Pushing Back on Trump War on Science

February 6, 2017

Inside Climate News:

Three scientific advocacy groups have filed a legal brief in support of federal climate scientists who are being sued by the conservative organization Judicial Watch.

Judicial Watch has sought to force the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to release 8,000 pages of researchers’ communications regarding a peer-reviewed paper published in the journal Science in June 2015.

The study debunked the notion of a global warming “hiatus” between 1998-2012, an argument used by those who dispute the scientific consensus on climate changeA recent paper by a different group of researchers affirmed NOAA’s findings, one of several confirmations.

Ordering the release of agency employees’ emails “would harm (or halt altogether) government scientists’ ability to collaborate with colleagues, damage the government’s ability to recruit or retain top scientists, and deter critically important research into politically charged fields like climate change,” said the amicus brief from the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF), American Meteorological Society and Union of Concerned Scientists.

The anxiety of climate scientists because of the NOAA litigation has intensified since the start of the Trump administration. Charges against NOAA were revived this weekend in the Daily Mail, a British tabloid, and echoed by conservative media (followed by several refutations). Climate information has been deleted from federal websites and administration officials have clamped down on communications at federal scientific agencies

“Now more than ever, it is critical that we defend climate scientists and their research,” Lauren Kurtz, executive director of CSLDF, said in a statement. “Forcing the disclosure of scientists’ private emails is invasive, unnecessary, and hugely detrimental to the scientific method.”

The amicus brief notes the lawsuit is part of a decade-long trend where “groups across the political spectrum have attempted to discredit scientific studies they dislike…by seeking to use the scientists’ emails and preliminary drafts against them.”

In 2011, for instance, the American Tradition Institute (now called the E&E Legal Institute) requested thousands of emails from climate scientist Michael Mann. The case led to a Virginia Supreme Court decision that exempts university scientists’ unpublished research from the state’s Freedom of Information Act.

SFGate:

CHICAGO (AP) — Hundreds of current and former employees of the Environmental Protection Agency are speaking out against President Donald Trump‘s pick to head the department.

About 300 people, including scores of EPA employees, rallied Monday across the street from the agency’s regional headquarters in downtown Chicago to oppose Scott Pruitt‘s nomination.

Nearly 450 former EPA officials also signed a letter sent to the U.S. Senatesaying that Pruitt is the wrong man for the job. It said Pruitt’s record “raises serious questions about whose interests he has served to date and whether he agrees with the longstanding tenets of U.S. environmental law.”

Senate Democrats boycotted a committee vote on Pruitt’s nomination last week, citing the 14 lawsuits he filed as Oklahoma’s attorney general to overturn air and water regulations issued by the very agency he now hopes to lead. Pruitt, who raised campaign money from the oil and gas industry, has also questioned the validity of climate science showing carbon emissions are the primary cause of climate change.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “Pushing Back on Trump War on Science”

  1. Tom Bates Says:

    If 450 EPA insiders signed that letter than Pruitt is the man for the job to clean out the swamp. This is all about science, actual science not political science which what the EPA has been spinning for a long long time. When the EPA claims CO2 is a pollutant when the CO2 is what keeps us alive since plants cannot exist without it something is very very wrong with the mindset of the 450 EPA insiders. A NASA paper estimated the increased CO2 has increased plant mass by 8 percent which means 415 million people are alive who would have died of starvation from lack of food at the lower CO2 level of 280 parts per million. A Berkeley labs paper measured the increased temperature due to the higher CO2, 2/10ths of a watt per square meter which is about 0.034F, 4150 times less than average solar gain. On water the EPA, the 450 insiders, have decided that the drain in your back yard is a water course and if you put a pond there they throw you in jail even if you had a permit from your state. Both are simply a power grab and that is what this is actually about. That kind of thinking has to stop if liberty is to exist.

    • webej Says:

      Survival is more important than liberty, always has been, that is the whole mechanism by which people are forced to do things they would not otherwise. CO² may be good for plants, higher concentrations of CO² have been shown to decrease human intelligence and leads to underperformance in closed spaces.
      And that’s without addressing your specious and solipsistic idiocy about how little energy is being added to the system.

    • Verbonnet Says:

      I don’t get what you hope to achieve in posting here. You aren’t persuading anyone, and all that ever occurs is that you trade insults. Is this really what you want to spend your time doing? Reflect on your future. Consider what you wish to look back on when you’re old.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: