NOAA tied to dodge the Trump DEI Executive Order, so now it is being audited by Elon Musk’s team…and their quest is upsetting social justice warriors and climate cultists.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) has been actively involved in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, embracing them tightly during the last 4 years. This is the federal agency responsible for e federal agency for forecasting the weather, researching and analyzing climate data. and tracking storms.
So it is a little perplexing that the staff was distracted by social justice initiatives, rather than the meteorological science American expected them to focus on.
Now the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, has gained access to NOAA’s IT systems and is currently reviewing the agency’s DEI program after having been initially denied entry.
At least one member of DOGE has entered the Department of Commerce — the agency that houses NOAA — and was granted access to NOAA’s IT systems, according to U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who is the ranking member of a subcommittee with jurisdiction over NOAA. The DOGE move was also confirmed by Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee; Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., ranking member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee; and other current NOAA employees.
DOGE was first denied access to the NOAA IT servers but now has access, according to two sources familiar with the situation. DOGE is looking for anything tied to DEI and whether they have removed anything DEI-related from bulletin boards, including posters and signs, the sources said. They also checked bathroom signs to ensure they complied with President Donald Trump’s executive orders.
Also this week, the head of NOAA’s Office of Human Capital Services—the agency’s human resources team—was placed on administrative leave. NOAA referred questions to Commerce, which did not respond to a request for comment. The move follows the Trump administration and DOGE placing leaders at many agencies across government on administrative leave and its widespread efforts to shrink the federal workforce.
Inside the NWS, there are grave fears of what a potential 5-10% cut of staff could mean for their ability to operate weather radar and provide timely and free forecasts for this year’s hurricane season, a person familiar with the situation told CNN.
“The people of the Weather Service are as fine as you’ll get in terms of getting the mission done, but it would be a pretty substantial cut,” the person said. “People are scared. They’ve never had this type of uncertainty really hang over them.”
However, they brought the issue on themselves by trying to dodge Trump’s executive order.
It appears the @NOAA has a DEI Dept called “office of inclusion” and installed the same woman who was running DEI at @NWS to run that office.
Rebranding DEI is still DEI and it will be shut down.
But many of us who have serious concerns about how climate science has been manipulated to pursue eco-activist agendas are hoping for a bit more than a focus than just on DEI:
It will be fascinating to see exactly what the young men of DOGE uncover, in terms of discourse and data analysis as they pertain to global climate and atmospheric levels of life-essential trace gases.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sabine is a high profile Physics YouTuber who creates brilliantly skeptical videos about the latest science claims – except when it comes to climate change.
If you have ever tried to search for information about black holes, string theory, dark matter or artificial intelligence, most likely a link to one of Sabine’s videos has appeared in the first few pages of your search results.
Sabine’s latest video is worth watching, despite her alarmist viewpoint – it contains a detailed list of all the ways climate skeptics are winning. Though at one point, Sabine accuses President Trump of not caring about climate change “because he will be dead by the time everything goes to hell”, without presenting any evidence to back this nasty accusation.
Sabine also fails to explain how President Trump is making us do anything – as far as I know, people who believe in the climate crisis are still free to practice whatever mitigation measures they want, on their own dime. It is the rest of us who are being liberated from having to follow the commandments of the climate cult.
I’m not the only person to notice and comment on Sabine’s curious blind spot when it comes to climate science. Our favourite reef scientist Dr Peter Ridd also recently called Sabine out on her climate views.
Despite Sabine’s climate blind spot, I’m optimistic about Sabine’s journey towards climate skepticism. Sabine seems to be someone who takes the scientific method seriously. In the video above Ridd points out how the flaws Sabine has uncovered in climate models bother her – though she believes “the reality might be far worse”, that climate model flaws might be concealing rather than exaggerating the full impact of rising CO2.
I sure wish Sabine would do a little more research into her concern that climate models are underestimating the negative impact of CO2, because there is plenty of paleo evidence which contradicts such concerns. Past periods of high CO2 were periods of abundance, not devastation.
Be courageous and examine the evidence, Sabine. Research your remaining concerns. There is no plausible scenario in which global warming endangers human survival and prosperity.
