuclear plants and setting policies that prioritize renewables, energy efficiency and energy storage investments over natural gas plant additions.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 10px 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">An argument advanced in the Energy Department report is that, to ensure that power can be delivered 24/7, large coal and nuclear power plants designed to run day and night—also known as baseload plants—need to be replaced by small nuclear units that run day and night. However, mounting, real-world evidence refutes this assertion.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 10px 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/04/renewables-not-natural-gas-should-replace-shuttered-nuclear-plants" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Recent studies</a>&nbsp;from New York and California show that it is cheaper to invest in renewables, energy efficiency and energy storage in order to replace aging nuclear plants than it is to keep the existing plants running. Savings range from hundreds of millions to billions of dollars—achieved without any impact on electric system reliability.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 10px 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Nuclear power belongs in a museum. We shouldn't continue to squander public dollars on a technology that will never make economic sense. We should divert resources into improving and deploying wind, solar, energy efficiency and energy storage technology that we know will keep the lights on, effectively reduce carbon emissions and cost what we can afford to pay.&nbsp; Grant Smith is senior energy policy advisor at&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2019/01/economic-viability-nuclear-power-only-going-down" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Environmental Working Group</a>.</font></p><div class="around-the-web" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="around-the-webheadline" style="font-weight: 700; text-transform: uppercase;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB</font></div><ul class="around-the-weblist" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style: none;"><li class="around-the-webitem"><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy-us-2535432605.html" class="around-the-weblink" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; line-height: normal; display: inline-block; margin-top: 10px; overflow-wrap: break-word;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Renewables Now Contribute Nearly One-Fifth of U.S. Electricity ... ›</font></a></li><li class="around-the-webitem"><a href="https://climatenexus.org/climate-news-archive/nuclear-energy-us-expensive-source-competing-cheap-gas-renewables/" class="around-the-weblink" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; line-height: normal; display: inline-block; margin-top: 10px; overflow-wrap: break-word;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Nuclear Energy in the U.S.: Expensive Source Competing with ... ›</font></a></li><li class="around-the-webitem"><a href="https://www.ft.com/content/21305834-5376-11e8-84f4-43d65af59d43" class="around-the-weblink" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; line-height: normal; display: inline-block; margin-top: 10px; overflow-wrap: break-word;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">High costs and renewables challenge the case for nuclear power ... ›</font></a></li><li class="around-the-webitem"><a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/renewable-energy/barriers-to-renewable-energy" class="around-the-web__link" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; line-height: normal; display: inline-block; margin-top: 10px; overflow-wrap: break-word;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Barriers to Renewable Energy Technologies ›</font></a></li></ul></div></div></div></div><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></p></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html">https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html</a></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">but</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html</font></a></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no link</font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>pgm killed trump pruitt wheeler particulate</b></font></div><div><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK453157/">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK453157/</a></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">S</font><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">ummary</span></p><div class="main-content lit-style" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/CreativeWork" style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.375; overflow-wrap: break-word; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="jig-ncbiinpagenav body-content whole_rhythm" data-jigconfig="allHeadingLevels: ['h2'],smoothScroll: false" itemprop="text" id="ui-ncbiinpagenav-6" style="margin: 1.3846em 0px;"><p style="margin: 0.6923em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Environmental research has driven landmark improvements that led to the protection of human and ecosystem health. Recognizing the value of knowledge generated by environmental research and the ingenuity within academic and nonprofit institutions, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created a program known as Science to Achieve Results, or STAR, in 1995. STAR is EPA's primary competitive extramural grants program. This report shows that through STAR, EPA has created a vehicle that fosters collaboration and knowledge-sharing, which have produced research that has supported interventions that may reduce the cost of regulations, protect public health, and save lives.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.6923em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>STAR is managed by EPA's National Center for Environmental Research and integrated into the Officer of Research and Development's (ORD's)</b>&nbsp;overall research program through planning and coordination with EPA's laboratories, offices, and centers. STAR research support consists of three main types: grants to individual investigators; larger multidisciplinary center grants, usually to groups of institutions; and a recently discontinued fellowship program, which supported master's and doctoral students.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.6923em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></p></div></div></div><div><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">&nbsp;</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">sci supp 3</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 10px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Aug. 21, 2017</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 10px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Statement Regarding National Academies Study on Potential Health Risks of Living in Proximity to Surface Coal Mining Sites in Central Appalachia</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 10px; font-size: small; box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">WASHINGTON -- In an August 18 letter, the</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">&nbsp;U.S. Department of the Interior’s&nbsp;<b>Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement&nbsp;</b>informed the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine that it should cease all work on a&nbsp;<a href="http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49846" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">study</a>&nbsp;of the potential health risks for people living near surface coal mine sites in Central Appalachia.