Protester at the March for Science in Washington, D.C., April 22, 2017.

 (Shutterstock)

Almost 90% of Americans don’t know there’s scientific consensus on global warming

That’s not good.

By Ruairí Arrieta-Kenna@ruairiak  Jul 6, 2017

A new report shows that the vast majority of Americans have no clue what the scientific consensus on climate change is.

According to the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, which conduct an annual survey on what Americans think about climate change, only 13 percent of Americans correctly identified that more than 90 percent of all climate scientists have concluded that human-caused global warming is happening. (It’s actually at least 97 percent of climate scientists that agree human-caused global warming is happening.)

Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Rosenthal, S., & Cutler, M. Climate change in the American mind: May 2017.

The Yale-GMU report, published yesterday, is based on a survey of 1,266 adults from May 18 to June 6 of this year, and the results have an average margin of error of 3 percentage points.

Why is perception of scientific consensus so important? Turns out that it’s actually a “gateway belief” to support for public action on climate change, according to a study from 2015 cited in the report. In other words, the more one perceives there to be a scientific consensus on the reality of human-caused climate change, the more likely they are to believe that it is real and worrisome. And the more one believes that human-caused climate change is real and worrisome, the more likely one is to support public action on the issue.

Now, it seems this particular finding from the report has remained pretty consistent with past surveys, which means the Trump administration hasn’t dramatically impacted the public’s understanding of the consensus.

While the administration refuses to clarify whether the president thinks climate change is real, widely overstates uncertainty about climate change, and is reportedly planning "red team, blue team" exercises to evaluate climate science, it “hasn’t specifically gone after the consensus as a fact,” Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Communication and one of the study authors, said. But the Trump administration does seem to intend to “perpetuate the myth that there is no scientific consensus,” his co-author, Edward Maibach at George Mason, told me.

And they both suggest that the red-team approach could end up sowing fresh seeds of doubt in the consensus. Whether or not the Trump administration’s dangerous antics will shift public understanding on climate change is still unknown, Leiserowitz says. More likely, he believes, Trump “can reinforce or strengthen the disbelief [in human-caused climate change] of many of his supporters.”

Both Maibach and Leiserowitz point to another finding that offers a little more hope: 58 percent of Americans, the highest percentage since the surveys began in 2008, believe that climate change is mostly human-caused. Though that still means four in 10 Americans don’t.

So how do we continue to build understanding of the scientific consensus on climate change under an administration sowing ignorance and doubt? As Michelle Nijhuis wrote for Vox, it “may be possible to metaphorically ‘inoculate’ people against misinformation about climate change, and by doing so give the facts a boost.” That’s worth a try. We’re also going to have to confront the massive “crisis of authority” and crisis of our scientific institutions under the Trump administration if we want to fix the messy politics of climate change in the US over the long term.

• Brett Kavanaugh is terrified
• Ed Whelan’s tweets have created a second Kavanaugh scandal

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/7/6/15924444/global-warming-consensus-survey

House GOP Destroying the ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

The Endangered Species Act saved the Gray Wolf. (photo: National Geographic)

House Republicans Advance Five Bills to Cripple Endangered Species Act

By Center for Biological Diversity, EcoWatch

05 October 17

n party-line votes, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources, led by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), advanced five bills today that would hamstring the Endangered Species Act and condemn hundreds of species to extinction. The legislation can now move to the full House floor for further consideration.

In December, Rep. Bishop stated that his goal was to repeal the act in its entirety. These bills represent the foundation of this longstanding goal.

"These bills would put monarch butterflies, wolverines and hundreds of other imperiled animals on a fast track to extinction," said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "This legislative onslaught is a brutal, blatant effort to cripple the Endangered Species Act. The only winners would be special interests that put profits ahead of our nation's most cherished wildlife."

 Follow

EcoWatch @EcoWatch

Senate Bill Aims to Strip Protections From 1,098 Endangered Species Including Utah Prairie Dog, Florida Panther https://www.ecowatch.com/senate-bill-intrastate-species-2490613995.html … @WWF

2:40 PM - Sep 28, 2017

Senate Bill Aims to Strip Protections From 1,098 Endangered Species Including Utah Prairie Dog,...

Republican U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee of Utah introduced legislation this week that would strip federal Endangered Species Act protections for animals and plants found in only one state....

ecowatch.com

•  88 Replies
 
•  127127 Retweets
 
•  7676 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy

The House Committee on Natural Resources approved the following bills today:

• H.R. 717 by Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) would require consideration of the economic costs of protecting an animal or plant on the endangered species list and remove deadlines for completing the listing process.


• H.R. 1274 by Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.) would automatically deem any information submitted by a state or local government to be the "best available" science even if such information were contradictory, out-of-date or fraudulent, weakening the listing process for endangered species.


• H.R. 3131 by Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) would hamper citizen enforcement and participation in the implementation of the act's provisions. Undercutting the ability of citizens to bring lawsuits would make the agency more prone to improperly consider politics in its listing decisions and prevent imperiled species from receiving protections in a timely manner.


