Don't Say "Climate": Northeast Climate Center To Close Under Trump Fears Of Science

The Northeast Regional Climate Center looks like
it will be another victim in the Trump war
on climate science 

The Northeast Regional Climate Adaptation Center in Amherst, Massachusetts will probably close by the end of the month because the Trump administration doesn't want anybody researching anything to do with climate change. 

The center is Public Enemy #1 in the eyes of the Trump people because it helps state and local partners formulate plants to adapt wildlife, water resources and land to climate change. 

"'This is just another way to stop science," said Bethany Bradley, the center's co-director and a professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, where the research center is hosted.

As WBUR reports:  

"In mid-August, the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directed the agency's ecosystems  research arm, which overseas these centers, to spend money only on federal employees' salaries, according to budget documents.  

Other spending, on activities like publishing articles, hiring post-doctoral researchers, or applying for operating funds, has stalled, Bradley said. Planned projects for the upcoming academic year were canceled. In a typical year, the center's budget ranges from $3 to $4 million."

The center runs out of money at the end of this month.  If the OMB spending freeze isn't lifted, the center will close and 20 or so jobs might go.

It's just another of many climate change resources evaporating under the gun of the Trump administration. This center in Amherst is one of nine regional hubs across the nations that helps site and local organizations formulate plans to adapt wildlife, water resources and land to the effects of climate change. The nine regional hubs have been supported by the U.S. Geological Survey.

Several other of the nine regional climate centers in the United States have already shut down or are about to under the spending freeze. 

MY RANT

What galls me the about these climate cutbacks from the Trump administration is the wording they use about these topics. Of course their wording is meant to anger "woke liberals" or whatever they call anybody who disagrees with them.

To MAGA, people who think climate change is a serious thing aren't just wrong or misguided.  They are the enemy. That's why the funding freeze described by the White House "guts a weaponized deep state" and that efforts to combat the effects of climate change are the "Green New Scam."

I suppose it's effective PR, especially if the target audience is willfully ignorant. And for the MAGA crowd,  it probably feels good inside to use language like that.   

You can have temper tantrums all you want, but nothing gets done. Which maybe is the point. Why do actual work when you can put on an impromptu, easy show instead? Mostly for likes and clicks on MAGA social media. 

Who cares if peoples livelihoods are at stake, right?  President Trump, you're 79 years old. Isn't it time to grow up?

Study: 15% Of Americans Still Don't Believe Climate Change Exists

A study of millions of posts on X, formerly Twitter,
says there are political and regional areas of climate 
denial as people want to be in their own tribes apparently.

 Around 15 percent of Americans remain steadfast in their belief that climate change is just a hoax, a new study shows. 

According to The Guardian, here's how this University of Michigan study was done: 

"Using artificial intelligence, researchers analyzed over 7.4 million tweets posted by roughly 1.3 million on social media platform X (previously Twitter) between 2017 and 2019. The social media posts were geocoded, and classified as 'for' or 'against' climate change using a large language model, a type of artificial intelligence developed by OpenAI"

One caveat I can think of already is the study looked at data from five or more years ago. Attitudes might have changed in the interim. 

However, this University of Michigan study is consistent with other surveys. For instance, a Yale University study in 2023 concluded that 16 percent of Americans do not believe man-made climate change exists. 

For me, the most predictable and frustrating part of the University of Michigan study (and others) is how politically partisan the whole thing is. I guess society has concluded that not only are we entitled to our own opinions, but now we're also entitled to our own facts. 

The abstract from the University of Michigan is a depressing analysis of society in general, if you think about it:

"This denialism is highest in the central and southern U.S. However, it also persists in clusters within states (e.g. California) where belief in climate change is high. 

Political affiliation is the strongest correlation, followed by level of education, COVID-19 vaccination rates, carbon intensity of the regional economy and income. 

The analysis reveals how a a coordinated social media network uses periodic events, such as cold weather and climate conferences, to sow disbelief about climate change and science in general. Donald Trump was the strongest influencer in this network, followed by conservative media outlets and right-wing activists."

I find it amazing now far-reaching the anti-science hysteria during the COVID pandemic has damaged science in general.  

