The Incoming Administration is Even Worse Than Expected for Climate Science

Prior to the recent U.S. election this page noted "the last gasp of climate denial groups." It seems denial lobbyists are now guarding the hen house. The shocking election result brings with it expectations of climate denial, deceit, and defunding of science organizations. And it likely will get even worse.

To begin with, the person selected to head the EPA transition is Myron Ebell, chief anti-science lobbyist at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Similar anti-science lobbyists are in charge of transition for the Departments of Energy and Interior. Likely EPA administrators have been narrowed down to fossil fuel state politicians intent on gutting EPA health and safety regulations. Many senior EPA staff have suggested they won't remain in an agency led by anti-science lobbyists.

The new administration has already indicated it will abuse its political power to suppress science and push conspiracy theories. The climate science budget at NASA (and likely NOAA) is expected to be slashed. As with all Republican administrations and Congresses, their choice is always to cut funding of science research so that research can't continue to demonstrate the dishonesty of science denial.

With Republicans controlling both houses of the legislative branch, the entire executive branch, and likely to stack the judicial branch for decades to come, Americans are faced with an anti-American plutocracy in charge of the country.

All of this, of course, will hurt all Americans, including those people who voted for the Republican ticket because, well, not because they are racist or bigoted, they say, but because, well, because, um, something about the high cost of health care.

Health care costs will immediately go up as the new administration cuts out competition and throws at least 15 million people off insurance rolls.

So much for that. Congratulations, America, you got played.

Because of the ignorance of voters across the world (think Brexit, the 2016 U.S. election, and the upcoming French elections), we are now faced with significant regression of humanity. Scientists will be required to continue research with even more limited budgets, face accentuated anti-science lobbyist power, and deal with a populace that seems incapable of connecting actions with consequences. Just ask all those Republican voters now complaining that Republicans will kill their health insurance, take away their medicare, and destroy social security.

Somehow scientists have to find a way to reach out to the public. That job just got a lot harder.

Meanwhile, the climate continues to warm (2016 will set a new heat record for the third year in a row) and humans continue to be the dominant cause of that warming.

To quote Neil deGrasse Tyson, "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe it."

In other words, the science is the science. Your choice to deny the science doesn't change the science.

Time to get to work.

The Effect of the U.S. Election Result on Climate Change

A disaster for the planet? Or will we keep building on the progress? No one knows for sure.

There is no doubt that the surprise election result will bring many questions about what happens to global to combat climate change. The fact that Myron Ebell from the anti-science lobbyist Competitive Enterprise Institute is heading up the EPA transition team signals a disdain for science.

Beyond that, everyone is guessing.

Here's a quick run down on people trying to analyze the situation. Click the links to read the full articles.

There's no way around it: Donald Trump is going to be a disaster for the planet - Vox

Trump picks top climate skeptic to lead EPA transition - Scientific American

Climate change: Nations will push ahead with plans despite Trump - BBC

Change ahead: Shifts on immigration, health, climate, and taxes - New York Times

Donald Trump's victory could mean disaster for the planet - TIME

All is not lost on climate change - Slate

The global danger's of Trump's climate denial - National Geographic

In Trump, the U.S. puts a climate denier in its highest office and all climate change action in limbo - Inside Climate News

While the results of the election on climate are uncertain, the fact that humans are heating up our climate system is unequivocal. The year 2014 set a new heat record, which was broken by 2015 and will be broken again by 2016. According to the World Meteorological Organization, the five hottest years have all been since 2011. The trend will continue upward.

Of Sputnik and Climate Change - Science in the State of the Union in an Election Year

"Sixty years ago, when the Russians beat us into space, we didn’t deny Sputnik was up there."

So said President Obama in his final State of the Union address this week to a joint session of Congress. In referring to Sputnik, the unmanned Soviet satellite launched in 1958, Obama is of course referring to the current day Republican denial of climate science. It's an appropriate analogy. Obama adds:

"We didn’t argue about the science, or shrink our research and development budget. We built a space program almost overnight, and 12 years later, we were walking on the Moon."

And herein lies the critical point that will infuse the current campaign calculus in this presidential election year.  The science is the science, and the science unequivocally and undeniably demonstrates that human activity - primarily the burning of fossil fuels and consequent carbon emissions - is warming our climate system. The question is no longer whether it is happening, but how do we slow it down so the disruptions to the global health, environment, economy, national defense, and human suffering will be reduced.

