No more global warming

2017 was the second warmest year on record according to NASA:

Continuing the planet’s long-term warming trend, globally averaged temperatures in 2017 were 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.90 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, according to scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. That is second only to global temperatures in 2016.

Phenomena such as El Niño or La Niña, which warm or cool the upper tropical Pacific Ocean and cause corresponding variations in global wind and weather patterns, contribute to short-term variations in global average temperature. A warming El Niño event was in effect for most of 2015 and the first third of 2016. Even without an El Niño event – and with a La Niña starting in the later months of 2017 – last year’s temperatures ranked between 2015 and 2016 in NASA’s records.

In an analysis where the effects of the recent El Niño and La Niña patterns were statistically removed from the record, 2017 would have been the warmest year on record.

The NOAA says 2017 was the third warmest year and adds more details:

2017 marks the 41st consecutive year (since 1977) with global land and ocean temperatures at least nominally above the 20th-century average. The six warmest years on record for the planet have all occurred since 2010.

  • The average Arctic sea ice extent for the year was 4.01 million square miles, the second smallest annual average since record-keeping began in 1979.
  • The average Antarctic sea ice extent for the year was 4.11 million square miles, the smallest annual average since record-keeping began in 1979.

You can assume that Trump will ignore all of that, it’s all a hoax after all.

Who needs evidence?

Well, this is surprising if by surprising you mean completely expected:

The Trump administration has abruptly halted work on a highly regarded program to help physicians, families, state and local government agencies, and others separate effective “evidence-based” treatments for substance abuse and behavioral health problems from worthless interventions.

The program, called the National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices, was launched in 1997 and is run by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Its website lists 453 programs in behavioral health — aimed at everything from addiction and parenting to HIV prevention, teen depression, and suicide-hotline training — that have been shown, by rigorous outcomes measures, to be effective and not quackery. The most recent were added last September.

It seems there were problems with registry:

In fact, a recent paper in the International Journal of Drug Policy found the registry contained programs with limited studies evaluating them or studies with very small sample sizes to accurately measure their success.

So there was a good reason to look at it and try to make it better, but this is the Trump administration:

However, no specific details regarding when the new program will begin and when results will be made public were provided. The current registry will remain online as of now, but will not be updated.

SAMHSA’s statement was the first public response it had provided since the email it sent out two weeks ago announcing the registry would be frozen. That announcement took mental health advocates by surprise. “It came with such a blinding speed,” said Richard Yep, CEO of the American Counseling Association. “People were initially really shocked by the whole thing.”
Without any additional information from SAMSHA, Yep said mental health professionals were left to speculate what was next and why the registry had stopped.
Yep admits that the program wasn’t flawless but said “it has stood the test of time.” He questioned why a replacement wasn’t up and running to take over the work and called the decision to freeze the registry short-sighted. “Why didn’t you start that system up and compare it side-by-side? Instead, to just cut it off, it makes no sense professionally.”
The Trump administration is, by its nature, sloppy and that’s what you get here.

More Trump political correctness

The latest:

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke brought the leader of a California park to his office last month to reprimand him for climate change-related tweets the park had sent via Twitter, two sources close to the situation said.

Zinke did not take any formal disciplinary action against David Smith, superintendent of Joshua Tree National Park. And the tweets at issue weren’t deleted, because they didn’t violate National Park Service or Interior Department policies.

But Zinke made it clear to Smith that the Trump administration doesn’t want national parks to put out official communications on climate change.

And by bringing Smith from California to Washington, D.C., to deliver the tongue-lashing, he also sent a message to the park service at large.

Sure the tweets were scientifically correct and relevant to the park, but the Trump administration doesn’t like it so it shouldn’t be mentioned and if it is trouble will follow.

More Political Correctness from the Trump administration

Here is more political correctness:

For years, the Environmental Protection Agency has struggled to prevent an ingredient once used in stain-resistant carpets and nonstick pans from contaminating drinking water.

The chemical, perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, has been linked to kidney cancer, birth defects, immune system disorders and other serious health problems.

So scientists and administrators in the E.P.A.’s Office of Water were alarmed in late May when a top Trump administration appointee insisted upon the rewriting of a rule to make it harder to track the health consequences of the chemical, and therefore regulate it.

The Trump administration doesn’t want to hear about the problems caused by these chemicals so they try to bury the information–it’s not politically correct to talk about.

And there’s more:

In March, Scott Pruitt, the E.P.A. chief, overrode the recommendation of Ms. Hamnett and agency scientists to ban the commercial use of the pesticide chlorpyrifos, blamed for developmental disabilities in children.

The E.P.A.’s new leadership also pressed agency scientists to re-evaluate a plan to ban certain uses of two dangerous chemicals that have caused dozens of deaths or severe health problems: methylene chloride, which is found in paint strippers, and trichloroethylene, which removes grease from metals and is used in dry cleaning.

and here’s some typical political correctness in action:

Methylene chloride has been blamed in dozens of deaths, including that of a 21-year-old Tennessee man in April, who was overwhelmed by fumes as he was refinishing a bathtub.

“How is it possible that you can go to a home improvement store and buy a paint remover that can kill you?” Ms. Hamnett asked. “How can we let this happen?”

Furniture-refinishing companies and chemical manufacturers have urged the E.P.A. to focus on steps like strengthening warning labels, complaining that there are few reasonably priced alternatives.

Ms. Hamnett said Dr. Beck raised the possibility that people were not following the directions on the labels. She also suggested that only a small number of users had been injured. “Is it 1 percent?” Ms. Hamnett recalled Dr. Beck asking.

Methylene chloride is killing people but that’s bad for business and so you have to work to find ways to say what the administration wants–sure it’s killing people but maybe they didn’t follow the directions and anyway it’s not that many people.

And here’s how the administration replies when a news agency continues to be politically incorrect:

“No matter how much information we give you, you would never write a fair piece,” Liz Bowman, a spokeswoman for the E.P.A., said in an email. “The only thing inappropriate and biased is your continued fixation on writing elitist clickbait trying to attack qualified professionals committed to serving their country.”

Trump administration out to cut contraception

It seems that Trump officials in Health and Human Services lie as much as he does (via here):

Secretary Tom Price, who has claimed that “there’s not one” woman who can’t afford birth control on her own (despite the high up-front cost of the most reliable contraceptives).

She (Teresa Manning) insists that contraception is ineffective, despite evidence that hormonal methods are 91% effective and long-acting reversible contraceptives such as intrauterine devices (IUDs) are 99% effective at preventing pregnancy.

She (Charmaine Yoest) asserts that condoms (whose use reduces the risk of HIV transmission by at least 70%) do not protect against HIV or other sexually transmitted infections. Yoest also claims contraception does not reduce the number of abortions and says that to accept this argument “would be, frankly, carrying water for the other side to allow them to redefine the issue in that way.”

Yoest and Manning are joined by Katy Talento, who has been named to the Domestic Policy Council, in claiming that the most effective types of contraceptives cause infertility and miscarriages. Talento has published some particularly outlandish articles on this topic, mis-citing a 2012 study whose author disavowed her description of his work in asserting that contraceptives are “breaking your uterus.”

Even worse, Yoest continues to cite long-discredited studies that used retrospective reporting to support her assertion that abortion causes breast cancer, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary from properly constructed prospective studies. … Nor, as she has claimed, does abortion cause mental illness; in fact, a long-term study that compared women who were denied abortions with those who were able to obtain them revealed that it is being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term that is associated with near-term adverse psychological outcomes.

Perhaps the most insidious and politically potent assertion by these appointees is that common forms of contraception are actually abortifacients.

Hormonal contraceptives work primarily by preventing ovulation and thereby preventing fertilization. Even in cases in which they affect the endometrium, studies more recent than those used for the initial Food and Drug Administration–approved labeling have shown they do not interrupt an established pregnancy.

These people are against contraception but they know that a large majority of Americans support the use of contraception:

More than nine-in-ten adults think using birth control is either morally acceptable (36%) or not a moral issue at all (57%); just 4% say using contraception is morally wrong.

so they try to bend the definition of contraception to claim it’s abortion. It’s not and they’re lying to try to get rid of contraception.

Trump doesn’t exercise and doesn’t think you should either

President Trump never ceases to amaze me, this is the latest:

Trump himself says that he is “not a big sleeper” (“I like three hours, four hours”) and professes a fondness for steak and McDonald’s. Other than golf, he considers exercise misguided, arguing that a person, like a battery, is born with a finite amount of energy.

That’s stunningly misinformed. Really, in what century was he born? Vox points us to other links, such as this:

Trump said he was not following any special diet or exercise regimen for the campaign. ‘‘All my friends who work out all the time, they’re going for knee replacements, hip replacements — they’re a disaster,’’ he said. He exerts himself fully by standing in front of an audience for an hour, as he just did. ‘‘That’s exercise.’’

And they include this quote:

After college, after Trump mostly gave up his personal athletic interests, he came to view time spent playing sports as time wasted. Trump believed the human body was like a battery, with a finite amount of energy, which exercise only depleted. So he didn’t work out. When he learned that John O’Donnell, one of his top casino executives, was training for an Ironman triathlon, he admonished him, “You are going to die young because of this.”

So add personal health to the things that Trump is completely wrong about.

The March for Science

The March for Science (you should go if you believe that science is important) is today and so we get stories like this:

That is why, Michel said, he plans to take to the streets (and play his accordion) Saturday at the March for Science in Boston, an offshoot of the main event in Washington and one of hundreds of such marches across the country that aim to celebrate science and champion its role in advancing the health, safety and well-being of society.

The marches are nonpartisan, but have generated criticism that they threaten to turn scientists into another political interest group protesting the new administration, thereby undermining the credibility of scientific research and one of the organizers’ key messages: that science is apolitical.

Science is apolitical, but when one party consistently denies the science when it goes against their beliefs it becomes political. Many, and sometimes most, Republicans don’t believe in global warming or evolution or the problem with certain pesticides (going all the way back to Rachel Carson) or how abortions are performed (and how they affect the woman–it does not cause them to be depressed). And when a man gets elected President who specifically denies global warming, wants to cut money going to all kinds of scientific research, wants to make it harder for scientists to come to the US (either to work or just to come to a conference) and cuts scientists out of the decision making process in multiple departments, then you’re going to get push-back from the scientific community.

President Trump and Republicans have made parts of science political and this should hurt them politically. It hasn’t, partially because of articles like this.

Previous Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: