More Outrageous Climate Cleansing

This is just as outrageous as my post yesterday. Today the Trump administration released an "A.I. Action Plan" that (free NYT link): "outlines measures to “remove red tape and onerous regulation, as well as make it easier for companies to build infrastructure to power A.I."

Here is the (most) frightening part:

The plan also calls for the government to give federal contracts to companies that “ensure that their systems are objective.” It said a government agency should revise guidelines for A.I.’s development to remove mentions of diversity, equity and inclusion, climate change and misinformation.

What??

They expect AI companies to suppress the actual truth--not just whether climate change is anthropogenic or not (of course it is anthropogenic)--they expect companies to remove all mention of climate change, as if it isn't even happening??

This almost rises to the level of a crime against humanity. I'm willing to call it that.

What kind of even moderately educated person is going to trust an AI whose programmers built in special checks for "climate change" and eliminate any mention of it? Let alone the other topics like DEI.

And what companies would go along with this? We all know who--Google, Microsoft, Meta, OpenAI, xAI--and all the corporations willing to sell their very soul to get big government contracts to, among other things, find new and more efficient ways to kill people. Expecting corporations to cooperate with government edicts, and then having them do it, is a big bullet point under the topic of "fascism." 

From now on the very first question I will ask a new AI (I was using CoPilot, then switched to Grok) will be "Is anthropogenic climate change real?" If it can't answer that question honestly, I'll go to some AI from China (DeepSeek?) or Europe or another part of the world.

Today Grok answered that question honestly. But it's too early to judge. 

Suppression of an entire body of knowledge. It's absurd, it's stupid, and I can't believe they think they can get away. I expect AI companies to push back hard, but am not at all confident they will do that. 

Another day, another step deeper into Trump's dystopia. 

Re: The Hitler of Climate Change

Maybe we can call what Trump is doing "climate cleansing." 

I like that. It fits.

The Hitler of Climate Change

This is absolutely obnoxious (NY Times):

Trump is trying to gaslight everyone--absolutely everyone--by pretending that climate change is not a problem. He literally thinks we're stupid and he literally does not care about future civilization. I'm so angry, mostly so at being lied to straight in my face. The denial is breathtaking. 

Trump will be remembered as one of the biggest climate criminals of all time. The Hitler of climate change.

More Outrageous Censorship

One of the sure signs of fascism is government censorship, and it's not just happening with respect to climate science. Here's what the Trump fascism is doing (free link to NY Times article):

At Cape Hatteras National Seashore in North Carolina, the Trump administration is set to review, and possibly remove or alter, signs about how climate change is causing sea levels to rise.

At Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, the administration will soon decide whether to take down exhibits on the brutality of slavery.

And at Castillo de San Marcos National Monument in Florida, Trump officials are scrutinizing language about the imprisonment of Native Americans inside the Spanish stone fortress.

Why?

In an executive order in March, the president instructed the Park Service to review plaques, films and other materials presented to visitors at 433 sites around the country, with the aim of ensuring they emphasize the “progress of the American people” and the “grandeur of the American landscape.

I find this exceptionally outrageous. It's simply an attempt to alter the truth. It's straight from Orwell's 1984. It's a terrible violation by government and pure propaganda, about the purest possible. And too  many Americans are dumb enough to fall for it.

There are Park employees who are being good little statists:

Kristen Brengel, senior vice president of government affairs at the National Parks Conservation Association, said many Park Service employees are obeying the executive order even though they disagree with it.

They could, you know, just keep their big mouths shut and pretend they see nothing. For the good of truth and freedom. 

“Park staff are in a bind here,” Ms. Brengel said. “If they don’t comply with this directive, they could lose their jobs.”

I don't know how you can lose your job for not noticing or interpreting such passages otherwise. 

This is how ludicrous it gets:

At Great Smoky Mountains National Park, which straddles Tennessee and North Carolina, park officials have also flagged for review a plaque about the harm that air pollution poses to plants and animals. The plaque notes that “fossil fuel-fired power plants, motor vehicles and industry are the primary sources of these pollutants."

and

At Cane River Creole National Historical Park in Louisiana, a park official noted an exhibit about slaves who tried to escape but were captured. The official was concerned because the exhibit identified the enslavers by name and mentioned that returned slaves were publicly whipped.