&nbsp;The letter states that the Department has begun an agency-wide review of its grants and cooperative agreements in excess of $100,000, largely as a result of the Department’s changing budget situation.&nbsp;</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 10px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The National Academies will go forward with previously scheduled meetings for this project in Kentucky on August 21-23 -- which are allowed to proceed according to the letter -- and encourages the public to attend&nbsp;<a href="http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=8152017&ga=2.222565277.707320120.1503324467-141596223.1486144204" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">open meetings</a>&nbsp;in Hazard and Lexington on August 21 and 22. The National Academies believes this is an important study and we stand ready to resume it as soon as the Department of the Interior review is completed. &nbsp;We are grateful to our committee members for their dedication to carrying forward with this study.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 10px; font-size: small; box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>The National Academies of Sciences,</b>&nbsp;Engineering, and Medicine&nbsp;</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">are private, nonprofit institutions that provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions related to science, technology, and medicine.&nbsp;</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">They operate under an 1863 congressional charter to the National Academy of Sciences, signed by President Lincoln.</span><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">Contacts:<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /></span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">William Kearney, Executive Director</span><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Riya V. Anandwala, Media Relations Officer</span><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Office of News and Public Information</span><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><a href="tel:(202)%20334-2138" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">202-334-2138</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">; e-mail&nbsp;</span><a href="mailto:news@nas.edu" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">news@nas.edu<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /></a><a href="http://national-academies.org/newsroom" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">national-academies.org/newsroom</a></font></p><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By LISA FRIEDMAN AUG. 7, 2017</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The coal-burning Plant Scherer in Juliette, Ga., is one of the top emitters of carbon dioxide in the United States. A draft report by government scientists concludes that Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now. Credit Branden Camp/Associated Press</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">WASHINGTON — The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years, according to a sweeping federal climate change report awaiting approval by the Trump administration.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies, which has not yet been made public, concludes that Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now. It directly contradicts claims by President Trump and members of his cabinet who say that the human contribution to climate change is uncertain, and that the ability to predict the effects is limited.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Evidence for a changing climate abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans,” a draft of the report states. A copy of it was obtained by The New York Times.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The authors note that thousands of studies, conducted by tens of thousands of scientists, have documented climate changes on land and in the air. “Many lines of evidence demonstrate that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse (heat-trapping) gases, are primarily responsible for recent observed climate change,” they wrote.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The report was completed this year and is a special science section of the National Climate Assessment, which is congressionally mandated every four years. The National Academy of Sciences has signed off on the draft report, and the authors are awaiting permission from the Trump administration to release it.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Continue reading the main story</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Trump White House</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The historic moments, head-spinning developments and inside-the-White House intrigue.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On Vacation in New Jersey, Trump Says Next Stop Is New York</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">AUG 7</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trump Likes When C.I.A. Chief Gets Political, but Officers Are Wary</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">AUG 7</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A Trump Vacation Formula: Work Hard, Play Hard, Tweet Hard</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">AUG 7</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Many Politicians Lie. But Trump Has Elevated the Art of Fabrication.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">AUG 7</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Reporters Not Being Pursued in Leak Investigations, Justice Dept. Says</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">AUG 6</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">See More »</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">RELATED COVERAGE</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">On Environment and Energy, Trump Often Picks His Own Facts AUG. 3, 2017</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">TRUMP RULES</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">How G.O.P. Leaders Came to View Climate Change as Fake Science JUNE 3, 2017</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Opinion Editorial</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Our Disgraceful Exit From the Paris Accord JUNE 1, 2017</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">U.S. Climate Has Already Changed, Study Finds, Citing Heat and Floods MAY 6, 2014</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Planet Can’t Stand This Presidency APRIL 21, 2017]</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">One government scientist who worked on the report, Katharine Hayhoe, a professor of political science at Texas Tech University, called the conclusions among “the most comprehensive climate science reports” to be published. Another scientist involved in the process, who spoke to The New York Times on the condition of anonymity, said he and others were concerned that it would be suppressed.