Published: Fri, August 11, 2017
Science | By Hubert Green

Denier-in-Chief Trump Should Read NOAA's Frightening New Climate Report

Denier-in-Chief Trump Should Read NOAA's Frightening New Climate Report

The draft report was published by the New York Times on Tuesday from publicly available information.

Though climate change has rarely been documented in such detail, the report stopped short of linking the problem to what scientists agree is the leading cause - human activity, such as burning coal and gasoline.

It appears that to save face, the Times added the phrase "while it was not widely publicized" to the correction. "Global Change Research Program Climate Science Special Report", is the latest result of a longstanding process going back to 1990 that's been carried out under presidents of both parties with a specific mandate of reviewing and reporting the latest and best climate science - what we know about climate change and what we don't know.

The report is critical because it provides the scientific foundation for the Climate Assessment's true focus: determining the economic and political implications of a shifting and in some cases, worsening climate for the United States.

And while some closest to the president say there's been no indication that the administration would try to suppress or alter the conclusions of the report, there have been troubling signs within the executive branch that policies are being set to reword or at least soften the interpretation of worsening climate events. This "rapid" warming, according to the report, is a rise of about one degree Fahrenheit Between 1901 and 2015 in the US, mostly due to an increase in temperatures in the western half of the country.

Richard Alley, another Penn State geosciences professor and expert on the Earth's cryosphere, noted Smith was correct the report was a draft finished some time ago, so it could not include "the absolutely most recent data".

As part of its corrective effort, the New York Times has pulled the language saying that "a copy of it was obtained by the New York Times", as well as the mistaken assertion that it has "not yet been made public".

"This has been alarming for a long time", Gleick said.

While the findings in Thursday's report were limited to 2016, NOAA scientists said there's been little, if any, letup in climate trends this year.

Keep this in the file when the Times reporters and columnists slip into high dudgeon about the White House displaying a lack of curiosity or a lack of respect for the importance of getting facts right. The article still reports some scientists "were concerned that it would be suppressed" by Trump.

"The White House will withhold comment on any draft report before its scheduled release date", Sanders said. The coinage for this is the now-ubiquitous term "fake news". "It was not a well-known site to us and the point is that the people who shared the draft with us were not aware of it either". And that, as the scientific literature makes clear, would be the end of modern civilization as we know it.

At a June panel discussion hosted by the Washington Press Club Foundation, CNN senior congressional reporter Manu Raju spoke about the stakes involved with factual integrity these days.

"Every increment in warming is an increment in risk", said Field, who wasn't part of the report but reviewed it for The National Academy of Sciences.

Like this: