Science and Politics

[L'Emmerdeur]

As our erstwhile friend from the frozen north often reflexively repeated, "Facts don't care about your feelings." As an aphorisms it's a bit of paradoxical deepity of course, as its mere utterance invites one to an emotional response. Nonetheless, Trump Corp are keen to protect us from having certain feelings by excising certain uncomfortable facts or inconvenient truths from the official record. This overt, hot war on science also seems to give truth to another popular aphorism: "Every accusation is a confession."

Scientists push back on Trump plan to break up a critical climate and weather center

The White House plans to break up a key weather and climate research center in Colorado, a move experts say could jeopardize the accuracy of forecasting and prediction systems.

It's the latest climate-related move by President Trump, who has called climate change a hoax, cut funding for climate research, and removed climate and weather scientists from their posts across the federal government. During his first term, Trump famously contradicted the nation's weather forecasting service by redrawing a Hurricane Dorian's path on a map with a Sharpie.

White House Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought, in a post Tuesday on X, announced the plan to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, calling it "one of the largest sources of climate alarmism in the country." NCAR was founded more than six decades ago to provide universities with expertise and resources for collaborative research on global weather, water, and climate challenges.

Vought said the center was undergoing a "comprehensive review" and that any "vital activities such as weather research will be moved to another entity or location."

Antonio Busalacchi, who heads the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, a nonprofit consortium of 129 U.S. universities that oversees the Boulder facility, told NPR he received no prior notice before the announcement and believes the decision "is entirely political."

NCAR's job is to study both climate and weather, and Busalacchi says the two cannot be understood separately. "Our job is to state what the science is, and it's for others to interpret what the significance of that science is," he says. "We're very careful not to cross over that line to advocacy or policy prescription."...

my bold

Russ Vought was a big part of the brain trust behind 'Project 2025,' in which the war on science was laid out unapologetically. One of the more despicable dirtbags in the current administration.

[Brian Peacock]

The Trump Cartel is blatantly putting profit before progress (and reality) by withdrawing the US from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the world’s leading body on climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. To paraphrase Jack Nicholson, "America doesn't want the truth. America can't handle the truth!"

[Svartalf]

well, his fatcat pals told him that trying to cut on pollution cost them money and cut into their profits, so he did the logical thing for a capitalist moron.

[L'Emmerdeur]

So much winning. I'll admit I'm tired of this winning.

'"More Destruction of Science": Trump Fires Every Member of US National Science Board'

US President Donald Trump on Friday quietly fired every member of the independent board that governs the National Science Foundation, a move seen as an escalation of the administration’s destructive war on science.

Members of the National Science Board (NSB) were notified in a brief email “on behalf of President Donald J. Trump” that their “position as a member of the National Science Board is terminated, effective immediately.” One fired board member, chemist Willie May, told The New York Times that he was “disappointed” but not “entirely surprised,” adding, “I have watched the systematic dismantling of the scientific advisory infrastructure of this government with growing alarm, and the National Science Board is simply the latest casualty.”

The NSB sets the policies of the US National Science Foundation (NSF), approves major funding decisions for NSF, and advises Congress and the president on “policy matters related to science and engineering.”

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, said in a statement Saturday that “this is the latest stupid move made by a president who continues to harm science and American innovation.”

“The NSB is apolitical,” said Lofgren. “It advises the president on the future of NSF. It unfortunately is no surprise a president who has attacked NSF from day one would seek to destroy the board that helps guide the foundation. Will the president fill the NSB with MAGA loyalists who won’t stand up to him as he hands over our leadership in science to our adversaries? A real bozo the clown move.”

Alondra Nelson, an academic who resigned from the NSB last May over concerns of political interference, wrote on social media that “history will not look kindly on this administration for many reasons, but the systematic silencing of independent expertise is particularly troubling.”

Since the start of his second term, Trump and his deputies have assailed science across the federal government, including by eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency’s scientific research arm and firing experts en masse.

In the coming fiscal year, Trump has proposed cutting NSF’s budget by nearly 55%. Additionally, the president’s budget would “eliminate funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research,” Scientific American reported. The White House plan, if approved by Congress, would also slash NASA’s budget by nearly 25%.

[JimC]

Clearly, science is evil woke!

[Brian Peacock]

Truth, even the provisional truths of science, is not just inconvenient, it directly opposes the Trump Regime's political and pecuniary preoccupations. I don't think this is necessarily anti-science but about securing and controlling knowledge so it can be economically exploited by a self-selected coterie of super-wealthy interests.

[L'Emmerdeur]

I think you might be giving them too much credit. At the core of MAGA there's a deep aversion to/distrust of science in particular and experts generally.

Bogus science that they believe supports their ideology is a different story. Ivermectin anyone? (They don't want you to know it's effective against hantavirus!)

The formatting of the article below is dubious but it covers an important example of how MAGA deals with science it doesn't like.

'How a major DOE report hides the whole truth on climate change'

Energy Secretary Chris Wright argues that climate science is a victim of cancel culture: Scientific debate is stifled, alarmist claims are elevated and the truth is buried by partisan and corrupt researchers.

Now, he claims to have the evidence to prove that climate change isn’t dangerous.

A review of climate science commissioned by Wright argues that “climate change is a challenge — not a catastrophe.” The Trump administration is using the 141-page report to bolster its case for repealing rules that limit planet-warming pollution from cars, power plants and factories.

But a detailed examination by POLITICO's E&E News found that the report obscures key facts about climate change. It relies on outdated studies and cites analyses that were not peer reviewed. It cherry-picks mainstream research and omits context. It revives debunked arguments in an attempt to cast doubt on long-term warming trends.

[Brian Peacock]

There probably isn't a violin tiny enough to express my feelings about Chris Wright's complaints.

Oh, hang on..

[Brian Peacock]

Signatories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change get to put scientists forward to contribute to the next round of IPCC reports. At any one time there are about 500 revolving scientist reviewing the World's research output on climate change, working in groups and feeding into the sub-committees that produce the various reports. Of course, in Feb 2025 Trump announced (CNN) not just that the US wouldn't be putting scientists forward to the next IPCC intake, but that he was actually banning Federal scientists who were contributing to the process from taking part. Universities have since come under pressure to 'encourage' participating US academics to withdraw from the process.

... The US Academic Alliance for the IPCC (USAA-IPCC) was formed in March 2025 in part to prepare for this possibility and to ensure that US scientists remain able to engage in IPCC work regardless of the status and role of the US government. With the support of the USAA-IPCC, more than 70 US citizens and US-based experts who are currently serving the IPCC as coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors and committee members will continue to play these roles.

“US climate scientists have made incredible contributions to understanding our planet’s life support systems and the impacts and risks of climate change. Their role as key players in IPCC reports have helped the US maintain our preeminent position in science and technology, and this global scientific cooperation will continue despite this unfortunate decision,” said Dr. Pamela McElwee, Professor of Human Ecology at Rutgers University, who serves as chair of the steering committee of the Alliance.

“There is a reason we call our community the global scientific enterprise. We cannot grow, innovate, or advance unless we are linked together sharing, analyzing, and deliberating on vital climate data through critical international organizations like the IPCC. In the wake of this devastating move, AGU pledges to do all it can to bridge global partnership, research, and dialogue,” said Dr. Brandon Jones, President of the American Geophysical Union (AGU), which hosts the Alliance. ...

Princeton Statement, Jan 2026