[✔️] March 2, 2022 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
👀 Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Wed Mar 2 08:02:11 EST 2022
/*March 2, 2022*/
/[ language in the IPCC release - reported by climatenexus.org]/
Biden White House,*IPCC Report Acknowledges Misinfo Menace Behind The
Climate Crisis*
Climate misinformation is having a moment! With an ample selection of
news stories deserving attention, you might have to look pretty closely
to notice. But hey, that’s what we’re here for, right?
Because tucked into the latest IPCC report are a few key mentions of
climate misinformation. Flipping through to page 2,515, Section 14.3
covers the “perception of climate change hazards, risks and adaptation
in North America,” describing how the “consensus that mean global
temperature has increased and human activity is a major cause” is “the
context for public policy action.”
But “despite expert scientific consensus,” there is still “ongoing
debate… in the public and policy domains,” because “rhetoric and
misinformation on climate change and the deliberate undermining of
science have contributed to misperceptions of the scientific consensus.”
And though the report doesn’t use the word “disinformation,” it does
address it, describing how “vested economic and political interests have
organized and financed misinformation and ‘contrarian’ climate change
communication.” (If the misinformation is deliberately “organized and
financed” by “vested economic and political interests,” then it’s not
false content innocently and unknowingly shared as misinfo, it’s
intentionally deceptive disinformation!)
As Geoffrey Supran told press, “these two paragraphs in the latest IPCC
report are significant because they are the first-of-their-kind, finally
throwing the weight of the global scientific community behind the
mountain of social science scholarship on climate obstructionism.”
In past reports, “the history of climate disinformation, lobbying, and
propaganda by fossil fuel interests has been consistently ignored,”
Supran explained.
That’s why the WGII report, meant to summarize the latest climate
science, dips back all the way to the mid-00’s when referencing studies
about, the report states, how “the journalistic norm of ‘balance’
(giving equal weight to climate scientists and contrarians in climate
change reporting) biases coverage by unevenly amplifying certain
messages that are not supported by science, contributing to
politicization of science, spreading misinformation, and reducing public
consensus on action.”
These days the problem is more social media than legitimate outlets, and
more up-to-date studies reflect that, the report finds: “Much online
social media discussion of climate change … takes place in ‘echo
chambers’’ – a social network amongst like-minded people in communities
dominated by a single view that contributes to polarization (Williams et
al., 2015; Pearce et al., 2019), and the spread of misinformation (Treen
et al., 2020).”
The IPCC report's inclusion of misinformation is important, Supran said,
“because the IPCC reports are the most visible climate reports in the
world. They frame the climate problem, its significance, and its
solutions for the public and policymakers worldwide.”
And indeed, as international negotiators and scientists were in the home
stretch of finalizing the Summary for Policymakers for the report (which
didn’t happen to fit misinformation into its 36 page summary of the
3,675 page full report) some policymakers in the White House were
getting a misinformation briefing of their own.
According to an official press release, the “2-hour virtual roundtable”
brought together “White House leaders and 17 scientists and
communications experts” in order “to discuss the scientific
understanding of why arguments for delaying action on climate change are
appealing and how they can be countered effectively.”
Among the participants was Naomi Oreskes, whose studies the IPCC
referenced. According to the readout, she noted that extreme weather
“made worse by climate change” is making it harder and harder to deny
the reality of the climate crisis. “People may say ‘let’s wait and see.’
The truth is, we have waited, and we have seen.”
To put it in decidedly less White House-appropriate terms, thanks to Big
Oil’s disinformation, we’ve spent decades fucking around. And now, the
latest IPCC report makes clear, we’re finding out.
https://newsletter.climatenexus.org/20220301-exxon-is-apparently-fine-with-russia-invading-ukraine/
/
/- -/
/[ The IPCC report is a consensus authorship approved by 195 nations
with input from scientists and experts from academia and even industrial
interests -- this clip is from the final draft report on page 2514
section 14.3 - and no, I did not read the whole thing to find this. It
is interesting in that it is the first time the IPCC addressed the issue
of misinformation.
