Reporter focussing on environmental policy and public health about the climate and counteracting the conclusions that the continued burning of fossil fuels damages the planet, according to three officials from the administration.
The National Security Council's initiative will include scientists who question the severity of climate impacts and the extent to which people contribute to those people who have asked for anonymity to discuss internal debates. The group will not be subject to the same level of public disclosure as an official advisory committee.
This move will be the strongest effort of the Trump administration so far to challenge the scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions help global warming and that the world can face severe consequences if the parties do not limit carbon production over the next few decades. to set up a Federal Advisory Panel on Climate and National Security. This plan, backed by William Hamper, senior director of NBC and a physicist who disputes the notion that carbon dioxide could harm the planet, would create an independent federal advisory committee.
The Federal Consultative Committee Act lays down several basic rules for such Panels, including those that are publicly available, are the subject of public inquiries and include representative membership. The group will not be charged with controlling recent climate intelligence community assessments, according to officials familiar with the plan
the National Security Council rejected the request for comment on the issue.
During the Friday meeting, these officials said Deputy National Security Advisor Charles Kupperman said Trump was upset that his administration had issued a National Climate Assessment, which should be published regularly under federal law. Kupperman added that Congress Democrats took advantage of the report, produced by more than a dozen agencies, to strengthen their share of carbon leakage as part of the Green New Deal.
Secretary-General David Bernhardt and senior government officials attended the session to discuss how best to set up a group of researchers to study the latest federal climate reports.
Haper, who heads an advocacy group called the Coalition for CO2 before joining the administration in the autumn, challenged the scientific consensus on climate change inside and outside the government.
Public records show the coalition that describes its mission as informing politicians and the public about "the important contribution of carbon dioxide in our lives and the economy" has received money from far-right organizations and donors with fossil fuel interests. Received by the Center for Climate Studies, the group received $ 170,000 from the Mercer Family Foundation and more than $ 33,000 from the Charles Koch Institute.
A senior administration official said the president was looking for a "mix of opinions," and disputed a massive inter-ministerial report in November describing the rise of climate change as a threat to the United States.
"The President wants people to decide on their own," said the assistant. The Federal Government's recent findings on climate change have been subject to intensive control by other researchers in the field before they become public
Christopher Field, Institute Director Stanford Woods, who serves in the review panel of the National Academy of Sciences the scientific report underlying last year's climate assessment, said the commission had met several times "to make a careful page-by-page assessment of the entire report. "
" The whole review process is confrontational from the outset, but is based on scientific reliability, in a traceable chain of evidence through publications, "said Field, Earth System and Biology
Trump officials have judged the idea of conducting a training for a "red team-blue team" on climate change, an idea backed by Scott Pruete, then head of the Environmental Protection Agency, during the first months of administration. The White House assistants, including Chief of Staff John Kelly, blocked the idea and at one point debated whether to "ignore" climate studies conducted by federal scientists.
Government researchers from a number of disciplines have identified climate change as a serious threat to the past two decades under the leadership of republican and democratic administrations.
In 2003, the Pentagon has commissioned a report to explore how a sudden change in climate will affect America's defense capabilities. to be raised beyond scientific debate to concern for US national security.
Last year, a study funded by the military warned that rising sea levels and other climatic impacts could make more than a thousand low-lying islands in the Pacific Ocean "Unsuitable for habitation" by the middle of the century, including atol, where an anti-missile defense site is located.
Exactly last month, the director of the National Intelligence Agency has come to a worldwide threat that the "climate dangers", including extreme weather, forest fires, droughts and acidifying oceans, are worsening, "threatening infrastructure, health, water and food security" .
Judith Kerry, a former Georgia Tech scientist whose Republicans want to testify about climate change because it often highlights the uncertainty that remains, said in an email that it supports the idea of independent assessment of government climate reports while the participants reflect a number of perspectives and are not activists on either side of the debate.
But retired congressman David Titley, who was an oceanographer of the navy and Chief Operating Officer of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said the new initiative could jeopard national security by blurring "credible assessments of risks stemming from changing circumstances .
"I never thought I would live to see the day in the United States where our own white hoof use attacks the research agencies themselves that can help the president understand and manage the climate risks of today's and tomorrow's security day, "said Titley, who is on the Advisory Board of the Center for Climate and Security, a non-party group focused on climate risks. "Such attacks are non-American."
Several experts questioned whether the White House plan could undermine science for decades, targeting a warming planet. A federal climate scientist who asked for anonymity to avoid vengeance said the agency's researchers pursued and published their research over the last two years without significant resistance.
Camilo Mora, a geographer and professor of the environment at Hawaii University, said in an email that a working group can not change the findings of scientists around the world.
"When it comes to climate change, we are talking about thousands of independent newspapers everywhere, finding the exact same thing: the climate is changing that we do, and that is often the worst, says Mora.