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">DOCUMENT</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Read the Draft of the Climate Change Report</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies, which has not yet been made public but was obtained by The New York Times, concludes that Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;OPEN DOCUMENT</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The White House and the Environmental Protection Agency did not immediately return calls or respond to emails requesting comment on Monday night.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The report concludes that even if humans immediately stopped emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the world would still feel at least an additional 0.50 degrees Fahrenheit (0.30 degrees Celsius) of warming over this century compared with today. The projected actual rise, scientists say, will be as much as 2 degrees Celsius.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A small difference in global temperatures can make a big difference in the climate: The difference between a rise in global temperatures of 1.5 degrees Celsius and one of 2 degrees Celsius, for example, could mean longer heat waves, more intense rainstorms and the faster disintegration of coral reefs.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Among the more significant of the study’s findings is that it is possible to attribute some extreme weather to climate change. The field known as “attribution science” has advanced rapidly in response to increasing risks from climate change.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The E.P.A. is one of 13 agencies that must approve the report by Aug. 18. The agency’s administrator, Scott Pruitt, has said he does not believe that carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“It’s a fraught situation,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geoscience and international affairs at Princeton University who was not involved in the study. “This is the first case in which an analysis of climate change of this scope has come up in the Trump administration, and scientists will be watching very carefully to see how they handle it.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Scientists say they fear that the Trump administration could change or suppress the report. But those who challenge scientific data on human-caused climate change say they are equally worried that the draft report, as well as the larger National Climate Assessment, will be publicly released.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The National Climate Assessment “seems to be on autopilot” because of a lack of political direction, said Myron Ebell, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The report says significant advances have been made linking human influence to individual extreme weather events since the last National Climate Assessment was produced in 2014. Still, it notes, crucial uncertainties remain.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It cites the European heat wave of 2003 and the record heat in Australia in 2013 as specific episodes where “relatively strong evidence” showed that a man-made factor contributed to the extreme weather.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the United States, the authors write, the heat wave that broiled Texas in 2011 was more complicated. That year was Texas’ driest on record, and one study cited in the report said local weather variability and La Niña were the primary causes, with a “relatively small” warming contribution. Another study had concluded that climate change made extreme events 20 times more likely in Texas.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Based on those and other conflicting studies, the federal draft concludes that there was a medium likelihood that climate change played a role in the Texas heat wave. But it avoids assessing other individual weather events for their link to climate change. Generally, the report described linking recent major droughts in the United States to human activity as “complicated,” saying that while many droughts have been long and severe, they have not been unprecedented in the earth’s hydrologic natural variation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Worldwide, the draft report finds it “extremely likely” that more than half of the global mean temperature increase since 1951 can be linked to human influence.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the United States, the report concludes with “very high” confidence that the number and severity of cool nights have decreased since the 1960s, while the frequency and severity of warm days have increased. Extreme cold waves, it says, are less common since the 1980s, while extreme heat waves are more common.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Graphic: How Americans Think About Climate Change, in Six Maps</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The study examines every corner of the United States and finds that all of it was touched by climate change. The average annual temperature in the United States will continue to rise, the authors write, making recent record-setting years “relatively common” in the near future. It projects increases of 5.0 to 7.5 degrees Fahrenheit (2.8 to 4.8 degrees Celsius) by the late century, depending on the level of future emissions.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It says the average annual rainfall across the country has increased by about 4 percent since the beginning of the 20th century. Parts of the West, Southwest and Southeast are drying up, while the Southern Plains and the Midwest are getting wetter.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">With a medium degree of confidence, the authors linked the contribution of human-caused warming to rising temperatures over the Western and Northern United States. It found no direct link in the Southeast.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Additionally, the government scientists wrote that surface, air and ground temperatures in Alaska and the Arctic are rising at a frighteningly fast rate — twice as fast as the global average.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“It is very likely that the accelerated rate of Arctic warming will have a significant consequence for the United States due to accelerating land and sea ice melting that is driving changes in the ocean including sea level rise threatening our coastal communities,” the report says.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Human activity, the report goes on to say, is a primary culprit.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The study does not make policy recommendations, but it notes that stabilizing the global mean temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius — what scientists have referred to as the guardrail beyond which changes become catastrophic — will require significant reductions in global levels of carbon dioxide.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Nearly 200 nations agreed as part of the Paris accords to limit or cut fossil fuel emissions. If countries make good on those promises, the federal report says, that will be a key step toward keeping global warming at manageable levels.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mr. Trump announced this year that the United States would withdraw from the Paris agreement, saying the deal was bad for America.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/09/23/trump-touts-drilling-potential-botches-facts-shale-industry-conference</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">....</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">...</font></div><div><h3 open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Rally, Protest Outside Shale Insight&nbsp;2016</font></h3><p open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Outside the convention center, about 150 protesters gathered for a rally and&nbsp;march.</font></p><p open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“It's not really about jobs, it's about money,” said Erin Kramer, a protester and organizer with OnePittsburgh. “Trump illustrates that to a T — with the package of that mass capitalism you also get a whole bunch of hate, a whole bunch of racial unrest and human rights&nbsp;violations.”</font></p><p open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Conference organizers indicated that Hillary Clinton was invited to attend, but&nbsp;<a href="http://powersource.post-gazette.com/powersource/policy-powersource/2016/09/21/Trump-s-speech-puts-unions-involved-in-shale-industry-in-uncomfortable-spot/stories/201609210195" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">told</a>&nbsp;the&nbsp;<em>Pittsburgh Post-Gazette</em>&nbsp;that she declined, citing scheduling&nbsp;conflicts.</font></p><p open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While Trump repeatedly called on the shale gas industry to help him get out the vote in November, before the event, it seemed he still had work to do to gain their enthusiastic&nbsp;support.</font></p><p open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Within the Republican party, Trump has been an extraordinarily divisive figure, with many prominent Republicans refusing to endorse him. And when it comes to contributions from oilfield workers, Trump's reception from them has been notably&nbsp;muted.</font></p><p open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“As of last week, Republican nominee Donald Trump raised a paltry $245,000 from individuals working in the oil and gas industry, according to figures provided by the nonpartisan&nbsp;<a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/select-industries.php?ind=E01" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Center for Responsive Politics</a>,”&nbsp;<span class="caps">NPR</span>'s&nbsp;State Impact&nbsp;<a href="https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2016/09/20/why-the-oil-and-gas-industry-is-not-giving-to-trump/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">recently reported</a>. (By contrast, Mitt Romney raised&nbsp;<a href="https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2016/09/20/why-the-oil-and-gas-industry-is-not-giving-to-trump/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">$5.9 million</a>&nbsp;from the oil and gas industry in&nbsp;2012.)</font></p><p open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In Pittsburgh, Trump arrived for his speech late, then kept the executives, who included top officials at major oil and gas companies, waiting as conference organizers informed the crowd that Trump was pausing to spend another several minutes giving an interview, rather than speaking to the hundreds of businesspeople and journalists there to hear him&nbsp;speak.</font></p><p open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But once he arrived on stage, Trump tried hard to make his own support for the fossil fuel industry quite&nbsp;clear.</font></p><p open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Producing more American energy is a central part of my plan to make America wealthy again, especially for the poorest Americans,” he said. “I knew I'd have to make that statement in order to get you guys a little bit enlivened. Oh well, you'll like the rest of what I've got to say even&nbsp;more.”</font></p><p open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trump also used a significant portion of his time at the podium to comment on&nbsp;<a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/22/racial-economic-divide-underpins-charlotte-protests.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">protests</a>&nbsp;over the police killings of black Americans, and it was those remarks that drew the most attention from the national media. He decried recent&nbsp;protests in Charlotte, North Carolina, which were sparked by the police killing of Keith Lamont Scott, father of seven, who neighbors say was waiting for his son to arrive on a school&nbsp;bus.</font></p><p open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Even&nbsp;<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/09/22/state-of-emergency-in-charlotte-after-man-shot-during-second-night-of-protests/?utm_term=.ae5507c2a65a" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">before</a>&nbsp;the police released video of that death, whose circumstances they've disputed, Trump had made up his mind about who he was behind. “The men and women in blue need your support,”&nbsp;Trump told the crowd. “They need your thanks and they need your&nbsp;gratitude.”</font></p><p open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He seemed to suggest that Black Lives Matter protests were fueled not by anger over the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">police killings</a>&nbsp;of&nbsp;<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/11/arent-more-white-people-than-black-people-killed-by-police-yes-but-no/?utm_term=.d3eb16ece829" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">black Americans</a>, but by drugs. “And if you're not aware, drugs are a very, very big factor in what you're watching on television at night,” Trump told the&nbsp;crowd.</font></p><p open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Clinton supporters quickly seized on Trump's remarks, especially his comments disparaging the protests over police&nbsp;violence.</font></p><p open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Today, in a room full of oil executives, Trump blamed the Charlotte protests on 'drugs' and insinuated that his administration would have no 'compassion' when it comes to criminal justice,” Brad Woodhouse, president of Correct The Record, which&nbsp;<a href="http://correctrecord.org/about-us/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">describes</a>&nbsp;itself as “a pro-Hillary Clinton Super&nbsp;<span class="caps">PAC</span>,” said in a&nbsp;<a href="http://correctrecord.org/ctr-statement-on-donald-trumps-speech-at-the-shale-insight-conference/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">statement</a>. “Despite weeks of so-called outreach to communities of color, Trump today showed us who he really stands with: wealthy fossil fuel special&nbsp;interests.”</font></p><p open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">To be sure, Trump was in Pittsburgh primarily to discuss another conflict — the fight over the fate of the fossil fuel&nbsp;industry.