This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Earth Science

Will Saying "Climate Change" Be Banned At All Government Agencies Or Just Some Of Them?

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
August 9, 2017
Filed under ,
Will Saying "Climate Change" Be Banned At All Government Agencies Or Just Some Of Them?

US federal department is censoring use of term ‘climate change’, emails reveal, Guardian
“Staff at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) have been told to avoid using the term climate change in their work, with the officials instructed to reference “weather extremes” instead. A series of emails obtained by the Guardian between staff at the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a USDA unit that oversees farmers’ land conservation, show that the incoming Trump administration has had a stark impact on the language used by some federal employees around climate change.”
White House reviewing new report that finds strong link between climate change, human activity, Washington Post
“A climate report based on work conducted by scientists in 13 federal agencies is under active review at the White House, and its conclusions about the far-reaching damage already occurring from global warming are at odds with the Trump administration’s views. The report, known as the Climate Science Special Report, finds it is “extremely likely” that more than half of the rise in temperatures over the past four decades has been caused by human activity — in contrast to Trump Cabinet members’ views that the magnitude of that contribution is uncertain. The draft report, which has undergone extensive review, estimates that human impact was responsible for an increase in global temperatures of 1.1 to 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit from 1951 to 2010.”
Draft report (NOAA and NASA are the lead authors).
Rep. Smith Statement on Climate Report
“The alarmist climate media is at it again. In its latest reporting of a so-called leaked climate assessment the New York Times relies on exaggerated statements and false allegations of cover-ups in order to push an agenda.”
Ranking Members Johnson, Bonamici, and Beyer Respond to Draft Climate Science Report
“I was disappointed to hear President Trump formally noticing his intent to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement. As more evidence mounts that manmade climate change is a threat to our nation, it is the height of shortsightedness to surrender leadership on addressing this global challenge.”
Keith’s note: If USDA staff are ordered to do this, then you have to wonder when NASA and NOAA, other government agencies that study climate change on our planet, will start to do the same. Or … will one agency have this editorial direction while others do not?

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

22 responses to “Will Saying "Climate Change" Be Banned At All Government Agencies Or Just Some Of Them?”

  1. muomega0 says:
    0
    0

    “Whatever happened to global warming, eh? You have until Sep 30 to learn that climate, along term trend averaged over many years, and weather, which is going on right outside the widow right now” are not the same.
    https://youtu.be/TQlHaGhYoF0

  2. IDCboutu says:
    0
    0

    Climate change is always happening. Referring to a natural on-going phenomenon as a unique event doesn’t make sense. Referring to the changes as weather extremes or climate extreme events as is suggested is more accurate. Liberals need to chill.

    • GentleGiant says:
      0
      0

      For better or worse “human-caused climate change” has been shortened to “climate change” in popular usage. Calling “human-caused climate change” either “weather extremes” or “climate extreme events” is a transparently stupid semantic game intended to confuse people who aren’t science literate. If anything, the USDA should be referring to climate change as “human-caused climate change” or “climate change caused by human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels” and not obfuscatory and misleading phrases like “weather extremes”.

    • Daniel Woodard says:
      0
      0

      We liberals would love to chill, but we can’t, because it’s too d___ hot.

      Seriously, I would be happy to debate the actual science, and have been reading extensively through the literature. Would you be willing to read at least a little of the actual scientific literature so that we can discuss it objectively?

      • IDCboutu says:
        0
        0

        Not sure why you believe that I don’t accept the consensus view of the scientific community on extreme climate fluctuations. I do accept it, mitigated only the knowledge that a consensus is not a law, and that it is subject to change as more data or alternative theories gain credence.

        What I don’t accept is the junk science view that the best solution to the problem is to dramatically increase the size of government. That is the *worst* possible alternative – it’s the equivalent of prescribing naturopathic water as a remedy to the measles.

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          Yep.

          I don’t see why the government must be “dramatically” bigger either. The role of government is absolutely essential— only government can provide the leadership needed, as well as make small adjustments to tax policy that help ease the country into the future.

          I understand that some conservative thinkers get twitchy when discussing the use of tax policy to favor some cultural goal. Disagreeing, I look at the benefits of the mortgage deduction. I also look at auto safety.

          Before 1965, seat belts were just something used by race drivers; having belts in the everyday Chevy was pretentious at best. Along comes social prodding (“Unsafe at Any Speed”) that turned our attention to auto safety. Clearly seat belts were needed.

          The legislation was smartly crafted: performance specifications meant that any auto maker could design and manufacture seat belts but they had to meet certain standards. all the government did in that case is to create a safer but level playing field. It was fair to everyone.

          HIGW? Same thing. Let policy favor alternatives and the ‘free market’ so worshipped by many can take care of the rest.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            We may learn wether or not “[t]he role of government is absolutely essential.” Or at least the federal government. Governor Brown, of California, has said that state could and should fund climate research (including satellites) if the federal government doesn’t. Our local paper in Boulder recently ran a story on local companies signing on to a growing list who have said (in effect), “We don’t care what Trump says about the Paris Agreement, we’re going to do it anyway.”

  3. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    I recommend reading the linked article. The situation is Orwellian.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Indeed. I’m ok with the phrase ‘weather extremes’, mostly because while attempting to devalue the changing climate the administration does the exact opposite, which is a point I was trying to make above.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      As a professional and expert involved with tropical plant material over the course of 30 years, I can say with certainty that there has been a shift in plant performance. Materials that were formerly marginal are now thriving, for instance. Other plants are taking on new vitality or growth patterns.

