School Handbook 2015-2016 Contents: Fill & Download for Free

Early Decision Can Help You Edge Out Your CompetitionBy Peterson's Staff Monday, March 21, 2016Does getting early decision mean an automatic entry into college? This article helps you find out the truth about ED applicants.There's a lot of hype floating around that some schools accept almost all of their incoming freshmen from their pool of Early Decision (ED) applicants. While it's true that there may be a higher acceptance rate among the early action pool, this doesn’t necessarily hold true at every school, nor does it mean that all the spots get filled up early. (It also doesn't mean that all schools even have early acceptance options, because some schools are doing away with them altogether.)Realistically, all schools only have so many openings set aside for the incoming class, and they want to give those spots to the best candidates possible. If they give away every bed they have by December, then they won't have room to accept the Colorado State Spelling Bee Champion who applies in February. Some schools hedge their bets just as some students do when applying to college. They may defer a portion of their ED applicants so they can eyeball what comes across their application desks later in the year.Early admission by the numbersIt’s generally true that many of the most exclusive schools are the ones most likely to offer Early Decision admission options, and research supports the buzz that you stand a better chance of scoring a coveted spot by applying early. On average, 25 to 50 percent of the freshman classes at these schools come from ED applicants. (Those numbers could be higher, depending on the school.) However, that means that come springtime, although there’s still another 50 to 75 percent of the class to accept, you’ll be competing against a much larger pool of applicants and your chances of getting accepted are lower. So, statistically speaking, a larger percentage of the ED applicants are accepted than of the applicants who apply during the normal timeline.There are a few schools who accept a very large majority of their incoming class from their early admission applicants, and the only way to know if your choice school is among those is to do your research. Ask the school directly about their admission statistics to get a better picture of your chances of acceptance and discuss what this means with your school guidance counselor. In some cases, an Early Decision application really may be the only way to edge out your competition. Before you send off that paperwork, make sure one more time it’s what you want since an early acceptance under ED means you have entered into a binding agreement to attend that school and you can’t apply anywhere else.Keep in mind as well that some schools, Ivy League included, are starting to do away with early application options altogether. Harvard and Princeton no longer offer the option of applying early and there are a number of schools that are considering doing away with their policies as well. There are several reasons for doing so, but the gist of their reasoning is that it skews the playing field and leaves a number of students at a distinct disadvantage when application time rolls around. Schools that are doing away with early application procedures hope to soothe the competitive nature of "getting in" and allow everyone the opportunity to apply at the same time and under the same conditions.Early action and financial aidIf you’re like most students, finances probably play an important role in making your final decision about where to apply. As part of your decision process about ED, you should meet with your choice school's financial aid office as early as your junior year. You’ll be able to get an idea if the school is an economically viable choice or if it’s just too far out of the ballpark.Ask your parents to bring their tax forms so they can get an idea of their likely Expected Family Contribution, and you can find out ahead of time what financial aid you’re likely to receive. By checking it out early on, you can avoid the wrenching disappointment of getting in but not being able to go. Acceptance decisions for early action applicants show up in your mailbox months before you hear from the Financial Aid office.Early admission and youSo what does all this mean? Should you apply for Early Decision at a school that you’re considering? Not unless you are 100 percent absolutely, positively certain that it’s THE school that you want to attend above all others. However, just because you really want to go there doesn’t mean you should feel like you have to apply early, either. Early application is really only a good tactic when you and the school are truly well matched. In a nutshell, don’t waste their time or yours if you’re not really sure it’s your top choice or if there is a strong likelihood you won’t get accepted.If you decide to go for it, give your all to that crucial essay by emphasizing your strengths and vividly describing what makes the school a perfect fit for you. Schools that have Early Decision options want to accept ED applicants because they are usually the most qualified and most sought-after students, and they are students who are communicating that by applying as ED, they really want to get in to that school. Admission committees look favorably upon excellent candidates who desire nothing more than to be a part of their student body. If it’s a competitive school, you fit the profile, and you really have your heart set on it, then by all means, apply Early Decision and better your chances of being able to call it your alma mater.Early Decision & Early ActionThe benefits and drawbacks of applying earlyEarly decision (ED) and early action (EA) plans can be beneficial to students — but only to those who have thought through their college options carefully and have a clear preference for one institution.Early decision versus early actionEarly decision plans are binding — a student who is accepted as an ED applicant must attend the college. Early action plans are nonbinding — students receive an early response to their application but do not have to commit to the college until the normal reply date of May 1. Counselors need to make sure that students understand this key distinction between the two plans.Approximately 450 colleges have early decision or early action plans, and some have both. Some colleges offer a nonbinding option called single-choice early action, under which applicants may not apply ED or EA to any other college.ED plans have come under fire as unfair to students from families with low incomes, since they do not have the opportunity to compare financial aid offers. This may give an unfair advantage to applicants from families who have more financial resources.ED applicantsApply early (usually in November) to first-choice college.Receive an admission decision from the college well in advance of the usual notification date (usually by December).Agree to attend the college if accepted and offered a financial aid package that is considered adequate by the family.Apply to only one college early decision.Apply to other colleges under regular admission plans.Withdraw all other applications if accepted by ED.Send a nonrefundable deposit well in advance of May 1.EA applicantsApply early.Receive an admission decision early in the admission cycle (usually in January or February).Consider acceptance offer; do not have to commit upon receipt.Apply to other colleges under regular admission plans.Give the college a decision no later than the May 1 national response date.Who should apply early?Applying to an ED or EA plan is most appropriate for a student who:Has researched colleges extensively.Is absolutely sure that the college is the first choice.Has found a college that is a strong match academically, socially and geographically.Meets or exceeds the admission profile for the college for SAT® scores, GPA and class rank.Has an academic record that has been consistently solid over time.Applying to an ED or EA plan is not appropriate for a student who:Has not thoroughly researched colleges.Is applying early just to avoid stress and paperwork.Is not fully committed to attending the college.Is applying early only because friends are.Needs a strong senior fall semester to bring grades up.Encourage students who want to apply early to fill out NACAC's Early Decision Self-Evaluation Questionnaire, in the Deciding About Early Decision and Early Action handout. You may want to share this with parents as well.The benefits of applying earlyFor a student who has a definite first-choice college, applying early has many benefits besides possibly increasing the chance of getting in. Applying early lets the student:Reduce stress by cutting the time spent waiting for a decision.Save the time and expense of submitting multiple applications.Gain more time, once accepted, to look for housing and otherwise prepare for college.Reassess options and apply elsewhere if not accepted.The drawbacks of applying earlyPressure to decide: Committing to one college puts pressure on students to make serious decisions before they've explored all their options.Reduced financial aid opportunities: Students who apply under ED plans receive offers of admission and financial aid simultaneously and so will not be able to compare financial aid offers from other colleges. For students who absolutely need financial aid, applying early may be a risky option.Time crunch for other applications: Most colleges do not notify ED and EA applicants of admission until December 15. Because of the usual deadlines for applications, this means that if a student is rejected by the ED college, there are only two weeks left to send in other applications. Encourage those of your students who are applying early to prepare other applications as they wait to receive admission decisions from their first-choice college.Senioritis: Applicants who learn early that they have been accepted into a college may feel that, their goal accomplished, they have no reason to work hard for the rest of the year. Early-applying students should know that colleges may rescind offers of admission should their senior-year grades drop.Students and parents can use our Pros and Cons of Applying to College Early, in the Deciding About Early Decision and Early Action handout, to weigh their options.Does