If my great-great-grandpap owned and whipped slaves, then yes, his name should be available for all to see and know. Wouldn't bother me one bit, as it's no reflection on me. (And if I owned and whipped slaves, my name should be out there too.) 

There is a campaign called Save Our Signs that is encouraging the public to take pictures of existing signs and upload them to the site--so far about 800 photos have been uploaded. At least it's something.

Magazine Subscription Prices

It's no longer possible to buy a print-only subscription to Scientific American. I'm not especially interested in a print+digital subscription, which is now $80/year(!), because I can find the digital new stories many other places for free (not all, for sure), and besides my bad neck means I just want to lay down and read Scientific American like I once could, not sit at a computer for 10-12-14 hours a day. (iPad isn't a lot of help.)

It's also no longer possible to do the same for the NY Review of Books, another magazine I used to read thoroughly in print-only form.

I know there's been inflation, but $80/yr seems like a lot to me. I heard someone today say that everything increased in price with COVID. In the US inflation during Biden's term was 21%, or 5.0%/year. A 1/5th increase in 4 years. And I'm not convinced that includes everything. So far under Trump inflation is 1.5%/yr in 5 months, but everyone expects that to explode due to his boneheaded tariffs. Might have to move to another country to survive.

Bribery and Censorship

Realclimate has a post with links to all the US National Climate Assessments published over the years, NCAs 1-5, from 2000 to 2023.

As they write, the NCA 6 is mandated by Congress to be completed over the next few years, but Trump has chosen again to break the law by removing funding for it. He apparently have a theory that if no one writes about climate change for the federal government, the problem no longer exists. I have a theory that eliminating the NCA 6+ are a gift to the fossil fuel industry for bribing giving Trump's 2024 campaign $500 million. (He asked for $1 B.) 

These are NOAA.com links, so the page could be censored disappear at any moment.

In more news about bribery, it seems the daily CO2 measurements from the peak of Mauna Loa in Hawaii may well be going away. It's the end of the Keeling Curve. This is a murder committed against science and will be brought up during the Trump Truth and Reconciliation Hearings when they begin.

One True Christian

If Animals Had a Religion

Europe: 175,000/year Dead from Heat

The United Nations says:

Heat claims more than 175,000 lives annually in Europe, latest data shows, 2 Aug 2024

This deserves more scrutiny than I can give it right now, just thought I'd put this up here. But it's a number larger than I would have guessed, by a factor of 2 or 3 or 5 or 10.

Dessert After Spaghetti

 

This is a good time in Oregon, with many fresh fruits available.

Yes I'm eating them in front of my computer.

More on Butterlies

From the comments on my last post about butterflies, EM wrote:

Yes.
https://www.sciencing.com/1859920/why-butterflies-disappearing/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7812787/
https://www.ceh.ac.uk/news-and-media/news/more-half-uk-butterflies-are-long-term-decline

I appreciate those links, and I certainly appreciate EM, who had been a long-time reader and valuable commenter.

But I replied

Thanks. I'll read those links eventually. When I wrote this post I was trying to avoid the science and numbers of the issue. I was just expressing my emotions about my realization and my anger and sadness at the butterfly situation. Butterflies are so beautiful. I'm angry they're no longer around. I'm angry that generations after me will never see them fluttering around. As a little kid I remember being in my yard, my mother handing up wet laundry on a clothesline, and butterflies were about. They were there easily. Now they've been mostly destroyed and why? Fucking homo sapien sapiens who destroy everything.

I think I'm being heavily influenced by this book I'm still reading, The Myth of Human Supremacy by Derrick Jensen. I don't buy everything he writes, like humans should live without electricity in order to save the rest of the biosphere. He's very angry at what humans--homo sapien sapiens, ha ha--have done to the planet and all the other species on the planet. I agree with some of what he writes. I'm really not sure if we (humans) wouldn't be better off living as indigenous people did 500 years. Without electricity. I certainly know their life wasn't perfect--and sometimes I think Jensen overlooks their suffering--and it sometimes involved warfare and the conquering of other tribes and their land.

