It Sure Seems Like the Trump Administration Is Suppressing Reports of Climate Change at USGS

It is perfectly proper to remove speculation from what should be factual reporting.  If anthropogenic global warming were a fact it would be improper to remove mention of it but it is not a fact. It is a highly dubious theory.  What was "censored" was about the future so can only be a prophecy.  And prophecy is almost always wrong, even if governments do it

Trump administration officials are removing references to climate change from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) press releases, according to a report from ClimateWire reporter Scott Waldman.

USGS scientists are responsible for, among other things Earth-related, assessing various kinds of disaster risks and publishing research about those risks. That work seems to be continuing apace. But now when those scientists put together press releases about their results — documents that can tip off reporters about important findings, so the news can reach the public — they're finding those documents altered to avoid mention of climate change and even held up for months before being released to the public, according to Waldman's reporting.

Waldman gave the example of a particular study published March 19 in the journal Scientific Reports examining climate risks along the California coast. Its conclusions were stark: [Ocean Acidification: The Other Carbon Dioxide Threat]

"Coastal inundation due to sea-level rise (SLR) is projected to displace hundreds of millions of people worldwide over the next century, creating significant economic, humanitarian and national-security challenges," the researchers wrote in that study. "We show that for California, USA, the world’s 5th largest economy, over $150 billion of property equating to more than 6% of the state’s GDP and 600,000 people could be impacted by dynamic flooding by 2100."

A March 13 press release touting the study mentioned rising seas and "a changing climate on the California coast," but didn’t mention anything else about sea-level rise or climate change; rather, the rest of the release focused on how the study could help future planning and the "state-of-the-art computer models" involved in the work.

According to Waldman, that represented a significant change from the original draft of the release.

"An earlier draft of the news release, written by researchers, was sanitized by Trump administration officials, who removed references to the dire effects of climate change after delaying its release for several months, according to three federal officials who saw it," he reported.

Waldman found other releases since 2017 where climate change had been omitted, and pointed out that this trend at the USGS isn't the first example of federal officials attempting to downplay climate change in government reports. At the USGS, under director James Reilly (a former NASA astronaut and Trump appointee), officials have instructed researchers to use shorter-term models showing less dire impacts. The Department of Agriculture and Interior Department have also faced accusations of suppressing climate research.

SOURCE 






Consistent Failure of Apocalyptic Warnings Hasn’t Stopped Climate Change Alarmism

In the 1970s, Americans were told we were in a global cooling crisis and if something wasn’t done, we’d enter a new ice age.

When that didn’t happen, a few decades later we were told that entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend was not reversed by the year 2000.

Despite the consistent failure of these apocalyptic warnings, that hasn’t stopped climate change alarmism.

We’re now being told we only have 12 years to combat climate change, and the solution is to fundamentally dismantle the system of free enterprise. That means Washington controls things like how we produce our energy, what food we eat, and what type of cars we drive.

The question is, even if we believed their alarmist, catastrophic predictions, would their proposals work?

Not according to the climate scientists’ own models. Based on those models, even if the United States cut its carbon dioxide emissions to zero, it would only avert global warming by a few tenths of a degree Celsius—in 80 years.

We would see no noticeable difference in the climate, yet it would come at an enormous cost to the American people.

Climate change is happening, and human activity undoubtedly plays a role, but big-government climate policies are all economic pain, no environmental gain.

After all, the purpose of climate change regulations is to drive energy prices higher so families and businesses use less energy.

Abundant energy sources such as coal, oil, and natural gas have allowed Americans to affordably drive to their jobs, light and heat their homes, and power their refrigerators, computers, and iPhones.

On the other hand, more heavy-handed climate regulations would drive up electricity bills and prices at the pump.

Families would be hurt multiple times over, paying not just more for energy but also more for food, clothing, and health care, as energy is critical for every stage of planting, harvesting, manufacturing, and transporting goods to consumers.

These rising costs would stifle economic growth, one of the most important factors for maintaining a cleaner environment.

As a country’s economy grows, the financial ability of its citizens to take care of the environment grows, too. So creating more economy-killing climate regulations and taxes would not only harm the livelihoods of the American people, it would also harm our ability to protect our environment.

Instead, government should focus on keeping the economy strong by reducing taxes and eliminating regulatory barriers to energy innovation.

For example, some states produce clean, cheap natural gas, but excessive regulations and litigation prevent the construction of pipelines to distribute natural gas to other parts of the country.

Furthermore, competitive electricity markets can give consumers the option to buy 100% renewable power if they like. And fixing a broken regulatory system will allow new, innovative commercial nuclear technologies to get off the ground.

This is how we can ensure affordable, reliable, and cleaner energy. It’s how we can keep our economy growing. And ultimately, it’s how we can ensure a cleaner environment for America.

SOURCE 





Left Laments Trump's Environmental Success

On Monday, President Donald Trump praised his administration’s work on the environment. He spoke of the Environmental Protection Agency’s refocusing on its “core mission,” noting, “Last year, the agency completed more Superfund hazardous waste cleanups than any year of the previous administrations. … We have done tremendous work on Superfunds.” He also highlighted his signing of the Save Our Seas Act, a joint agreement with Canada and Mexico to combat the growing problem of ocean trash.

Meanwhile, Trump was critical of the Democrats’ Green New Deal, asserting, “It’ll kill millions of jobs. It’ll crush the dreams of the poorest Americans and disproportionately harm minority communities. I will not stand for it. We will defend the environment, but we will also defend American sovereignty, American prosperity, and we will defend American jobs.”