applying early increase the chance of acceptance?Many students believe applying early means competing with fewer applicants and increasing their chances for acceptance. This is not always true. Colleges vary in the proportion of the class admitted early and in the percentage of early applicants they admit.Higher admission rates for ED applicants may correlate to stronger profiles among candidates choosing ED. Students should ask the admission office whether their institution's admission standards differ between ED and regular applicants, and then assess whether applying early makes sense given their own profile.The ethics of applying early decisionThe Common Application and some colleges' application forms require the student applying under early decision, as well as the parent and counselor, to sign an ED agreement form spelling out the plan's conditions.Make it clear in your school handbook and at college planning events that your policy for early-decision applications is to send the student's final transcript to one college only: anything else is unethical.Keep in mindED and EA program specifics vary, so students should get information as soon as possible directly from the admission staff at their first-choice college.ED and EA applicants must take the October SAT or SAT Subject Tests™ in order for these scores to make it to the college in time.Print out and share the Early Decision and Early Action Calendar with students and parents to be sure they are aware of all the required steps for applying early.Related DownloadsWhat to Know About Applying EarlyEarly Decision and Early Action CalendarA college-admissions edge for the wealthy: Early decisionBy Nick Anderson March 31, 2016Nathan Hanshew, 17, a senior at Washington Latin Public Charter School, is embraced by the head of the school, Martha C. Cutts, after learning that he received a full-ride scholarship to attend George Washington University. GW President Steven Knapp, at lower right, visited the school March 17 to make the surprise announcement. (Logan Werlinger/GW Today)Many of the nation’s top colleges draw more than 40 percent of their incoming freshmen through an early-application system that favors the wealthy, luring students to commit to enroll if they get in and shutting out those who want the chance to compare offers of grants and scholarships.The binding-commitment path known as “early decision” fills roughly half of the freshman seats at highly ranked Vanderbilt, Emory, Northwestern and Tufts universities, as well as Davidson, Bowdoin, Swarthmore and Claremont McKenna colleges, among others, a Washington Post analysis found.The Post found 37 schools where the early-decision share of enrolled freshmen in 2015 was at least 40 percent. At Duke University, the share was 47 percent, and at the University of Pennsylvania, it was 54 percent.[Sortable table: See the details of the early decision advantage]The rising influence of early-decision enrollment underscores a stark and growing divide in college admissions between the masses of students who apply to multiple schools through the “regular” process in quest of the best fit and deal and a privileged subset who apply early and simultaneously pledge to attend just one, without fear of cost, at a time when the sticker price for private schools often tops $60,000 a year. Call them the Shoppers and the Pledgers.College admissions: The Early Decision advantageNathan Hanshew, 17, a senior at Washington Latin Public Charter School in Washington, D.C., said he applied to a dozen schools but did not opt for early decision anywhere.“That was too risky,” he said. “You’re stuck in a bond, like a marital bond.”Shopping around paid off hugely for Hanshew, a Polish immigrant, who learned March 17 in a surprise announcement in front of cheering classmates that he won a full-ride scholarship from George Washington University.Kate Morrison (Family photo)Kate Morrison, 17, a senior at Walt Whitman High School in Montgomery County, Md., said she was drawn to Bowdoin after a soccer coach there encouraged her to apply early. She visited the Maine college last spring. “I just loved it so much,” she said. “I was really, really content.” No athletic scholarship, no financial aid. But she applied early decision in the fall and was admitted Dec. 11. Her search was done.This week, angst is cresting for traditional applicants as prestigious colleges finalize who’s in and who’s out. Ivy League decisions are scheduled to be released Thursday evening. But admitted early-decision students are tranquil; they’ve known for months where they’re going to college. Early-decision applicants also enjoy a crucial edge over the regulars: Their admission rates tend to be much higher. That’s because schools want good students who really want them, and they want to lock them down.At Penn, the admission rate for early applicants was 24 percent for the class that entered in 2015. The total admission rate, early and regular, was 10 percent. Eric Furda, Penn’s dean of admissions, said the academic credentials of students who win early admission tend to be stronger than those admitted later in the cycle. Furda also said more early-decision students than ever are qualifying for need-based financial aid.“This pool is becoming broader and deeper and more diverse than it’s ever been. It’s time to start telling that story,” Furda said. “I don’t want lower-income families to be told, ‘Don’t apply early decision because you’re going to need to compare financial-aid packages.'” These days, nearly as many early-decision freshmen receive need-based grants from Penn as their peers admitted in the regular cycle, he said.The Post reviewed 2015 admissions data for 64 schools as reported through a questionnaire called the Common Data Set. The analysis covered top-60 schools on U.S. News and World Report lists of liberal arts colleges and national universities, and it found 48 schools in which early-decision admits comprised at least a third of the total enrolled class and 16 in which they comprised at least half.[U.S. News college ranking trends 2015]While most early-decision admits enroll, a few do not. The most common reason: If a financial aid offer is deemed insufficient, an admitted student may be released from their pledge.Within the Ivy League, Penn appears to be the most aggressive user of the early process. The early-decision share of freshmen at Dartmouth College was about 43 percent. At Brown and Cornell universities, it was about 38 percent. Columbia University, which also uses early decision, is the only Ivy League school that refuses to make public its Common Data Set reports.Harvard, Yale and Princeton universities also allow students to apply early, but they do not require admitted students to decide on enrollment until May 1. That technique, which enables comparison shopping, is known as “early action.” Stanford, the University of Chicago, MIT and hundreds of other schools use early action.Georgetown University’s longtime dean of admissions, Charles Deacon, said he favors early action because students should be as sure in May of where they want to attend as they were in November. He calls it a “student-centered” approach to admissions, in contrast to “enrollment management” techniques in vogue at many schools.“No matter what anybody tells you, the early pool favors those who are more advantaged,” Deacon said. “They’re the ones who have been better advised. They know more from their families. There’s an advantage, for sure, and that plays itself out particularly at the early level.”Early decision, which developed gradually among elite schools from the late 1950s through the 1970s, has drawn criticism in recent years, earning a critique in a 2001 Atlantic article headlined “The Early-Decision Racket.” In 2006, the public University of Virginia announced that it was ending an early-decision program in an effort to attract more low-income students. It now uses early action.“For us, the early-action plan makes the most sense,” U-Va. dean of admission Greg Roberts said. “And it’s more in line with our values and enrollment goals.” Most top-tier schools with early decision are private. An exception is the public College of William and Mary, in Virginia.[Nation’s prominent public universities are shifting to out-of-state students]Though some schools have spurned the practice, the volume of early-decision applications to elite schools is growing, and some of them are filling a larger share of their seats with those applicants, making it far more difficult to get in during the normal cycle.At Williams College, a premier liberal arts school in Massachusetts, a little more than 40 percent of freshmen come through early decision. Williams President Adam Falk said early decision provides stability for the college in what can be a volatile market, and it provides peace of mind for successful applicants who can then leave “an insane-feeling rat race” during their senior year of high school.Jon Reider, a former Stanford admissions officer who counsels students at San Francisco University High School, said that 15 years ago, early decision was not a central part of most of his advising conversations. Now it is. Another important variable is that ultra-selective Harvard, Princeton, Stanford and Yale are “single-choice” early-action schools, meaning that students may not apply early to any other private school, with few exceptions. So students must weigh their top choice carefully, and it can feel like making a life-altering gamble.But the calculations are much more complex than a simple ranking of choice, Reider said. Sometimes admission to that first-choice school is so tough to obtain, even in an early application, that it makes more sense to apply early decision to a second choice, or even a third choice. “You’ve got one chip,” Reider said. “One card to play. It’s an absolutely crazy system.”Even more bewildering: Some schools offer two rounds of early decision. Some — the University of Miami, for example — offer two rounds of early decision and early action.Charlotte Smith (Family photo)Charlotte Smith, 17, a senior at Walt Whitman High, put her early-decision chip on Wake Forest University, in North Carolina. Her application was deferred into the regular pool. For many applicants, that is demoralizing. For Smith, it was a relief.