It is no secret that all of the Republican candidates for president have repeatedly and aggressively denied the science so as to avoid taking responsibility for policy action. In contrast, all the Democratic candidates for president acknowledge the science. The issue isn't the veracity of the science - it is incontrovertible - the issue is whether the next president and Congress will honestly take on, or dishonestly shirk, their responsibility to act on behalf of the American people. President Obama goes on in the State of the Union:

"Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it. You will be pretty lonely, because you’ll be debating our military, most of America’s business leaders, the majority of the American people, almost the entire scientific community, and 200 nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it."

The only group remaining who denies the science is the Republican party. Fed by lobbyist and billionaire money, Republican candidates from Cruz to Rubio to Trump to everyone else join their fossil fuel-supported Republican congressmen and Senators to abnegate their responsibilities to their constituents.

Unlike ever before, climate change will play an important role in the 2016 presidential elections. The Democratic nominee will undoubtedly raise the issue often. The Republican nominee will then find themselves in the position of either 1) denying reality, or 2) making a 180 degree reversal of what they have campaigned on. How one continues to show abject irresponsibility in denying science and/or blatantly lies and expects to remain a viable candidate is a question that remains to be answered.

Reminder = The science is unequivocal. Humans are warming the climate system and doing so has significant impacts on every facet of human life. The world's scientists note this, as do the nearly 200 countries of the world who have committed to taking action to deal with it. Responsible corporations, individuals, religious groups, the military, and the majority of every person or entity on the planet acknowledges the science and the need for action. Everyone except the Republican party, a point the President made clear during his speech.

President Obama spoke directly or alluded to other scientific issues as well - cancer, drug addiction, progress on AIDS and malaria, sustainable energy. Rarely has so much science made its way into the State of the Union address. This emphasizes an important contrast between the political parties in the United States. One chooses responsibility and action, the other lies about it. The American people have a choice this election. Do we choose responsibility, progress, and innovation? Or do we choose denial, dishonesty, and holding back Americans while the world moves forward?

It's our choice.

Full remarks of President Obama in the State of the Union as delivered.

The Role of Climate Change in the 2016 Elections

As the 2016 presidential election in the United States gathers steam, the candidate debates show that climate change can play a significant role. Well, depending on which debates you watch.

The sole Democratic debate so far included a brief, but substantive, discussion on climate change. Each of the Democratic candidates noted that they will actively address the problem when elected. Not surprisingly, climate change has been largely ignored in the three Republican debates. Why? Because the entire Republican party has made a decision to deny the science, largely because any honest discussion of policy action could impact their corporate benefactors. Republicans are actively trying to sabotage American interests. In last night's "undercard" debate (called by some the Junior Varsity or Baby debate), the subject of climate change only came up because Lindsey Graham was asked to defend his contrary (to the party) position, i.e., why is he the only Republican willing to admit what scientists have demonstrated unequivocally...that man-made climate change is a significant issue that needs to be addressed.

Much has been said in recent days about another Republican who has more or less admitted the science. Kelly Ayotte, a Republican from New Hampshire, says she will back the President's Clean Power Plan, a set of EPA rules aimed at reducing carbon emissions from power plants. Environmentalists and "No Labels" types are bending over backwards to encourage her and others. Which is a good thing.

It's also a bad thing. Ayotte bills herself as a staunch conservative and would not be coming out in support of the CPP except for the fact that she faces a stiff challenge for reelection from current New Hampshire Governor Maggie Hassan. While it's nice to get a Republican to voice their support for anything, we have to acknowledge that had she not done polling that shows she would lose her seat, she would be just as adamantly and dishonestly against the CPP as every other Republican. The Republican Senate leadership has given her permission to "support" CPP only because they don't want to lose her seat. Should she retain it, she will ditch any pretense of support and vote against the CPP just as she is told by Republican leaders. 

So she isn't really supporting it at all; she's miming the words to get reelected. 

Unfortunately, this is how Washington works. Congress knows that people have infamously short memories. This is why politicians can say things one day that contradict what they said the other day without fear the voting populace will even notice. A good sound bite is better than an actual set of principles. That sounds cynical, but it's reality.

What Ayotte's lip service does show, however, is that climate change can play an important role in the 2016 election. The fact that a Republican has to "go against" her party to admit even the most basic scientific reality says a lot about the Republican party, and the power of the climate change issue to encourage dealing with that reality. As mentioned above, this isn't real support by Ayotte, merely a politically expedient maneuver to trick New Hampshire citizens, but if enough of the populace requires all of their representatives to engage in honest discussion of policy options to address the reality of climate change, well, public opinion can move mountains.

