Quantcast
Connect with us

Maybe the climate won’t change if no one studies it

Published

on

- Commentary
Thanks for your support!
This article was paid for by reader donations to Raw Story Investigates.

This article was paid for by Raw Story subscribers. Not a subscriber? Try us and go ad-free for $1. Prefer to give a one-time tip? Click here.

Terry H. Schwadron
Terry H. Schwadron

Terry H. Schwadron

Talk about a White House as an ostrich sticking its head in the sand.

News that the Trump administration will remove the underpinnings of Science in forming its periodic long-term environmental reviews and eliminate any mention of serious climate disruption is breathtaking.

In a remarkably calm report, The New York Times let us know that after two years of unraveling environmental regulation and enforcement, the Trump administration now stands ready to remake science itself—at least in so far as official government recognition is concerned.

ADVERTISEMENT

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

To simply eliminate any scientific mention that there are problems ahead marks a new low for the leader of the most powerful economy in the world.

For example, the White House has insisted that scientific assessments produced use only computer-generated climate models that project the impact of climate change through 2040, rather than through the end of the century, as had been done previously, to lessen the worst predictions of worldwide hunger, migration and rising waters that scientists globally see ahead. “Scientists say that would give a misleading picture because the biggest effects of current emissions will be felt after 2040. Models show that the planet will most likely warm at about the same rate through about 2050. From that point until the end of the century, however, the rate of warming differs significantly with an increase or decrease in carbon emissions.”

Even a climate change denier like Trump, who has pulled the United States out of global agreements to commit to policies aimed at forestalling the worst effects of climate disruption, you’d think that the disagreement would be about what to do about all the environmental fuss. But to simply eliminate any scientific mention that there are problems ahead mark a new low for the leader of the most powerful economy in the world.

Trump Just Doesn’t Believe

From where I sit, you can’t solve a problem you don’t recognize exists. That’s what explains how Trump never sees poverty or income gaps or deteriorating international alliances or the rise of white nationalism. He just doesn’t believe the problems exist, so the government doesn’t acknowledge them.

ADVERTISEMENT

Perhaps we should have more of this from Trump: He could simply wish a Wall on the southern border rather than having to obtain legislative approval or he could eliminate all taxes for the rest of us, as well as for himself and Jeff Bezos, by eliminating the need to finance a government. Or he could eliminate nuclear weapons in North Korea and Iran simply by imagining them gone. Why bother with any reality?

A particular target is the periodic National Climate Assessment, a report produced by several government agencies that every four years looks ahead to the most important climate changes we can expect. “Government scientists used computer-generated models in their most recent report to project that if fossil fuel emissions continue unchecked, the earth’s atmosphere could warm by as much as eight degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. That would lead to drastically higher sea levels, more devastating storms and droughts, crop failures, food losses and severe health consequences,” The Times explained.

Reports Coming Out

Work on the next such report in 2021 or 2022 has already begun. But officials said those worst-case scenarios will not automatically be included.

ADVERTISEMENT

That example will ripple through all of the government agencies, of course. So, just as pesticide-laced waters are seen in this administration as clean water, the changing patterns involving more serious hurricanes, flooding and tornadoes, the rising sea waters even in places like Miami, just aren’t happening.

To sift through all the misinformation, the president also wants a new environmental council of advisers who are led by William Happer, 79, a physicist who has been quoted as saying, “The demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Uh, not helpful or appropriate or, say, true.

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

I wonder if an ostrich image would fit on a campaign hat.

ADVERTISEMENT

This article was paid for by Raw Story subscribers. Not a subscriber? Try us and go ad-free for $1. Prefer to give a one-time tip? Click here.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Commentary

Trump’s impeachment is a pivotal moment in our history but the press still covers it like a horse race

Published

on

I wrote yesterday that political journalists’ pervasive cynicism led to some odd analyses concluding that Wednesday’s first day of public impeachment hearings had been a dull affair, and how this narrative ultimately benefited Donald Trump. The following post adds to that piece. 

Only those blinded by cynicism or partisanship could view the impeachment of Donald Trump as anything but a profoundly dramatic and potentially pivotal moment in our country’s history.

Continue Reading

Commentary

Here’s why Republican impeachment theatrics — as buffoonish as they are — serve a purpose for the GOP

Published

on

Liberal and progressive pundits — and some Never Trump conservatives as well — have been highly critical of the silly, buffoonish theatrics that Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Rep. Devin Nunes of California and other far-right House Republicans brought to the first public testimony in the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump. But then, Jordan and Nunes weren’t trying to win over liberals, progressives or anti-Trump conservatives on Wednesday, November 13, when they aggressively attacked the testimony of two diplomats: Ambassador William B. Taylor (top U.S. ambassador to Ukraine) and the U.S. State Department’s George P. Kent (deputy assistant secretary for European and Eurasian affairs). They were playing to Trump’s hardcore MAGA base, pushing emotional buttons rather than relying on substance.

Continue Reading
 

Commentary

Fox News creates an alternative reality and portrays impeachment hearings as a Trump victory over hapless nerds

Published

on

There was a lot of talk on Thursday about the theater criticism of the impeachment hearings coming from some quarters of the mainstream media. Press Watch's Dan Froomkin wrote a must-read piece here at Salon taking them to task for trivializing the event and creating the impression among many people who didn't watch the live testimony that it was boring and worthless. This is another example of the media's insatiable need for drama, explaining once again how Donald Trump, a carnival sideshow act if ever there was one, wound up in the White House.

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image