• H.R. 2603 by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) attempts to limit the Endangered Species Act's provisions for exotic game species that have been imported into the U.S. for trophy hunting. If taken literally, this legislation would remove the need for conservation permits of exotic game species, eliminating a critical funding source for overseas conservation of those very species.


• H.R. 424 by Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) would reinstate a 2011 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove federal protections for gray wolves in the western Great Lakes states. In 2014, a federal judge found numerous scientific and legal deficiencies with that 2011 decision and brought back protections for gray wolves. The legislation would invalidate the court opinion and preclude all judicial review into the future.

Since January, congressional Republicans have launched 47 legislative attacks against the Endangered Species Act or particular endangered species. Since the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 2011, more than 270 attacks have been instigated.

"When it comes to the Endangered Species Act, Rep. Bishop is only interested in undermining science, stopping citizens from holding the government accountable in court and green-lighting the slaughter of wolves," said Hartl. "The American people do not support these radical attacks. They want our government to do more to help endangered species recover, just as it did with bald eagles and gray whales."

Nine out of 10 Americans support the Endangered Species Act and want it either strengthened or left unchanged by Congress, according to a 2015 poll.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/46133-house-republicans-advance-five-bills-to-cripple-endangered-species-act

Trump Just Responded To The Science Marches In A Disturbing Way

BY BRIAN TYLER COHEN

While thousands of people took to the streets in today’s “March for Science” in honor of Earth Day, Trump responded with a press release as tone-deaf as it is contradictory.

In the press release, Trump immediately claims, “[his] Administration is committed to keeping our air and water clean, to preserving our forests, lakes, and open spaces, and to protecting endangered species.”

His policies say otherwise.

In February, Trump signed a bill ending the Office of Surface Mining’s Stream Protection Rule, which protected waterways from coal mining waste. After that, Trump signed a Congressional Review Act resolution, ending a financial disclosure requirement for energy companies. In March, Trump signed his “Energy Independence” executive order at the EPA. Per Reuters:

The order’s main target is former President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which required states to slash carbon emissions from power plants – a key factor in the United States’ ability to meet its commitments under a climate change accord reached by nearly 200 countries in Paris in 2015.

Trump’s decree also reverses a ban on coal leasing on federal lands, undoes rules to curb methane emissions from oil and gas production and reduces the weight of climate change and carbon emissions in policy and infrastructure permitting decisions. Carbon dioxide and methane are two of the main greenhouse gases blamed by scientists for heating the earth.

Trump’s statement goes on to claim that, somehow, “Economic growth enhances environmental protection… That is why my Administration is reducing unnecessary burdens on American workers and American companies…” Reminiscent of Representative Dave Brat (R-VA)’s claim that “Rich people, it turns out, like clean air and clean water,” to a chorus of boos at his own town hall, Republicans are operating under a faulty mindset that if we repeal regulations meant to protect the environment, we will get so rich that we can then afford to protect the environment. Another way, of course, would be to protect the environment in the first place.

The Obama Administration left a legacy of the strongest environmental protections in the history of the United States and, miraculously, managed to do so without decimating the American economy. In fact, the economy thrived. Under Obama, the unemployment rate dropped from 10% to 4.7% and 15.8 million private sector jobs were added, the longest streak of total job growth on record.

Trump then states, “My Administration is committed to advancing scientific research that leads to a better understanding of our environment and of environmental risks.” Of course, that research – largely ignored by the Trump Administration – already exists. For example, we already know that carbon dioxide, a heat-trapping gas, is the primary driver of global warming, a fact that Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA, denies in the face of all research.

Trump also proposed cutting the EPA’s budget by 31%. This would affect states’ ability to monitor public water systems, to have access to safe drinking water, to police environmental offenders and impose penalties, to revive wetland habitats, to clean up toxic pollution and hazardous substances, to combat invasive species, to protect from radiation, to study the health consequences of chemicals in everyday products, to increase federal vehicle and fuels standards, and to protect the planet from the effects of climate change.

Trump finally concludes his conflict-riddled press release by offering a tepid appeal: “This April 22nd, as we observe Earth Day, I hope that our Nation can come together to give thanks for the land we all love and call home.” Look outside, President Trump, at the thousands of people marching in Washington D.C. at this very moment and you will realize that there is only thing standing in the way of truly giving thanks for that very land we “all love and call home.” And that’s you.

http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/04/22/trump-just-responded-science-marches-disturbing-way/

Legendary Watergate Reporter Just Made A Chilling Trump-Russia Revelation

BY PETER MELLADO

http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/04/22/legendary-watergate-reporter-just-made-chilling-trump-russia-revelation/

RSN: Michael Moore | Historians Will Mark March 28, 2017, as the Day the Extinction of Human Life on Earth Began

It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News

---

Michael Moore | Historians Will Mark March 28, 2017, as the Day the Extinction of Human Life on Earth Began

Michael Moore, Michael Moore's Facebook Page
Moore writes: "President Trump has signed executive orders ending all efforts to stop and reverse climate change. He is rescinding President Obama's six climate change orders. He is instructing the Environmental Protection Agency to cease its climate change efforts."
READ MORE

