New CDC Research Debunks Agency's Assertion That Mercury in Vaccines Is Safe
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) once again advised pregnant women to curb consumption of fish in order to limit fetal exposures to neurotoxic mercury. This warning raises the baffling query: How can the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) justify its recommendations that pregnant women get flu shots which are laden with far more mercury than what's found in a can of tuna?
The CDC has long answered that nettlesome question with the controversial claim that ethylmercury in vaccines is not toxic to humans. Now, two CDC scientists have published research decisively debunking that assertion. As it turns out, there is no "good mercury" and "bad mercury." Both forms are equally poisonous to the brain.
The CDC study, Alkyl Mercury-Induced Toxicity: Multiple Mechanisms of Action, appeared last month in the journal, Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. The 45-page meta-review of relevant science examines the various ways that mercury harms the human body. Its authors, John F. Risher, PhD, and Pamela Tucker, MD, are researchers in the CDC's Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
"This scientific paper is the one of most important pieces of research to come out of the CDC in a decade," Paul Thomas, M.D., a Dartmouth-trained pediatrician who has been practicing medicine for 30 years, said. "It confirms what so many already suspected: that public health officials have been making a terrible mistake in recommending that we expose babies and pregnant women to this neurotoxin. I regret to say that I gave these shots to children. The CDC led us all to believe that it was perfectly safe."
Among the findings of the CDC's new study:
- Methylmercury, the highly-regulated neurotoxin found in fish, and ethylmercury (found in medical products, including influenza and tetanus vaccines, ear drops and nasal sprays) are similarly toxic to humans. Methylmercury and ethylmercury share common chemical properties, and both significantly disrupt central nervous system development and function.
- Thimerosal is extremely toxic at very low exposures and is more damaging than methylmercury in some studies. For example, ethylmercury is even more destructive to the mitochondria in cells than methylmercury.
- The ethylmercury in thimerosal does not leave the body quickly as the CDC once claimed, but is metabolized into highly neurotoxic forms.
Despite this stark rejection of a decade of CDC safety assurances, CDC's public relations machine is still bucking the new scientific consensus; the article concludes with a telling disclaimer in tiny font:
"The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry."
CDC's website continues to feature now discredited safety assurances.
"Baldly dismissing the danger to humans from ethylmercury, has long been a reckless gambit," said J.B. Handley, a Portland, Oregon, businessman who believes that his son received debilitating injuries from a mercury vaccine. "With this study, by its own scientists, the CDC has now edged into the realm of criminal endangerment."
Handley, the founder of Generation Rescue, a vaccine safety advocacy group, condemns the CDC for misleading the medical establishment.
"The CDC knows that pediatricians and physicians rely on its public pronouncements when they make treatment decisions for their patients; how can we escape the conclusion that the agency is knowingly causing the poisoning of tens of millions of American children," Handley stated.
For example, CDC's webpage still parrots the now discredited industry canard that:
"Thimerosal contains ethylmercury, which is cleared from the human body more quickly than methylmercury, and is therefore less likely to cause any harm."
However, the new study makes the opposite conclusion:
"Thimerosal is quickly metabolized in vivo (in a living organism) due to its reactions with protein and non-protein thiols … so the effects of thimerosal reported in numerous articles are very likely the result of exposure to the metabolite ethylmercury."
Ignoring the agency's own scientific evidence, the CDC's webpage stubbornly insists that the "two types of mercury to which people may be exposed—methylmercury and ethylmercury—are very different." The new CDC study directly contradicts this assertion, "There are many commonalities/similarities in the mechanisms of toxic action of methylmercury and ethylmercury …"
The study meticulously details identical toxicity pathways shared by both forms of mercury:
- Both ethyl and methyl mercury cause DNA damage or impair DNA synthesis (Burke et al. 2006; Sharpe et al. 2012; Wu et al. 2008).
- Both cause oxidative stress/creation of reactive oxygen species (Dreiem and Seegal 2007; Garg and Chang 2006; Myhre et al. 2003; Sharpe et al. 2012; Yin et al. 2007).
- Both decrease glutathione activity, thus providing less protection from the oxidative stress caused by MeHg and EtHg (Carocci et al. 2014; Ndountse and Chan (2008); Choi et al. 1996; Franco et al. 2006; Mori et al. 2007; Muller et al. 2001; Ndountse and Chan 2008; Wu et al. 2008).
- Both cause effects on cell division by damaging the spindle apparatus during mitosis (Burke et al. 2006; Castoldi et al. 2000; Gribble et al. 2005; Kim et al. 2007; Ou et al. 1999b; Machaty et al. 1999; Rodier et al. 1984).
- Both MeHg and EtHg bind to the amino acid cysteine (Clarkson 1995; Wu et al. 2008).
- Both MeHg and EtHg strongly inhibit the reacylation of arachidonic acid, thus inhibiting the reincorporation of this fatty acid into membrane phospholipids (Shanker et al. 2002; Verity et al. 1994; Zarini et al. 2006).
- Both cause an increase in NOS, causing an overproduction of NO (Chen et al. 2003; Chuu et al. 2001; Shinyashiki et al. 1998).
- Both disrupt glutamate homeostasis (Farina et al. 2003a, b; Manfroi et al. 2004; Mutkus et al. 2005; Yin et al. 2007).
- Both alter intracellular calcium homeostasis (Elferink 1999; Hare et al. 1993;Kang et al. 2006; Limke et al. 2004b; Machaty et al. 1999; Marty and Atchison1997; Minnema et al. 1987; Peng et al. 2002; Sayers et al. 1993; Sirois and Atchison, 2000; Szalai et al. 1999; Tornquist et al. 1999; Zarini et al. 2006).
- Both cause effects on receptor binding/neurotransmitter release involving one or more transmitters (Basu et al. 2008; Coccini et al. 2000; Cooper et al. 2003; Fonfria et al. 2001; Ida-Eto et al. 2011; Ndountse and Chan 2008; Yuan and Atchison 2003).
"This study is a nuclear bomb detonating over the CDC," Boyd Haley, chairman emeritus of the University of Kentucky Chemistry Department, said. "It should be getting international, front page headlines."