“I’m actually glad,” Smith said last week as she had several applications pending and some offers in hand, including some with scholarships. It’s hard in November, she said, “to pick one school and say this has everything I want.” As students, she said, “we’re still trying on different versions of ourselves.”Micah Guthrie, 17, a senior at Washington Latin, is shooting for liberal arts colleges but not through early decision. “I make a lot of my decisions last minute,” he said. In the fall, he said, “I really didn’t know a lot about a lot of colleges.”Grade Point newsletterNews and issues affecting higher education.Sign upMicah Guthrie (Nick Anderson/The Washington Post)Among his targets is Davidson, advertised on a sweatshirt he wore to school the other day. His mother, Michelle Guthrie, a registrar at Washington Latin, said money is a factor wherever he gets accepted. “We’ll make it happen,” she said. “But I’m hoping some scholarships come with those choices, too.”Davidson had the highest share of early-decision admits in its entering class among colleges The Post analyzed: about 60 percent. Davidson said it is firmly committed to access, with half of the early-decision students who were admitted qualifying for need-based financial aid. That is nearly the same as the share in regular admissions who receive need-based aid. The small college, which has a robust NCAA Division I sports program, said it also relies heavily on early decision for athletic recruiting.A few years ago, the share of early-decision students entering Emory was less than 40 percent, said John Latting, the university’s dean of admission. Now two rounds of early decision fill about half of Emory’s class. Latting said the volume of early-decision applications has doubled in the past four or five years.“Mostly what’s going on is an unbelievably competitive marketplace” for top students, he said. “Early programs bring some calm to what is otherwise a frenzy.”Latting said Emory uses financial aid aggressively to ensure it enrolls a diverse class. About 20 percent of freshmen have enough financial need to qualify for federal Pell grants, a sizeable share for a private university. But Latting acknowledged that early-decision applicants, the Pledgers, tend to be more affluent than the regulars, the Shoppers. That creates added pressure on schools hunting for more students from low-income families.“I wouldn’t for a minute say this is the right system for the nation,” Latting said.Read more:At some colleges, your gender might give you an admissions edgeInside the admissions process at George Washington UniversityColleges often give discounts to the rich. Here’s one that gave up on ‘merit aid.’Meet the man behind the new SAT: ‘I’m in the anxiety field.’https://www.iecaonline.com/PDF/IECA_Library_ED-vs-RD-Acceptances.pdfEarly Admission Ivy League Schools 2016-12STRATEGYEarly acceptance rates to Ivy League schools are drastically higher than regular — but the reason why isn't as obvious as it seemsAbby JacksonDec. 21, 2016, 2:51 PM6,213The figures may look a little out of sync with regular decision acceptance rates to those who follow admissions trends.Courtesy of Stefan StoykovThe Ivy League classes of 2021 are one step closer to attending the school of their dreams.Last week, every Ivy League school, with the exception of Columbia University, reported the number of students who applied and were accepted early this year, giving a glimpse into the college choices of tens of thousands of students.The figures may look a little out of sync with acceptance rates released during the spring.Harvard reported the lowest acceptance rate of the bunch, with 14.5% of applicants gaining acceptance. That's nearly three times higher (meaning more students were able to gain acceptance) than last spring's acceptance rate of 5.2%, which includes both the early and regular decision applicants.Business InsiderHarvard isn't the only school where early application percentage rates are drastically higher than rates released in spring.To give you an idea of where the University stands in comparison to its peers, below are the decision acceptance rates for the class of 2020, released last spring:8. Cornell University — 13.96%7. Dartmouth College — 10.52%6. University of Pennsylvania — 9.41%5. Brown University — 9.01%4. Princeton University — 6.46%3. Yale University — 6.27%2. Columbia University — 6.04%1. Harvard University — 5.2%Every single Ivy League school, by a factor of two or three, appears easier to access when applying early. The contrast appears even starker if you were to isolate just the regular decision rate from the early decision rate, though all of the Ivies announce their spring numbers as a combination of the two.So what gives?Harvard UniversityMarcio Jose Bastos Silva / ShutterstockIvy admissions offices emphasize that the reason it appears easier to get into schools during early admissions is more a factor of the strength of the applicant pool rather than an ease of acceptance.In other words, students who apply early to Harvard are probably better qualified compared the larger applicant pool, and more confident in their chances of being admitted."We have continued to stress to applicants, their families, and their guidance counselors that there is no advantage in applying early to Harvard," William R. Fitzsimmons, Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid, said, in a release from Harvard. "The reason students are admitted – early or during the Regular Action process – is that their academic, extracurricular, and personal strengths are extraordinary."Harvard releases a survey on incoming freshman every year that provides details on the makeup of the class. For the Class 2019 — the most recent survey conducted— the survey indicated that students admitted early had higher SAT scores than regular admissions students, on average. Early admissions students scored an average 2239, compared to 2217 for regular admissions.Still, schools certainly find early applicants attractive as they can lock in a higher "yield" — the number of admitted students who decide to go to the college. Early decision is binding, and early action means that students are only allowed to apply to one school early (though they can apply regular decision to other schools) and then make their final choice in the spring.Some higher education experts feel that there is certainly an advantage to applying early, and that its practice is troubling, as it disproportionately helps wealthier students. The early admissions process is not possible for students who need to weigh the different financial aid packages they are offered before making a decision.Early admissions "significantly disadvantages students from low-income and middle-income families, who are already underrepresented at such schools," columnist Frank Bruni wrote in The New York Times.Still, it doesn't seem that the early admissions process is going anywhere soon. The Ivy League had a record number of early applications this year, and, more broadly, about 450 American colleges accept early applicants.The Ivy League has released early-application acceptance rates — here's where they all standAbby Jackson and Andy KierszDec. 16, 2016, 12:09 PMThe Ivy League classes of 2021 are one step closer to attending the school of their dreams.Almost every Ivy League school reported the number of students who had applied and were accepted early this year, giving a glimpse into the college choices of tens of thousands of students.Business InsiderHarvard reported the lowest acceptance rate of the bunch, with 14.5% of applicants gaining acceptance versus 14.8% last year. Applications at the school were up by 5% from the previous year, with 6,473, an increase from 6,167, according to a representative for the school.Applications were up across the board. The biggest jump in application numbers came from Princeton University, which reported 4,229 early applications last year and 5,003 this year, an 18% increase year-over-year.Early applications come with some stipulations. Harvard, Princeton, and Yale are restrictive early-action schools, meaning applicants can apply to only one school early but have until May to accept.Brown University, Columbia University (which does not release acceptance figures), Cornell University, Dartmouth College, and University of Pennsylvania are all early-decision schools, which means students must go there if they get accepted.Check out the number of early applications to each Ivy League school this year below:Brown University — 3,170 applications, 695 acceptancesColumbia University — 4,086 applications, does not release acceptance figuresCornell University — 5,384 applications, 1,378 acceptancesDartmouth College — 1999 applications, 555 acceptancesHarvard University — 6,473 applications, 938 acceptancesUniversity of Pennsylvania — 6,147 applications, 1,354 acceptancesPrinceton University — 5,033 applications, 770 acceptancesYale University — 5,086 applications, 871 acceptancesHarvard just released its early admissions decisions — here's how many students got inAbby JacksonDec. 13, 2016, 5:32 PMHarvard University released the early action decisions for the class of 2021 on Tuesday. Flickr / Sam S.Harvard University released the early action decisions for the class of 2021 on Tuesday.Applications at the school were up 5% from the previous year, with 6,473, compared to 6,167, a spokesperson for the school confirmed.Of those applicants, 14.5% gained acceptances, versus 14.8% last year."Early admission appears to be the 'new normal' now – as more students are applying early to Harvard and peer institutions than ever before," William R. Fitzsimmons, Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid, said, in a release from Harvard."At the same time, we have continued to stress to applicants, their families, and their guidance counselors that there is no advantage in applying early to Harvard," he continued. "The reason students are admitted – early or during the Regular Action process – is that their academic, extracurricular, and personal strengths are extraordinary."Harvard is an early action school, meaning that students can only apply to one school early, and have until May to decide if they want to accept. This policy differs from early decision, which requires a student to attend a school if they gain admission.Regular decision Harvard applicants will find out their admissions status in the spring.