The discrepancies between the parties should also play a much more important role once the nominees are selected. In the party vs. party debates, the Democratic nominee will present their view of how to deal with the science, while the Republican nominee will be forced to either defend the denial of science or explain the incredulous flipflop of "accepting" the science and proposing a solution.

We already have seen this in action. Soon after President Obama took office there was a discussion of climate change policy. Democrats offered a carbon tax proposal, Republicans offered a market-based "cap-and-trade" proposal. Democrats were convinced the only way to get a viable bill was to adopt the Republican "cap-and-trade" proposal. Once accepted, the Republicans then turned on their own market-based proposal. They vehemently argued their own proposal was some sort of socialist takeover. Yes, their own proposal, put forth as a market-based solution, was now being attacked by themselves as "cap-and-tax." Their own market-based proposal. And the Republican voting populace seemed not to notice. [See "infamously short memory" above]

So we see how powerful this issue can become in 2016. Republicans will not only have to defend their denial of science, they will have to defend their attacks on their own market-based plan. Meanwhile, the Democratic candidate can 1) showcase the dishonesty of the Republican history on the issue, and 2) offer up additional policy options that expand on the actions already achieved under President Obama. Most of the world's nations have already issued their commitments for the upcoming agreement to be signed in Paris in December. That will be in place prior to the next President taking the oath of office. It will be hard for a Republican to defend reneging on our commitments to ourselves and world, no matter how much money the Koch's and fossil fuel companies spend on candidates.

And that's why climate change is so important in this election.

Climate Change at the Democratic Debate

Well, at least it was mentioned. That's my take on the level of discussion of man-made climate change in the most recent Democratic debate held the other night. It's also more than can be said for the two Republican debates so far (and likely, ever).

Reaction to the "climate portion" of the Democratic debate has been mixed. One blog's headlline screams breathlessly, "Climate change features heavily in the Democratic debate."

"a major focus was how to respond to climate change, with acceptance that it's actually happening shared by all the debaters. Four of the candidates—Lincoln Chafee, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Martin O’Malley—all made acting on climate change part of their opening statements. Sanders and O'Malley both named it as one of the leading national security threats. And, when asked which group he was most proud of angering, Chaffee responded with, "I guess the coal lobby.""

Other outlets also tout the inclusion of the topic in the debate. Andrew Winston in the Huffington Post noted that "CNN let a voter ask the question, 'What would you do about climate change?'" and concluded "the range of answers was telling." I'm not sure how "telling" it was beyond acknowledging they all agree that man-made climate change is a real issue that must be addressed.

More telling was how CNN seemed to only grudgingly include the topic at all. David Roberts on Vox observed:

"Who finally got to ask the question? Just as CNN had a Latino anchor ask about immigration, a woman anchor ask about paid leave, and an African-American kid as whether black lives matter, it gave the climate question over to Anna, a young white woman who looked every bit the liberal arts student. That, you see, is a 'climate person.'"

And herein lies the problem. Unlike Fox News, which makes no pretense about being the communication/lobbying arm of the Republican Party, CNN likes to think of itself as an honest broker. Clearly they are better than the more openly partisan networks, but by choosing to limit the opportunity for climate discussion, and by the thinly-veiled stereotyping of all of their questioning, they are being just as biased in their reporting.

It's within these confines that the candidates who spoke about climate deserve major credit for inserting it into the debate despite CNN. With the exception of former Virginia Senator Jim Webb, all of the candidates made it clear they consider man-made climate change a "big f***ng deal" (who paraphrase Vice-President Joe Biden, who was not at the debate). This is a good thing because it provides a clear differentiation between Democrats and Republicans (one of many). Republicans deny climate change to avoid making hard decisions; Democrats acknowledge it and prepare to make hard decisions.

I've argued before for separate debates on specific issues, or at least keeping to a single issue for 30 minutes or so (and limited a 90-minute debate to a maximum 2-3 issues). ScienceDebate.org has worked hard to have a science-specific debate to include not only climate change but other science-based issues and misconceptions like vaccines, GMOs, and others. Clearly there is a need for candidates for the highest political office to both acknowledge and have a basic understanding of the scientific and technological challenges that impact national security, the economy, civil rights, education and every other facet of modern life. The public wants it. And we all need it.

It's Time Presidential Candidates Had a Science Debate

It's time for a science debate in which all the candidates for president - Republican and Democratic - engage in an honest discussion of science-based issues. Such is the premise behind ScienceDebate, a non-partisan, non-profit effort to require candidates to address science.