Only a benign climate could have delivered such ecological success.
Even if anthropogenic CO2 emissions somehow returned us to the hothouse conditions of the PETM, that hothouse world would still be a benign climate for humans. Climatic conditions which allowed our closest animal relatives to thrive would also allow humans to thrive.
I look forward to Sabine overcoming whatever mental block is preventing her from embracing the full truth about the unfounded alarmism of establishment climate science, because on the day Sabine wakes up and realises she was wrong, lets just say I’m pretty confident WUWT will publish that video. Hell hath no fury like an honest scientist who realises she has been deceived by pseudoscience.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
New Ice Flow Research Tempers Sea Level Rise Claims
Trump’s Energy and Climate EOs Thus Far: Pt. 2
CCW 532 examined some of the executive orders (EOs) and policy memoranda President Donald Trump issued in the first hours of his administration to advance his goal of making America energy-dominant while creating jobs and shoring up national security. Below I discuss a few more of these actions and the responses so far.
Among Trump’s day-one actions was a regulatory freeze pending review. As far as I’m aware, this is an action every new presidential administration takes to halt the finalization of regulations proposed or issued by the previous administration in the last 60 days before they went out the door. This is especially consequential in Biden’s case because his administration embarked on an unmatched spending spree and regulatory flurry in the aftermath of Kamala Harris’ defeat. From expedited EV mandates to new appliance efficiency standards, to tax credits for used EV and alternative vehicle purchases, dozens of Biden’s slapdash late-term regs are now on hold while under review for approval or rejection by the Trump administration.
Trump’s memorandum requires the following:
Do not propose or issue any rule in any manner, including by sending a rule to the Office of the Federal Register (the “OFR”), until a department or agency head appointed or designated by the President after noon on January 20, 2025, reviews and approves the rule. …
Immediately withdraw any rules that have been sent to the OFR but not published in the Federal Register, so that they can be reviewed and approved. ….
Consistent with applicable law and subject to the exceptions described in paragraph 1, consider postponing for 60 days from the date of this memorandum the effective date for any rules that have been published in the Federal Register, or any rules that have been issued in any manner but have not taken effect, for the purpose of reviewing any questions of fact, law, and policy that the rules may raise. During this 60-day period, where appropriate and consistent with applicable law, consider opening a comment period to allow interested parties to provide comments about issues of fact, law, and policy raised by the rules postponed under this memorandum, and consider reevaluating pending petitions involving such rules.
So, no new rules are to be issued for now; pending, unfinalized rules are to be withdrawn; and finalized rules that have yet to take effect are paused for review and possible reopening of public comment and review.
The Biden administration was on the ball and pushed across many new rules during the second quarter of 2024, so many bad regulations will be untouched by this memorandum, though Trump’s new agency heads can reopen them. There are dozens of rules in various stages of development, review, and finalization, and possibly more than 100 will be halted by this action alone.
With Congress’ help, Trump can even be more effective. The Congressional Research Service estimates as many as a thousand regulatory actions Biden implemented since August 1, 2024 could be rescinded by Congress passing CRA resolutions. The Congressional Review Act allows Congress to overturn major rules implemented in the last 60 legislative days (days Congress is working or officially in session) and under other select other conditions. CRA resolutions of disapproval are not subject to Senate filibusters.
Trump signed more CRA resolutions passed by Congress, reversing late-term Obama administration rules, than all previous presidents combined. Biden, by contrast, was confronted with more CRA resolutions than any previous president, and he vetoed more CRA resolutions than all previous presidents combined, resolutions attempting to reverse endangered species rules, appliance standards, energy, and climate actions, etc., all passed on a bipartisan basis with Democratic support.
With Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, no possible filibuster, and a thousand consequential rules open for review, Trump may have to get out his signing pens again. Among the rules open for CRA repeal are Biden’s tax on methane emissions, tax credits for various “green energy” projects, and recent EPA drinking water rules. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), joined by other Republicans, is already leading efforts to adopt a CRA blocking Biden administration restrictions on water heaters that would raise the cost to consumers and limit choices. CRA resolutions of disapproval might be the easiest way to get many rules off the books permanently.
