""Trying to circumvent, bypass, undermine decades of the government's own work with the nation's top scientists to generate definitive information about climate science to use in policymaking-that's what's different here," said Kim Cobb, a professor of Earth, environmental, and planetary sciences at Brown University and director of the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society."
""It's really important that we stand up for the integrity of [climate science] when it matters the most," Cobb said. "And this may very well be when it mattered the most.""
""I think that given the composition of the Supreme Court, the endangerment finding might be in danger. But it's not going to be because of the science," he said."
Many reviewers characterize a Department of Energy climate report as lacking scientific rigor and as attempting to circumvent decades of government scientific work. The report has been cited by the Environmental Protection Agency in a proposal to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding that enables greenhouse-gas regulation under the Clean Air Act. The EPA identified the DOE report among materials raising "serious concerns" about current U.S. greenhouse-gas regulation. Some analysts contend that legal arguments and the Supreme Court's composition, rather than scientific evidence, will determine the endangerment finding's outcome. Concerns persist that abandoning established climate science will undermine federal capacity to help communities adapt to climate-exacerbated disasters.
Read at Ars Technica
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]