x

Photo: NASA/NOAA/GSFC/Suomi NPP/VIIRS

The Trump administration has put scientists and science under siege. The only defense we have is the truth, which of course, in this day and age, places us at an enormous disadvantage. So, don’t believe a word I say — but you might believe a few of the following sources of information on global warming, climate change and climate science before you disregard our most sincere warnings.

The climate is changing because of global warming. Exceptional warming is primarily the result of burning fossil fuels and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Global warming is recognized as the greatest threat humanity has ever faced if not addressed immediately. If ignored, the planet faces unrecoverable and catastrophic changes that will threaten all life and human civilization in particular.

If this is hyperbole and a hoax, why is the world spending trillions of dollars to mitigate, adapt and improve resilience? How could the following organizations be duped into drinking the Kool-Aid of false science?

Look at these links and judge for yourself. And remember, this is only a tiny fraction of sites available to conduct your research. Select any major university, academy of science or scientific institution and discover the truth for yourself.

Do you believe science and scientists or politicians and fossil-fuel corporations?

Our Government

Even after the inauguration of climate-denier Donald Trump, there are gigabytes and gigabytes of climate science research accessible on government websites — for now.

  • The NOAA’s climate website publishes up-to-date climate news, data and research. Their Twitter account is superb, offering followers a more casual way to interact with the latest climate science.
  • Likewise, NASA has its own website dedicated to climate change. With updated statistics and beautiful visuals, it’s a must for those seeking the scientific facts underlying global warming. There are even specific pages dedicated to the evidence supporting human-caused warming, as well as pages detailing the causes of climate change and the scientific consensus that it is anthropogenic.
  • The EPA has a climate website of its own. Additionally, the EPA’s Climate Change Adaption Plan — which relies on peer-reviewed scientific information — acknowledges the reality of climate change and looks to mitigate its effects on the agency’s mission.
  • The Department of Defense is exploring the security risks of climate change via The Center for Climate and Security, which publishes research on its website. Speaking of those risks, here they are. The Pentagon has even ordered its top officials to consider climate change when making orders.

Global Universities

Visit the website of any major university and you’ll find countless research, data and reports on human-caused climate change. Look beyond American institutions, and you’ll soon discover there’s a global consensus amongst academics that we must act now. Here are a few examples:

Do these bastions of knowledge and learning have it all wrong? Have the world’s most intelligent scholars been led astray by a left-wing conspiracy? Or is it more likely that certain politicians seek to delegitimize the obvious science because of their ties to the fossil-fuel industry?

National Climate Assessments

In 2000, the U.S. government published its first National Climate Assessment. The report sought ways to mitigate the harsh effects of climate change. Two more reports have been published since, with a fourth in development. Other countries have followed suit, because failing to address climate change would threaten their national security. Here are some examples:

United States

European Union

China

India

Australia

  • Scholarly articles assessing impacts, resilience, adaptation and future of climate change on Australia and New Zealand.

Japan

Canada

Russia

Brazil

Sudan

Israel

Egypt

Egypt is located at the most significant trade route between the East and Europe because of the Suez Canal. The stability of Egypt is therefore critical to the stability of Europe and the entire Mediterranean region. The Nile is the key to Egypt’s economy, food and water. As the climate of north Africa goes, so goes Egypt.

Indonesia

Indonesia is the most populated Muslim nation and the fourth most populated nation on Earth. It is also a major emitter of greenhouse gasses. The economy is growing rapidly, but as of yet is not able to adapt to clean, sustainable energy without outside assistance by industrialized nations. Without assistance in sustainable energy development, it will become the third and then second largest emitter of greenhouse gasses.

It’s clear the world understands the FACT of climate change and is spending trillions to ensure a sustainable future. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is spending billions to return to the dark ages, oligarchy and fascism. 

Print Friendly

10 Responses

  1. Sheryl Smith says:

    It seems to me that here in the state we have the ability and the knowledge to help stop the affects on the climate. SO can you tell me why since we are the greatest nation, we are going back to coal and oil. We have the wind, we have the sun? Is it because the rich guys have not figured out to how to control that for there own profits?