I disagree with the contention that all situations declared to be abusive are a miscarriage of justice. If you listen to the audio, there is a mention of a traffic violation; moreover, this lieutenant refused to comply with instructions to exit the vehicle. There is no right to refuse police detention or arrest. The potential for an offender to have access to a weapon is increased while seated in a vehicle. Asking any person, offender or not, to step out of their vehicle is an officer safety issue. If the officer is violating a citizen’s rights or not following regulations, that is a matter to be determined at a later date and time, not at the time of the detention or arrest.Reasonable suspicion, wherein a reasonable officer has objective and articulable facts, that, when taken in context, allow inference as to the commission of a crime, can lead to a pat-down search and/or questioning (U.S. Supreme Court, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 1967); and failure to submit is a crime.ACLU advice: “Don’t run, resist, or obstruct the officers.” Failure to follow instructions of an officer is resisting by definition. Stopped by PoliceThe problem with recent protests is that such protests can lead to this kind of unnecessary confrontation; which in turn leads to police use of force, and at times leads to unlawful excessive force. This case is not an example of excessive force.“Definition of Resisting ArrestNoun1. The act of physically struggling against, attempting to flee from, or threatening a police officer.What is Resisting ArrestIn the United States, the laws hold resisting arrest to be a separate crime that may be charged in addition to, or regardless of, any other crime for which a person may be charged. The act of using force to avoid being restrained, fleeing from a police officer to avoid arrest, and threatening a police officer with bodily harm while attempting to elude arrest are all considered crimes.The purpose of laws against resisting arrest is to protect law enforcement officers in the discharge of their duty, and to protect the public from harm that may be caused by someone violently resisting, or running from police. In many jurisdictions, obstructing or delaying a law enforcement officer in the performance of his duty is also considered resisting, though some jurisdictions use the term “obstructing police officer.” Additionally, in many states, obstructing the duties of an emergency medical technician / Paramedic, and other emergency services personnel are also included in resisting and obstructing laws.In order to enforce these laws, it is necessary to allow a person to be criminally charged, tried, and convicted for resisting arrest, whether or not the individual is charged in the act for which the arrest was made. In fact, a person can be charged with resisting arrest even if the arrest was not lawful.Other Actions Considered Resisting ArrestBecause resisting laws cover acts that obstruct an officer in going about his duties, there are certain other acts that may be charged as resisting arrest or as obstruction. These include such acts as: Going limp – an individual forcing an officer to carry or drag him in order to accomplish the arrest Third party obstructing – physically obstructing an officer from arresting another person may be charged as a crime, as may delaying officers from accomplishing their goal of investigating a crime, or arresting a suspect. Such charges would be levied against the third party doing the obstructing. Providing false information – providing a law enforcement officer with a false name or other false personal information, with or without a false ID, in order to avoid arrest, is considered arresting arrest."( Resisting Arrest - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes)Also see: Robb, D. L. (2020). Police excessive force is a symptom; It is not a cause of racial inequality. Medium. Retrieved from: Police Excessive Force is a Symptom; It is Not a Cause of Racial InequalityProbable cause:"FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTERSOFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSELGLYNCO, GEORGIALEGAL DIVISIONHANDBOOK20159.6.1 Defining Probable CauseArticulating precisely what “probable cause” means is not possible. Probable cause is a fluid concept - turning on the assessment of probabilities in particular factual contexts-- “not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules.” Nonetheless, some basic definitions for probable cause to “arrest” or “search” have been formulated. Probable cause to “search” exists where the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in the place to be searched. Probable cause to “arrest” exists when the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a prudent person in believing that the suspect had committed or was committing an offense.9.6.2 The Test for Probable CauseCourts use a “totality of the circumstances” test to determine whether probable cause exists. This means that all facts known to the officer are considered. The focus in determining probable cause is not on the certainty that a crime was committed, but on the likelihood of it. An officer’s determination of probable cause will be affirmed if a reasonable argument can be made, based in fact, that the suspect committed a specific crime, or that evidence will be found in the place to be searched.9.6.3 Establishing Probable CauseAn officer may establish probable cause in a number of ways. Perhaps the easiest way is through direct observations. An officer may use sense of smell, such as when smelling the odor of marijuana emanating from a vehicle. The standard may be met by a report of another law enforcement officer who is aware of facts amounting to probable cause. Further, probable cause may be established by the “collective knowledge” of many law enforcement officers, each of whom has some fact available that, when taken in sum, establishes the existence of probable cause. An officer may rely on his or her training and experience in making a probable cause decision so long as there are sufficient facts to support it. Officers may also use non-human sources, such as a trained, drug-sniffing dog, to establish probable cause. Information provided solely by victims and/or witnesses can be sufficient to establish probable cause, given a proper basis of knowledge, when there is no evidence indicating that either the information or the victim/witness is not credible. Probable cause may be established through information provided by a confidential informant or anonymous source. When a confidential informant or anonymous source is the source of the information, however, certain issues must be considered."Probable cause does not necessarily imply that a crime need have been committed, this is merely the judgement of the officer involved based on perceived circumstances. It is the purview of prosecutors and courts to adjudicate the circumstances, it is not for the person being arrested to determine. It is sufficient that an officer deems that an arrest or detention is warranted; however, that judgement will be subject to review. To repeat, reasonable suspicion, wherein a reasonable officer has objective and articulable facts, that, when taken in context, allow inference as to the commission of a crime, can lead to a pat-down search and/or questioning (U.S. Supreme Court, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 1967); and failure to submit is a crime.As I have indicated, it is not the option of the person being detained or arrested to determine that they can resist based on their perceptions. The determination of mistaken evidence of a crime, improper tactics, false arrest, or excessive force is to be made after the incident, when all facts can be ascertained.All the lieutenant had to do to avoid this situation was to exit the vehicle as instructed. I also believe the firing of the officer was a political decision, although there may be specific organizational requirements that were not met.Moreover, with regard to “driving while Black:”“Young Black men and teens made up more than a third of firearm homicide victims in the USA in 2019, one of several disparities revealed in a review of gun mortality data released Tuesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.The analysis, titled ‘A Public Health Crisis in the Making,’ found that although Black men and boys ages 15 to 34 make up just 2% of the nation's population, they were among 37% of gun homicides that year.”Reference: Hassanein, N. (2021, February 25). Young Black men and teens are killed by guns 20 times more than their white counterparts, CDC data shows. USA TODAY. Retrieved from: https://www.yahoo.com/news/public-health-crisis-young-black-215138643.htmlIn the Black community, there is a statistically significant deficiency with regard to education, employment, familial stability, and poverty. “According to the 2014 U.S. Census Bureau ACS study (see charts below) 27% of all African American men, women and children live below the poverty level compared to just 11% of all Americans. An even higher percentage (38%) of Black children live in poverty compared to 22% of all children in America. The poverty rate for working-age Black women (26%), consisting of women ages 18 to 64, is higher than that of working-age Black men (21%)” (Black Demographics, 2020).Differences that exacerbate cultural disparity include education, which plays a major role in employability that can counteract pursuit of criminal activities. The national average for completion of high school by Whites is about 75%, while the average for Blacks is about 50% (Swanson, 2004). Blacks, in 2016, at the 90th percentile within race earned 68% as much as Whites at the 90th percentile; while Blacks earned 54% as much as Whites in the lower income bracket (Kochhar & Cilluffo, 