Surprise! The Park Service Can Say “Climate Change” After All

They finally released an uncensored report.

Nick Hanauer/Getty

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

This story was originally published by Reveal and appears here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Backing away from attempts at censorship, the National Park Service on Friday released a report charting the risks to national parks from sea level rise and storms.

Drafts of the report obtained earlier this year by Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting showed park service officials had deleted every mention of humans causing climate change. But the long-delayed report, published Friday without fanfare on the agency’s website, restored those references.

The scientific report is designed to help 118 coastal parks plan for protecting natural resources and historic treasures from the changing climate.

Maria Caffrey, the study’s lead scientist, said she was “extremely happy” that it was released intact.

“The fight probably destroyed my career with the [National Park Service] but it will be worth it if we can uphold the truth and ensure that scientific integrity of other scientists won’t be challenged so easily in the future,” said Caffrey, a University of Colorado research assistant who had worked on the report for five years.

The Reveal story, published in April, prompted some Democrats in Congress to seek an investigation of scientific integrity at the park service to see whether Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke or President Donald Trump’s other political appointees are censoring science.  Zinke said at a House sub-committee hearing that he had been unaware of the changes, which Reveal uncovered shortly after he told Congress that he would never change a scientific report. The Interior Department’s office of inspector general has launched an initial review, according to Nancy DiPaolo, the office’s director of external affairs.

The controversy reflects a broader challenge faced by scientists who work for and with the federal government today because of the Trump administration’s attitude toward science, particularly related to climate change.

When Caffrey resisted the editing of the report, she said National Park Service officials warned her that it would not be released if she refused to accept the deletions or that it might be released in an edited form without her name on it.

“It’s different kinds of bullying and pressure from different people,” Caffrey said. “After awhile it starts to build up, and it becomes an absolute mountain.”

But after Reveal disclosed the attempts at censorship, park service officials agreed to restore Caffrey’s original text. The context about the human role in climate change is important to the findings because it more clearly estimates the extent of the threat under various scenarios: Many parks face more severe flooding if greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase.Earlier drafts showed that a park service official crossed out the word “anthropogenic,” the term for people’s impact on nature, in five places. Three references to “human activities” causing climate change also were removed.

Jeffrey Olson, a spokesman for the park service, characterized the editing as a disagreement among authors. Asked why the references were restored, Olson said in an email, “Discussions between authors over report language resulted in agreement over the use of several terms, including climate change and anthropogenic climate change.”

The report was originally drafted in the summer of 2016. Olson said “ongoing deliberation among report authors” contributed to the delay, as well as “multiple rounds of internal and external review to ensure the accuracy and usability of the final product.”

Olson declined to be interviewed, as did the other authors of the report, which was published by the parks service with no news releases or social media promotion.

According to the findings, the fate of coastal parks depends on choices people make about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The report estimates sea level rise under four different climate change scenarios. The report also estimates how much flooding 79 parks would face from storm surges.

Parks in North Carolina’s Outer Banks face the greatest sea level rise of any national parks. If greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, the sea level near Wright Brothers National Memorial is projected to rise 2.7 feet by 2100. But if there is a substantial reduction in greenhouse gases, the increase would be 1.7 feet, according to the report.

“The park may be almost completely flooded if a Category 2 or higher hurricane strikes on top of inundation from sea level rise,” the report says.

Large areas of nearby parks, such as Cape Hatteras and Cape Lookout seashores, are projected to be underwater by 2100 if greenhouse gas emissions keep rising, even without storms. The same plight faces other parks, particularly on the East Coast, including Padre Island National Sea Shore in Texas and Fire Island in New York. Several Civil War forts also face significant flooding.

Elizabeth Shogren can be reached at eshogren@revealnews.org. Follow her on Twitter: @ShogrenE.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate