White House emails indicate effort to block experts from speaking about links between hurriance intensity and climate change

The goal of US Arctic policy today is to consolidate its status as an Arctic power. To that end, the Biden administration has reshuffled personnel and institutions, stepped up the fight against climate change, initiated infrastructure projects in Alaska, and emphasised multilateral cooperation, including through NATO and the Arctic Council. The White House is not interested in excessive confrontation with Russia in the region and recognises the need for clear 'rules of the game' in the Arctic.

Download Full-text

White House Science Adviser Blasts Congress at NSF Meeting

Eos ◽

10.1029/2015eo038295 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 096 ◽

Author(s):

Randy Showstack

Keyword(s):

Climate Change ◽

House Of Representatives ◽

Budget Cuts ◽

President Obama ◽

Climate Change Research ◽

White House ◽

Science Adviser

John Holdren, science adviser to President Obama, critiqued geoscience budget cuts passed by the House of Representatives and Congress members equating geosciences with climate change research.

Download Full-text

Group Belief: Lessons from Lies and Bullshit

Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume ◽

10.1093/arisup/akaa007 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 94 (1) ◽

pp. 185-208 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

I—Jennifer Lackey

Keyword(s):

Climate Change ◽

Sexual Orientation ◽

Individual Member ◽

Single Individual ◽

Adequate Account ◽

White House ◽

Group Members ◽

Group Belief ◽

Literature Group ◽

Trump Administration

Abstract Groups and other sorts of collective entities are frequently said to believe things. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, for instance, was asked by reporters at White House press conferences whether the Trump administration ‘believes in climate change’ or ‘believes that slavery is wrong’. Similarly, it is said on the website of the Aclu of Illinois that the organization ‘firmly believes that rights should not be limited based on a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity’. A widespread philosophical view is that belief on the part of a group’s members is neither necessary nor sufficient for group belief. In other words, groups are said to be able to believe that p even when not a single individual member of the group believes that p. In this paper, I challenge this view by focusing on two phenomena that have been entirely ignored in the literature: group lies and group bullshit. I show that when group belief is understood in terms of actions over which group members have voluntarily control, as is standardly thought, paradigmatic instances of a group lying or bullshitting end up counting as a group believing. Thus we need to look elsewhere for an adequate account of group belief.

Download Full-text