2018). …The 2000 census listed the U.S. population as 12.9% Black, and 77.1% White (Census, 2001a) (Census, 2001b). In 2005, one victim and one offender homicides were mostly intra-racial, about 93% for Black victims (49% of all homicide victims being Black) and 85% for white victims (Harrell, 2007). More than 50% of the offenders arrested for murder and non-negligent manslaughter were Black (U.S. Department of Justice, 2009). Hickey (2006) that indicated that out of 249 serial killers the racial break-down was 72% White, 23% Black, 3% Hispanic, 1% Asian, and 1% other. Projections based on incarceration rates indicated that about 32% of Black males would be imprisoned during their lifetime, compared to 5.9% of White males (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2007). Black males aged 16-24 have consistently had the highest violent crime victimization rates (113 per 1,000) (U.S. Department of Justice, 1994).Hypervigilance on the part of police can be attributed to bias in some cases. However, worthy of note is how that bias is influenced by the significant disproportion of Black assaults on officers (Sheets, 2014). Of the officers feloniously killed in 2012 about 30% of the assailants were Black, with 87.5% of the officers White, and 12.5% Black (Criminal Justice Information Services Division, 2013). This indicates that the statistical probability of being killed by a Black person is significantly higher. Presumably, expectations of police officers as to the increased probability of Black people being engaged in illegal activities (as supported by available statistics) affects how they deal with Black people, contributing to the common criticism regarding traffic stops identified as “driving while Black.” (Robb, 2020)Reference:Robb, D. L. (2020). Police excessive force is a symptom; It is not a cause of racial inequality. Medium. Retrieved from: Police Excessive Force is a Symptom; It is Not a Cause of Racial Inequality

SCIENTISTS THROW COLD WATER ON CLAIMS LINKING HURRICANE FLORENCE TO GLOBAL WARMING1:52 PM 09/19/2018Michael Bastasch | Energy EditorClimate scientists don’t all agree that global warming made Hurricane Florence worse.Scientist Judith Curry called such links “misleading to scientists, the public and policy makers.”“There is no reason to suggest that global warming” made Florence worse, scientist Cliff Mass said.Hurricane Florence made landfall on Friday in North Carolina, bringing heavy rains and flooding. But before the storm touched down in the U.S., scientists and news outlets were already linking the storm to global warming.However, not all scientists agree that man-made warming is making hurricanes, including Florence, bigger, slower and wetter as is often claimed in the media.Climatologist Judith Curry called efforts by the “mainstream climate community” to link Florence to man-made global warming “woefully inadequate and misleading to scientists, the public and policy makers.”“I’ve scratched the surface of the complex issues surrounding the weather and climate dynamics of Florence, but the take home point is that convincingly attributing any of this to human caused global warming is very challenging,” Curry wrote in a blog post on Tuesday.Some climate scientists and media outlets argued “unusually warm waters” made Florence more powerful than would otherwise be the case. (RELATED: As Hurricane Florence Moves In, Democrats Are Holding Up Trump’s Pick To Head EPA’s Emergency Response Division)Penn State University climate scientist Michael Mann and The New York Times’ climate team attributed warming in the Atlantic to global warming. The Times published a video before the storm hit claiming Florence “formed in unusually warm waters.”“All else being equal, warmer oceans mean more energy to intensify tropical storms and hurricanes,” Mann wrote in The Guardian of Florence’s link to global warming. “All other things being equal, that implies about 10% more rainfall.”While Florence did bring record rainfall to the Carolinas, was this because the warm waters “supercharged” the storm?Probably not. An analysis of Florence’s path by Cato Institute meteorologist Ryan Maue showed ocean temperatures were “abnormally cool” for most of the storm’s trek through the Atlantic Ocean.“Ryan Maue is absolutely correct,” University of Washington climate scientist Cliff Mass told The Daily Caller News Foundation.Maue’s analysis not only showed that Florence formed, then strengthened, over relatively cool waters, but rapidly weakened once it reached warmer waters near the U.S. coast. Forecasters expected the storm to strengthen, but it was torn apart by wind shear, Mass said.“There is no reason to suggest that global warming or an ‘ocean heat wave’ supercharged Hurricane Florence,” Mass said. “So the ‘ocean heat wave’ theory is obviously bogus.”But what about the record rainfall? NPR’s science correspondent said scientists found that Florence was ” a lot wetter than it would have been in a cooler climate, 50 percent wetter.”NPR’s reporter cited a study published before Florence even made landfall predicting global warming increased the size of the storm 50 miles larger and increased its rainfall by 50 percent. However, that study has not been updated after the storm to see how accurate it was.When it came to this pre-even attribution study, Curry said the “climate models simply are not fit for this task.”Mass also noted that “most of the major impacts of the storm was because it slowed down near the coast, causing an extended period of rain,” adding there’s “no credible theory of observational evidence that such slowing down has anything to do with global warming.”Some scientists and reporters linked Florence’s slow speed to a study by University of Wisconsin-Madison scientist James Kossin showing a slowdown in tropical cyclone speeds since 1949.Kossin told The Atlantic that “scientists have long hypothesized that tropical cyclones will move more slowly in a warmer world” in an article about Florence’s slowing down.Kossin’s study, however, did not attempt to attribute it to either global warming or natural cycles. Kossin suggests global warming could be the culprit, but his study does not show it.Curry noted that “the effect described by Kossin is very different from the out-and-out stall that we saw for Florence and Harvey in 2016.” Both storms slowed because of “blocking high pressure systems,” which is distinct from what Kossin looked at.Scientists Throw Cold Water On Claims Linking Hurricane Florence To Global WarmingNo, global warming isn’t causing worse hurricanesBy Bjorn LomborgSeptember 19, 2018 | 7:23pm | UpdatedModal TriggerNurPhoto via Getty ImagesIt’s human nature to assign blame for catastrophic events. In medieval times, witches were blamed for weather woes. Trials and burnings increased when weather got worse. In hurricane season today, many find a scapegoat in global warming.Pundits tell us “ignoring the science of climate change will hurt us” (Kristina Ball at NBC) and a Washington Post editorial declares the Trump administration complicit.It’s a familiar drumbeat, recognizable from Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Sandy. For years, Al Gore and others emphasized the need to connect extreme weather to climate change to encourage carbon cuts. Pre-Florence, things reached fever pitch, with even a claim global warming was why the hurricane’s rainfall would be (a suspiciously exact) “50 percent worse.” While Florence caused less damage than expected the drumbeat will be back come the next hurricane. Before then, the record needs correcting.Global warming is a real issue, but the claims of ever worse hurricanes are wrong.The UN Climate Panel found in its latest report that hurricanes (aka tropical cyclones) haven’t increased: “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century.”For the United States, the trend of all land-falling hurricanes has been falling since 1900, as has that of major hurricanes. In the 51 years from 1915, Florida and the Atlantic coast were hit by 19 major hurricanes. In the 51 years to 2016, just seven. In the last 11 years, only two hurricanes greater than category 3 hit the continental USA — a record low since 1900. From 1915 to 1926, 12 hit.We’re not seeing an increase of hurricanes. Yes, hurricane costs keep escalating. But this is not due to climate change. Rather, more people with more wealth live in harm’s way.The US population rose four-fold over the past century, but climbed 50-fold in coastal areas. The area hurricane Florence was predicted to hit held fewer than 800,000 homes in 1940; it’s now 11.3 million — a 1,325 percent jump. Homes are bigger and hold many more expensive possessions. Adjusted for population and wealth, US hurricane damage has not increased since 1900. Global weather damage as a percent of global GDP actually fell from 1990 to 2017.Looking ahead, it is likely that hurricanes will become somewhat stronger, but less frequent. This should not cause panic. A major study in Nature put worldwide hurricane-damage costs around 0.04 percent of GDP. Accounting for an increase in prosperity (which means more resilience), by 2100 this would drop to 0.01 percent. The effect of global warming making storms fewer but stronger will see damage end up around 0.02 percent of GDP. Global warming will increase harm, but prosperity will still decrease the overall impact.Which brings us to why carbon cuts are a terrible way to reduce hurricane damage. As a Royal Society report concluded, cutting CO₂ has “extremely limited potential to reduce future losses.”The Paris agreement on climate change will cost in the region of $1-2 trillion a year in lost growth for the rest of this century. The UN body responsible for the treaty estimates the cuts promised until 2030 will achieve 1 percent of what would be needed to keep temperature rises under 