  2. W. Douglas Smith says:

    That’s about it. Citizens United has allowed government to be controlled and bought by the highest bidder.

  3. Rob Stout says:

    Well written and researched. I will be using this in my continued discussions with the non believers.

  4. William Bailey says:

    It’s not the dependence of oil and gas..it the addiction, Big Oil and Banks, Corporations that invest in pipelines rely on the huge revenue that comes from this. Going with Wind and Solar would take that out of their pockets and this is the only reason we are falling behind so many other countries in renewable resources. Millions of jobs will be and are available in wind power and solar. Trump himself has invested millions of his own $$$$ in the NDPL. Trump is pulling funding from EPA and NOAA as well as other research programs primarily so he can funnel huge amounts of taxpayers dollars to what interests him. You already know that Wall Street will get their share.

  5. W. Douglas Smith says:
  6. Eddie clark says:

    This states that 2016 was the hottest on record, they omit the fact that 2015 was one of the coldest. It’s hard to debate this with anyone who doesn’t see the following facts.
    The climate in our earth does change, it changes in yearly cycles, decades, hundreds, and in thousands. It is natural.
    One needs to remember that all of those organizations, universities, and others depend upon big money foundation’s to study the weather. They make a living from it.
    Someone asked why the world as a whole doesn’t do something? They try. But they try for the wrong reasons.
    Recently and you can fact check this as well. The executive director over the climate change committee in the UN said simply that this agenda was being used to eliminate capitalism, to shut down manufacturing in order to bring in a one world government !
    Also a NOAA whistleblower recently said that their reports were being altered that original data was being scrapped and replaced with numbers than leaned toward warnings.
    Like it or not we have to have oil, like it or not we have to have a certain amount of coal.
    For all the people crying havoc show me the solar panels or wind turbines in your property because they are available. Now show me a list of those who are sitting there heavily invested but agravated that the industry hasn’t taken off. Put Al Gore up there in the top !
    Also remember that one good burn from one volcano emits more co2 into the air than the world does in 10 years time.

  7. W. Douglas Smith says:

    I regret that you have failed to cite any of your sources. As you obviously distrust every U.S. federal agency’s data I will offer authorities outside the U.S.

    You claim 2015 was one of the coldest on record. False, it was 2nd warmest, only exceeded by 2016. (World Meteorological Organization; https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/provisional-wmo-statement-status-of-global-climate-2016

    The claim that scientists make a living from climate science is exactly right. The military, agriculture, cities, ranchers, everyone depends upon accurate climate and weather reports. As weather happens it leaves a record. When those records are compiled it paints a picture of a changing climate. Rising CO2, increasing global temperatures, and a changing climate aren’t concocted, they are compiled. Universities would lose not gain financial backing if they promoted false science or judged on an official university publication.

    I did look this up, as I used to work with the U.N. (1996-2005). Abdalah MOKSSIT is the Secretariat of the IPCC and he has never made a statement even suggesting your claim their work was to eliminate capitalism, shut down manufacturing and bring a one world government. The global economy would collapse, destabilizing entire nations, and starving billions. That is certainly not what 197 nations have joined the U.N. to achieve.

    You report that a whistleblower reported altering NOAA data. No one identifies this ubiquitous anonymous person. Secondly, a whistleblower might identify a single event or segment of time where an action had taken place. It is unlikely to continue once discovered. Thirdly, all federal agencies are responsible to the public, Congress for funding, and ultimately the Constitution (we take an oath). If it continued that agency would be sued by the public; or, Congress would cut funding and fire the administrator. Peer review from outside the agency would identify the error and profit from the discovery (that’s how science works). The agency’s Inspector General (I.G.) has oversight and would identify waste fraud and abuse (That’s how they make their salary). There are checks and balances everywhere in the government. On going deception by a non-secret or non-military federal agency not only would not continue, it could not continue without discovery.

    Regarding my personal choices regarding the reduction of my “footprint”, I drive a Prius and get over 50 mpg on the road. I have a brand new STEM school directly across the street where I give climate and sustainable development presentations. I do the same at the University of Washington and High Schools in the area.