As one of the world's leading authorities on mercury toxicity, Haley observed, "It's a momentous rejection of a widely held medical orthodoxy dictating policy changes even more significant than the medical establishment's reversals on thalidomide, calomel tooth powder, x-rays during pregnancy, or lead exposure to children. In each of these cases, thousands of children were injured or killed before an entrenched medical establishment was finally willing to abandon treatments that were unquestionably causing great harm."
Ethylmercury vs. Methylmercury in Mass Poisonings
The revolutionary conclusions of the new CDC study actually reflect decades of work by mainstream independent scientists outside the agency. A rich scientific literature that emerged from accidental poisoning events has consistently documented—despite CDC's official claims—that ethylmercury and methylmercury are equally toxic. In addition to the well-known Minamata and Iraq methylmercury-poisoning, many other large-scale food poisonings have occurred involving ethylmercury fungicides in Iraq in 1956 and 1960, in Pakistan in 1961, and in Russia in the 1960s as well. These episodes resulted in maladies ranging from basic tissue injury to heart and brain injury and even death.
Derban reported in 1974 on 144 cases of mercury poisoning from the use of ethylmercury fungicide on a southern Ghana state farm. Multiple other studies based on these poisoning events showed, as stated in a 1977 study by David Fagan, that the long-term neurological consequences produced by the "ingestion of either methyl or ethyl mercury-based fungicides are indistinguishable."
A 1979 case report concerned a fifteen-year-old boy who had eaten the meat of a pig that had fed on ethylmercury fungicide−treated seed. Documented effects on the boy included debilitating brain damage and loss of coordination, with high toxicity for the brain as well as the spinal motor neurons, peripheral nerves, skeletal muscles, and heart muscle. The boy died about one month after becoming ill.
Ethylmercury's use as pesticide was eventually banned in many countries, including the United States and those in the European Union, and for good reason: A 1977 study gauged ethylmercury chloride's relative toxicity as a pesticide as the fifth most toxic of thirty substances tested, with a score of 12.7. That grade score almost matched that of DDT, at 14.2, an infamous pesticide banned in 1972.
In 1977 Fagan reported on 13 children suffering from exomphalos (a rare abdominal wall defect that allows the intestines to protrude from the abdomen) treated with gauze soaked applications of thimerosal to prevent infection. Of thirteen patients treated with thimerosal, 9 died. The authors tested mercury levels in the tissue of 8 of the children who died. They reported that "blood and tissue levels of mercury well above the threshold at which damage occurs in all other age groups, it is extremely unlikely that these infants escape neurological damage, which may be subtle." One infant exposed to thimerosal and survived was later reported as being "restless, easily distracted, and not interested in schoolwork." The authors recommended that "organic mercurial antiseptics should be heavily restricted or withdrawn from hospital use, as the fact that mercury readily penetrates intact membranes and is highly toxic seems to have been forgotten."
Why Does the US EPA only Provide Guidelines for Exposure to Methylmercury and not Ethylmercury?
In 1995, based on research from outbreaks of poisonings and other research from the Faroe Islands and the Seychelles, the EPA established a safe "reference dose" for methyl mercury (RfD). An RfD is defined as "an estimate of a daily exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse effects when experienced during a lifetime," according to the EPA.
The EPA adopted for methylmercury an RfD of 0.1 microgram of mercury per kilogram of the individual's body weight per day. Other health agencies set their own recommended limits for methylmercury exposure, including the FDA in 1979, the World Health Organization in 1989 and the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in 1999. The highest of these limits was the WHO's, at 0.47 microgram per kilogram of body weight per day.
In 1999 the US Congress directed the EPA to contract with the nonprofit, independent National Research Council (NRC) to prepare recommendations on an updated and appropriate RfD. The EPA commissioned the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the NRC to carry out a study on toxicological effects of methylmercury compounds. The goal was to review the process used by the EPA to establish national safety standards. The committee evaluated the literature, which demonstrated methylmercury compounds' high toxicity to brain tissue, even at minute levels. The NAS ultimately agreed with the EPA's originally conceived RfD, which remains in place today. An RfD has never been established for ethylmercury.
The CDC has crossed ethical and perhaps even legal boundaries by purposefully blocking efforts by the National Institute of Environmental Health Science's (NIEHS) National Toxicology Program (NTP) to test ethylmercury for toxicity – a process that would have lead to maximum exposure guidelines. In 2000, the FDA nominated thimerosal to the NTP for toxicity testing. However, CDC officials derailed the review telling the NTP committee that "There is a great concern within CDC about continued attacks from anti-vaccine groups questioning the integrity of CDC activities and recommendations regarding the use of thimerosal-containing vaccine." In response to CDC pressure, the NTP put thimerosal on permanent deferred status. Thimerosal has, therefore, never been tested for safety or toxicity.
Ethyl Mercury Exposure Levels Based on Methyl Mercury Guidelines
A single Thimerosal-preserved flu vaccine contains 25 micrograms of ethylmercury. If the EPA RfD for ingested methylmercury is applied to this injected ethylmercury figure, an individual would have to weigh more than 250 kilograms (551 pounds) for the 25 microgram exposure to be considered safe. Back in the 1990s, a two-month-old child could have received 62.5 micrograms from three vaccines in a single doctor's visit. Assuming the child weighed about 5 kilograms (11 pounds), he or she would have received 125 times the EPA RfD for methylmercury.
At least one study has suggested that the methylmercury RfD should be set lower for infants and also for fetuses. In 1995, Steven Gilbert and Kimberly Grant-Webster wrote: "Available information on the developmental neurotoxic effects of MeHg [methylmercury], particularly the neurobehavioral effects, indicates that the fetus and infant are more sensitive to adverse effects of MeHg. It is therefore recommended that pregnant women and women of childbearing age be strongly advised to limit their exposure to potential sources of MeHg. Based on results from human and animal studies on the developmental neurotoxic effects of methylmercury, the accepted reference dose should be lowered to 0.025 to 0.06 MeHg [microgram]/kg/day."
What might this mean for a fetus today? We'll take the low end of that estimate and apply it to an average 1.15-kilogram (2.54-pound) fetus at the start of the third trimester. A fetus exposed to 25 micrograms of mercury via a Thimerosal-preserved flu shot administered to its pregnant mother could be subject to 870 times the proposed lower reference dose.