2°C.This means Paris could reduce hurricane damage toward the end of the century by perhaps 0.0001 percent, while the cost would be around 10,000 times higher. That is a terrible policy.The Paris treaty is expensive and ineffectual because green energy isn’t yet competitive with fossil fuels. If it was, everyone would switch. Together, solar and wind fulfill just 0.8 percent of our energy needs, reports the International Energy Agency; that will inch to 3.6 percent in 2040 even under Paris.We should replace Paris with a commitment to spend far more on research and development of green energy sources to make them so cheap they will outcompete fossil fuels.A decade ago, 10 top researchers, sharply divided over whether global warming intensifies hurricanes, together pointed out that the climate connection is a distraction from “the main hurricane problem facing the United States.”This is about vulnerability. In rich countries like America, we should not allow so many houses to be built on flood plains or on coastlines. We should insist on higher building standards, and increase wetlands to handle flooding. We should stop federal insurance subsidies that encourage building in vulnerable areas. In the world’s poorest countries, we should do more to reduce poverty, because increased prosperity is the most effective way of building resilience.And we should stick to evidence-led policy. Blaming global-warming policy for the damage wreaked by Florence is tilting at windmills — posturing that does nothing to ameliorate hurricanes.Bjorn Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center.No, global warming isn’t causing worse hurricanesBarrage over climate change link to floodsDavid Shukman Science editorThe key one is a basic physical relationship: since warmer air can hold more moisture, it makes sense that our warming atmosphere would produce more intense rain.But how much rain? And where? The computer models used to explore scenarios for the impacts of different levels of greenhouse gases are recognised to be weaker on rainfall than on temperature.Surely, you might think, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the consensus assessment of the latest science, might clear this up? As so often, you can read its documents in different ways.If you think global warming is overplayed, you focus on this conclusion in the most recent IPCC report:"There continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale."Translated, that means we're not seeing more floods, story over.Barrage over climate change link to floodsAtmosfear: Communicating the Effects of Climate Change on Extreme WeatherVladimir JankovićCentre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, United KingdomDavid M. SchultzCentre for Atmospheric Science, School of Earth, Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United KingdomAdd to Favorites Track Citation Download Citation Emailhttps://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-16-0030.1Received: 18 March 2016Final Form: 6 July 2016Published Online: 9 December 2016Abstract 
Full Text 
References 
Cited by 
PDFAbstractThe potential and serious effects of anthropogenic climate change are often communicated through the soundbite that anthropogenic climate change will produce more extreme weather. This soundbite has become popular with scientists and the media to get the public and governments to act against further increases in global temperature and their associated effects through the communication of scary scenarios, what the authors term “atmosfear.” Underlying atmosfear’s appeal, however, are four premises. First, atmosfear reduces the complexity of climate change to an identifiable target in the form of anthropogenically forced weather extremes. Second, anthropogenically driven weather extremes mandate a responsibility to act to protect the planet and society from harmful and increased risk. Third, achieving these ethical goals is predicated on emissions policies. Fourth, the end result of these policies—a nonanthropogenic climate—is assumed to be more benign than an anthropogenically influenced one. Atmosfear oversimplifies and misstates the true state of the science and policy concerns in three ways. First, weather extremes are only one of the predicted effects of climate change and are best addressed by measures other than emission policies. Second, a preindustrial climate may remain a policy goal, but it is unachievable in reality. Third, the damages caused by any anthropogenically driven extremes may be overshadowed by the damages caused by increased exposure and vulnerability to the future risk. In reality, recent increases in damages and losses due to extreme weather events are due to societal factors. Thus, invoking atmosfear through such approaches as attribution science is not an effective means of either stimulating or legitimizing climate policies.Keywords: Anthropogenic effects; Broadcasting; Education; Policy; Societal impactsDenotes Open Access content.Corresponding author address: Dr. Vladimir Janković, Centre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine, Simon Building, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected]. IntroductionAnthropogenic climate change—in its historical, scientific, political, legal, and socioeconomic contexts—is framed in terms of values, goals, and choices for which climate science and modeling alone cannot provide sufficient guidance in decision-making. Commentators, activists, and policymakers regularly ground their claims and motives in terms of values and choices that they see contributing to a better climatic future, arguing that their proposals are better informed, fairer, or more altruistic than those of their opponents (Lee 2014). But outside the explicit calls to consider moral values in making climate-relevant decisions, there is a level at which values enter into the discussion without being recognized as such. In this article, we look at the assumptions, mostly implicit or unstated, that embody norms and expectations about the relationship between social responsibility and the ontology of climate change. In particular, we look at the representation of climate change as that of a physical entity responsible for increasing the socioeconomic and environmental impacts of future weather events. We argue that this representation helps its champions—scientists, analysts, and politicians—to buttress their political and ethical preferences and enhance the role of extreme weather in climate change policy.Sociologists and philosophers of science have extensively discussed the value-ladenness of scientific practice, the concept that science cannot be performed in a vacuum without making value judgments based on context (e.g., Laudan 1984; Kitcher 2001; Kincaid et al. 2007; Douglas 2009). This article explores one aspect of value-ladenness related to attributing extreme weather to climate change, so-called attribution science. Thus, the purpose of this article is to examine how a specific set of perceptions associated with the current climate policy gives credence to attribution science—namely, “the science of probabilistic event attribution [that] can provide scientific evidence about the contribution of anthropogenic climate change to changes in risk of extreme events” (Otto et al. 2015). Specifically, we argue that the current scientific and policy interests in high-impact weather events stem from a perceived deficit in the public awareness of climate threat and the associated perceived deficit in the locally demonstrable proofs of its growing environmental impact. The logic goes that if the link between the anthropogenic drivers of climate change and an increasing intensity of individual weather events could be established, then developing a convincing case for robust, effective, and universally agreed upon climate policies would be easier. Making climate change visible—the approach Rudiak-Gould (2013) calls visibilism—would elevate the fight against climate change from one depending on future threats to one based on a clear and present danger. Despite this pragmatic appeal, however, visibilism favors dramatization and hype over the more systematic and less fortuitous rationales for stimulating climate policies. Also, visibilism downplays the complexity of the relationship between environmental risk and socioeconomic vulnerability and misstates our understanding of climate science.7. Conclusion: Atmosfear appealDetermining the influence of anthropogenic drivers on individual weather events is a matter involving methodological difficulties. Not all extreme weather events will change, nor will some of the changes—if they even occur—be detectable amid the large interannual variability of events (IPCC 2012; Kunkel et al. 2013). Some of these changes have already been observed, and others have not been detected (e.g., Kim et al. 2016). Some extreme events are expected to become less frequent, but become some will become more intense (e.g., IPCC 2012). Some areas of the globe will benefit; others stand to lose. Thus, reducing the complexity of climate change (as if a single outcome were known) into the soundbite of “climate change means more extreme weather” is a massive oversimplification—if not misstatement—of the true state of the science.Furthermore, no estimate about the relative contribution of greenhouse drivers to future weather extremes could distinguish meteorological from societal causes of damages. Future socioeconomic expansion in vulnerable areas, such as megacities and coastal settlements, are likely to lead to an increase in infrastructural damage, social vulnerability, and loss of life even during “normal” weather extremes. Attributing such increases to anthropogenic drivers only masks the social causes of hazard and, consequently, fetishizes climate change into a sole-source danger and