He also highlighted the fact that even after he pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accord, America leads all other signatory nations in emissions reductions. Trump argued, “A strong economy is vital to maintaining a healthy environment,” adding that he believes an environmental policy that penalizes Americans is counterproductive to both Americans and the environment. He cogently observed, “For years politicians told Americans that a strong economy and vibrant energy sector were incompatible with a healthy environment — that one thing doesn’t go with the other.” However, Trump declared, “That’s wrong.”

Predictably, leftists panned Trump’s speech and environmental record because he never acknowledged their pet alarmist issue: climate change. The Hill’s headline serves as case in point: “Trump touts environmental policies, but says nothing of climate change.” The fact of the matter is, Trump recognizes there are actual environmental policies that can be implemented that bring real, demonstrable change. Strangling the economy to fight alleged anthropogenic climate change is simply not one of them. This reality is demonstrated by the fact that the only solution offered is a massive government takeover of the economy to institute some form of socialism, which in turn offers no viable solution to pay for the $93 trillion price tag and for avoiding the certain bankruptcy such a policy would bring upon the nation. And even if we were to implement these drastic draconian policies, we are told that impact upon the global climate would be minimal at best.

So the question is: Who has the better environmental record? Trump has a far better case than do the ecofascists.

SOURCE 





Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez move to declare climate crisis official emergency

The Left are good at verbal magic.  They always think that by changing the name of something, they change the reality

A group of US lawmakers including the 2020 Democratic presidential contender Bernie Sanders are proposing to declare the climate crisis an official emergency – a significant recognition of the threat taken after considerable pressure from environment groups.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic congresswoman from New York, and Earl Blumenauer, a Democratic congressman from Oregon, plan to introduce the same resolution in the House on Tuesday, their offices confirmed.

A Sanders spokesperson said: “President Trump has routinely declared phoney national emergencies to advance his deeply unpopular agenda, like selling Saudi Arabia bombs that Congress had blocked.

“On the existential threat of climate change, Trump insists on calling it a hoax. Senator Sanders is proud to partner with his House colleagues to challenge this absurdity and have Congress declare what we all know: we are facing a climate emergency that requires a massive and immediate federal mobilization.”

Climate activists have been calling for the declaration, as data shows nations are not on track to limit the dangerous heating of the planet significantly enough. The UN has warned the world is experiencing one climate disaster every week. A new analysis from the economic firm Rhodium Group today finds the US might achieve less than half of the percentage of pollution reductions it promised other countries in an international agreement.

Sixteen countries and hundreds of local governments, including New York City last month, have declared a climate emergency already, according to the advocacy group the Climate Mobilization. The activist group Extinction Rebellion has said the declaration is a crucial first step in addressing the crisis.

Blumenauer’s office said he decided to draft the resolution after Donald Trump declared an emergency at the US border with Mexico so he could pursue building a wall between the two countries.

In Congress, Democrats in control of the House might have enough support for the resolution, but Republicans in the majority in the Senate are not likely to approve.

The resolution says: “The global warming caused by human activities, which increase emissions of greenhouse gases, has resulted in a climate emergency” that “severely and urgently impacts the economic and social well-being, health and safety, and national security of the United States”.

It then goes on to say that Congress “demands a national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization of the resources and labor of the United States at a massive-scale.”

Trump and his administration have questioned the science showing that humans are causing the climate crisis. They have downplayed the risks of rising temperatures and gutted government efforts to limit the heat-trapping pollution from power plants, cars and other sources.

Despite that record, Trump touted the US as an environmental leader in a speech on Monday at the White House.

Even if the resolution passed and was signed by the president, it would not force any action on climate change. But advocates say similar efforts in Canada and the United Kingdom have served as a leverage point, highlighting the hypocrisy between the government position that the situation is an emergency and individual decisions that would exacerbate the problem.

Several of the Democrats running for president have rolled out partial or full blueprints for cutting emissions. Nearly all have said it is a top issue. Sanders has a history of prioritizing the climate crisis, and has previously suggested specific policy options, but he has yet to release his own proposal.

SOURCE 





The Appalling Environmental Cost Of Wind Energy

A new publication from the Global Warming Policy Foundation reviews the impact of wind energy on the environment and finds that it is already doing great harm to wildlife.

“The Impact of Wind Energy on Wildlife and the Environment” contains contributions from both researchers and campaigners, with a focus on birdlife.

Professor Oliver Krüger describes his cutting-edge research, which has shown how birds of prey and ducks are being killed in their thousands in Germany. The risk to these species is so great that there is a possibility of whole populations being wiped out.

Klaus Richarz, the former head of a major bird reserve in Germany, describes how windfarm operators are evading strict compliance with the rules, to the detriment of both birds and bats.

Dr Peter Henderson, of the University of Oxford, reviews the effects of wind turbines on a wide variety of animals. He suggests that death toll on bats may already be ecologically significant:

“About 200,000 bats are annually killed at onshore wind turbines in Germany alone. These numbers are sufficient to produce concern for future populations, as bats are long-lived and reproduce slowly, so cannot quickly replace such losses.”

Lastly, Paula Byrne of WindAware Ireland describes how windfarms in her native country have desecrated landscapes, and have even threatened the endangered Nore Freshwater Pearl Mussel.

With an extraordinary expansion of renewable energy planned, there is potential for these serious environmental impacts to become catastrophic.

SOURCE 

***************************************

For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here

*****************************************