US government agencies like the National Science Foundation are the result of a tacit post-WWII scientific contract. The terms of the contract were that the NSF would fund science in the public good. Naomi Oreskes argues that contract is broken, because too many American politicians find accurate science inconvenient. What will replace it? Also, given smoke out west and floods in the south, what should we expect for climate migration inside the US?

The reading list:

• Oreskes: America's divorce from science
• NYT (paywall) version of Lustgarten article on migration in the US
• The Lustgarten article on climate migration, in ProPublica, no paywall

Because we recognize the necessity of personal accountability for our actions, because we accept responsibility for a building a durable future and because we believe it is our patriotic duty as citizens to speak out, we must insist the United States transform it’s energy sector, over the next decade, under a just and equitable plan, that uses regulations, investments and a price on carbon to safeguard our collective future.

Thanks for listening.

…Ted McIntyre