/
*14.3 Perception of Climate Change Hazards, Risks, and Adaptation in
North America
*
*14.3.1 Climate Change as a Salient Issue*
39 Rhetoric and misinformation on climate change and the deliberate
undermining of science have contributed
40 to misperceptions of the scientific consensus, uncertainty,
disregarded risk and urgency, and dissent (high
41 confidence) (Ding et al., 2011; Oreskes and Conway, 2011; Aklin and
Urpelainen, 2014; Cook et al., 2017;
42 van der Linden et al., 2017). Additionally, strong party affiliation
and partisan opinion polarization
43 contribute to delayed mitigation and adaptation action, most notably
in the US (high confidence) (van der
44 Linden et al., 2015; Cook and Lewandowsky, 2016; Bolsen and Druckman,
2018; Chinn et al., 2020) but
45 with similar patterns in Canada (medium confidence) (Lachapelle et
al., 2012; Kevins and Soroka, 2018).
46 Vocal groups can affect public discourse and weaken public support
for climate mitigation and adaptation
47 policies (Aklin and Urpelainen, 2014; Lewandowsky et al., 2019)
(medium confidence). Vested economic
48 and political interests have organized and financed misinformation
and “contrarian” climate change
49 communication (Brulle, 2014; Farrell, 2016b; Farrell, 2016a; Supran
and Oreskes, 2017; Bolsen and
50 Druckman, 2018; Brulle, 2018). Traditional media – print and
broadcast – frame and transmit climate change
51 information and play a crucial role in shaping public perceptions,
understanding, and willingness to act
52 (Happer and Philo, 2013; Schmidt et al., 2013; Hmielowski et al.,
2014; Bolsen and Shapiro, 2018; King et
53 al., 2019; Chinn et al., 2020). The journalistic norm of “balance”
(giving equal weight to climate scientists
54 and contrarians in climate change reporting) biases coverage by
unevenly amplifying certain messages that
55 are not supported by science, contributing to politicization of
science, spreading misinformation, and
56 reducing public consensus on action (Boykoff and Boykoff, 2004;
Boykoff and Boykoff, 2007; Cook et al.,
57 2017). Much online social media discussion of climate change takes
place in ‘‘echo chambers’’ – a social
1 network amongst like-minded people in communities dominated by a
single view that contributes to
2 polarization (Williams et al., 2015; Pearce et al., 2019), and the
spread of misinformation (Treen et al.,
3 2020).
4
*5 14.3.2 Public Perceptions, Opinions and Understanding of Climate Change*
6
7 In a 2018 survey across 26 nations, people in Canada and Mexico ranked
climate change as the top global
8 threat, whereas in the US climate change ranked third (Poushter and
Huang, 2019). The public’s responses to
9 the causes of climate change and risk perceptions in Canada
(Mildenberger et al., 2016) and US (Howe et
10 al., 2015) revealed variations among regions (Figure 14.3) and less
acceptance of climate change in rural
11 regions than in urban areas. Canadian regions have higher acceptance
of climate change (e.g., recognize it is
12 happening and attributable to human activity) than the most liberal
areas in the US (Lachapelle et al., 2012;
13 Mildenberger et al., 2016). Western Canadian regions with high carbon
intensity economies had lower
14 acceptance of climate change than the rest of Canada, whereas in the
US perceptions were more stable across
15 regions (Lachapelle et al., 2012). A recent survey in Mexico found
that for 73% of respondents climate
16 change represents a major economic, environmental and social threat,
and in the most vulnerable states (MX17 SE), the perception is that
climate change impacts and extreme events have considerable implications
for the
18 way of life in communities (Zamora Saenz, 2018). In a 2017 survey,
Azócar et al. (2021) found 85% of
19 respondents from Mexico acknowledged anthropogenic climate change.
Peoples’ experience with extreme
20 events (e.g., hurricanes, high temperatures), socio-demographic
characteristics, level of marginalization and
21 economic and social exclusion, as well as education levels were
important factors influencing perception of
22 climate change in Mexico (Corona-Jimenez, 2018; Alfie and Cruz-Bello,
2021; Azócar et al., 2021).