Mainstream Science Suggests Ethylmercury is More Toxic than Methylmercury
New and old research support the caveat that "safe" levels of ethylmercury exposure might indeed be dramatically lower than the EPA's RfD. A 2012 Italian study, for instance, showed that ethylmercury-containing Thimerosal diminished the viability of human cells in the lab at a concentration one-fiftieth that of methylmercury. By this measure, ethylmercury is 50 times as toxic as methylmercury to humans.
Japanese research on rats in 1968 showed that ethylmercury compounds, such as ethylmercuric chloride from which Thimerosal is made, clear the body more slowly than other mercury compounds including mercuric chloride and phenylmercuric chloride.
A book chapter in 1972 by Staffan Skerfving, an emeritus professor at Lund University in Sweden, reviewed literature on methylmercury versus ethylmercury, noting several instances where compounds of the latter appeared more toxic than the former in animal studies.
For example, ethylmercury chloride killed off half of a test population of mice—a classic "LD50" (lethal dose) study—within a week at a concentration of 12 milligrams of mercury per kilogram of body weight; methylmercury chloride's LD50, meanwhile, lethal to half the mice was 14 milligrams. This study suggested that ethylmercury was twice as toxic.
Further examples abound. Pig studies by Tryphonas and Nielsen in 1973 showed that ethylmercury "proved much more toxic" than methylmercury. Meanwhile, another 1973 study that emerged from a 1971 international conference found the toxicity of ethylmercury compounds comparable to or even greater than that of methylmercury, as well as more persistent in the brain.
An advisory committee at the conference reported that the International Committee on Maximum Allowable Concentration for Mercury and Its Compounds grouped ethylmercury with methylmercury, and observed that accounts of human intoxication with ethylmercury have usually described neurological and other symptoms similar to those of methylmercury. The report noted that in studies of patients transfused with a commercial product of human plasma containing 0.01 percent Thimerosal, as well as in studies of mice injected with an ethylmercury solution, the increased level of inorganic mercury added to the mercury already existing in the body resulted in a "longer biological half-life of total mercury than that reported for methylmercury injection."
Why do the CDC and WHO Report that Ethylmercury Exposure is Safe?
The WHO's conclusion that ethylmercury is safer because of its "short" half-life may be based on observations that ethylmercury disappears from blood samples quicker than methylmercury. However, this tendency may be evidence not of ethylmercury's comparative safety, but of its greater danger if, as science has suggested, ethylmercury is not leaving the body but simply migrating more rapidly to the organs, including the brain. Indeed, studies have shown that an ethylmercury compound's short residence in the blood stems from its ability to more easily pass into the organs, where it can remain for long periods and possibly cause injury.
For example, Blair in 1975 dosed squirrel monkeys with intranasal saline or Thimerosal daily for six months, finding that, compared to the saline group, mercury concentrations in the Thimerosal group were significantly raised in the brain, liver, muscle, and kidney, though not in the blood. Although there were no signs of toxicity in the animals, Blair concluded that the "accumulation of mercury from chronic use of thiomersal-preserved medicines is viewed as a potential health hazard for man."
Beyond a possibly greater capacity to have inorganic mercury accumulate in organs, Thimerosal also passes more easily from a mother's bloodstream through the placenta into a developing baby than does methylmercury. That was the evaluation made in a 1983 review study by A. Leonard. In addition, a 1995 study demonstrated that both ethylmercury and methylmercury cause mutagenic changes at similar concentrations in bacterial cells.
The Twisted Saga of Pichichero
With these and other studies as background, an important study in humans took place in the early 2000s. The study, by Michael Pichichero of the University of Rochester Medical Center and published in The Lancet in 2002, lent some apparent scientific credence to the idea that ethylmercury is safer than methylmercury. Pichichero, who helped develop the HiB vaccine and previously received grants and honoraria as a consultant for other vaccine makers, did not declare these conflicts of interest in a statement in his paper, as required by The Lancet's peer review rules. The Pichichero study assessed mercury levels in the blood, urine, and feces of forty infants ages six months or younger three to twenty-eight days after they had received Thimerosal-preserved vaccines (DTaP, HepB, and in some cases Hib). For comparison, twenty-one similar infants who received Thimerosal-free vaccines were also evaluated. Although infants who received Thimerosal-preserved vaccines had higher levels of mercury in their blood, urine, and feces than did the infants who received Thimerosal-free vaccines, the authors concluded that the levels of mercury detected were not greater than what is considered safe. Most of the mercury from the injected Thimerosal seemed to have left the children's bloodstreams more rapidly than methylmercury found in the blood of those eating fish in previous studies; the researchers estimated a half-life of seven days for ethylmercury in the blood. Pichichero concluded that ethylmercury, therefore, did not remain in children's bodies long enough to possibly cause damage.
Pichichero's study immediately came under attack by internationally respected scientists in a 2003 letter to The Lancet by Neal Halsey, of the Institute for Vaccine Safety at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and Lynn Goldman, also of the Bloomberg School of Public Health. Halsey and Goldman pointed out that Pichichero and colleagues "did not measure the peak blood concentrations that occurred within hours after the injections." The concentration listed for one child in the study of 20.55 nanomoles per liter was obtained five days post-vaccination. Assuming Pichichero's own estimate of an ethylmercury half-life in the blood of seven days, the peak blood concentration for this child was 29.4 nanomoles per liter—exceeding the conventional safety threshold of 29.0 nanomoles per liter, and contradicting the study's claim that "no children had a concentration of blood mercury exceeding 29 nmol/L." The child in question had received 37.5 micrograms of ethylmercury rather than the possible maximum exposure of 62.5 micrograms. In the latter scenario, the child's peak blood mercury concentration would have hit 48.3 nanomoles per liter.
Another child in the study registered a 7 nanomole per liter blood concentration 21 days post-vaccination; extrapolating backwards, this child's peak mercury level might have reached 42 nanomoles per liter. Halsey and Goldman's letter further pointed out that Pichichero seemed to have cherry-picked the children in the study—some already with no margin of safety for further mercury exposure—seemed to have come from a population with low background environmental and maternal exposure to methylmercury.
