A structure on Highway 128 goes up in flames after the Kincade Fire raged into the Alexander Valley on Sunday morning, October 27, 2019, east of Geyserville, California. (Photo: Karl Mondon/MediaNews Group/The Mercury News via Getty Images)
Climate Science Is Vulnerable to Politics
We as voters must ensure that climate science is immune from political meddling and elect leaders who will respect the scientific process.
As the U.S. West Coast struggled to contain unprecedented wildfires, Donald Trump maintained that science really doesn't know the root cause of this devastation. Before we dismiss this as another off-the-cuff Trumpian comment, the pandemic has shown that a president's beliefs--however illogical and unscientific--can translate into official U.S. government position. When it comes to climate and the future of this planet, there is every reason to be concerned.
The Trump administration already has a record of sidelining climate scientists, just as it has done with health scientists, and deleting mentions of climate change in scientific reports.
The president has routinely used the power of his office to force our premier science agencies to do his bidding. After Trump showed a doctored hurricane chart last year, the leadership at the nation's flagship atmospheric research organization--the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--actually issued a statement declaring that the National Weather Service was wrong to dispute the president's made-up warning.
The pandemic has turned into a case study for how politics can influence science. The Centers for Disease Control changed its Covid-19 testing guideline under political pressure to exclude asymptomatic individuals, which would make contact tracing impossible. The Food and Drug Administration approved the use of convalescent plasma to treat Covid-19 using data taken out of context. Science-based actions have been undermined by turning action vs. inaction into a political issue.
Can what happened to our national pandemic response happen to our climate response in the next few critical years? The Trump administration already has a record of sidelining climate scientists, just as it has done with health scientists, and deleting mentions of climate change in scientific reports. It has now appointed a longtime climate change skeptic to help run the aforementioned NOAA, a sign of things to come in a second term.
Climate science is even more vulnerable to political influence than something like the pandemic where there is a steady stream of real-time data that is difficult to dispute. Climate change is a much slower process than a quickly spreading disease. Climate data is collected over many years, allowing plenty of time to manipulate it before it sees light of day.
The other vulnerability of climate science is that it is largely a model-based science that depends on sophisticated computer models to predict future climate trajectories. Climate models at their core are based on detailed physics as well as a certain amount of so-called parameterizations where a climate-related process is not well understood. Observed data from the past is used to calibrate and tune these models.
This scientific process has worked well because climate scientists around the world collaborate as well as peer review the work of other scientists. Good model building depends on transparent methodologies and free exchange of information, but the process is not built to withstand political pressure on government scientists or government-funded researchers.
Other kinds of models are used by practitioners like myself to calculate and predict the actual emissions generated today and in the future from industry, agriculture, transportation, consumption, and waste. In the U.S., these emission models depend on underlying data maintained and published by the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the Energy Information Administration, and other government agencies. Without accurate and timely data from these agencies, we would not be able to reliably estimate the emissions produced by a company, industry sector, region, or the entire country.
We have taken all of this scientific infrastructure for granted through multiple administrations, but what we have in the way of climate models and data can be easily contaminated by politics. The warning signs are clearly there. If we are going to have any chance of adapting to the increasingly ferocious fires and storms while mitigating the worst future impacts of a degrading climate, we as voters must ensure that climate science is immune from political meddling and elect leaders who will respect the scientific process.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just two days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
As the U.S. West Coast struggled to contain unprecedented wildfires, Donald Trump maintained that science really doesn't know the root cause of this devastation. Before we dismiss this as another off-the-cuff Trumpian comment, the pandemic has shown that a president's beliefs--however illogical and unscientific--can translate into official U.S. government position. When it comes to climate and the future of this planet, there is every reason to be concerned.
The Trump administration already has a record of sidelining climate scientists, just as it has done with health scientists, and deleting mentions of climate change in scientific reports.
The president has routinely used the power of his office to force our premier science agencies to do his bidding. After Trump showed a doctored hurricane chart last year, the leadership at the nation's flagship atmospheric research organization--the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--actually issued a statement declaring that the National Weather Service was wrong to dispute the president's made-up warning.
The pandemic has turned into a case study for how politics can influence science. The Centers for Disease Control changed its Covid-19 testing guideline under political pressure to exclude asymptomatic individuals, which would make contact tracing impossible. The Food and Drug Administration approved the use of convalescent plasma to treat Covid-19 using data taken out of context. Science-based actions have been undermined by turning action vs. inaction into a political issue.
Can what happened to our national pandemic response happen to our climate response in the next few critical years? The Trump administration already has a record of sidelining climate scientists, just as it has done with health scientists, and deleting mentions of climate change in scientific reports. It has now appointed a longtime climate change skeptic to help run the aforementioned NOAA, a sign of things to come in a second term.
Climate science is even more vulnerable to political influence than something like the pandemic where there is a steady stream of real-time data that is difficult to dispute. Climate change is a much slower process than a quickly spreading disease. Climate data is collected over many years, allowing plenty of time to manipulate it before it sees light of day.
The other vulnerability of climate science is that it is largely a model-based science that depends on sophisticated computer models to predict future climate trajectories. Climate models at their core are based on detailed physics as well as a certain amount of so-called parameterizations where a climate-related process is not well understood. Observed data from the past is used to calibrate and tune these models.
This scientific process has worked well because climate scientists around the world collaborate as well as peer review the work of other scientists. Good model building depends on transparent methodologies and free exchange of information, but the process is not built to withstand political pressure on government scientists or government-funded researchers.
Other kinds of models are used by practitioners like myself to calculate and predict the actual emissions generated today and in the future from industry, agriculture, transportation, consumption, and waste. In the U.S., these emission models depend on underlying data maintained and published by the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the Energy Information Administration, and other government agencies. Without accurate and timely data from these agencies, we would not be able to reliably estimate the emissions produced by a company, industry sector, region, or the entire country.
We have taken all of this scientific infrastructure for granted through multiple administrations, but what we have in the way of climate models and data can be easily contaminated by politics. The warning signs are clearly there. If we are going to have any chance of adapting to the increasingly ferocious fires and storms while mitigating the worst future impacts of a degrading climate, we as voters must ensure that climate science is immune from political meddling and elect leaders who will respect the scientific process.
As the U.S. West Coast struggled to contain unprecedented wildfires, Donald Trump maintained that science really doesn't know the root cause of this devastation. Before we dismiss this as another off-the-cuff Trumpian comment, the pandemic has shown that a president's beliefs--however illogical and unscientific--can translate into official U.S. government position. When it comes to climate and the future of this planet, there is every reason to be concerned.
The Trump administration already has a record of sidelining climate scientists, just as it has done with health scientists, and deleting mentions of climate change in scientific reports.
The president has routinely used the power of his office to force our premier science agencies to do his bidding. After Trump showed a doctored hurricane chart last year, the leadership at the nation's flagship atmospheric research organization--the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--actually issued a statement declaring that the National Weather Service was wrong to dispute the president's made-up warning.
The pandemic has turned into a case study for how politics can influence science. The Centers for Disease Control changed its Covid-19 testing guideline under political pressure to exclude asymptomatic individuals, which would make contact tracing impossible. The Food and Drug Administration approved the use of convalescent plasma to treat Covid-19 using data taken out of context. Science-based actions have been undermined by turning action vs. inaction into a political issue.
Can what happened to our national pandemic response happen to our climate response in the next few critical years? The Trump administration already has a record of sidelining climate scientists, just as it has done with health scientists, and deleting mentions of climate change in scientific reports. It has now appointed a longtime climate change skeptic to help run the aforementioned NOAA, a sign of things to come in a second term.
Climate science is even more vulnerable to political influence than something like the pandemic where there is a steady stream of real-time data that is difficult to dispute. Climate change is a much slower process than a quickly spreading disease. Climate data is collected over many years, allowing plenty of time to manipulate it before it sees light of day.
The other vulnerability of climate science is that it is largely a model-based science that depends on sophisticated computer models to predict future climate trajectories. Climate models at their core are based on detailed physics as well as a certain amount of so-called parameterizations where a climate-related process is not well understood. Observed data from the past is used to calibrate and tune these models.
This scientific process has worked well because climate scientists around the world collaborate as well as peer review the work of other scientists. Good model building depends on transparent methodologies and free exchange of information, but the process is not built to withstand political pressure on government scientists or government-funded researchers.
Other kinds of models are used by practitioners like myself to calculate and predict the actual emissions generated today and in the future from industry, agriculture, transportation, consumption, and waste. In the U.S., these emission models depend on underlying data maintained and published by the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the Energy Information Administration, and other government agencies. Without accurate and timely data from these agencies, we would not be able to reliably estimate the emissions produced by a company, industry sector, region, or the entire country.
We have taken all of this scientific infrastructure for granted through multiple administrations, but what we have in the way of climate models and data can be easily contaminated by politics. The warning signs are clearly there. If we are going to have any chance of adapting to the increasingly ferocious fires and storms while mitigating the worst future impacts of a degrading climate, we as voters must ensure that climate science is immune from political meddling and elect leaders who will respect the scientific process.