Is the National Park Service an outlier in the Trump administration when it comes to climate change?
That question arises not only when you look at the president's efforts to halt President Obama's work on climate change, but also in light of news that the U.S. Department of Energy's website recently was sanitized of climate change materials adopted by the Obama administration. Meanwhile, the Park Service just rolled out a four-color brochure on climate change impacts around the country.
Gone from DOE's site are a video about the 2016 Paris climate agreement, the link to climate.data.gov, another link to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration's National Climate Data Center, and one to the National Climate Assessment. The changes were reported last week by E&E News.
The site does have a link to the president's Climate Action Plan, but it leads to a page with the message, "Thank you for your interest in this subject. Stay tuned as we continue to update whitehouse.gov"
Interestingly, that page does offer a link to the Obama Archive, which takes you to another page listing President Obama's work on health care, climate and energy, American leadership, economic progress, and equality and social progress.
As for the Park Service, the agency just released a brochure that discusses the many challenges the National Park System is facing due to climate change. It touches on melting glaciers, rising seas, altered ecosystems, and species endangered by climate change. Too, it mentions cultural aspects of the National Park System, such as Civil War-era Fort Jefferson at Dry Tortugas National Park, that are threatened by the changes.
Fort Jefferson sits at the water’s edge at Dry Tortugas National Park. Sea level has risen steadily since completion of the fort in 1875, threatening several islands of the Dry Tortugas.
The Park Service also took time to include information on the human causes of climate change and how they can be mitigated.
Using historical climate data, scientists create climate models to project potential future climate changes. Continued GHG emissions will cause further warming and long-lasting changes, increasing the likelihood of irreversible impacts.
However, limiting climate change is not beyond our control. Substantial and sustained reductions in GHG emissions now, along with efforts to adapt to change that is inevitable or already happening, can limit climate change impacts.
The NPS recognizes that human activities—especially fossil fuel use and transportation—are changing the Earth’s climate. Together with our communities, we are taking action to reduce our own GHG emissions and model climate-friendly behaviors through sustainable operations and adaptation efforts.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
I would ask that both sides read the following page, both pro and con. I feel it does a good job with pros and cons on your position as well as understanding the opposite view. Although I believe that humans attribute to the global warming, It helps to understand ecbucks position or those with similar beliefs.
Sorry here is the link; http://climatechange.procon.org/
Thanks for the link, David. It's going to take considerable reading and thinking, but this appears to be by far the BEST climate fact website I've seen in a very long time.
In just a quick scan, though, it was interesting to read that while the PRO side cites studies by NOAA, NASA, and various universities and researchers, the CON side repeatedly cites "Heartland Institute's 2013 Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change." Before giving too much consideration to those arguments, one needs to do some study on the Heartland Institute itself.
We also read: "A survey by German Scientists Bray and Von Storch found that 83.5% of climate scientists believe human activity is causing "most of recent" global climate change. A separate survey in 2011 also found that 84% of earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic, and hydrological scientists surveyed said that human-induced global warming is occurring."
Which is countered by: "In 2014 a group of 15 scientists dismissed the US National Climate Assessment as a "masterpiece of marketing," that was "grossly flawed," and called the NCA's assertion of human-caused climate change "NOT true."
I have a strong hunch that this will do little to change thinking among any of our neighbors on either side.
And that 'tis a pity.
Lee - you need to look beyond the conclusions. Look at the methodology. That is where the "pity" is. The first substantiation for the pro side is a study totally decimated by analysis of the methodology.
Carbon Dioxide is not a Pollutant.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LjxqgC1_QY0&feature=youtu.be
The only study which actually asked the scientists was done by the American Meteorological Society in 2013. It showed that only 52% of professional members believed the cause of global warming was "mostly human." Among professional forecasters, the number was closer to 38%. No group came anywhere close to 97%.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
"The first substantiation for the pro side is a study totally decimated by analysis of the methodology."
Okay. Now how about explaining exactly what you mean by that and present your evidence.
Your opinion: "Intelligent people make choices in their everyday lives and do what they can to not harm the environment they live in."
My response: Wouldn't that be nice. Unfortunately, go to most any highway interchange and view the debris. Go to a point of high ground overlooking a major industrial area and look at the air, taste the air, breath the air.
Lee - First the The 2010 Anderegg study was a study of climate researchers, not all scientists as the "97% concensus". There are many others that have opinions or knowledge that are not part of that group. Furthermore, "climate researchers" and the papers they right are filtered through the leftist environment or agenda driven agency in which they work. Don't conform to the view, you don't get published, you get ostricized, denied tenur.
Here are multiple negative critics of that study. You can bet these authors are included in any "consensus" count.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refute...