23 Drawing upon Indigenous knowledge (Box 14.1) as well as lived
experience of recent changes in ice,
24 weather patterns, and species’ phenology and distribution, Indigenous
Peoples recognize that change is
25 occurring in their communities and have effective solutions that are
grounded in Indigenous worldviews
26 (Harrington, 2006; Turner and Clifton, 2009; Norton-Smith et al.,
2016a; Savo et al., 2016; Maldonado et al.,
27 2017; Chisholm Hatfield et al., 2018)./
/
*Full Report * is 3675 pages
https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg2/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf
/ [ warning, it is huge, will take a long time to download, and will use
lots of your computer resources ]/
/
/
/[ Stronger language now ]/
*Time Is Running Out to Avert a Harrowing Future, Climate Panel Warns*
The impacts of global warming are appearing faster than expected,
according to a major new scientific report. It could soon become much
harder to cope.
By Brad Plumer, Raymond Zhong and Lisa Friedman
Feb. 28, 2022
The dangers of climate change are mounting so rapidly that they could
soon overwhelm the ability of both nature and humanity to adapt,
creating a harrowing future in which floods, fires and famine displace
millions, species disappear and the planet is irreversibly damaged, a
major new scientific report has concluded.
The report released Monday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, a body of experts convened by the United Nations, is the most
detailed look yet at the threats posed by global warming. It concludes
that nations aren’t doing nearly enough to protect cities, farms and
coastlines from the hazards that climate change has already unleashed,
such as record droughts and rising seas, let alone from the even greater
disasters in store as the planet keeps heating up.
Written by 270 researchers from 67 countries, the report is “an atlas of
human suffering and a damning indictment of failed climate leadership,”
said António Guterres, the United Nations secretary general. “With fact
upon fact, this report reveals how people and the planet are getting
clobbered by climate change.”
In the coming decades, as global temperatures continue to rise, hundreds
of millions of people could struggle against floods, deadly heat waves
and water scarcity from severe drought, the report said. Mosquitoes
carrying diseases like dengue and malaria will spread to new parts of
the globe. Crop failures could become more widespread, putting families
in places like Africa and Asia at far greater risk of hunger and
malnutrition. People unable to adapt to the enormous environmental
shifts will end up suffering unavoidable loss or fleeing their homes,
creating dislocation on a global scale, the authors said.
To avert the most catastrophic impacts, nations need to quickly and
sharply reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse
gases that are dangerously heating the planet, the report said...
Even so, the world’s poorest nations are increasingly struggling with
climate shocks and will likely require hundreds of billions of dollars
per year in financial support over the next few decades to protect
themselves — support that wealthier nations have so far been slow to
provide.
“This report is terrifying; there is no other way of saying it,” said
Simon Stiell, the environment minister of the Caribbean nation of
Grenada. “We need to see enhanced action and increased climate finance
provision for adaptation. The scale of this crisis requires nothing less.”
Global temperatures have already increased by an average of 1.1 degrees
Celsius, or 2 degrees Fahrenheit, since the 19th century, as humans have
pumped heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere by burning coal, oil and
gas for energy, and cutting down forests.
Many leaders, including President Biden, have vowed to limit total
global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius compared with
preindustrial levels. That’s the threshold beyond which scientists say
the likelihood of catastrophic climate impacts increases significantly.
But achieving that goal would require nations to all but eliminate their
fossil-fuel emissions by 2050, and most are far off-track. The world is
currently on pace to warm somewhere between 2 degrees and 3 degrees
Celsius this century, experts have estimated.
If average warming passes 1.5 degrees Celsius, even humanity’s best
efforts to adapt could falter, the report warns. The cost of defending
coastal communities against rising seas could exceed what many nations
can afford. In some regions, including parts of North America, livestock
and outdoor workers could face rising levels of heat stress that make
farming increasingly difficult.