Soon after publication of Pichichero's study, alarming new evidence emerged that ethylmercury lingers in the body. In an unpublished letter submitted to Pediatrics, Dr. Boyd Haley, then-chairman of the chemistry department at the University of Kentuck, and Mark Blaxill challenged Pichichero's hypothesis that ethylmercury is quickly excreted. Pichichero and colleagues had measured the excretion levels of mercury in the stools of 22 healthy infants exposed to Thimerosal-containing vaccines. Pichichero's estimated range for the infants aged two and six months was 23 to 141 nanograms per gram of stool (dry weight). Assuming the excretion rate reported by Pichichero, Blaxill and Haley demonstrated that it could take children with low excretion rates of mercury in their stool almost four years to eliminate a 187.5 microgram mercury burden from their bodies.
In 2006, Luis Maya and Flora Luna further debunked Pichichero's conclusions. The authors pointed out that while Pichichero's team had found ethylmercury to be excreted in appreciable quantities in the feces, the researchers did not study other body parts beyond the blood, such as the central nervous system. In agreement with Halsey and Goldman, Maya and Luna criticized Pichichero for neglecting to measure the peak serum levels of ethylmercury after the first hours of inoculation, though other investigations had documented substantially elevated blood concentrations in the first 48 to 72 hours after administration in pediatric vaccines. Maya and Luna also pointed out that the study was small and measured variables of pharmacokinetics (the actions of a drug within the body over time), so it was not designed to measure the biological effect of Thimerosal as a preservative.
Pichichero Redux: Yes, Ethylmercury Rapidly Leaves the Blood, but Not the Body. It Lodges in the Brain!
By then, other research had clarified that, while ethylmercury disperses quickly from the bloodstream, this is not evidence of safety. For example, a 2004 study by G. Jean Harry of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences noted that mice injected with Thimerosal accumulated mercury in both the brain and kidneys. "By seven days" post-treatment, the study authors wrote, "mercury levels decreased in the blood but were unchanged in the brain" compared to levels measured just 24 hours after treatment, indicating slow clearance.
The landmark study in this regard was conducted by the University of Washington's Thomas Burbacher and published in 2005. The researchers compared mercury levels in the blood and brains of infant macaques injected with Thimerosal-containing vaccines with monkeys who ingested equal amounts of methylmercury hydroxide via a feeding tube. The former group of primates were exposed to 20 micrograms of ethylmercury per kilogram of body weight on the day they were born and when they were seven, 14, and 21 days old, which was estimated to be within the range of doses that children at different developmental stages were receiving in the United States. The dosing methods were selected to mimic the routes of exposure in humans who eat mercury-containing foods and receive mercury-containing vaccines.
Subsequent tests showed a faster disappearance of mercury from the bloodstream of Thimerosal-injected monkeys than from the methylmercury group. Total mercury amounts in the brain were also threefold less for the Thimerosal-treated monkeys. However, the Thimerosal-injected monkeys had a higher ratio of brain-to-blood levels of mercury than the methylmercury group. In general, the primates injected with Thimerosal in the Burbacher study retained twice the level of inorganic mercury—a breakdown product of Thimerosal that has been suggested to be responsible for the brain damage associated with methylmercury—in their brains as the methylmercury-exposed primates. While all seventeen monkeys given Thimerosal had "readily" detectable levels of inorganic mercury in their brains, only nine of the seventeen exposed to methylmercury had detectable levels. Burbacher cited previous research ranging the half-life of inorganic mercury in various brain regions of primates from 227 to 540 days. In either case, that is a long time period for the toxic element to remain, especially if at higher levels from ethylmercury deposition versus methylmercury.
Burbacher and his colleagues wrote in summary that "[methylmercury] is not a suitable reference for risk assessment from exposure to thimerosal-derived [mercury]" and that: Data from the present study support the prediction that, although little accumulation of [mercury] in the blood occurs over time with repeated vaccinations, accumulation of [mercury] in the brain of infants will occur. Thus, conclusion [sic] regarding the safety of thimerosal drawn from blood [mercury] clearance data in human infants receiving vaccines may not be valid, given the significantly slower half-life of [mercury] in the brain as observed in the infant macaques.
A more recent 2012 study by Croatian researchers took a similar approach as Burbacher's study, but in suckling rats. That study also discredits CDC's claims of ethylmercury's comparative safety. Maja Blanusa and colleagues gave rat pups either Thimerosal or inorganic mercury three times in their first 11 days of life, mimicking human infant vaccination schedules. The scientists then assessed the total retention of mercury and excretion over six days. The Thimerosal-exposed rats showed higher mercury retention rates in their brains. Furthermore, these Thimerosal-exposed rats exhibited similar fecal excretion and much lower urinary excretion compared to the inorganic mercury-exposed rats. That second group also demonstrated higher retention rates of mercury in organs other than the brain.
Two additional studies in the last few years by researchers in Brazil and Germany show, again, that methylmercury in particular should not be considered summarily more dangerous than ethylmercury. The studies found that cells similarly take up both forms of mercury. The former, by Luciana Zimmermann and colleagues, showed in 2013 that the methyl- and ethylmercury entered cultured rat cells in roughly equal measure and display similar toxicities. The 2014 German study led by Christoph Wehe used novel laboratory techniques in concluding that methylmercury and ethylmercury in the form of Thimerosal accumulated in equal measure in a type of cultured human neural cell.
Overwhelmingly, the literature presents clear evidence that ethylmercury is invasive and persistent in the brain. Emerging evidence suggests that ethylmercury is more toxic than methylmercury, in direct contrast with the CDC's historic position. It's time for CDC's public relations department to catch up with mainstream science. Since the World Health Organization (WHO relies mainly on CDC's vaccine safety science, the CDC's unscientific pronouncements endanger, not just U.S. children, but hundreds of millions of children around the world. Knowing what we now know, the U.S. Federal agencies and the WHO should follow the precautionary principle and phase out the use of thimerosal in all medical products, including vaccines.
U.S. Sen. Jon Tester introduced legislation on Tuesday to protect more than 30,000 acres of public land bordering Yellowstone National Park. These public lands in Montana's Park County are the targets of two industrial scale gold mine proposals, which would threaten the national park, the clean water of the Yellowstone River, wildlife and the local economy. The legislation does not affect any recreational use of the land, including hunting or fishing.
Sen. Tester's legislation followed actions made in the fall of 2016, when U.S. Departments of Interior and Agriculture began a two-year time-out on gold exploration and mining, on the public land near Yellowstone National Park.
"The people in Park County are standing together and saying industrial gold mining doesn't make sense on the doorsteps of Yellowstone. Our river, our wild lands and our wildlife are too valuable to gamble," said Michelle Uberuaga, executive director of the Park County Environmental Council.
"Our local elected officials and the county commission are standing with us and we're grateful to have Sen. Tester's leadership in Washington, DC. Now we need to see this to the finish line," she added.
More than 300 local businesses of the bipartisan Yellowstone Gateway Business Coalition asked for the action, citing risks to their livelihoods and to the strong regional economy. The local calls for action were echoed on a national level, for the potential impacts to the world's first national park and surrounding wildlife habitat, as well the Yellowstone River and its world-famous fishery.
"National Parks Conservation Association applauds Sen. Tester for taking the next step in opposing industrial gold mines next to Yellowstone," commented Stephanie Adams, Yellowstone program manager for the National Parks Conservation Association.
"Concerns over the threats to Yellowstone and its nearby communities and waterways have been echoed by Interior Sec. Ryan Zinke, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock and Sen. Steve Daines. It is time for our elected officials at all levels to stand together in forever protecting these priceless lands."
Sen. Tester's legislation protects private property rights while enacting a permanent withdrawal on the public lands.
"Legislation is needed to permanently prevent private corporations from industrializing public lands in the heart of the Yellowstone ecosystem," said Jenny Harbine, attorney for Earthjustice.
"The introduction of legislation is a crucial first step and now we must all fight for Congressional approval of this critical protection for some of our nation's most-prized wild lands."
Mayors from across the nation joined with the Sierra Club's Ready for 100 campaign Wednesday to announce a new effort to engage and recruit mayors to endorse a goal of transitioning to 100 percent renewable energy.
Ahead of the U.S. Conference of Mayors annual meeting in Miami Beach in June, the launch of Mayors for 100% Clean Energy aims to demonstrate bold local leadership and showcase the depth and breadth of support from city leaders for a transition to 100 percent renewable energy.
The new initiative is co-chaired by Mayor Philip Levine of Miami Beach, Mayor Jackie Biskupski of Salt Lake City, Mayor Kevin Faulconer of San Diego and Mayor Stephen K. Benjamin of Columbia, South Carolina. Benjamin is also a vice president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
"We have already taken steps to expand renewable energy and we will continue to improve our infrastructure and innovate clean energy solutions for a stronger Miami Beach," said Mayor Levine. "Climate change may be the challenge of our generation, but it is also the opportunity of a lifetime. The transition to clean and renewable energy will both help Miami Beach confront climate change and strengthen our local economy."
Mayor Biskupski noted that cities contribute about 75 percent of human greenhouse gas emissions, and said Salt Lake City is warming at a rate twice as fast as the global average.
"We can't ignore climate change because climate change is not ignoring us," she said. "Among many other risks, we face water shortages, decreased snowpack and threats to our $1 billion ski industry. Cities must adapt to cope with these threats, and that's also why we must take action to mitigate them."
Noting that San Diego has become a leading city for solar energy capacity, Mayor Faulconer said that business and environmental groups are cooperating to achieve a mutually beneficial goal of 100 percent renewable energy.
"Clean energy isn't just the right thing to do, it's the smart thing to do," he emphasized. "We're going green not only because it supports clean air and water, but because it supports our 21st century economy."
Mayoral leadership has been a powerful driver of city-wide action on climate change and clean energy in municipalities across the country. The Mayors National Climate Action Agenda (Climate Mayors) founded by Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, former Houston Mayor Annise Parker and former Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, recently released an electric vehicle request for information to demonstrate demand to automakers for nearly 115,00 vehicles that could be electrified in 30 cities.
Now the co-chairs of Mayors for 100% Clean Energy, a number of whom are Climate Mayors, are further demonstrating their commitment to lead nationally on the shared challenge of reducing climate pollution and contributing to Climate Mayors' framework of local leadership and action.
"Mayors can lead our nation toward a healthier, stronger and more prosperous country by championing a vision of 100 percent clean, renewable energy in their communities," said Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune. "Cities don't need to wait for Washington, DC to act in order to move the ball forward on clean energy."
Twenty-six cities across the U.S. have now committed to transition to 100 percent clean and renewable energy. This growing list of cities most recently includes South Lake Tahoe, California, which last week unanimously voted to transition entirely to renewable energy by 2032. Other big cities including Los Angeles and Denver are studying pathways to 100 percent clean energy. Earlier this month, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced a commitment to transition Chicago municipal buildings and operations to 100 percent clean and renewable energy by 2025.
Despite the numerous controversies and vocal opposition swirling around President Donald Trump's pick to head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Senators voted 52 to 46, largely along party lines, in February to confirm Oklahoma Republican Scott Pruitt as EPA administrator.
It now appears that Koch Industries—the oil and gas conglomerate owned by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch—directly lobbied Congress to confirm Pruitt and spent millions to influence anti-environmental initiatives, a disclosure report shows.
As The Intercept reported:
"The firm's latest disclosure form reports that its in-house corporate lobbying team spent $3.1 million to influence lawmakers over the first three months of the year on a variety of issues affecting its bottom line, including the EPA's Clean Power Rule on carbon emissions, carbon pricing, the Clean Air Act and 'nominations for various positions at the Department of Energy.'"
"This is exactly what we mean when we talk about oligarchy. Multi-billionaires and corporations should not have the power to pick and choose who is in charge of our federal agencies," Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said in response to The Intercept's report. "But that is exactly what happened—Koch Industries spent millions on lobbying Congress to confirm Scott Pruitt, our head of the Environmental Protection Agency who doesn't believe in environmental protection."
Koch Industries has contributed $38.5 million to federal candidates over the last 25 years and spent another $117 million since 1998 on lobbying. DeSmog reported in February that the company's deep pockets are contributing campaign funds to four GOP representatives who have introduced legislation to completely abolish the EPA.
"It's clear that Trump doesn't represent working families. His agenda benefits the Koch brothers and their billionaire [friends]. Our job is to stand together to defeat the drift toward oligarchy and create a vibrant democracy—not one controlled by corporate interests," Sanders said.