Three White House Officials Tied to Files Shared With House Intelligence Chairman
Greg Miller and Karen DeYoung, The Washington Post
Excerpt: "At least three senior White House officials, including the top lawyer for the National Security Council, were involved in the handling of intelligence files that were shared with the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and showed that Trump campaign officials were swept up in U.S. surveillance of foreign nationals, according to U.S. officials."
READ MORE

John Conyers's Medicare for All Bill Gains Steam in the Wake of Trumpcare's Failure
Sarah Jones, New Republic
Jones writes: "Conyers has introduced the bill yearly in the House since 2003, to varying degrees of support from fellow Democrats. Its renewed popularity is a source of optimism for single-payer backers on the Hill. It comes at an auspicious time, as Democrats move from their tentative victory in keeping Obamacare alive to a new health care reform message for 2018 and beyond."
READ MORE

GOP Faces Backlash Over Attack on Internet Privacy Rules
Harper Neidig, The Hill
Neidig writes: "Congressional Republicans are facing widespread outrage after advancing a bill that will overturn privacy protections for internet users."
READ MORE

With Trump, Police Hope to Deploy Military Gear Banned Under Obama
Zusha Elinson and Beth Reinhard, The Wall Street Journal
Excerpt: "Police groups helping to shape President Donald Trump's law-and-order agenda have their eyes on big prizes: military equipment banned by the previous administration and tougher laws on violence against officers."
READ MORE

Israel Approves First West Bank Settlement in Two Decades
Peter Beaumont, Guardian UK
Beaumont writes: "Israel has indicated it will pursue a unilateral policy of largely unconstrained settlement expansion in the occupied Palestinian territories, as it announced the first new settlement in two decades."
READ MORE

Trump EPA Green Lights Pesticide Known to Damage Children's Brains
Brady Dennis, Chicago Tribune
Dennis writes: "Under President Barack Obama, the EPA proposed in 2015 to revoke all uses of chlorpyrifos on food - a move taken in response to a petition filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and Pesticide Action Network North America. A federal judge had given the EPA until Friday to decide whether to finalize its ban of the chemical."
READ MORE

---

Contribute to RSN

Become a Fan of RSN on Facebook and Twitter

Spin Sphincter on drugs? EPA Scott Pruitt ignores SCIENCE!

link.

Trump's EPA Just Approved a Pesticide Known 

to Damage Kids' Brains

EPA chief Scott Pruitt hails the move as a return to "using sound science in…

MOTHERJONES.COM

UPDATE (3-29-2017): EPA director Scott Pruitt signed an order denying the agency'sown proposal to ban chlorpyrifos, according to a Wednesday afternoon press release. "We need to provide regulatory certainty to the thousands of American farms that rely on chlorpyrifos, while still protecting human health and the environment,” Pruitt said in a written statement. “By reversing the previous Administration’s steps to ban one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science in decision-making – rather than predetermined results.”

By Friday, President Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency will have to make a momentous decision: whether to protect kids from a widely used pesticide that's known to harm their brains—or protect the interests of the chemical's maker, Dow AgroSciences.

The pesticide in question, chlorpyrifos, is a nasty piece of work. It's an organophosphate, a class of bug killers that work by "interrupting the electrochemical processes that nerves use to communicate with muscles and other nerves," as the Pesticide Encyclopedia puts it. Chlorpyrifos is also an endocrine disrupter, meaning it can cause "adverse developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune effects," according to the National Institutes of Health.

UPDATE (3-29-2017): EPA director Scott Pruitt signed an order denying the agency'sown proposal to ban chlorpyrifos, according to a Wednesday afternoon press release. "We need to provide regulatory certainty to the thousands of American farms that rely on chlorpyrifos, while still protecting human health and the environment,” Pruitt said in a written statement. “By reversing the previous Administration’s steps to ban one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science in decision-making – rather than predetermined results.”

By Friday, President Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency will have to make a momentous decision: whether to protect kids from a widely used pesticide that's known to harm their brains—or protect the interests of the chemical's maker, Dow AgroSciences.

The pesticide in question, chlorpyrifos, is a nasty piece of work. It's an organophosphate, a class of bug killers that work by "interrupting the electrochemical processes that nerves use to communicate with muscles and other nerves," as the Pesticide Encyclopedia puts it. Chlorpyrifos is also an endocrine disrupter, meaning it can cause "adverse developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune effects," according to the National Institutes of Health.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/03/trump-epa-brain-damaging-pesticide

Were his comments before or after VP Pence voted for the War Against Women?

'We're against abortion, but won't pay for contraceptives or family planning'?

YUP! They're on drugs!

Spicey was called Sphincter in college and was highly insulted.

I have taken to referring to him as SPIN SPHINCTER.

I will however admit that Diane Causey's recognition of ground acrimony being available and Harvey Kitzman's Spice Rack define the idiocy.

Just heard Spicy, in a press conference, brag on President Trump for championing women's issues and the empowerment of women during his campaign, and continuing, now, into his administration.

Spicy, I don't know what you're smoking, man, but I want some!

COMMENT:

Fantastic! And just in time: I'm nearly out of ground acrimony.