      It’s tempting—and prudent—to remember that apocryphal, memory-based observation is not reliable. It is also the case that swings in ambient or annualized temperature are in the historical record and can explain some of what I am seeing, changes confirmed by colleagues.

      However: it’s also the case that observers over the past century or so in Florida have documented plant performance carefully, providing a useful background to contemporary observation.

      Bottom line? Nature is on the move.

    • numbers_guy101 says:
      0
      0

      Hope the authors sent this out to many peers for comments. Like a HUNDRED peers. All internal to thier agencies. With a request to freely seek review from anyone they might think could “provide input”. The only whitehouse response may be just a witchhunt for the leaker of the draft. (A huge distribution list could help make tracking a leak near impossible)

  4. John Thomas says:
    0
    0

    Since Climate Change is always occurring, from a scientific point of view, it’s an overly broad and inaccurate choice of words to use to describe human caused climate change.

    • Daniel Woodard says:
      0
      0

      I agree. We should use language that is concise and unambiguous. While changes in climate induced by the burning of fossil fuels are complex, the increase in temperature is the critical and central driving factor.

      I suggest “human induced global warming”.

  5. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    I’m seeing some fun with this.

    In the same way that ‘climate change’ replaced ‘global warming’, a new word or phrase will pop up by necessity — it’s a thing, and needs a name, after all; we can stop saying ‘the sky is blue’, but it won’t change color.

    So, picture a game in the so-called lame stream press where the new name (something like “Is it hot, or what?”) will be used in the papers and by those crafty scientists in place of ‘climate change’. You know the scientists I’m talking about. The ones with pointy heads, insisting that facts=facts.

    So, then the gubment outlaws “is it hot, or what?”. Time for a new name! How about “Huh! those trees didn’t usedta grow here!”. I’m seeing a pattern here, an endless portmanteau-chain of increasingly oblique phrases. This could become a huge source of popular mirth!

    The entire phenomenon could work nicely for those of us who, you know, actually can see the handwriting on the wall, and who are actually able to read it.

    One reaps what one sows in this life.

  6. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    Saw this in SA online:

    https://www.scientificameri

    The folks who worked at the WH during the previous administration are basically gone. But they are dedicated to following the evidence, and have (as yet informally) banded together to move the ball forward.

    It will be tough. Everyone needs a job, so the work will be after hours or related to new positions.

  7. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    Well, yes, but what are you saying exactly? That ‘human induced global warming’ [or HIGW, I suppose) isn’t a thing? Or that the changes we are seeing are related to some other natural phenomenon, and are therefore to be dismissed?

    I’d point out that although the historical climate has seen episodic shifts, we are witnessing a convolution of measurable and linked changes.

    As a point of discussion let’s imagine that nature is causing this change—driven by some currently unknown dynamic. Even if true, the shift away from fossil fuels must be a sigh of relief from a very tired Mother Earth, wouldn’t you say?

    The adoption of solar and wind and whatever else is an historical necessity driven by decreasing amounts of fossil fuel (a complex argument, but in the main, true; fossil fuels are finite).

    Part of the resistance to switching, aside from those who understandably resent governmental direction, is said to be the huge cost to the economy. “We will be in another recession!”, many said of the move to alternative energy sources.

    In fact, there are $ billions being made in alternative energy. It’s turned out to be a huge windfall financially while at the same time cleaning up the planet just a touch.

    Plus, the free market has made alternative energy cool— like Tesla, for instance.

    What’s not to like?

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      I guess what I don’t like is the acronym. That’s become a cottage industry for some people involved in NASA projects (or possibly just a running joke.) “human induced global warming” or HIGW, I’d suggest “anthropogenic climate trends” or ACT.

  8. ProfSWhiplash says:
    0
    0

    ” If USDA staff are ordered to do this, then you have to wonder …”
    Keith, of course USDA would be targeted over the others…

    Of all agencies facing a crisis, they are best equipped when it comes to having [methane-producing] cows. * drum-roll, rim-shot *

  9. mfwright says:
    0
    0

    Wasting a lot of time over what to call this, clearly a political situation of fossil fuel industries wanting to suppress certain activities including earth observation, data collecting, and analysis. This thing of need to reduce costs of government and the national debt is like helicopter owners wanting to reduce operating costs by implementing fuel saving measures (extending range is a different matter).

  10. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    That’s true, but a bit beside the point. Why? Mostly because the actual science—the down in the weeds science—contains a very high degree of specificity and requires a bit of training to fully understand.

    Telling folks about consensus simply means that lots and lots of very smart and qualified folks have examined the data and reached—well, consensus.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      It also means the theory isn’t one, isolated crackpot with his own, fringe idea of how to explain the observations. And, to some extent, it means the results are, to some extent, reproducible. The climate modeling isn’t one, massive piece of simulation code. It’s several, massive pieces of simulation code. They take different approaches to solving the equations (none of which are perfect), and don’t even necessarily solve exactly the same equations (some approximations and assumptions are necessary, and different models make different ones.)

      The fact those different approaches give more-or-less similar results implies they are more-or-less correct. If it were only two approaches, they could both be wrong, for different reasons, and just getting similar answers by coincidence. That’s happened in other contexts (solar system formation, for one.) But when it’s half a dozen (a guess on my part, but probably in the ball park), then the agreement probably isn’t a coincidence.