There's now a subset of people who will believe anything some tin pot wacko says about science on social media. But actual scientists seem to be "always wrong."-  or something like that.

We've got back to the human condition in which tribes are more important than facts.  They've given themselves to become real life versions of that meme. You know the one: The dog in the burning house saying "This is fine."

Until it's not.

 

Analysis: Tactics Of Social Media Climate Deniers Have Shifted

There's still a TON of climate denial videos on
YouTube a recent studies says, but the tactics of
this crowd have changed. 

 YouTube can be a real cesspool at times, and so it is with climate change denial. 

As CNN reports, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) has their hands full studying climate denial on YouTube.   

Although, in what could be a tiny victory of sorts, at least the fact that climate change is actually real is acknowledged by these deniers, but it doesn't really help much.

Says CNN:

"Where once climate deniers would outright reject climate change as a hoax or scam, or claim that humans  were not responsible for it, many are now shifting to a different approach one which attempts to undermine climate science, cast doubt on climate solutions and even claim global warming will be beneficial at best, harmless at worst"

 That's not to say outright climate deniers have entirely gone away from social media. .When I"m on X, formerly Twitter, and want to do hashtag #ClimateChange or #ClimateCrisis, the algorithms on X always try to prompt me to write #ClimateHoax or #ClimateScam.

Sigh. 

An example of what CCDH is talking is cited in their report.  Glenn Beck always used to say the climate change is nonexistent. Now there's been a subtle change. Disasters widely believed to be worsened by climate change in Beck's mind have nothing to do with a warming world.  Beck said climate change did not cause "Maui's wildfires or ANY wildfires."

See the sleight of hand there?  It's actually true that climate change did not strike the match that set off these wildfires. So climate change did not "cause" the fires. But the reality is the wildfires would not have been anywhere near as disastrous without climate change. 

The slight shift in tactics on YouTube is probably less about acknowledging climate change and more about YouTube video creators trying to get around the social media company's ban on monetizing climate denial. It's all about fooling the algorithms. 

Here are the receipts from CCDH, as reported by CNN: 

"'New denial content - attacks on solutions, the science and the climate movement - now makes up 70 percent of all climate denial claims posted on YouTube, according to the report, up from 35 percent in 2018.

Assertions that 'global warming is not happening' one the main 'old denial' claims the analysis focused on, declined from 48 percent of all denial claims in 2018 to 14 percent in 2023, the report found. Claims that climate solutions won't work, however, soared from 9 percent to 30 percent over the same period."

The bottom line, says CCDH, YouTube is making up to $13.4 million a year from ads  on videos that have this new brand of climate denial.   

Glenn Beck and his Blaze TV on YouTube is one of the
leading purveyors of "new climate denial" on 
YouTube, which seeks to cast doubt on climate solutions.

The new climate denial is all about clicks, too.  The more "engagement" you get on social media, the more money you make. 

Climate denialists - and much of the right wing in general - LOVE conspiracy theories. Oh, and you get those with the new climate denial!   Here's Glenn Beck again, courtesy of a YouTube video by Beck highlighted in CCDH's report:

"In this video Glenn Beck, the founder of BlazeTV, claims that President Biden's government is using climate change as a cover to push for a great reset and government control. He states: 'They don't care about saving the planet. They know climate change is not going to kill millions around the world, this is all about gaining power and control over you......they are using this so-called emergency to justify a reset.'"

 The irony is climate change could conceivably and eventually have more control over your life than any current government attempts to blunt the effects of that climate change. 

In a statement to CNN, YouTube officials said they allow debate and discussions of climate change topics, including around public policy and research.

Sure, all that is fine. We should be debating public policy on climate change. But where do you draw the line?

I think it's easy to draw the distinction between public policy debate and gaslighting. For instance, during a January Arctic cold snap, there was a lot of social media and news discussion about how EV technology isn't good enough yet to make them efficient in cold weather. 

That to me is a valid enough topic. That's a far cry from the opposite extreme, which would be something ridiculous like stating we should ban research on any technology that would combat climate change. Or worse, just forget about doing anything about the problem. 

Yes, I suppose people in the United States do have the First Amendment right to lie. But is it ethical given the dangers posed by climate change?