</font></p><p open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“It's war,” Trump said. “And you people know it's&nbsp;war.”</font></p><p open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The&nbsp;<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/09/21/nations-embrace-paris-agreement-world-s-existing-fossil-fuels-set-exceed-its-goals" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">stakes are indeed high</a>. Climate scientists warn that if the world's remaining oil, gas, and coal are burned, the climate consequences would be extraordinarily&nbsp;catastrophic.</font></p><p open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In an&nbsp;<a href="http://time.com/4502561/donald-trump-stephen-hawking-climate-change/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">open letter</a>&nbsp;this week, 375 members of the National Academy of Scientists, including&nbsp;<a href="https://thinkprogress.org/the-media-is-ignoring-the-most-important-part-of-stephen-hawkings-comments-on-trump-d97a5fdbf55#.a14t1xw0t" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Steven Hawking</a></span>, issued a grave warning. “It is of great concern that the Republican nominee for President has advocated&nbsp;<span class="caps">U.S.</span>&nbsp;withdrawal from the Paris Accord,” the scientists wrote. “The consequences of opting out of the global community would be severe and long-lasting — for our planet's climate and for the international credibility of the United&nbsp;States.”</font></p><p open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trump made it clear that if he was elected, his administration would go further, repealing several measures aimed at curbing climate change. “We will eliminate the highly invasive 'waters of the U.S.' [Clean Water Act] rule and scrap the $5 trillion Obama-Clinton climate action plan and the Clean Power Plan,” he told the&nbsp;crowd.</font></p><p open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Then he left the room to a standing&nbsp;ovation.</font></p></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></span><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proceedings_of_the_National_Academy_of_Sciences_of_the_United_States_of_America" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proceedings_of_the_National_Academy_of_Sciences_of_the_United_States_of_America</a>
</font><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"><a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/11/18/1509433112.abstract">http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/11/18/1509433112.abstract</a></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" /><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div>Justin Farrell1</div><div>Author Affiliations</div><div>
</div><div>Edited by Theda Skocpol, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved October 12, 2015 (received for review May 13, 2015)</div><div>
</div><div>AbstractAuthors & InfoSIMetricsRelated ContentPDFPDF + SI</div><div>Significance</div><div>
</div><div>Ideological polarization around environmental issues—especially climate change—have increased in the last 20 years. This polarization has led to public uncertainty, and in some cases, policy stalemate. Much attention has been given to understanding individual attitudes, but much less to the larger organizational and financial roots of polarization. This gap is due to prior difficulties in gathering and analyzing quantitative data about these complex and furtive processes. This paper uses comprehensive text and network data to show how corporate funding influences the production and actual thematic content of polarization efforts. It highlights the important influence of private funding in public knowledge and politics, and provides researchers a methodological model for future studies that blend large-scale textual discourse with social networks.</div><div>
</div><div><b>Abstract</b></div><div>Drawing on large-scale computational data and methods, this research demonstrates how polarization efforts are influenced by a patterned network of political and financial actors. These dynamics, which have been notoriously difficult to quantify, are illustrated here with a computational analysis of climate change politics in the United States. The comprehensive data include all individual and organizational actors in the&nbsp;<b>climate change countermovement (164 organizations), as well as all written and verbal texts produced by this network between 1993–2013 (40,785 texts, more than 39 million words). Two main findings emerge. First, that organizations with corporate funding were more likely to have written and disseminated texts meant to polarize the climate change issue. Second, and more importantly, that corporate funding influences the actual thematic content of these polarization efforts, and the discursive prevalence of that thematic content over time. These findings provide new, and comprehensive, confirmation of dynamics long thought to be at the root of climate change politics and discourse.</b>Beyond the specifics of climate change, this paper has important implications for understanding ideological polarization more generally, and the increasing role of private funding in determining why certain polarizing themes are created and amplified. Lastly, the paper suggests that future studies build on the novel approach taken here that integrates large-scale textual analysis with social networks.</div><div>
</div><div><ul class="kwd-group" style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px 0px 15px; border-right-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-top-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-color: initial; outline-style: none; font-weight: bold; line-height: 2; vertical-align: baseline; list-style: none outside none;"><li class="kwd" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0.25em; border-width: 0px 1px 0px 0px; border-right-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); outline-style: none; font-weight: normal; font-style: inherit; line-height: 1.4; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline;"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 3px 0px 0px; border: 0px; outline-style: none; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-align: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a class="kwd-search" href="http://www.pnas.org/search?fulltext=funding&sortspec=date&submit=Submit&andorexactfulltext=phrase" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline-style: none; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-align: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">funding</a></span></li>&nbsp;<li class="kwd" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0.25em; border-width: 0px 1px 0px 0px; border-right-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); outline-style: none; font-weight: normal; font-style: inherit; line-height: 1.4; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline;"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 3px 0px 0px; border: 0px; outline-style: none; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-align: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a class="kwd-search" href="http://www.pnas.org/search?fulltext=polarization&sortspec=date&submit=Submit&andorexactfulltext=phrase" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline-style: none; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-align: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">polarization</a></span></li>&nbsp;<li class="kwd" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0.25em; border-width: 0px 1px 0px 0px; border-right-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); outline-style: none; font-weight: normal; font-style: inherit; line-height: 1.4; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline;"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 3px 0px 0px; border: 0px; outline-style: none; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-align: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a class="kwd-search" href="http://www.pnas.org/search?fulltext=politics&sortspec=date&submit=Submit&andorexactfulltext=phrase" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline-style: none; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-align: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">politics</a></span></li>&nbsp;<li class="kwd" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0.25em; border-width: 0px 1px 0px 0px; border-right-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); outline-style: none; font-weight: normal; font-style: inherit; line-height: 1.4; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline;"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 3px 0px 0px; border: 0px; outline-style: none; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-align: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a class="kwd-search" href="http://www.pnas.org/search?fulltext=computational+social+science&sortspec=date&submit=Submit&andorexactfulltext=phrase" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline-style: none; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-align: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">computational social science</a></span></li>&nbsp;<li class="kwd" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0.25em; border: none; outline-style: none; font-weight: normal; font-style: inherit; line-height: 1.4; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline;"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 3px 0px 0px; border: 0px; outline-style: none; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-align: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><a class="kwd-search" href="http://www.pnas.org/search?fulltext=climate+change&sortspec=date&submit=Submit&andorexactfulltext=phrase" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline-style: none; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-align: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">climate change</a></span></li></ul></div><div>Footnotes</div><div>1Email: justin.farrell@yale.edu</div></div><div><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;=</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/11/23/research-confirms-exxonmobil-koch-funded-climate-denial-echo-chamber-polluted-mainstream-media" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/11/23/research-confirms-exxonmobil-koch-funded-climate-denial-echo-chamber-polluted-mainstream-media</a></font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A new study published today in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science (<span class="caps">PNAS</span>) shows that the climate denial echo chamber organizations funded by ExxonMobil and Koch family foundations produced misinformation that effectively polluted mainstream media coverage of climate science and polarized the climate policy&nbsp;debate.&nbsp;</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><strong><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="line-height: 17.6px;">The abstract and full text of the study can be found here:&nbsp;</span><a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/11/18/1509433112.abstract" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none;">Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate&nbsp;change.</a>&nbsp;<span class="print-footnote">[7]</span></font></strong></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span style="line-height: 1.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The analysis of 20 years' worth of data by Yale University researcher Dr. Justin Farrell shows beyond a doubt that ExxonMobil and the Kochs are the key actors who funded the creation of climate disinformation think tanks and ensured the prolific spread of their doubt products throughout our mainstream media and public&nbsp;discourse.</font></span></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="dquo" style="margin-left: -0.5em;">“</span>The contrarian efforts have been so effective for the fact that they have made it difficult for ordinary Americans to even know who to trust,”&nbsp;<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/23/why-are-so-many-americans-skeptical-about-climate-change-a-study-offers-a-surprising-answer/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Dr. Farrell told the Washington Post</a><span class="print-footnote">[8]</span>&nbsp;which was first to cover the news of the study's release.&nbsp;“This counter-movement produced messages aimed, at the very least, at creating ideological polarization through politicized tactics, and at the very most, at overtly refuting current scientific consensus with scientific findings of their own,” Dr. Farrell&nbsp;said....</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></p></div></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">oversees&nbsp;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Climate_Assessment">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Climate_Assessment</a></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2006 b43 refuses to do it&nbsp;http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/media-archive/GlobalWarming11-14-06.pdf</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="section" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Associated Press November 14, 2006</font></p></div></div><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span style="font-weight: 700;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Environmentalists sue Bush administration over global warming report</font></span></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">by TERENCE CHEA, Associated Press Writer</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"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."</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But Fallon defended the administration's record on combating global warming, pointing to increased funding for alternative energy research and partnerships with other countries.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"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."</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Officials at the Climate Change Science Program, also named in the complaint, did not immediately respond to calls seeking comment.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The lawsuit was filed in federal court in San Francisco by the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"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."</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">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.....