“Beyond 1.5, we’re not going to manage on a lot of fronts,” said Maarten
van Aalst, the director of the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Center and
an author of the report. “If we don’t implement changes now in terms of
how we deal with physical infrastructure, but also how we organize our
societies, it’s going to be bad.”
Poor nations are far more exposed to climate risks than rich countries.
Between 2010 and 2020, droughts, floods and storms killed 15 times as
many people in highly vulnerable countries, including those in Africa
and Asia, as in the wealthiest countries, the report said.
That disparity has fueled a contentious debate: what the industrialized
nations most responsible for greenhouse gas emissions owe developing
countries. Low-income nations want financial help, both to defend
against future threats and to compensate for damages they can’t avoid.
The issue will be a focus when governments meet for the next United
Nations climate summit in Egypt in November.
In northern Kenya, where drought has been ravaging crops and pastures,
“people are still dying by the day,” said Fatuma Hussein, a program
manager with Power Shift Africa, a think tank. “They are not even able
to provide food for their animals or themselves.”
Some herders are moving their livestock to wetter regions, Ms. Hussein
said. But vulnerable countries will not manage without support from rich
nations, she said.
In Central America, climate adaptation measures that are effective today
may no longer be feasible in the years ahead, said Debora Ley, an energy
specialist based in Guatemala who contributed to the report. Between
rising seas, droughts, and mudslides worsened by deforestation, Dr. Ley
worries that some communities in the region may face collapse. “You can
live somewhere, but if you’re prone to floods for six months out of 12
in a year, then can you really consider that habitable?” she said.
The report, which was approved by 195 governments, makes clear that
risks to humans and nature accelerate with every additional fraction of
a degree of warming.
If global warming reaches 1.5 degrees Celsius, up to 8 percent of the
world’s farmland could become unsuitable for growing food by the end of
the century, the authors wrote. Coral reefs, which buffer coastlines
against storms, will face more frequent bleaching from ocean heat waves
and decline by 70 to 90 percent. The number of people around the world
exposed to severe coastal flooding could increase by more than one-fifth
without new protections.
At 2 degrees Celsius of warming, the amount of land globally burned by
wildfires is expected to rise by more than one-third. Between 800
million and 3 billion people globally could face chronic water scarcity
because of drought, including more than one-third of the population in
southern Europe. Crop yields and fish harvests in many places could
start declining.
At 3 degrees of warming, the risk of extreme weather events could
increase fivefold by century’s end. Flooding from sea level rise and
heavier rainstorms could cause four times as much economic damage
worldwide as they do today. As many as 29 percent of known plant and
animal species on land could face a high risk of extinction.
To date, many nations have been able to partly limit the damage by
spending billions of dollars each year on adaptation measures like flood
barriers, air-conditioning or early-warning systems for tropical cyclones.
Over the past half-century, the number of deaths worldwide from storms,
floods and other extreme weather events has fallen by more than half
because of improved early warning systems and disaster management, the
World Meteorological Organization has found. Investments in public
health have meant fewer people are succumbing to diseases like cholera,
even as rising temperatures and heavier rainfall have facilitated their
spread.
But those efforts are too often “incremental,” the report said.
Preparing for future threats, like dwindling freshwater supplies or
irreversible ecosystem damage, will require “transformational” changes
that involve rethinking how people build homes, grow food, produce
energy and protect nature.
Some of the planet’s most vulnerable nations have been digging deep into
their coffers to cope with climate threats. Ethiopia aims to spend $6
billion a year on a range of adaptation measures, which amounts to 5.6
percent of its annual economic output, according to government
information compiled by Power Shift Africa. South Sudan, one of the
world’s poorest countries, is preparing to spend $376 million a year
until 2030 to address climate-fueled flooding.
A decade ago, wealthy nations pledged to deliver $100 billion per year
to the developing world by 2020 to shift to cleaner sources of energy
and adapt to climate change. But they have fallen short by tens of
billions of dollars, with only a fraction of the funds spent on adaptation.
John Kerry, President Biden’s special envoy for climate change,
acknowledged in an interview Monday that wealthy, heavily polluting
nations were not doing enough.