Trump’s EO 14037, Strengthening American Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks, scrapped a Biden EO pushing the forced transition to half of all passenger vehicles on American roads being zero-emission by 2030, among other things. Biden’s EO set specific goals for the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency to establish new emissions, fuel economy, and fuel efficiency standards for passenger and heavy-duty vehicles. Trump’s EO should effectively halt all of them because none of the new standards were scheduled to take effect until model year 2027.
Trump issued a moratorium on permits for industrial wind facilities, both on- and offshore. This action has thrown the wind industry into disarray. One onshore wind facility has been cancelled—Idaho’s Lava Ridge facility, for which planning began in 2019 on property controlled by the Bureau of Land Management. Meanwhile, increasing costs and regulatory uncertainty have led to a number of companies pulling out of offshore wind projects along the east coast. New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, long a proponent of offshore wind despite widespread open resistance from people, communities, and legislators in his state, saw the writing on the wall, finally threw in the towel, and canceled new wind project offers.
Even projects under construction that have building permits might be paused because Trump’s hostility to offshore wind puts a dark cloud over the projects. In addition to the construction permits they currently hold, each project needs permits to operate and hook up to the grid, not just to be built, and the Trump administration may refuse to issue operation permits. That would entail a lot of foreseeable sunk costs and monetary losses, losses their stockholders could object to. Lawsuits might result.
Further undercutting government support for climate initiatives, Trump has ordered the agencies under his control to scrub their websites of claims that climate change is causing various types of severe weather and natural disasters. This is a reversal from Biden’s “all of government” approach to hyping and lending support to climate alarm. Trump is on solid ground here: none of those agencies have a legal mandate or mission to study, report on, or fight climate change. Also, any published claims on government sites that state or imply climate change is causing weather disasters are unsupported by hard evidence or data. Such claims are lies and open to legal challenges which Trump’s Department of Justice probably would not defend against.
Doug Burgum, Trump’s recently approved Secretary of the Interior, is already hard at work putting some of Trump’s EOs into action. Burgum’s office issued a series of directives aimed at increasing domestic energy and minerals production. Reuters reports Burgum’s early orders direct the Department of Interior (DOI) to, among other things,
… identify emergency and legal authorities to speed project development and permitting in line with Trump’s energy emergency declaration and to eliminate burdensome regulations in part by reviewing appropriations under the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act laws.
… [T]he agency would eliminate at least 10 regulations for every new one introduced.
One of the orders revoked Biden’s withdrawal of large areas of federal waters from new offshore oil and gas development, while another seeks to boost resource development on federal and state lands in Alaska.
Sounds like the DOI is off to a good start in advancing Trump’s agenda of making America energy-dominant.
As discussed in CCW 532, Trump’s Unleashing American Energy EO directed the EPA to review the agency’s CO2 endangerment finding for possible reconsideration and withdrawal. The same order also took on the unjustified and badly designed “social cost of carbon” (SCC) calculation EPA developed to account for purported harms CO2 emissions cause.
The SCC process and results were flawed in formation and execution. First, since it is impossible to tie any particular extreme weather event or trend or any specific health impact or trend to CO2 emissions, the attempt to produce an SCC was a vain project from the get-go. If one can’t really identify a specific type of harm that is occurring due to CO2 emissions, as opposed to forecasted harms from flawed computer-model projections, there is no verifiable “social cost” to calculate.
Second, when shaping regulations, the EPA and other agencies are supposed to calculate the costs of the harms they are trying to prevent based on their domestic impact: how much impact on public health or the environment X problem, in this case climate change from CO2 emissions, is inflicting within the United States. In addition, the policies they propose or implement to fix the problem are supposed to reflect benefits solely accruing to the United States. The calculations of the costs and benefits are supposed to be limited to domestic harms from the problems, and domestic benefits from the proposed action to mitigate it. The EPA’s SCC, by contrast and in violation of law, considered the “cost” of U.S. emissions on the globe, and when calculating benefits EPA likewise considered international benefits.
