Kim Bellard
Science enthusiasts will recognize the title as (probably pseudo-Scripture) citing Galileo’s claim to be forced to withdraw his claim in the Catholic Church that contrary to the church, he murmured to himself. We are in an era where the Trump administration, not the church, forces people and organizations to join things they don’t really believe, whether they are law firms, universities, media companies or big corporations.
That's why I was so happy last week's National School of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NAS), not only weren't kneeling on the Trump administration's dogma about climate change being a scam, but they weren't just mumbling. They released a lengthy report outlining the true extent of climate change, mainly due to human contributions, which are very unfavorable to us and the planet.
However, it is indeed moving.
The EPA announcement proposed to revoke the dangerous ruling issued by Obama EPA in 2009, prompting the NAS to take action. “With this proposal, the Trump EPA proposes to end sixteen years of uncertainty over automakers and U.S. consumers,” said EPA administrator Zeldin. “At this point, many stakeholders have told me that Obama and Biden EPAS have distorted the law, ignored the law, ignored precedents, and won their preferred choice and ward the U.S. preference and relied on a millennium year for the year for the year. He was almost dizzy.
NAS reports that it's not too fast. Its overall conclusion is: “EPA discovered in 2009 that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions threatening human health and welfare is accurate, has been tested by time and is now given stronger evidence.”
The report lists five key conclusions:
- Emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) in human activities are increasing the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere.
- Improved observations clearly confirm that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the Earth's surface and changing the Earth's climate.
- Human-induced greenhouse gas emissions and climate change caused by climate change have harmed the health of the American people.
- Climate change caused by man-caused greenhouse gas emissions has damaged the welfare of the American people.
- Continuous greenhouse gas emissions in human activities will lead to greater climate change in the United States, with the severity of expected changes increasing as each ton of greenhouse gas emissions are being emitted.
It says:
In summary, the Committee concluded that the evidence for the current and future harms to human health and welfare caused by human-induced greenhouse gases is beyond scientific disputes. Much of the understanding of uncertain or tentative climate change in 2009 has been addressed now and new threats have been identified. These new threats and remaining uncertainties are under in-depth investigation by the scientific community. The United States faces a future where climate-induced damage continues to worsen, and today’s extremes become tomorrow’s norms.
That is, “But we are endangering ourselves and the earth.”
Shirley Tilghman, honorary professor of molecular biology and public affairs, honors Princeton University, chair of the committee who writes the report, is more diplomatic: “In the case of a call for public opinion, the final call for this study determines it as the basis for the basis of the situation where danger is declared here.
Of course there was a reaction. For example, Kentucky's representative James Comer, a leading Republican on the House Oversight Committee, wrote to the NAS president to issue his concerns, saying the report “blatant partisan behavior undermines the Trump administration.” I almost expected him.
The current flap is very similar to the response to the “report” issued by the Ministry of Energy's task force in July. This led to a harsh response from dozens of leading environmental scientists:
Our review shows that the key claims of the DOE report, including claims of no trend in extreme weather and claims of the wide range of benefits of CO2 on CO2, are misleading or fundamentally incorrect. By selectively filtering evidence (“cherry picking”), the author overemphasizes uncertainty, miscites peer-reviewed research, and generally refutes the vast majority of peer-reviewed research over the past few decades.
Meanwhile, the EPA told its scientists to stop publishing until/unless its political appointees approve the study, it would be similar to what happened to NIH and NSF. Science should not be political, and suppressing convenient scientific discoveries can only last for so long. Just ask the Catholic Church about Galileo's theory.
If you are still fenced for climate change and think EPA may have a little bit, I would like to point out some of the related studies recently released:
Production Gap 2025 Report: The report, released by Stockholm Environmental Institute, Climate Analysis Think Tank and International Institute for Sustainable Development, notes that while many countries have publicly committed to reducing the use of fossil fuels, they usually plan to increase production in the coming decades, which increases production in the coming decades – increasing consistent consistency by limiting to 1.5°C.
Indicators of global climate change 2024: More than 60 scientists from around the world have released this update, as one of them said: “The news is grim.”
“Indicators show that human activity is increasing the Earth's energy imbalance and increasing the rate of sea level rise compared to the AR6 assessment.” Its indicators include greenhouse emissions, surface temperature changes, global land precipitation and sea level rise. “This is a critical decade: Human-induced global warming rates are at their highest historical level, and global warming is expected to reach or exceed five years without cooling from major volcanic eruptions.”
Health losses attributed to anthropogenic climate change: This meta-study sums up many studies that attribute climate change to its impact on human health and concludes: “A clearer understanding of global climate change burdens can encourage policy makers to treat climate crisis like public health emergencies.”
—————
So of course, you can believe that climate change is a scam and all we see is “weather” just like you believe in the emperor's new clothes. If so, I can buy the bridge in Brooklyn and invest in Trump cryptocurrency.
As for me, I stand with the NAS and others, who continue to talk about the truth of inconvenience (so to say).