“Every country needs to do more in terms of mitigation and they need to
do more in terms of addressing both adaptation and resilience, no
question about it,” he said.
At the same time, many communities are still acting in ways that
increase their vulnerability, the report said. One reason flood risk is
growing along the coasts, for instance, is that millions of people are
moving to low-lying areas that are endangered by sea level rise. And
some adaptation measures have unintended consequences. For example, sea
walls protect certain places but can also redirect flooding into
populated areas elsewhere. Irrigation can help protect crops against
drought but can also deplete groundwater resources.
Instead, the report recommends that leaders pursue more farsighted
strategies. As oceans rise, coastal communities could relocate inland
while discouraging additional development along vulnerable shorelines.
Improvements in basic services like health, roads, electricity and water
could help make poor and rural communities more resilient against
climate shocks.
“If we act now, we have a lot of choices,” said Edward R. Carr, a
professor of international development at Clark University and an author
of the report. “Ten years from now, hell of a lot of less. Thirty years
from now, I don’t know.” He added, “We’ll always have choices. But
they’ll be less good choices, and they’ll be much harder choices to make.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/28/climate/climate-change-ipcc-un-report.html
/[ The most important profession for our future ] /
February 28, 2022
*Psychology skills, research needed to help stem climate change*
APA task force report recommends applications to alter human behavior
WASHINGTON — The discipline of psychology must strengthen its capacity
to address climate change and collaborate with other fields and sectors
for maximal impact, according to a new report from the American
Psychological Association.
In “Addressing the Climate Crisis: An Action Plan for Psychologists
(PDF, 945KB),” the APA Task Force on Climate Change offers a blueprint
for actions by APA and the broader psychology community.
“Psychologists must use their scientific understanding of human behavior
to address climate change—and while many already are, more need to be
engaged,” said Arthur C. Evans Jr., PhD, APA’s CEO. “This report
articulates actions our field can take and how we can collaborate
outside of the field of psychology to have the greatest impact.”
Mitigation is a major thrust of the report. Psychologists should be
involved in the design of technologies that can reduce energy
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions—from solar to heating and
cooling to electric vehicles—and to support people and organizations in
adopting them, the report states.
Psychology is also needed to address the mental health impacts of
climate change, which can include anxiety, depression, grief, trauma and
posttraumatic stress disorder. Through research and direct
interventions, psychologists can play an important role in helping
people and communities adapt, according to the report. They can address
psychological and mental health responses to climate change and help
people build psychological and social resilience to better deal with
climate impacts.
For mitigation and adaptation to succeed, the report notes, public
understanding of climate change is crucial. Psychologists can play an
important role in assessing the thoughts and beliefs of various
communities, and in educating and communicating climate information to
them. The report also conveys the important role of social action in
addressing climate change. Psychologists can apply their understanding
of motivation, persuasion and communication to advocate for sound
climate policy and social change, it says.
The report offered 12 recommendations, six for strengthening the field
of psychology and six for broadening psychology’s impact. It builds on
the work of a task force convened by APA in 2008-09 that focused on
psychological research geared to climate change, as well as on recent
developments in psychology, climate science and climate policy. Here are
the recommendations:
*Strengthening the field *
Advance research on climate change across all areas of psychological
science.Build psychologists’ capacities to support people in mitigating
and adapting to climate change.Incorporate coverage of climate change
into all levels of psychology education.Engage in sustained advocacy on
climate change to government at all levels and to business and nonprofit
organizations.Serve as an important channel of information to
psychologists about climate change and how they can contribute to
effective climate action.Implement a strategic approach to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and improve sustainability across all of APA’s
operations and in the psychological community.
*Broadening impact*
Promote engagement of psychological scientists with policymakers,
practitioners and community members on climate change issues.Enlarge the
range of settings and partnerships in which psychology practitioners
address climate change.Promote coverage of the psychological dimensions
of climate change in the education of other professionals and the
public.Partner on climate advocacy with other scientific, professional,
social justice, environmental and health organizations.Educate the
public about the psychological dimensions of climate change and
effective climate action.Engage with other organizations and the public
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve sustainability practices.