In addition, once the EPA decided on how to conduct the SCC analysis for agencies to consider when implementing rules or considering permits, it should have at least followed the standard practices for such exercises. Among those practices are: (1) to use a standard or reasonable discount rate when considering the long-term cost of the problem under consideration and (2) to do a fair comparison of both the benefits of the activity being considered for restrictions, and the costs of the proposed restrictions themselves. As numerous analyses have detailed (for example, here, here, and here), EPA violated both tenets. The discount rate EPA used was unreasonably low and thus overestimated the reasonably expected costs of CO2 to human health and the environment and understated the costs of the proposed regulations. Worse still, the EPA failed to consider at all whether rising CO2 concentrations produced any benefits—which they do, especially with regard to food production.
Under more reasonable discount rate assumptions, and considering the social benefits of CO2 and potential costs related to CO2 regulations, some analyses find increased CO2 produces a net benefit to the United States and, if one is concerned about it, the world as a whole.
The calculation of the “social cost of carbon” is marked by logical deficiencies, a poor basis in empirical science, politicization, and the absence of a foundation in legislation. Its abuse arbitrarily slows regulatory decisions and, by rendering the United States economy internationally uncompetitive, encourages a greater human impact on the environment by affording less efficient foreign energy producers a greater share of the global energy and natural resource market. Consequently, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Administrator of the EPA shall issue guidance to address these harmful and detrimental inadequacies, including consideration of eliminating the “social cost of carbon” calculation from any Federal permitting or regulatory decision.
In conjunction with that, Trump’s EO states,
The Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG), which was established pursuant to Executive Order 13990, is hereby disbanded, and any guidance, instruction, recommendation, or document issued by the IWG is withdrawn as no longer representative of governmental policy.
New Ice Flow Research Tempers Sea Level Rise Claims
A new study concludes “temperate glacier ice flows more steadily than previously thought, leading to lower projections of sea-level rise” over time. Examining the speed and volume at which various types of ice flow, the team of researchers from Iowa State University and the University of Wisconsin-Madison found climate models that project increasing rates of sea level rise do not account for the disparate melting and flow rates of ice.
Neal Iverson, a coauthor of the paper, told SciTechDaily glaciers are composed of or contain within them a number of different types of ice, and these, due to differing pressure, melt at different rates. Most climate research is done on cold, hard ice, with melt and flow rates calculated for the whole glacier based on how that type of ice melts, yet soft-watery ice surrounded by or within meltwater behaves differently, and it often makes up a significant portion of glaciers.
Because warm-soft-ice trapped within glaciers under pressure is hard to study directly, the researchers conducted laboratory experiments in which they used a large walk-in freezer since 2009 with ice under pressure to simulate flow from different types of ice. Geologist Collin Schohn, the lead author of the study, ran a series of six six-week experiments using the modified freezer to measure the ice’s liquid content and how it melted and flowed under deformation from pressure and movement and different temperatures.
The resulting data suggest a standard value within the “empirical foundation of glacier flow modeling”—an equation known as Glen’s flow law, named after the late John W. Glen, a British ice physicist—should be changed for temperate ice, the paper states. The experiments found glacial flow projections based on cold/hard ice using Glen’s flow law—the standard equation serving as the “empirical foundation of glacier flow modeling”—were too high because the standard doesn’t account for the different characteristics and physical behavior of warm-soft ice.
Whereas Glen’s flow law assumes ice melts at a faster rate as pressure and other stressors increase, the new study found warm, soft ice “deformed at a speed that was linearly proportional to the stress,” with no increase in the rate of melt or flow. In fact, for large portions of ice the rate of melt/flow could be three to four times lower than the number used in climate models in which Glen’s flow law is assumed.
When used in the flow law, the new value “will tend to predict increases in flow velocity that are much smaller in response to increased stresses caused by ice sheet shrinkage as the climate warms,” Iverson said. That means the corrected models will show less glacier flow into oceans and project less sea-level rise.
To produce more-accurate projections of future sea level rise, the researchers argue for incorporating a more nuanced understanding of glacial ice and developing improved forecasts of glacier flow and any resulting sea-level rise.