The effort began with the 2008 elections and continued through 2012 and now 2016. The ultimate goal is to have a stand-alone science-based debate or at least a science-based section in multiple official debates. They have managed to get the eventual nominees for each party to respond in writing to questions prepared by a group of scientists. Not ideal, but it's a step toward the objective of getting candidates to talk about science.

Why must candidates talk about science?

The following quote from the ScienceDebate website sums it up nicely:

"The world has changed. Science now impacts every aspect of life, with major economic, environmental, health, legal, and moral implications. Shouldn't the candidates for president be showing their leadership by debating these things on TV, so that voters can be better informed by coverage of them in the news media?"

Think about some of the current issues the United States must address, all of which are largely driven by our understanding of the science.

• Iran nuclear agreement
• Climate change
• Vaccines
• GMOs
• Fracking
• Evolution/Education
• Chemical regulation
• Pollution
• Obesity
• Food

And that's only a short list of the most obvious ones. These science-based issues, individually and as a group, affect not only the specific topic of each and the environment, they affect human health, the economy, energy, national security, international politics and power structure, and much more.

In short, these science-based issues affect, and determine, our future.

So how are the candidates doing on science-based issues?

Not very well. This page wrote an Open Letter to the 2016 Presidential Hopefuls about man-made climate change. It's a critical issue and based on unequivocal, undeniable science. We humans are warming the global climate system and action is necessary. The Republican party has made a political decision to deny the science, which disqualifies all of their candidates for the job they seek. The Democratic candidates all acknowledge the science, though they have been inconsistent in their support for policies to deal with it. This page will have more on Democratic proposals and their inconsistency in future posts. At least they are trying, as demonstrated by President Obama's and EPA's Clean Power Plan (though he too has been inconsistent).

In this modern world, science drives our decision-making and our future. It permeates our every day lives, from our reliance on industrial food production to our energy sourcing to our handling of man-made climate change. Science impacts our economic and national security...and our well-being.

It's time to have a science debate.

[More information on ScienceDebate can be found on their website and their Facebook page. Two of the founders, Sheril Kirshenbaum, and Chris Mooney, co-authored a book called Unscientific America, that is also worth reading.]

All Republican Candidates for President in 2016 Deny Basic Climate Science, Disqualifying Them for the Job

All 17 Republican candidates* for the 2016 presidential nomination deny the most basic climate science. Think about that. Every single Republican candidate for the highest political office in the United States has chosen to deny the very existence of unequivocal science. When they even bother to acknowledge the science at all they state that they have no intention of taking action on it, and in fact are likely to backtrack on action already taken.

Some of the more flagrantly dishonest and delusional candidates go so far as to claim that 100+ years of published science and all the world's climate scientists and organizations - and even physics - is part of a conspiracy to "tax us all into oblivion" or "make Al Gore rich" or "institute the U.N.'s Agenda 21" to "take over the world." [Cue Dr. Evil!]

Yes, these are the people who are running to be our next president. And these are the ones with the most support. It used to be this kind of dishonesty and looney tune conspiracy nonsense would be limited to the "crazies" in the far out wings of the party. Now they are the party. The Republican Party.

By choosing to lie to the American people so egregiously, they disqualify themselves for the job they are seeking. Every single one of them.

Their reasons for denying all of the science are varied. Some are simply indebted to the fossil fuel industry. Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz have all been summoned to a dog-and-pony show put on by the billionaire Koch brothers. The Kochs are infamous for financing much of the climate denial lobbying and misinformation campaigns that create the falsehoods the Republican candidates so often pantomime to the public. These same Kochs, one the former Libertarian nominee for Vice President, also run a network of libertarian and right wing "think tanks" (i.e., lobbying shops) that largely overlap with their climate denial network.

Other Republican candidates almost seem like they want to acknowledge the science but are simply afraid to be honest with their constituents. Ironically, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio's home state of Florida is likely to lose more of its land surface to sea water rise than any other U.S. state in the current century (Bobby Jindal's Louisiana may be a close second.) Other candidates are just plain buffoonish, focusing instead on appealing to the most bigoted wing of the Republican party, a wing that has grown larger as the constituency of the party has grown smaller.

Even if a Republican candidate for president were to acknowledge the science and suggest policy options, a continuing Republican-controlled Congress would not let that candidate achieve any progress with respect to climate.

And progress is necessary. Action is necessary. Last year (2014) had the hottest global warming on record, and 2015 is already poised to surpass it. President Obama has been working hard during the last few years to lead the world into a meaningful global climate change agreement to be signed in December 2015. Other large contributors to climate change like China, India, Brazil, and Europe have, along with the United States, committed to carbon reduction goals. The United States and many other countries in the world have been advancing into renewable technologies that will be, and already are, driving economic development. Even the Vatican has acknowledged the science, as have every other religious, scientific, cultural, political, and community organizations.

To deny a problem, and turn back economic progress - American leadership, innovation, and jobs - based on a political fear of being honest with their own constituents, patently disqualifies any Republican candidate from the presidency.

An Open Letter to the 2016 Presidential Hopefuls re: Climate Change



* Or whatever the number there are at the time you read this since another one seems to announce every few days. Technically, one Republican candidate, Lindsay Graham, does acknowledge climate science. He has been polling last of all the candidates, with less than 1% of the likely Republican voters supporting him. That in itself demonstrates how little regard for science the Republican party exhibits. More information on Republican positions can be found here.

Science and Politics - Two Big Events in Climate Change This Week

It's been a big week for climate change. There was one huge event that went largely unnoticed, and one less consequential event that was the talk of the town. That fact represents a major obstacle for action to deal with the unequivocal science that says humans are warming the planet.

Let's start with the big event. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the international organization that summarizes the state-of-climate-science every seven years, issued its Synthesis Report on November 2nd. As the name suggests, this is the final report in the series and synthesizes the voluminous data from the three scientific working group reports issued over the past year. As their "headline" document notes, the combined reports state unequivocally:

1) Warming of the climate system is unequivocal,

2) Humans are the dominant cause of this warming,

3) Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems,

4) Man-made climate change is a threat to sustainable development, and

5) We must act now.

The unequivocal science that led to all of these conclusions has been documented in great detail in the working group reports already issued; this final report simply summarizes the main points so that policymakers can discuss options to deal with the ramifications of the science. Action is necessary, and necessary action must begin now. The consequences of inaction are dire.

Unfortunately, this critical IPCC report was largely ignored by the media and policymakers alike because....ooh, there was an election!!

What the election means....

Which gets us to the second big event that will, in fact, likely be inconsequential when it comes to taking action. The mid-term elections in the United States occurred on Tuesday, November 4th. As expected, in large part due to the huge Democratic wins in Republican-leaning states six years ago, the Republican party took control of the Senate. Republicans have already controlled the House since 2010. With a united Congress (such as it is), this increases the chances that bills will actually be passed and sent to the President.

That sounds good, right? Not really. Because the Republicans gained control due both to vagaries of the calendar and indebtedness to the tea party, all bills will have to pander to the most extreme elements in both houses of Congress. With respect to man-made climate change this means no bills that honestly deal with the science will ever reach the President. Instead, denial of the science and attacks on science organizations and funding will be the main order of business. This is exactly what the Republican-led House has been doing for four years, and now the Senate can do it too.

So with the conservative climate denial machine (both the tea party and climate denial get major funding and organization through the Koch brothers lobbying network) now in positions to attack science, why is this so inconsequential?

On the one hand it is very much consequential. Efforts to defund science and block action are likely to get further along than in the previous Congress. But on the other hand, no bills honestly dealing with climate were getting to the President anyway because of House denial. Meanwhile, the Republican minority in the Senate successfully manipulated the closure process such that not even the simplest bills could get through without multiple 60-vote majorities. True, now that they control both houses, Republicans can pass bills, but that means they have to take responsibility for them. While most of the Republican leadership has willingly pandered to the denialist elements (and will make those denialists chairs of the relevant science committees), they know that the science is unequivocal and some action must be taken. They've held back economic growth and jobs to hurt the President, but are they willing to throw America under the bus forever? Unfortunately, the answer isn't all that clear.

The most likely scenario is that the Senate won't allow the most egregiously denialistic House bills to get through the Senate. For the merely ceremonial denialist bills the Republicans in the Senate could send them to the President, who will promptly veto anything that doesn't begin to take responsibility for the science.

The science, by the way, that demonstrates warming of the climate system is unequivocal, humans are the dominant cause, has already had widespread impacts on human and natural systems, is a threat to sustainable development, and action is immediately necessary.

You know, the unequivocal science that is documented in the many thousands of pages summarizing the state-of-the-climate as put forth by the IPCC reports largely ignored this week.

Yeah, that science.

To paraphrase Leonardo da Vinci, "And yet it warms."