What happened: The US Geological Survey (USGS) Director edited the agency's
operational manual to push climate models that are less likely to show the worst
effects of climate change.
Why it matters: The USGS’ operational manual has major impacts on how the
agency carries out its duties, and therefore this action codifies a climate
model methodology that many scientists consider highly problematic. It is
chilling that agency leadership wants its scientists to rely on methods that
will make climate change look like a less serious problem than it is, an action
that will inevitably hamper our government’s ability to use science to
effectively respond to the threat of climate change.
According to Wired
magazine,
the US Geological Survey’s (USGS) operational manual for agency staff has a
chapter edited by the Office of the USGS Director, James Reilly, that pushes a
methodology which ignores the worst impacts of climate change.
Back in
2019,
Reilly ordered USGS scientists to limit their climate models to only the year
2040, rather than to the end of the century as was the scientists’ normal
procedure. This was highly criticized, since this methodology inevitably ignores
the devasting consequences that climate change can cause decades later. This new
action appears to build on this 2019 order, by defining a set of assumptions and
best practices that USGS scientists can use to implement a similar highly
problematic methodology. The methodology recommended in a new chapter of the
USGS manual included an “initial assessment range” of potential climate impacts
that stops at 2045 and it also prescribed best
case and worst
case
scenarios that some scientists regard as far too
optimistic. In regards to this
action, one long-serving USGS scientist said that “I’ve never seen anything like
this before. We’re being asked to follow bad
science.”
On October 19, Reilly’s office sent around a draft chapter from the USGS manual,
entitled, “Application of Climate Change Models to Scientific Investigation and
Policy,” to several top scientists and advisors at USGS for review. The
requested review was called a “fatal flaw review” and USGS scientists and
advisors were only given five days to conduct the review. When reviewing, the
USGS’ top scientist and other top advisors expressed strong
concerns,
stating that the new chapter would “cause substantial harm to both the USGS’
ability to carry out sound, peer-reviewed, impartial science, and to the USGS’
reputation.”
The reviewers had several strong objections to the new chapter. The reviewers
criticized the fact that the chapter had not undergone peer review, which would
undercut how scientifically valid the document was. Additionally, the reviewers
felt that the new chapter did not meet USGS’ standards and that it likely
violated USGS’ scientific integrity policy. Finally, the reviewers noted that
chapter lacked sufficient citations and attributions, contained numerous
scientific flaws, and that the chapter needed a “professional copy edit.”
According to the USGS’
website,
the USGS Manual “establish[es] long-standing policies, standards, instructions,
and general procedures with Bureauwide applicability.” The manual is an
important document that acts as the agency’s operational handbook and includes
directives and policies on a vast range of agency procedures, including
fundamental scientific practices that govern the USGS’ publishing and peer
review process. According to one senior USGS employee, “The Survey Manual has
the force of
policy.
Not following it could be considered misconduct.”
USGS scientists should be granted the independence to carry out their scientific
analyses without being forced to employ a high problematic methodology from a
political appointee that is not in line with the scientific consensus. As the
USGS reviewers noted, the draft chapter submitted by Reilly’s office likely
constitutes a violation of the USGS’ scientific integrity
policy
and has the potential of greatly disrupting the high quality climate research
produced by the USGS. We need the best available science to combat the
devastating impacts of climate change, and political interference in how climate
science is conducted will only impede our ability to effectively respond to this
serious threat.