Pruitt has reported ties to the fossil fuel industry and he repeatedly sued the EPA when he was Oklahoma Attorney General. In 2014, he was caught sending letters on state government letterheads to President Obama and federal agency heads asserting that the EPA was overestimating the air pollution from drilling for natural gas in Oklahoma. As it turns out, the letter was written by lawyers for one of the state's largest oil and gas companies, Devon Energy.
Following Trump's executive order, Pruitt plans to kill the Clean Power Plan, an Obama-era regulation designed to reduce carbon pollution from power plants. Pruitt also challenged the plan when he was Oklahoma AG.
Pruitt said in March that he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to climate change.
The Intercept also detailed how Pruitt's nomination as EPA head was strongly backed by industry groups:
"The American Energy Alliance, an advocacy group founded by former Koch Industries lobbyist Tom Pyle, issued a letter in support of Pruitt along with other Koch-backed conservative nonprofits. America Rising Squared, a political research outfit that has harassed environmental activists, formed a special website—now deleted—to respond to criticism of Pruitt's record."
Enbridge Energy Partners' aging Line 5 pipeline, which runs through the heart of the Great Lakes, has spilled more than 1 million gallons of oil and natural gas liquids in at least 29 incidents since 1968, according to data from the federal Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration obtained by the National Wildlife Federation.
Built in 1953, the 645-mile, 30-inch-diameter pipeline carries petroleum to eastern Canada via the Great Lakes states. As it travels under the Straits of Mackinac, a narrow waterway that connects Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, Line 5 splits into twin 20-inch-diameter, parallel pipelines.
Line 5 opponents fear that a spill in the Great Lakes, which contains 21 percent of the world's surface fresh water, would be an ecological disaster. Notably, the straits' strong currents reverse direction every few days and a spill would quickly contaminate shoreline communities miles away.
Enbridge is behind a number of major spills, most notoriously in 2010 when an Enbridge line spilled more than 800,000 gallons into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan—creating the biggest inland oil spill in U.S. history.
"We have a pipeline system with a history of problems running through our country's largest source of surface freshwater, and it happens to be operated by the company responsible for one of the largest inland oil spills in North America," said Mike Shriberg, executive director for the National Wildlife Federation's Great Lakes Regional Center.
"This pipeline system places the Great Lakes and many local communities at an unacceptable risk. The state of Michigan needs to find an alternative to this risky pipeline to protect our drinking water, health, jobs and way of life."
The National Wildlife Federation has released a new interactive map showing what has spilled from Enbridge's pipeline system, the repair methods that have been used, and how leaks and defects are being discovered.
The conservation organization noticed from the records that only one of the 29 recorded incidents was detected by a remote pipeline detection system. By contrast, 15 releases were detected by local personnel or the public.
"This new information causes us grave concern about the integrity of the inland pipe system, inconsistencies with spill reporting, and the effectiveness of leak detection systems, repair methods, and long-term planning for the integrity of the decades-old pipeline system," said Beth Wallace, the National Wildlife Federation pipeline safety specialist who discovered the newly released data.
Wallace added, "a significant number of these releases note manufacturing and construction defects, as well as weld failure, which calls into question the overall integrity of the Line 5 system."
Last September, Enbridge filed a work plan with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency identifying 18 "holidays" on Line 5—an oil and gas industry term that refers to areas on a pipeline where anti-corrosive coating is missing. However, Enbridge's director of integrity programs Kurt Baraniecki said at a Pipeline Safety Advisory Board meeting last month that the report used imprecise language.
Enbridge has dismissed the National Wildlife Federation's findings.
"This is not new information and we have addressed this issue many times in the past," company spokesperson Ryan Duffy said via email to MLive. "Over the past fifteen years, there have been three incidents on Line 5 that have resulted in a total of approximately 21 barrels of product being released off the mainline. All of the product released during these three incidents was recovered. There has never been an incident on Line 5 at the Straits."
Still, as InsideClimate News reported, Line 5 is facing mounting political pressure. In January, the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians in northern Wisconsin voted not to renew easements that allowed the pipeline to pass through tribal lands. Also in January, U.S. Reps. Dave Trott (R-Mich) and Debbie Dingell (D-Mich) introduced legislation calling for a shutdown of the pipeline if a federal study determines it poses significant threat to the Great Lakes.
Enbridge is not the only pipeline company facing opposition over fears of contamination. On Tuesday, a coalition of more than two dozen organizations launched a new campaign to challenge Energy Transfer Partners' (ETP) operations.
Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners is the company behind the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline, the proposed Bayou Bridge Pipeline and the under-construction Rover Pipeline, which just spilled 2 million of gallons of drilling fluids into two of Ohio's wetlands on April 22.
ETP is expected to vote to merge with Sunoco Logistics on Wednesday.
"Energy Transfer Partners and Sunoco Logistics have a damning history of pipeline fires, leaks, and spills, causing millions of dollars in property damage and leaving thousands of gallons of hazardous products in the environment," said Marc Yaggi, executive director of Waterkeeper Alliance, one of the participating organizations. "These incidents demonstrate a blatant disregard for the communities and waterways impacted by these pipelines."
Lena Moffitt, director of Sierra Club's Beyond Dirty Fuels campaign, said momentum has been building across the nation.
"From Standing Rock, to Texas, to Ohio, to towns across the country, people are mobilizing against Energy Transfer Partners and its reckless agenda that has threatened our communities, our clean air and water, and our climate," Moffitt said. "We the people are organized, we are determined, and together, we will stop Energy Transfer Partners' dirty and dangerous plans."
Trump Signs Executive Order Targeting National Monuments, Could Open Up Lands for Oil and Gas Development
The review enables the Department of Interior to examine whether any of the monument designations have led to a "loss of jobs, reduced wages and reduced public access."
"The Antiquities Act does not give the federal government unlimited power to lock up millions of acres of land and water," President Donald Trump said during a brief ceremony today flanked by Vice President Mike Pence and Sec. of the Interior Ryan Zinke. He added that it was "time to end this abusive practice."
The 1.35-million acre Bears Ears National Monument in Utah is one of the first targets for review. The monument was created by President Obama last year and has sparked major controversy between Republican lawmakers and conservationists. Utah Gov. Gary Herbert and Utah's congressional delegation led by Congressmen Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz and Senators Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee have launched a campaign to abolish national monument. More than 270 million acres of American land and waters are potentially at risk—an area two and a half times the size of California.