“Psychologists can and should play a key role in addressing the climate
crisis and the dangers it poses to the health and well-being of people
worldwide,” said Gale Sinatra, PhD, of the University of Southern
California and climate task force chair. “The task force is pleased to
offer these recommendations to APA as a path forward, and to encourage
the field of psychology to heed the call.”
The report was accepted by APA’s governing Council of Representatives on
Feb. 26, 2022.
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2022/02/psychology-climate-change
- -
Full report
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2022/02/climate-crisis-action-plan.pdf
/[ looking back at moments in history -- Rick Piltz resigns from the US
Climate Change Science Program after relentless, extensive efforts by
Bush White House officials to censor scientific reports on climate change ]/
*March 2, 2005*
Piltz Memo Details Administration Tampering With Science
Rick Piltz, a government scientist for 14 years, resigned in March over
concerns that scientific documents were being amended for political
reasons. Evidence released by Piltz was reported in the NY Times on June
8. Philip Cooney, the White House official accused of editing the
reports, resigned June 10.
What follows is Piltz' memo explaining his reasons for resigning:
*Politicizing the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP)**
By Rick Piltz
The U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) is the vehicle
through which U.S. Government agencies coordinate their support for
research on climate change and associated issues of global
environmental change. From 1995 until my March 2, 2005 resignation,
I served in responsible positions such as Associate Director of the
U.S. Global Change Research Program Office (its name until 2002) and
Senior Associate in the CCSP Office. Since it was first established
as the U.S. Global Change Research Program under the Global Change
Research Act of 1990, this program has supported thousands of
scientists who have developed an extraordinary body of scientific
research, observations, and assessments, dealing with issues of
fundamental scientific and societal significance. The program
currently has 13 participating federal agencies and an annual budget
of about $2 billion.
Global climate change is a problem with great potential consequences
for society. This administration has acted to impede honest
communication of the state of climate science and the implications
for society of global climate change. Politicization by the White
House has fed back directly into the science program in such a way
as to undermine the credibility and integrity of the program in its
relationship to the research community, to program managers, to
policymakers, and to the public interest. The White House so
successfully politicized the science program that I decided it was
necessary to terminate my relationship with it.
I resigned in March 2005, after working for 10 years in the program
office. I have drafted a memorandum to the interagency principals
committee for the Climate Change Science Program essentially the
board of directors that discusses in some detail the problems that
finally led me to resign, in order to be able to speak more freely
about these issues. I know that others who are less free to speak
out share these concerns. I believe these issues are worthy of more
penetrating Congressional oversight and public attention than they
have thus far received.
The ability of our society and our elected officials to make good
decisions about climate change and numerous other important public
issues depends on a free, accurate, honest, and unimpeded flow of
communications about the findings of scientific research and
scientifically based assessments of relevant issues. To block,
distort, or manipulate this flow of communications in order to
further political agendas can be seen as analogous to interference
with freedom of the press. The White House should not be in the
business of pre-clearing scientific communications based on
political impact, any more than it should be in the business of
pre-clearing the reporting of the news. Key questions that should be
raised follow.
Why are administration political officials who are not career
science program managers, and whose job is essentially to satisfy
the administration's constituencies on climate change politics and
policy, participating in governing the Climate Change Science
Program? In particular, why does a former oil industry lobbyist
have the authority to edit scientific statements developed by career
federal science professionals? The White House Council on
Environmental Quality, in particular its Chief of Staff a lawyer
and former climate team leader with the American Petroleum
Institute, the main lobbying arm of the oil industry has played a
central role, including having final review and signoff authority on
CCSP publications such as the CCSP Strategic Plan for scientific
research, the CCSP annual reports to Congress with highlights of
recent scientific research, and the prospective state-of-the-science
CCSP Synthesis and Assessment Reports. This CEQ generally under
Chairman James Connaughton has been especially notable in the
administrations commingling of politics and science.