    Wind and solar are the largest sources of new energy development in the U.S. exceeding coal, oil or nuclear. You suggested that coal,oil and gas are just a fact of our economy. I pose this. Why would I choose an energy and technology source that is inefficient and increasing in cost when sustainable sources are decreasing in cost and have already reached parody in many parts of the country and world. China has reduced their coal consumption for the past 3 years and are spending >300 billion dollars to move farther toward sustainable energy to clean up their air and insure economic security.

    Volcanos contribute only a tiny fraction of the CO2 in our atmosphere compared to the emissions from fossil fuels. Even a Mt. St. Hellens was only a tiny blip that lasted a few months. Here is a U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey analysis comparing volcanic activity with anthropogenic emissions: https://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

    I appreciate your contribution to the discussion but it is difficult to debate an issue without more specifics. You might think about this. Why is the scientific community speaking out even more strongly that global warming and subsequent climate change is real, happening right now, and is an urgent threat if it weren’t what they believed and could prove? If they were wrong or lying, wouldn’t that be career suicide? Think about it.

    Sincerely,

    W. Douglas Smith
    Environmental Scientist

  8. Richard Pearson says:

    As Richard Feynman said – no matter how beautiful the theory, if it does not fit with experiment result- it is wrong. Just so with CO2 emissions. Experiment shows CO2 does not trap and hold heat any different from air. The greenhouse effect is bunkum. Man- made global warming is a hoax. CO2 is plant food that greens the planet. Burn more coal for more benefit. Ignore scammers who have brought science into disrepute and damaged its integrity. Cut funding to the rent-seeking fraudsters.

  9. Bob Clark says:

    I agree wholeheartedly that our climate is changing. I have seen first hand how glaciers are retreating in the Canadian Rockies and in Alaska.
    I also accept science that demonstrates that man-made ghgs are contributing to global warming.
    What I am uncertain of if how much of global warming is attributable to man versus what percentage is due to earth/solar interrelationships. Frankly, I don’t think we know.
    Unfortunately we have two factions, each certain of their own correctness, and neither willing to consider any arguments posed by “the other side”. This needs to change. We must listen to all the arguments.
    Consider this, if all global warming is man made and we don’t address this issue, we are doomed.
    But if the majority of global warming is due to natural cycles, we are doomed.
    Where is the truth? We must find the answer to this in order to know if we need to permanently reject fossil fuels, or alternatively erect massive sun screens in space.
    I don’t know the answer, do you?

  10. W. Douglas Smith says:

    Dear Richard and Bob (comments above)

    I agree that regardless of the causes, the climate is changing. But it is changing faster than experienced since humanity stood upright. That alone should sound the alarms for urgent further study and action. Inaction is imprudent. Without dependable weather patterns, appropriate rain and compatible climate; we lose our agricultural capacity and the environment where we have chosen to live becomes uninhabitable.

    When we take a position we must lay out our evidence if we are to have a constructive discussion. Anonymous or pejorative assertions are less than constructive.

    However, the science is not as skimpy as about 35% of the U.S. population has been led to believe. It is, in fact, long established and robust. There is about as much solid evidence supporting climate science as there is supporting the theory of gravity. I have written at length on the history and science backing the “theory” of anthropogenic sources of global warming and subsequent climate change.

    Let me pause a second and speak to the differences in perception of what a scientific “theory” is. In the popular eye a “theory” is a guess or at best an educated guess. In science it is something that can be reliably counted on. It is something that can be repeated time after time, by anyone following rigorous experimental procedures. In science a “theory” is about as close to a “fact” as can be scientifically demonstrated. The 97+% of “climate scientists” who focus on the subject find that over time and further research, the data more robustly supports their position instead of weakening it. In other words there is considerably more confidence in their position today than one, five or 20 years ago.

    Here is a link to three of my articles on the 200 year history and robust science of climate change:

    http://www.planetexperts.com/author/wdsmith/

    http://www.planetexperts.com/climate-science-common-man/

    http://www.planetexperts.com/smoking-gun-global-warming/

    Thank you for contributing to this discussion.

Leave a Reply to Sheryl Smith Cancel reply

ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS
FROM THE FRONT LINES

#KnowYourPlanet

Get the top stories from Planet Experts — right to your inbox every week.

Send this to a friend