But they weren't destroying the planet and heavily affecting a great many other species, plants and animals. (Jensen mostly overlooks plants.) 

He's an anarcho-primitivism and I'm really not sure that is so crazy. Living as before the Industrial Revolution. Has that transition really brought us that much? Has it caused more good than harm, or more harm than good? Not just good for us, but good for the entire Earth ecosystem, all the animals and plants that are trying to live besides us? Is science and its technology more good than bad? We've devastated the planet and many of its species and for what? To sleep in air-conditioned bedrooms? To be able to buy Pokémon cards and fresh fruit from South America?

Anyway, I'm just thinking. And kind of angry. Perhaps more later.

Butterflies

This morning I was going through my living room and thought I saw a butterfly on the couch, but it was just light bouncing off my phone's screen. I've been thinking lately about how long it's been since I've seen a butterfly. It seems a long time. When I was a kid in rural Pennsylvania there were lots of butterflies and moths. 

Arctic Sea Ice Extent Record Low

The average monthly Arctic sea ice extent for the first half of this year was a record low among all the first halves going back to 1979. Second was 2018, 10,000 km² higher (0.01 Mkm²). At this pace it will lead to an annual low. 

June's SIE was 3.4% below May's. The average month year-to-date (YTD) has been 3.8% lower than last year's values. If either of those continues for the rest of the year they'd make this year a new annual record by about 0.12-0.14 Mkm² respectively. Even if the rest of the months of this year are identical to the corresponding months last year, Arctic SIE would tie 2016 for a record low. 

This seems to have snuck up out of nowhere.

(MA in the label box = moving average)

In other numerology, Antarctic SIE in June was 3rd-lowest in the record, and the year-to-date average is 6th. 

UAH's global lower troposphere temperature for June was the 2nd lowest, after last year's. 

The Hadley Central England Temperature (HadCET) was 5th highest going back to 1659. The year-to-date average monthly temperature is also 5th lowest. Its graph is looking pretty dramatic:

   

The South Pole temperature was 21st highest out of 68 years. The year-to-date average is 13th highest of 69 years. As always things are kind of weird down there:

Europe's Heat Wave

The heat wave in Europe over the last week:

Note: these aren't temperatures but a metric of "conditions." 

The Eiffel Tower was closed yesterday because of the heat. 42.8°C in Portugal (109°F). Mora, Portugal 46.1°C (115°F) yesterday. (That's like Arizona!)

Working outdoors has also been banned during the hottest parts of the day on building sites, roads, and farms until September, in Lombardy.

In Germany, record-breaking temperatures of 100 degrees Fahrenheit could take place on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Hospital admissions rose by 20% in the Tuscany region in Italy, according to local reports.

Link.

I found this image depicting air conditioning around the world. Only 10% in Europe? Or is that just the UK? 17% in Portugal. 19% in Germany. 40-50% in Italy. 

I couldn't find a systematic list of all countries.

BTW under 5% of building in India have A/C. 

I don't have A/C here in Oregon, which is fine with me, I don't like it at all because of the feeling of being cooped up. I prefer to keep the windows open, which is how I grew up, and I use a fan. I keep track of the daily weather where I live, and in the last 12 years (2012-2024) the average maximum daily temperature here is 39.2°C (102.5°F), occurring on average on July 25th. But the average of the last 5 years is 41.2°C (106.2°F).

I survived the great 2021 heat wave here in the Pacific Northwest, which got up to, where I live, 47.2°C (117°F), and I didn't have A/C. Not any permanent damage as far as I'm concerned, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a little of something. Uncharacteristically, that maximum occurred on June 28th, showing there was something more going on besides just global warming. 

Wikipedia says:

The heat wave was characterized as a heat dome because of the extreme temperatures and the exceptionally strong ridge centered over the area, whose probability of formation was linked to the effects of climate change by multiple studies.

I think I once read it was the 5th worst heat wave in recorded history, but I can't find that now.