&nbsp;</font></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">big 2014 study shows effects in detain in US, prompts james taylor attack:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><hgroup class="prevent_widows" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h1 itemprop="headline" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 15px 120px 18px 0px; line-height: 1.1em; overflow-wrap: break-word;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Obama's Climate McCarthyism Demeans Presidential Office</font></h1></hgroup><div class="article_body article" itemprop="articleBody" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; margin: 25px 0px 40px; line-height: 20px;"><div class="body" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="body_inner" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p style="margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 25px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">P</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">resident Barack Obama demeaned the dignity of the presidency by ridiculing tens of thousands of scientists for simply disagreeing with his lay opinions on global warming. While the political left throws shrill temper tantrums against anybody who “disrespects” the Office of the Presidency by asking Barack Obama a challenging question (something they had no qualms about during the Bush administration), Obama himself is setting the applicable ground rules for disrespectful political discourse and&nbsp;</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/bjornlomborg/2014/05/22/the-mccarthyism-in-climate-science/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">climate McCarthyism</a>.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">At a commencement address Saturday at the University of California, Irvine,<b>&nbsp;Obama encouraged students to heap scorn on Ph.D. scientists at some of the world’s most prestigious universities and scientific research institutions if they disagree with Obama’s global warming policies.</b></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“When President Kennedy set us on a course for the moon, there were a number of people who made a serious case that it wouldn’t be worth it,”<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/obama-calling-grads-fight-climate-change-24137437" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">Obama said</a>. “But nobody ignored the science. I don’t remember anyone saying the moon wasn’t there, or that it was made of cheese.”</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">President Obama is correct that no Ph.D. scientists – and likely no sane individuals – seriously argued that the moon was made of cheese or was merely an illusion. Does that analogy apply to the global warming debate?</font></p></div></div></div><p style="margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 25px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Distinguished professors and scientific researchers on the staffs of Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, MIT, NASA, NOAA, etc., have published research and publicly expressed their findings that humans are not creating a global warming crisis. More than</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">&nbsp;30,000 scientists, including more than 16,000 with post-graduate science degrees and more than 9,000 with Ph.D.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">s,&nbsp;</span><a href="http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">have taken the affirmative step of signing a petition summarizing such science</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">. Almost certainly, tens of thousands more – and likely hundreds of thousands more – similarly agree but are unaware of the petition or haven’t taken the affirmative step to read it, review it, and submit their signatures.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>As host of the Heartland Institute’s International Conference on Climate Change</b>, which I host approximately once per year, I routinely have to turn away dozens upon dozens of highly qualified university science professors who have heard of the conference and hope to secure a speaking slot. With a limitless budget and time schedule, I could easily have hundreds of university science professors and thousands more professional scientists give presentations calling attention to the flaws in President Obama’s global warming alarmism.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Indeed,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/11/20/the-latest-meteorologist-survey-destroys-the-global-warming-climate-consensus/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">multiple</a>&nbsp;<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/03/14/shock-poll-meteorologists-are-global-warming-skeptics/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">surveys</a>&nbsp;of professional meteorologists and&nbsp;<a href="http://heartland.org/policy-documents/scientific-consensus-global-warming" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">climate scientists</a>reveal that if a consensus on the issue exists at all, it is that whatever global warming is occurring is of mixed natural and human causation and does not justify the economy-killing prescriptions championed by self-serving politicians like Barack Obama.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">To the limited extent global warming alarmists publicly debate the issue, their track record for success is about the same as that of&nbsp;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-time_table_of_the_FIFA_World_Cup" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">China at soccer’s World Cup</a>. For those who are skeptical, take a look at how one the global warming movement’s most visible advocates,&nbsp;<b>Gavin Schmidt</b>, fared the one time he participated in a public debate. After getting&nbsp;<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/09/28/the-global-warming-debate-produces-an-indisputable-winner/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">beaten so soundly</a>&nbsp;that&nbsp;<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/adventures-on-the-east-side/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">even he admitted</a>&nbsp;it was a mistake to debate other scientists on the issue (and blamed his loss on one of his opponents being taller than him), is it any wonder he and his fellow alarmists avoid public debates the way&nbsp;<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012102670.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">John Edwards avoids National Enquirer reporters</a>? Perhaps forgetting how badly Schmidt fared in his one-time debate, a Florida State University faculty member who was trained by Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project agreed to publicly debate me on the topic and fared just as miserably.&nbsp;<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/12/finally-one-of-gores-trained-presenters-debates-a-climate-skeptic/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">Here is video of the debate</a>&nbsp;that climate alarmists claim “is over.”