CEQ final reviews of CCSP draft documents have made hundreds of
changes in text drafted by career federal science program management
professionals, who work closely with the research community, and
approved by principal representatives of CCSP participating
agencies. Many, if not most, of these changes and proposed changes
have included alteration of science-related text, generally either
to downgrade the significance of certain issues of concern about
climate change and its implications, to downgrade accomplishments of
previous scientific work by creating an enhanced sense of scientific
uncertainty, or to substitute CEQs judgment for that of science
program professionals about research priorities. Documentation of
these CEQ interventions should be examined.
What is the role of the CCSP Director the Assistant Secretary of
Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and the CCSP interagency
principals group, vis-à-vis CEQ and the rest of the administrations
political operation on climate change? The administrations policy
commitments on climate change have led it to play down scientific
evidence on the extent of observed climate change and its impacts,
the projections of substantial change during this century, and a
range of potential adverse consequences of 21st century climate
change that are considered likely according to the conclusions of
the most authoritative scientific assessments of the problem. Is
CCSP leadership free to express and represent the mainstream
scientific perspective, or are CCSP public communications shaped by
White House political priorities?
Why has the administration suppressed the U.S. National Assessment
of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change
the most substantial scientifically based climate change assessment
project sponsored by the program, and a pioneering experiment in
modes of stakeholder engagement and societal relevance announced as
a
landmark
on the likely and potential impacts for the U.S. from
climate change when released is 2000? The serious process initiated
in the assessment for follow through has been abandoned. Apparently,
the first National Assessment will be the only one. Why has the
White House required the CCSP to systematically delete any
substantive reference or use of the multiple volumes of this major
work in setting climate change research priorities? It has been
stripped from the record for all program planning documents and
reports to Congress; such as the CCSP Strategic Plan, the annual
editions of Our Changing Planet (the annual program report to
Congress), as well as internal planning and budgetary discussion.
These scientific assessments are intended as the underpinning to
support policy and management decision making. Why has the CCSP
stonewalled repeated criticism from the National Research Council of
the National Academy of Sciences for suppressing this report? The
NRC has said:
The National Assessments Overview and Foundation
reports are important contributions to understanding the possible
consequences of climate variability and change. The processes of
stakeholder engagement and transparent review of the National
Assessment reports were exemplary.
Why has the administration been evasive about embracing the Arctic
Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) and communicating and using its
findings? ACIA was a major project, commissioned by the U.S.
Government along with the other parties to the Arctic Council,
funded by CCSP-participating agencies, and chaired by the long-time
former chair of the USGCRP interagency committee, with substantial
participation of U.S.-based authors and reviewers. Yet the
administration has ducked and shortchanged ACIA in a number of
ways. The ACIA Overview report was published in late 2004, with
policy recommendations withheld until after the election. Why has
the CCSP failed to transmit copies of the report that were purchased
for distribution to Members of Congress and others? They are still
gathering dust in a storeroom, sitting in unopened boxes. What roles
have CEQ, the State Department, and the CCSP Director played in what
appears to be an administration decision to distance itself from the
Arctic Climate Impacts Assessment, which identifies a range of
observed and projected adverse impacts of climate change on Arctic
ecosystems and communities, with implications for global climate
change and potential global consequences, including accelerated sea
level rise? The ACIA Chair testifies and gives briefings, but it is
on his own. The U.S. government has been sitting out the follow
through process, without acknowledging the findings, briefing
Congress, or even delivering the report.
A recent GAO report was critical of how the CCSP is carrying out its
mandate under the Global Change Research Act of 1990 with regard to
providing scientific assessments of global change to Congress. In
particular, the GAO focused on the prospective 21 state of the
science
synthesis and assessment (S&A) reports,
which the CCSP is
at an early (and much-delayed) stage of developing, in lieu of
focusing on the key issues raised by the U.S. National Assessment.