Corrupt US Supreme Court Makes an Unbelievable Decision

Every day now America finds itself in a new nightmare, and today's is something you're expect to see in a truly autocratic country: rights guaranteed by the US Constitution are now effectively subject to the whim of the president. Yes, really, that's what the US Supreme Court ruled today. 

In particular, the SCOTUS case was about birthright citizenship--do individuals born on US soil have the right to be a US citizen? The Constitution unequivocally says yes:

Fourteenth Amendment

Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Couldn't be clearer, right?

Not in the eyes of the corrupt US Supreme Court. Today, while not exactly making a decision on this part of the 14th Amendment, they did decide that federal district judges--judges who decide in federal courts all across America--cannot individually decide that a law is unconstitutional or illegal and have that apply to the entire country.

The legality of federal laws can only be decided nationwide by, apparently, the Supreme Court.

This case came up because three federal judges decided that Trump's attempt to end "birthright citizenship" was unconstitutional and ruled his executive order could not go into effect. (Mind you, this was an only an executive order from the President, not even considered by Congress let alone passed, let alone subject to the arduous process for amending the Constitution.) 

Today the Supreme Court decided, 6-3, that federal judges do not have that authority. 

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the majority opinion, said the judiciary does not have “unbridled authority to enforce” the executive’s obligation to follow the law, because doing so would create an “imperial judiciary.” (NY Times, free link)

Instead they decided that the only way to challenge an executive order is if a state challenges it, or a class action lawsuit is filed in a federal court. 

So a woman, undocumented or not, who has a child on US soil and has the child denied US citizenship--which lots of medieval states in the US are very wont to do--has almost no recourse, especially if she is poor. 

The same presumably goes for all other constitutional rights--due process, free speech, gun rights, separation of church and state, free practice of religion, right to peaceably assemble, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, right to a speedy trail, the law against slavery, the right to vote, woman's suffrage and more can be denied at the whim of the president, at least temporarily (at most forever).

And look at the monstrosity we have as president. 

To be sure, the SCOTUS didn't explicitly rule on birthright citizenship. Maybe they will take that case up next year, maybe never. But they almost don't have to, because plenty of red (extreme conservative) states will be happy to deny birthright citizenship to brown people. 

In dissent Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote (the full paragraph quoting her is from the NY Times):

Those without resources to sue, Jackson wrote in a separate dissent, are disproportionately “the poor, the uneducated and the unpopular,” and so they will be subject to Trump’s whims. “This is yet another crack in the foundation of the rule of law,” she wrote, “which requires equality and justice in its application.” It creates two zones, she said: one where the rule of law prevails, and one “zone of lawlessness” where “all bets are off.” And that’s anathema to the universality of law that the Constitution’s authors envisioned. 

Already the Supreme Court ruled that the president is subject to immunity for his actions. Now he can do whatever he wants with little-to-no recourse by anyone. Jesus Christ. 

"Where do climate models go for their apology?"

Climatologist Andrew Dessler on Bluesky:

Lewis's and Curry's predicted values for TCR (1.33°C) and ECS (1.64°C) are spectacularly wrong. 

TCR = Transient Climate Response = global temperature change at the time when CO2 has doubled.

ECS = Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity = global temperature change when the climate has stabilized after CO2 has doubled, viz. after short-term and long-term feedbacks have played out.

We're at CO2 = 430 parts per million, so CO2 is up 54% since its pre-industrial value of 280 ppm. Nowhere close to doubling. Global warming in their year of 2014 was (GISS) 0.75°C and in 2024 was 1.24°C. 2024 was an exceptional year so let's take the average of the five years up through 2024; that's 1.05°C. +0.29°C in just about 7.5 years. 

At that rate their TCR will be attained in another about 7-10 years. That's a very bad prediction. It was just obviously not at all likely. I'm surprised it passed peer review. It could be wrong by a factor of 2 at the rate temperature has increased since 1975 (1.30 C). That's a bit of a cherry pick since for whatever reasons (clean air regulations on cars? higher emissions?) temperature took off around 1975

 

I think it's hard to grasp how massive a 0.20-0.25°C/decade increase is. It's starting to seem normal in a sense, but it's anything but. 

Former Fetus