Research and developments It is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the burst of news about law and changes in policies that affect science and scientists today.
The misunderstandings and misinformation abounded on September 16 audience of the subcommittee of fulfilling the efficiency of the government on geoyngineering, which covers the efforts to alter land systems in order to mitigate climate change.
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), president of the Subcommitte Clear Skies Lawwhich would impose fines of up to $ 100,000 and potentially in jail for anyone who performs “climate modification” activities.
Geoingeniería is an amorphous term that can refer to a variety of climate intervention activities, including the planting of clouds to stimulate precipitation, the management of solar radiation to cool the earth by reflecting sunlight and carbon and kidnapping capture efforts.
“The defenders of today’s geoengineering not only want to address droughts or improve conditions for agriculture,” Greene said. “They want to control the climate of the Earth to address the false deception of climate change and avoid global warming. That, of course, requires massive interventions.”
In addition to stating that climate change is a hoax, Greene implied that climatic interventions could eliminate sufficient carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to damage plant life. In question, the representative Brian Jack (R-GA) repeated a doubtful statement that the release of dry ice in a hurricane in 1947 in an experiment called CIRRUS PROJECT caused the hurricane to turn to Georgia. And representative Pat Fallon (R-TX) argued that the misrepresentation of former vice president Al Gore with respect to the Foundation of the northern polar ice layer Invalted decades of climate science.
A witness during the audience was Christopher MartzPolicy analyst and meteorologist of the committee for a constructive tomorrow, a group of environmental policy experts that has throw doubts about climate science. Martz received a degree in Meteorology in May and runs A climate blog That questions the influence of climate change in extreme climatic events.
Martz said that science behind climate change is uncertain and, therefore, that climatic intervention is an alarmist reaction: “Heating could be mainly natural and we simply do not know,” he said. It is not: the vast majority of scientists accept That land is heating and human activities are to blame.
The only climate scientific witness of the Audience, former scientist at the National Livernce Livermore laboratory Michael MaccrackenHe tried to combat climate negialism in the room. He challenged the ideas that current climate intervention efforts are powerful or scalable enough to change an important climate phenomenon, or that are aimed at damaging the public.
Despite the falsehoods raised by Greene and others at the audience, some of their comments aligned with how many scientists see climate intervention, as a potentially risky effort that requires more research before it is considered viable and safe.
Agu de Ethical framework for climate intervention researchDeveloped with the contributions of scientists, political, ethical, government agencies, non -governmental organizations and potentially impacted communities, recognizes this perspective: “Substantial research and evaluation efforts will be required to determine the effectiveness, risks and opportunities of climate intervention,” says the framework.
At the audience, Greene asked “who would control the dial” if the scientists managed to reliably alter the climate of the earth.
Such questions are a reason to rely on land systems investigation, he said Roger Skinke, Jr.A political scientist from the American Enterprise Institute who spoke at the audience. Skinke asked the Congress to promulgate legislation to improve the supervision of geoyngeniery and recommended that Congress ask the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate what they do and do not know about the effects of climate intervention activities.
The representative Melanie Stansbury (D-NM), a member of classification of the subcommittee, closed the audience with a supplication to support science. “Literally, everything we are trying to achieve with climate action is to maintain our planet in some kind of balance,” he said, describing the dismissal of the Trump administration to federal scientists and engineers, the defundimency of scientific agencies, the dismissal of the EPA science panel and the deregulation of “dangerous” carbon emissions.
Stansbury and Greene agreed on one thing: “We have a land,” each one said.
—Grace van deelen (@gvd.bsky.social), Personnel writer
These updates are possible through the information of the scientific community. Do you have a story about how changes in law or politics are affecting scientists or research? Send us a tip to [email protected].
Text © 2025. Agu. CC BY-NC -nd 3.0
Except when indicating otherwise, the images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission of the copyright owner is prohibited.
Related
#Geo #exhibition #fears #Congress #Audience