</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This brings us back to Obama’s attempt to vilify and ridicule scientists who disagree with his lay scientific conjecture. Perhaps it is true that ridicule and vilification are common, if regrettable, aspects of contemporary politics. Most Americans would hope that the President of the United States would not demean the office by engaging in such mean-spirited and sophomoric behavior, but we have also come to realize that politicians will be politicians, no matter how much power they have attained. But this isn’t about one ambitious politician smearing another ambitious politician. This is about the President of the United States – a non-scientist – making a grossly dishonest mischaracterization and analogy at the expense of expert scientists and then encouraging our nation’s best and brightest to shout down those scientists utilizing further dishonesty and McCarthyism to further<b>&nbsp;political agendas.</b>&nbsp;And the moment somebody questions the President about such reprehensible conduct – no matter how calmly the question is asked – the political left goes into conniptions about how appalling and reprehensible it is to disrespect the Office of the President of the United States in such a manner.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sorry, Barack, but you have only yourself to blame for so pitifully demeaning the Office of the President.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font style="line-height: 25px;">"multiple" &nbsp;results: &nbsp;[deniers picked on] "</font><span style="line-height: 25px;">7 Climate science experts who publish mostly on climate change, and climate scientists&nbsp;</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="line-height: 25px;">328 who publish mostly on other topics, were the two groups most likely to be convinced that&nbsp;</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="line-height: 25px;">329 humans have contributed to global warming, with 93% of each group indicating their&nbsp;</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="line-height: 25px;">330 concurrence. The two groups least likely to be convinced of this were the non-publishing&nbsp;</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="line-height: 25px;">331 climate scientists and non-publishing meteorologists/atmospheric scientists, at 65% and 59%,&nbsp;</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="line-height: 25px;">332 respectively. In the middle were the two groups of publishing meteorologists/atmospheric&nbsp;</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="line-height: 25px;">333 scientists at 79% and 78%, respectively. ..."</span></font></p><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"surveys" &nbsp;his spin:&nbsp;http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/03/14/shock-poll-meteorologists-are-global-warming-skeptics/:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><p style="margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; box-sizing: border-box; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 25px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Scientists who have attended the Heartland Institute’s annual International Conference on Climate Change report the same disconnect throughout their various science organizations; only a minority of scientists believes humans are causing a global warming crisis, yet the non-scientist bureaucracies publish position statements that contradict what the scientists themselves believe.&nbsp;<b>Few, if any, of these organizations actually poll their members before publishing a position statement</b>. Within this context of few actual scientist surveys, the AMS survey results are very powerful.</font></p></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">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">climate study for bush1 suppressed by inhofe et al

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy_of_Sciences">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy_of_Sciences</a>

</font><h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Joint_declaration_on_global_warming"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Joint declaration on global warming</font></span></h3><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">In 2005, the national science academies of the&nbsp;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G8" title="G8">G8</a>&nbsp;nations (including the National Academy of Sciences) plus science academies of&nbsp;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil" title="Brazil">Brazil</a>,&nbsp;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China" title="China">China</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India" title="India">India</a>&nbsp;(three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world) signed a statement on the global response to&nbsp;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change" title="Climate change">climate change</a>. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change had become sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.<sup id="cite_ref-13" class="reference"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy_of_Sciences#cite_note-13">[14]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-14" class="reference"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy_of_Sciences#cite_note-14">[15]</a></sup></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">In May 2010, Virginia Attorney General&nbsp;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Cuccinelli" title="Ken Cuccinelli">Ken Cuccinelli</a>&nbsp;served a civil investigative demand on the&nbsp;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Virginia" title="University of Virginia">University of Virginia</a>&nbsp;seeking a broad range of documents from&nbsp;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E.Mann" title="Michael E. Mann">Michael E. Mann</a>, who was formerly an assistant professor there from 1999-2005.<sup id="cite_ref-15" class="reference"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy_of_Sciences#cite_note-15">[16]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-wp592010_16-0" class="reference"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy_of_Sciences#cite_note-wp592010-16">[17]</a></sup>&nbsp;Mann, who currently works at&nbsp;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State" title="Penn State" class="mw-redirect">Penn State</a>, is a climate change researcher, and Cuccinelli alleges that Mann may have defrauded Virginia taxpayers in the course of his environmental research. Climate change skeptics have challenged Mann's work, but a Penn State investigation cleared Mann of charges that he falsified or suppressed data.<sup id="cite_ref-PSU_Findings_17-0" class="reference"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy_of_Sciences#cite_note-PSU_Findings-17">[18]</a></sup>&nbsp;In response, 255 Academy members signed a letter that was published in&nbsp;<i>Science</i>&nbsp;magazine on May 7, 2010, decrying "political assaults" against climate change scientists.<sup id="cite_ref-18" class="reference"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy_of_Sciences#cite_note-18">[19]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-19" class="reference"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy_of_Sciences#cite_note-19">[20]</a></sup></font></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div>