Posted on 04/29/2025 5:23:50 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The Trump administration this week summarily dismissed more than 400 scientists and other experts who had begun to write the latest National Climate Assessment report, informing them by email that the scope of the report was being reevaluated.
The report, mandated by Congress, is prepared every four years under a 1990 law. It details the latest science on climate change, and also reports on progress in addressing global warming.
Scientists said they fear the Trump administration could seek to shut down the effort or enlist other authors to write a very different report that seeks to attack climate science — a path they say would leave the country ill-prepared for worsening disasters intensified by humanity’s warming of the planet, including more intense heat waves, wildfires, droughts, floods and sea-level rise.
“Climate change puts us all at risk, and we all need this vital information to help prepare,” said Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University who was an author of four previous versions of the report, including three times as a lead author. “Without it, the future will be much more dangerous.”
She noted that although the assessment is required by law, there aren’t specific requirements about who exactly should write the report or the form it should take.
“It could end up being a collection of long-debunked myths and disinformation about climate change,” Hayhoe said. “It could end up being a document that is just not useful, does not serve the purpose of providing information to the American people on the risks of climate change and the best ways to mitigate or adapt to those risks.”
Trump administration officials didn’t respond to requests for comments.
Participants in the latest study, set for release in late 2027 or early 2028, received an email Monday informing them they were being dismissed....
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
P
“It could end up being a collection of long-debunked myths and disinformation about climate change,”
And so easy for her to spot because it would not agree with her set of long-debunked myths.
“It could end up being a document that is just not useful, does not serve the purpose of SHAKING DOWN the American people TO KEEP THE SCAM GRAVY FLOWING.”
They write whatever they’re paid to write.
Scientists said they fear the Trump administration could seek to shut down the effort or enlist other authors to write a very different report that seeks to attack climate science
A long list of sad scientists and exhausted experts.
Whoever writes the report should follow the scientific method. Not the political-science method or computer-model mumbo jumbo.
Solar effects have been grossly and willfully ignored since 1990 by the majority of ‘experts’. I’d like to see Dr. Willie Soon on a new panel.
Were they to be paid for this effort?
Katherine Hayhoe is not a real “scientist”, but a “science communicator.” Totally in the warmist tank. No wonder this report has been so lame these last few years.
Probably the same “97% consensus scientists.”
This IS a win... for all of us.
Hacks asking for more funding.
““Climate change puts us all at risk, and we all need this vital information to help prepare,” said Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University”
Hay, Hoe, Katharine has to go.
Hay, Hoe, Katharine has to go.
Hay, Hoe, Katharine has to go.
Hay, Hoe, Katharine has to go.
Hay, Hoe, Katharine has to go.
Hay, Hoe, Katharine has to go.
...and Katharine will soon go.
Hey Don, here ya go buddy ...
... “weather is always changing. Deal with it.”
INVOICE: $1,000,000.00
(U.S. please, I need all I can get)
400 scientists who are funded by government
CNN would employ them. They take anybody.
This is simply more lies by the has-been liberal press. Here’s the true story:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/04/29/trump-administration-finally-pulls-the-plug-on-the-climate-fear-factory/
Past time to end the one sided and lop sided view of climate change. There is another rational set of facts and opinions. We need to hear it more often.
Been mandated since 1990.
So 35 years worth of data.
Any of their predictions, conclusions, whatever, shown to be true?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.