GOP lawmakers have accused President Obama, who designated more monuments than any other president, of abusing the Antiquities Act to protect land from fossil fuel development.
"By potentially rolling back safeguards for lands and waters that are currently protected from destructive development for generations to come, Trump is carving up this beautiful country into as many corporate giveaways for the oil and gas industry as possible," said Diana Best of Greenpeace USA. "People in this country who cannot afford the membership fee at Mar-a-Lago want safe water they can drink and public lands for their communities to enjoy."
National monument designations have protected some of the most iconic places in the country. Dozens of the nation's most treasured national parks were first protected as monuments, including Grand Teton, Grand Canyon, Bryce, Zion, Acadia and Olympic national parks, explained the Center for Biological Diversity.
Rhea Suh, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, emphasized that the NRDC will fight the review, and said the president is not authorized to reverse monument designations.
"These public lands belong to all of us," she said. "The U.S. holds them in trust for the benefit of this and future generations. These monuments have been deemed worthy of permanent conservation because of their unique resources and wildlife, ecological importance, and vulnerability to encroachment and destruction. President Trump and Secretary Zinke should not strip away their protection and subject them to industrial exploitation by polluters or other corporate interests."
The Center for Biological Diversity noted that more than 50 national monuments are at risk, including vast marine areas in the Pacific and Caribbean. Congress gave the president the authority to designate national monuments on federally owned land under the Antiquities Act of 1906, which was signed into law by President Teddy Roosevelt, for the express purpose of protecting important objects of historic and scientific importance.
"This is a frightening step toward dismantling the protection of some of America's most important and iconic places: our national parks and monuments," said Kierán Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Trump's tapping into the right-wing, anti-public-lands zealotry that will take us down a very dangerous path—a place where Americans no longer have control over public lands and corporations are left to mine, frack, clear-cut and bulldoze them into oblivion. It starts with Bears Ears and Grand Staircase and only gets worse from there."
National monuments are cherished by Americans for their natural beauty and cultural significance.
"There is no need for a review to demonstrate what families across the country already know first-hand—national monuments provide tangible health, natural, and economic benefits," said Michael Brune, Sierra Club executive director. "Protected outdoor spaces drive the outdoor recreation economy which supports 7.6 million jobs and generates $887 billion in consumer spending each year. National monuments and public lands are vital both for the history they preserve and the future they offer.
"Contrary to the Trump administration's thinly veiled hopes," he added, "this review will reveal what studies, surveys and polls have consistently found across the country—a deep, widespread appreciation for our parks, monuments and other public lands, and a popular belief that they should continue to exist."
As thousands of people across the country and in Washington, DC are expected to join the People's Climate March on Saturday, indigenous leaders and climate activists will, as 350.org Executive Director May Boeve points out, "now have to defend our parks and monuments from Big Oil as well."
Tom Goldtooth, executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network, put it this way. "This is another Trump action that is another act of aggression against the inherent sovereign rights of our Native Nations to protect the traditional cultural areas and sacred places of American Indian and Alaska Native people," he said.
"There are many areas in this country, outside of our reserved lands that are of vital importance to our Indigenous peoples' identity and rich cultural and spiritual history. The 1906 Antiquities Act cannot be stripped on its important historical mandates to designate national monuments to protect areas that have cultural, historical and environmental significance. The act is paramount to all the tribes in this country; for our cultural preservation now and into the future. The frontline Indigenous communities in our network see Trump's actions as a way to open up fossil fuel and extractive mineral development within these national monuments designated under the 1906 Antiquities Act. Trump's action must be stopped."
Companies are also outraged at Trump's latest executive order. "Less than 24 hours after joining with our industry to celebrate the economic power of outdoor recreation, in a hypocritical move, the Trump administration took unprecedented steps that could result in the removal of protections for treasured public lands," Patagonia CEO Rose Marcario said.
"We take this as a sign that Trump and his team prefer to cater to fossil fuel interests and state land grabs for unsustainable development, rather than preserve a vital part of our nation's heritage for future generations by protecting federal lands owned by every citizen."
A study released Wednesday found that, if built, the controversial PennEast Pipeline for fracked gas could contribute as much greenhouse gas pollution as 14 coal-fired power plants or 10 million passenger vehicles—some 49 million metric tons per year.
The analysis, conducted by Oil Change International, showed that federal regulators are poised to rubber-stamp the PennEast Pipeline based on a woefully inadequate climate review that ignores the significant impact of methane leaks and wrongly assumes that gas supplied by the project will replace coal.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is facing a growing backlash across the country over its routine approval of gas pipeline projects that endanger communities and the climate. Today's study comes on the heels of a federal court hearing in which a judge slammed FERC's shallow and dismissive review of the climate impact of the Sabal Trail gas pipeline in the Southeast.
The new analysis counters FERC's final environmental impact statement for the PennEast project released in early April. It applies a methodology recently developed by Oil Change International to calculate the climate impact of gas pipelines from the Appalachian Basin. In contrast to FERC, the Oil Change methodology reflects the evolving analysis of methane leakage and the full lifecycle of pollution that pipelines cause from fracking well to smokestack.
"Our analysis shows that the PennEast Pipeline would cause a massive increase in climate pollution," said Lorne Stockman, lead author of the study and Oil Change International senior research analyst. "The only way FERC can conclude otherwise is by ignoring both science and economics. The PennEast pipeline is not needed, communities don't want it and it will deepen reliance on fossil fuels that we can't afford to burn."
The PennEast Pipeline, backed by a consortium of gas companies, would run roughly 120 miles from northeastern Pennsylvania to Mercer County, New Jersey, carrying up to 1.1 billion cubic feet of gas per day. The New Jersey Rate Counsel has concluded that New Jersey consumers do not need the gas. The project is facing stiff opposition from landowners and community and environmental groups along its route.
The Oil Change analysis found that the pipeline would be responsible for over 49 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions by adding up the pollution from gas extraction and processing, pipeline operation, gas combustion at power plants and methane leaked across the gas supply chain.
The study found three major faults in FERC's review:
• FERC fails to acknowledge that methane leakage makes gas as dirty or dirtier than coal, wiping out any potential benefits of switching from coal to gas;
• FERC ignores the market reality that new gas production is likely to compete directly with clean energy and energy efficiency, especially in New Jersey, which has already phased out coal-fired generation;
• FERC fails to count upstream emissions from fracking operations.
Advocates from the region reacted to the study with concern and reiterated their commitment to stopping the pipeline, which has yet to receive key permits from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the Delaware River Basin Commission:
"It is unseemly that the public and nonprofit organizations are having to invest time and money in doing the work FERC should be undertaking," said Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper. "This report demonstrates, yet again, that the PennEast pipeline will help push our nation and world over the climate change cliff. FERC is not only legally required to do the kind of analysis included in this report, but is morally responsible."
Tom Gilbert, campaign director for Rethink Energy NJ and NJ Conservation Foundation, agreed. "It cannot be ignored that New Jersey's greenhouse gas emissions are going up, not down, driven by increased emissions from gas-fired electric plants," he said.
"This report shows that the PennEast pipeline would only further move the state in the wrong direction by increasing carbon emissions and methane leaks, putting public health and safety at risk."
By Graham Readfearn
The New York Times has been defending the paper's hiring of a climate science denier, fighting off its critics with what it claims is a standard fashioned from hardened "intellectual honesty."
While at the Wall Street Journal, Stephens consistently undermined and disparaged climate change, one time describing it as an "imaginary enemy" and another comparing it to religion with a "doomsaying prophecy and faith in things unseen."
Stephens' new boss, editorial page editor James Bennett, told the paper's public editor Liz Spayd: "The crux of the question is whether his work belongs inside our boundaries for intelligent debate and I have no doubt that it does. I have no doubt he crosses our bar for intellectual honesty and fairness."
Suffice to say, there are plenty who disagree. One climate scientist has already canceled his subscription in protest, with others watching closely.
No doubt that Stephens can write—he won a Pulitzer in 2012 for lots of opinions on stuff other than climate.
But like other conservative columnists admired for their poetic prose and strident opinions while attacking climate change, the methods used by Stephens might be compared to those of a fake chef producing a lumpy and unsatisfying word soup.
There's no real care with the preparation and no quality control over the freshness or blending of the ingredients, but these indiscretions are suitably masked with enough flavor-enhancers to give some short-term satisfaction to unsuspecting diners/readers.
But the New York Times should probably be serving up something far more substantial than crap soup and three-day-old bread to its massive audience.
Stephens wrote that a trend in rising global temperatures was "imperceptible" and that the "hysteria" around climate change ignored how this trend could be "a product of natural variation."
There is a mountain of evidence that global warming is not caused by "natural fluctuations" and this evidence has been in existence for decades. To suggest that it isn't, would be to fall below any bar of intellectual honesty erected in the newsroom of the New York Times or in any science academy around the globe.
In the same column, Stephens chose to highlight "the hyping of flimsy studies—melting Himalayan glaciers; vanishing polar ice" that he said were being used to push a political viewpoint.
Stephens was referring to an error on Himalayan glaciers buried away in a UN report, while choosing to ignore the decades-long trend of melting that has been recorded at glaciers all over the planet.
Stephens himself has told Huffington Post that he's an "agnostic" on climate change and said while it "seems" the weight of scientific evidence points to human causes for global warming, that evidence might be wrong because "the history of science is replete with consensus positions that have evolved."
Now, the New York Times' own defense of its hiring of Stephens is almost as redundant as the arguments that Stephens borrows from climate science deniers.
In an interview with the Huffington Post, the New York Time's Bennett said there was "more than one kind of denial."
"And to pretend like the views of a thinker like Bret and the millions of people who agree with him on a range of issues, should simply be ignored, that they're outside the bounds of reasonable debate, is a really dangerous form of delusion," he said.
Let's think about what the New York Times opinion page might look like if we based it on the beliefs of millions of Americans.
According to Gallup polling data, some 20 percent of Americans believe in witches, which is roughly half the number of people who think extrasensory perception is actually a thing.
A poll conducted by Harris in 2016 found that two out of five Americans think ghosts are real. Belief in evolution? That's at 49 percent. Creationism? Some 37 percent are down with that.
Lizard people controlling societies? One in 25 Americans fear their presence, but where's their representation in the New York Times editorials?
Arguing that someone should be hired to the editorial desk of one of the world's most influential newspapers because "millions of people" hold a particular belief is a clear path to supporting the sort of delusional thinking that has more Americans believing in the paranormal than accepting that climate change is mostly human-caused.
That 1970s Cooling Myth
Opinions are worth printing when they're based on the preponderance of credible evidence, not the self-interests of fossil fuel–funded "fellows" at so-called think tanks or the whimsy of attention-seeking contrarians.
In an August 2011 interview on Fox News Business, Stephens told viewers "in the 1970s we were supposed to believe in global cooling."
Were we? Well, if you want to base your intellectually robust opinion on a moldy-old myth based on a couple of 1970s news items, then fine.
Alternatively, read a 2008 review of science papers published between 1965 and 1979 finding that only seven papers were predicting cooling against 44 saying temperatures would rise.
Also in that interview, Stephens lauded an essay by the late author Michael Crichton that attacked the consensus on global warming.
In that essay, based on a lecture, Crichton said: "Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had."
So let's just stop a second and think about what Crichton was advocating here.
The consensus of medical science says smoking will massively increase your risk of getting cancer and heart disease, even if you can't say exactly which cigarette killed your wheezy relative. You're being had, folks.
Crichton was putting up a straw man argument—that science is done by consensus—in order to then attack it.
When people talk about a consensus on the causes of climate change, they're describing the collective findings of thousands of peer-reviewed articles published in leading scientific journals over decades using multiple methods from a diverse set of observations.
The consensus that climate change is caused by humans comes from the long-studied physical properties of greenhouse gases to the measurements of warming oceans, the atmosphere and the places on the planet where there is or was, ice.
Don't get me wrong here, folks. You're free to choose a glib sound bite from a science fiction writer based on a misrepresentation of the concept of scientific consensus.
But take care not to be had by charlatans promising to chat to your very dead Aunty Betty or save your soul from the claws of the lizard people.
I think it might be time someone broke into the editorial office of the New York Times and raised that bar of intellectual honesty.
Reposted with permission from our media associate DeSmogBlog.