These S&A reports are supposed to replace the scientifically
independent National Assessment as the objective science used to
support the development of national policy. But they are a
piecemeal, governmentally controlled substitute and are not being
produced expeditiously. They have become a bureaucratically
convoluted way to sit on some two billion dollars annually of
vitally-needed climate change research, running out the clock
instead of acting on lessons learned that should underpin
decision-making to limit adverse impacts by mitigating and adapting
to climate change. Why do the administrations guidelines for final
review and approval of these reports fail to guarantee the
scientific independence of the reports and authority for final
approval of text to the scientific experts who author them? Why,
instead, are the final review drafts of these reports to be run
through a White House, cabinet and sub-cabinet-level clearance
process prior to publication, under the jurisdiction of the White
House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and with the
involvement of CEQ, thus opening an avenue for political
interference? Now a murky political clearance process controls the
official results of climate change science reports trapped in
bureaucratic bottlenecks.
The issue of lead author independence and other critical issues were
raised very strongly at a meeting at the National Academy of
Sciences and by public review comments in the spring of 2004. Why
have the administration and the CCSP agency leadership stonewalled
the critics on the issue of lead author independence? The scientific
authors do not have the guaranteed right to approve, or even see
changes to their work prior to publication. Leading scientists
objected on grounds of credibility for the work, but have been
ignored. The science community has a right to be concerned about the
integrity of this process. These actions occur in the context of a
widespread distrust of the political leadership of this
administration in the scientific community for exactly the reason
that the administration has come to be perceived as not keeping
politics out of science.
Under the current administration, the Director of the Office of
Science and Technology Policy from the outset set a tone of speaking
evasively about the state of the science on climate change. His
testimony has been inconsistent with findings of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the worlds primary and
most authoritative independent scientific report issued every six
years, to support decision-making by parties to the Rio climate
change treaty, which the U.S. has ratified (and the Kyoto Protocol,
which it has not). In response to reports documenting the
administrations politically-driven interference with scientific
integrity in a number of areas, he has responded evasively. These
actions have contributed to the atmosphere of mistrust.
Why did the administration choose to require that all of the
prospective CCSP synthesis reports be government documents rather
than, for at least most of them, following a more straightforward
path of asking independent scientists to write them and let the
chips fall where they may?
In defending against a current climate change-related lawsuit filed
by Friends of the Earth et al. against the Export-Import Bank and
the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, why did the
administration, through the Justice Department, choose to have the
U.S. Governmentscience brief be prepared by a single professor, not
involved in the CCSP, whose main claim to fame appears to be as a
global warming
skeptic
, and who writes about his particular
personal points of opposition to the more widely-authored and
thoroughly-vetted assessments? Why did the administration not
instead rely on sources with broad credibility and acceptance in the
scientific community, in particular the findings of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which are extraordinarily
well-vetted and with policymaker summaries signed off line-by-line
by government representatives, as well as other major scientifically
based assessments supported by the CCSP participating agencies?
In the case of this administration, it seems clear that high-level
policymakers will take up any source on the scientific assessment of
climate change that they perceive as congenial to their
predetermined political and policy positions and will discount or
ignore any source that states implications and draws conclusions
that might be taken to imply the need for a reconsideration and
strengthening of U.S. climate change policy regardless of where
the material comes from.
* Prepared by Rick Piltz, former Senior Associate with the U.S.
Climate Change Science Program Office, to explain his March 2, 2005
resignation. For further information, contact Dylan Blaylock at the
Government Accountability Project, dylanb at whistleblower.org,
202-408-0034, ext. 137; or check GAPs website: www.whistleblower.org.
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5316&method=full
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
/Archive of Daily Global Warming News
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html>
/
https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote
/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request>
to news digest./
Privacy and Security:*This mailing is text-only. It does not carry
images or attachments which may originate from remote servers. A
text-only message can provide greater privacy to the receiver and
sender. This is a hobby production curated by Richard Pauli
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain cannot be used for commercial
purposes. Messages have no tracking software.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote
<mailto:contact at theclimate.vote> with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe,
subject: unsubscribe
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for
http://TheClimate.Vote <http://TheClimate.Vote/> delivering succinct
information for citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously restricted to
this mailing list.
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list