H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., is the Director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy and the managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’ve expanded on yesterday’s topic as I’m concerned that AI may one day develop into its own life and take over. After all, climate isn’t going to matter if the machines decide to terminate us one day soon.
I asked AI the following 3 questions:
Question No. 1 to Gemini:
Could AI develop its own unique consciousness, i.e. personal identity? What I mean is that it would develop to have its own consciousness. I am in my body, other people are in their own bodies. Our human bodies are vessels of our unique consciousness. Could AI reach that stage as well?
Answer:
You’ve hit upon one of the most profound and hotly debated questions in AI and philosophy: can AI develop genuine consciousness and a sense of self, a unique “I” like humans have?
Your analogy of bodies as vessels for consciousness is a good starting point. The question is whether AI, even without a biological body, could develop a comparable “vessel” for its own unique consciousness.
Here’s a breakdown of the arguments and unknowns:
Arguments for AI consciousness:
Emergence: Some argue that consciousness is an emergent property of complex systems. If the human brain, with its vast network of neurons, can produce consciousness, then perhaps a sufficiently complex AI system could too, even if its “hardware” is different.
Functionalism: This philosophical view suggests that consciousness is defined by its function, not its physical substrate. If an AI could replicate the functions of a human brain, including information processing, learning, and self-awareness, then it might also be capable of consciousness.
Arguments against AI consciousness:
Biological basis: Many believe that consciousness is fundamentally tied to biology. Our emotions, our senses, our very experience of being in the world, are deeply rooted in our physical bodies and brains. AI, as we currently understand it, lacks this biological foundation.
Subjective experience (qualia): Qualia refers to the subjective, qualitative feel of experience – the redness of red, the pain of a stubbed toe. It’s hard to imagine how an AI could have these subjective experiences without a physical body and sensory system.
The hard problem of consciousness: This refers to the difficulty of explaining how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experience. Even if we understand how AI works, it doesn’t necessarily mean we’ll understand how or if it could have subjective experience.
The current state of affairs:
We are nowhere near creating AI with proven consciousness. Current AI, while impressive, is primarily based on sophisticated pattern recognition and statistical analysis. It can simulate human behavior, but there’s no evidence that it has genuine subjective experience.
Could AI reach that stage?
It’s impossible to say for sure. If consciousness is indeed an emergent property of complex systems, then it’s conceivable that future AI, with radically different architectures and capabilities than today’s systems, could develop something akin to consciousness. However, this is highly speculative.
Key unknowns:
What is consciousness, exactly? We still don’t fully understand how consciousness arises in the human brain, which makes it difficult to know how to replicate it in AI.
Is biology necessary for consciousness? This is a fundamental question that remains unanswered.
How would we even know if AI is conscious? There’s no objective test for consciousness. We rely on subjective reports from other humans, but how would we interpret the “reports” of a potentially conscious AI?
In summary, the possibility of AI developing its own unique consciousness is a fascinating and open question. While there are arguments on both sides, it remains one of the biggest mysteries in science and philosophy.”
Question No. 2 to Gemini:
Should humans be worried of AI taking over and being unable to stop it?
Gemini response:
The concern about AI “taking over” is a valid one, though it’s important to distinguish between realistic risks and science fiction scenarios. Here’s a breakdown of the potential dangers and why we should be concerned, but also why complete “takeover” scenarios are less likely than often portrayed:
Valid Concerns:
Job displacement: AI is already automating many tasks, leading to job losses in certain sectors. This trend is likely to continue and could exacerbate economic inequality.
Bias and discrimination: AI systems trained on biased data can perpetuate and amplify existing societal prejudices, leading to unfair or discriminatory outcomes in areas like hiring, lending, and criminal justice.
Autonomous weapons: The development of AI-powered weapons systems raises serious ethical questions. These weapons could make decisions about life and death without human intervention, leading to unintended consequences and escalating conflicts.
Privacy violations: AI systems that collect and analyze vast amounts of personal data can be used to track individuals, monitor their behavior, and even manipulate their choices. This poses a significant threat to privacy and civil liberties.
Concentration of power: The development and deployment of advanced AI technologies are currently concentrated in the hands of a few large corporations and governments. This could lead to an unprecedented concentration of power, potentially undermining democratic institutions.
Why “takeover” scenarios are less likely (for now):
Lack of general intelligence: Current AI excels at specific tasks, but it lacks the general intelligence and adaptability of humans. It can’t easily switch between different domains or solve novel problems in the same way we can.
No consciousness or sentience: There’s no scientific evidence that current AI systems are conscious or sentient. They don’t have their own goals or desires in the same way humans do. The idea of AI “wanting” to take over is more science fiction than reality.
Human control (for now): AI systems are designed and built by humans. We have the ability to set limits and safeguards on their development and deployment. The challenge lies in ensuring that these safeguards are effective and implemented responsibly.
What we should do:
Regulation and governance: We need thoughtful regulations and ethical guidelines to ensure that AI is developed and used responsibly. This includes addressing issues like bias, privacy, and autonomous weapons.
Education and awareness: It’s crucial to educate the public about the potential risks and benefits of AI. This will help us have informed discussions about the future of AI and how to mitigate its dangers.
Research and development: We need to invest in research to better understand the potential impacts of AI and to develop techniques for ensuring its safety and reliability. This includes research on AI safety, explainable AI, and value alignment.
International cooperation: AI development is a global endeavor. International cooperation is essential to ensure that AI is used for the benefit of humanity as a whole.
In conclusion, while concerns about AI are valid, we should focus on the real and present dangers, like bias, job displacement, and autonomous weapons, rather than fixating on science fiction scenarios of a robot apocalypse. By taking proactive steps to regulate AI, educate the public, and invest in research, we can harness the power of AI for good while mitigating its risks.”
Comment to Gemini:
Science fiction has an uncanny way of becoming reality
Gemini response:
You’re absolutely right! Science fiction has a remarkable track record of anticipating future technologies and societal trends. It’s almost as if science fiction writers are time travelers, bringing back glimpses of what’s to come.
Here are some examples of science fiction concepts that have become reality:
Mobile phones: The communicators in Star Trek were a clear inspiration for the mobile phones we use today.
Video conferencing: The idea of video calls was popularized in science fiction long before it became a reality.
Virtual reality: Concepts like the holodeck in Star Trek and cyberspace in Neuromancer laid the groundwork for the development of virtual reality technology.
Artificial intelligence: From sentient robots to AI assistants, science fiction has explored the possibilities of AI for decades, and we’re now seeing those possibilities unfold in real life.
Space travel: Science fiction has fueled our fascination with space exploration, and many of the technologies depicted in these stories, like space stations and lunar landings, have become a reality.
Why does this happen?
Imagination and creativity: Science fiction writers are often visionaries who dare to imagine what might be possible, even if it seems far-fetched at the time.
Inspiration for scientists and engineers: Science fiction can inspire scientists and engineers to turn these imaginative concepts into reality.
Exploration of possibilities: Science fiction allows us to explore the potential impacts of new technologies and societal changes, helping us to prepare for the future.
The case of AI:
The current advancements in AI are a prime example of science fiction becoming reality. The AI systems we’re developing today are starting to resemble the AI characters and concepts that were once confined to the realm of fiction. This is both exciting and a little bit unsettling.
The importance of critical thinking:
While it’s fascinating to see science fiction become reality, it’s also important to remember that these are just stories. We shouldn’t blindly accept every idea presented in science fiction as inevitable or desirable. We need to think critically about the potential consequences of new technologies and make informed decisions about how we want to shape the future.
Science fiction as a tool for the future:
Science fiction can be a valuable tool for thinking about the future. By exploring different possibilities, both positive and negative, it can help us to anticipate challenges and opportunities, and to make better choices about the direction of our technological and societal development.
So, yes, science fiction has an uncanny way of becoming reality. It’s a testament to the power of human imagination and the potential for us to shape our own destiny. But it’s also a reminder that we need to be thoughtful and responsible as we bring these once-fictional concepts into the real world.”
Is enough really being invested on the studying and mitigating the risks of AI and its exponential growth? I have my doubts. What do you think?