a sole target of climate policy.An important corollary is that such policy fixates on atmospheric sources of risk and leaves socioeconomic contributors of risk to conventional welfare policies and emergency protocols. The disconnect may result in a complete failure to prevent mounting damages. Ironically, the qualitative measures needed for planning against the “weather on steroids” (UCAR 2012) such as greener economies would turn out to be the same as those used in planning for the “natural” severe events: building more resilient communities, better levees and seawalls, more effective emergency services and evacuation planning, land-use planning and zoning in hazard-prone areas such as floodplains and coastal areas, strengthened building regulations and construction codes, and any other initiatives aimed at reducing socioenvironmental injustice and self-inflicted sources of risk (e.g., Schultz and Janković 2014). We suspect that such measures would eventually eclipse most of the other measures imposed as a result of attribution science. In this way, we disagree with Dilling et al. (2015), who argued that adapting to current climate may lead to more vulnerability rather than less. A world in which socially induced sources of risk are at their minimum is the world in which the climate-driven sources are at a minimum as well.There is a need to change the view that mitigation and adaptation cannot be part of the same solution. Mitigation policy is the key to enabling the world to avoid the possibility of irreversible changes that might result in irreversible damages to the world’s societies. Adaptation addresses the reality that global climate has already changed and that we should be prepared to live in such a world. However, the insistence on linking extreme weather to climate change reduces the political will to deal with these types of problems and climate-driven vulnerability. Fear-induced appeals to more extreme weather in a changed climate are unlikely to succeed because people view weather events (and hence climate) as less predictable than other risks and thus may lead to an inability to take action (Bostrom and Lashof 2007). Recipients of fear appeals may try to act to reduce the danger, but when they have no access to concrete means to do so, recipients suppress the fear without reducing the danger either by “denying that there is anything to fear or concluding that the fear appeal was a manipulation attempt by an untrustworthy source” (Stern 2012; also Witte and Allen 2000). Furthermore, audience receptiveness to the claims of atmosfear tends to diminish as concern with the dramatic event attenuates; keeping up the interest requires a constant supply of ever more dramatic claims (Kerr 2013; Pielke 2014, p. 89). Also, counter extremes, such as cold spells, can work to diminish concern and reduce interest in anthropogenic warming (Zaval et al. 2014).More generally, the tendency to fixate on preventing one type of threat by action is not just misleading; the fixation on discrete episodes of damaging weather may rob resources from policies addressing the slow, low-intensity, high-frequency, locally enhanced, and irreversible impacts. For example, contemporary urban climate change policies that prioritize high-intensity but low-frequency events such as heat waves, flooding, sea level rise, and hurricanes downplay chronic, small-scale risks associated with urban heat island, microvariations of temperatures, street-level winds, traffic heat, air conditioning, street cover, and solar glare—all of which shape the day-to-day life of an urban population (Janković 2014). This policy blind spot may well have to do with the results of research in public risk perceptions that show that people generally downplay the risk of things they commonly encounter and over which they think have control as compared to random, severe, and involuntary events (e.g., Slovic et al. 1981).To summarize, we argue that attribution or linking climate change to the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events (what we call atmosfear), although perhaps a scientifically interesting question, is not effective as a means to motivate or legitimize climate policies. By reducing the complexity of climate science down to its effect on weather events, proponents run the risk of underemphasizing the crucial socioeconomic components of increased risk (e.g., increasing exposure of assets in vulnerable locations). Moreover, even if anthropogenic climate change were effectively stopped, extreme weather would continue. Members of the public and governmental representatives who had been sold on the idea that “stopping climate change will reduce extreme weather events” would understandably question their bill of goods, reducing scientific credibility.AcknowledgmentsSchultz is partially funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council through Grants NE/H008225/1, NE/I005234/1, NE/I024984-1, and NE/N003918/1, and the Risk Prediction Initiative of the Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences through Grant RPI2.0-2016-SCHULTZ. We thank three anonymous reviewers for their comments that have improved an earlier draft of this article.REFERENCESAbad, A., and C. Baghai, 2015: Climate justice. Philippine Daily Inquirer, 13 December 2015, accessed 2 July 2016. [Available online at http://opinion.inquirer.net/91107/climate-justice-2.] Google ScholarArmour, K. C., and G. H. Roe, 2011: Climate commitment in an uncertain world. Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L01707, doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL045850. Crossref, Google ScholarBindoff, N. L., and Coauthors, 2013: Detection and attribution of climate change: from global to regional. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, T. F. Stocker et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, 867–952. Google ScholarBostrom, A., and D. Lashof, 2007: Weather or climate change? Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change, S. C. Moser and L. Dilling, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 31–43. Google ScholarCallison, C., 2014: How Climate Change Comes to Matter: The Communal Life of Facts. Duke University Press, 328 pp. Crossref, Google ScholarCapstick, S., L. Whithmarsh, W. Poortinga, N. Pidgeon, and P. Upham, 2015: International trends in public perceptions of climate change over the past quarter century. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Climate Change, 6, 35–61, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.321. Crossref, Google ScholarCaseldine, C., 2015: So what sort of climate do we want? Thoughts on how to decide what is ‘natural’ climate. Geogr. J., 181, 366–374, doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12131. Crossref, Google ScholarChachibaia, K., 2014: Against all odds: Egypt’s fight against climate change. UN Development Programme, accessed 14 September 2015. [Available online at http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/blog/2014/11/26/Against-All-Odds-Egypt-s-fight-against-Climate-Change.html.] Google ScholarChristidis, N., and P. A. Stott, 2012: Lengthened odds of the cold UK winter of 2010/11 attributable to human influence [in “Explaining Extreme Events of 2011 from a Climate Perspective”]. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 93 (7) 1060–1062. Google ScholarClimate Communication, 2011: Overview: Current Extreme Weather & Climate Change. accessed 14 September 2015. [Available online at https://www.climatecommunication.org/new/features/extreme-weather/overview/.] Google ScholarDepartment for Environmental Food and Rural Affairs, 2013: How is Defra tackling climate change? Defra Science Notes 2, 11 pp. [Available online at http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/ozone-uv/Tackling_Climate_Change_defra.pdf.] Google ScholarDilling, L., M. E. Daly, W. R. Travis, O. V. Wilhelmi, and R. A. Klein, 2015: The dynamics of vulnerability: Why adapting to climate variability will not always prepare us for climate change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Climate Change, 6, 413–425, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.341. Crossref, Google ScholarDokoupil, T., 2015: When climate change attacks. MSNBC, accessed 14 September 2015. [Available online at http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/when-climate-change-attacks.] Google ScholarDouglas, H., 2009: Science, Policy and the Value-Free Ideal. University of Pittsburgh Press, 256 pp. Google ScholarEmanuel, K., 2015: What we’ve learned about hurricanes and climate change since Katrina. Washington Post, 26 August, accessed 14 September 2015. [Available online at https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/08/26/what-weve-learned-about-hurricanes-and-climate-change-since-katrina/.] Google ScholarEmanuel, K., and Coauthors, 2006: Statement on the U.S. hurricane problem. Accessed 16 September 2016. [Available online at http://eaps4.mit.edu/faculty/Emanuel/outreach/statement.] Google ScholarFleming, J. R., and V. Janković, 2011: Revisiting Klima. Osiris, 26, 1–15, doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/661262. Crossref, Google ScholarGardiner, S. M., 2004: Ethics and global climate change. Ethics, 114, 555–600, doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/382247. Google ScholarGardiner, S. M., 2011: A Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change. Oxford University Press, 518 pp. Crossref, Google ScholarGillis, J., 2011: Study links rise in rain and snow to human actions. New York Times, 16 February, accessed 15 September 2015. [Available online at http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/study-links-rise-in-rain-and-snow-to-human-actions-447970.] Google ScholarGould, S. J., 2002: Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. Vintage, 256 pp. Google ScholarHerring, S., M. P. Hoerling, T. C. Peterson, and P. A. Stott, Eds., 2014: Explaining extreme events of 2013 from a climate perspective. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 95, S1–S96, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477-95.9.S1.1. Link, Google ScholarHerring, S., M. P. Hoerling, J. P. Kossin, T. C. Peterson, and P. A. Stott, Eds., 2015: Explaining extreme events of 2014 from a climate perspective. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 96, S1–S172. Link, Google ScholarHome Office, 2002: Supply chain vulnerability: Executive report on behalf of the transport, local government and the regions. Executive Rep., 8 pp. [Available online at http://www.som.cranfield.ac.uk/som/dinamic-content/research/lscm/downloads/Vulnerability_report.pdf.] Google ScholarHulme, M., 2014: Attributing weather extremes to ‘climate change’: A review. Prog. Phys. Geogr., 38, 499–511, doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133314538644. Crossref, Google ScholarHulme, M., 2015: Climate and its changes: A cultural appraisal. Geogr. Environ., 2, 1–11, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/geo2.5. Crossref, Google ScholarIPCC, 2011: Summary for policymakers. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation, Cambridge University Press, 20 pp. [Available online at https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srex/SREX_FD_SPM_final.pdf.] Google ScholarIPCC, 2012: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. Cambridge University Press, 589 pp. Google ScholarJamieson, D., 1996: Ethics and intentional climate change. Climatic Change, 33, 323–336, doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00142580. Crossref, Google ScholarJamieson, D., 2001: Climate change and global environmental justice. Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Global Environmental Governance, P. Edwards and C. Miller, Eds., MIT Press, 287–307. Google ScholarJamieson, D., 2005: Adaptation, mitigation and justice. Perspectives on Climate Change: Science, Economics, Politics, Ethics, W. Sinnott-Armstrong and R. B. Howarth, Eds., Advances in Economics of Environmental Resources, Vol. 5. Elsevier, 217–248. Google ScholarJanković, V., 2006: Change in the weather. Bookforum, February–March, 39–40. Google ScholarJanković, V., 2014: The city. Research Handbook of Climate Governance, K. Bäckstrandand E. Lövbrand, Eds., Edward Elgar, 332–334. Google ScholarJanković, V., 2015: Working with weather: Atmospheric resources, climate variability and the rise of industrial meteorology, 1950–2010. Hist. Meteor., 7, 98–111. Google ScholarJasanoff, S., 2007: Technologies of humility. Nature, 450, 33, doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/450033a. Crossref, Google ScholarJohnson, L., 2011: Climate change and the risk industry: The multiplication of fear and value. Global Political Ecology, R. Peet, P. Robbins, and M. Watts, Eds., Routledge, 185–202. Google ScholarKellow, A., 2008: All in a good cause. Online Opinion, 16 May 2008, accessed 15 June 2016. [Available online at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7368.] Google ScholarKerr, R., 2013: In the hot seat. Science, 342, 688–689, doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6159.688. Crossref, Google ScholarKim, Y. H., S. K. Min, X. Zhang, F. Zwiers, L. V. Alexander, M. G. Donat, and Y. S. Tun, 2016: Attribution of extreme temperature changes during 1951–2010. Climate Dyn., 46, 1769, doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-015-2674-2. Crossref, Google ScholarKincaid, H., J. Dupré, and A. Wylie, Eds., 2007: Value-Free Science? Ideals and Illusions. Oxford University Press, 256 pp. Google ScholarKitcher, P., 2001: Science, Truth and Democracy. Oxford University Press, 240 pp. Crossref, Google ScholarKlein, R. J. T., and A. Möhner, 2011: The political dimension of vulnerability: Implications for the Green Climate Fund. IDS Bull., 42, 15–22, doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2011.00218.x. Crossref, Google ScholarKlinsky, S., and H. Dowlatabadi, 2009: Conceptualizations of justice in climate policy. Climate Policy, 9, 88–108, doi:https://doi.org/10.3763/cpol.2007.0468. Crossref, Google ScholarKunkel, K. E., R. A. Pielke Jr., and S. A. Changnon, 1999: Temporal fluctuations in weather and climate extremes that cause economic and human health impacts: A review. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 80, 1077–1098, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1999)080<1077:TFIWAC>2.0.CO;2. Link, Google ScholarKunkel, K. E., and Coauthors, 2013: Monitoring and understanding trends in extreme storms: State of knowledge. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 94, 499–513, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00262.1. Link, Google ScholarLaudan, L., 1984: Science and Values: The Aims of Science and Their Role in Scientific Debate.University of California Press, 160 pp. Google ScholarLazarus, R. J., 2009: Super wicked problems and climate change: Restraining the present to liberate the future. Cornell Law Rev., 94, 1153–1234. Google ScholarLee, P., 2014: Ethics and climate change policy. GWPF Essay 2, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, 48 pp. [Available online at http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/12/Lee-Ethics-climate-change.pdf.] Google ScholarLeiserowitz, A., 2007: American opinions on global warming: A Yale University/Gallup/ClearVision Institute poll. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 14 pp. [Available online at http://www.climateaccess.org/sites/default/files/Yale_American%20Opinions%20Report%202007.pdf.] Google ScholarLewis, S. C., and D. J. Karoly, 2013: Anthropogenic contributions to Australia’s record summer temperatures of 2013. Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 3705–3709, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50673. Crossref, Google ScholarLeyda, J., and D. Negra, Eds, 2015: Extreme Weather and Global Media. Routledge, 230 pp. Google ScholarMin, S.-K., X. Zhang, F. W. Zwiers, and G. C. Hegerl, 2011: Human contribution to more intense precipitation extremes. Nature, 470, 378–381, doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09763. Crossref, Google ScholarMohammed, A., 2014: Kerry calls climate change ‘weapon of mass destruction.’ Reuters, 16 February, accessed 14 September 2015. [Available online at http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/16/us-kerry-climate-idUSBREA1F0BP20140216.] Google ScholarNational Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016: Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change. National Academies Press, 186 pp., doi:https://doi.org/10.17226/21852. Google ScholarNew York Times, 2012: Worrying Beyond Hurricane Sandy. New York Times, 1 November, New York ed., A30. [Available online at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/opinion/worrying-beyond-hurricane-sandy.html.] Google ScholarNordhaus, T., and M. Shellenberger, 2007: Breakthrough: From Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility. Houghton Mifflin, 256 pp. Google ScholarOtto, F. E. L., E. Boyd, R. G. Jones, R. J. Cornforth, R. James, H. R. Parker, and M. R. Allen, 2015: Attribution of extreme weather events in Africa: A preliminary exploration of the science and policy implications. Climatic Change, 132, 531–543, doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1432-0. Crossref, Google ScholarPall, P., T. Aina, D. A. Stone, P. A. Stoff, T. Nozawa, A. G. J. Hilberts, D. Lohmann, and M. R. Allen, 2011: Anthropogenic greenhouse gas contribution to flood risk in England and Wales in autumn 2000. Nature, 470, 382–385, doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09762. Crossref, Google ScholarPeterson, T. C., P. A. Stott, and S. Herring, Eds., 2012: Explaining extreme events of 2011 from a climate perspective. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 93, 1041–1067, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00021.1. Link, Google ScholarPeterson, T. C., P. A. Stott, and S. Herring, Eds., 2013: Explaining extreme events of 2012 from a climate perspective. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 94, S1–S71, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00085.1. Link, Google ScholarPielke, R., Jr., 2014: The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters and Climate Change. Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes, Arizona State University, 124 pp. Google ScholarPrins, G., and Coauthors, 2010: The Hartwell Paper: A new direction for climate policy after the crash of 2009. INSIS Oxford and LSE MacKinder Programme for the Study of Long Wave Events, 42 pp. [Available at http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27939/.] Google ScholarRittel, H. W. J., and M. M. Webber, 1973: Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci., 4, 155–169, doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730. Crossref, Google ScholarRudiak-Gould, P., 2013: “We have seen it with our own eyes”: Why we disagree about climate change visibility. Wea. Climate Soc., 5, 120–132, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-12-00034.1. Link, Google ScholarRutgers Today, 2014: Is global warming behind the polar vortex? Rutgers Today, 30 January, accessed 14 September 2015. [Available online at http://news.rutgers.edu/hot-topic/global-warming-behind-polar-vortex/20140129.] Google ScholarSarewitz, D., R. Pielke Jr., and M. Keykhah, 2003: Vulnerability and risk: Some thoughts from a political and policy perspective. Risk Anal., 23, 805–810, doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00357. Crossref, Google ScholarSchell, J., 1989: Our fragile Earth. Discover, Vol. 10, No. 10, 45–48. Google ScholarSchneider, S., 1996: Don’t bet all environmental changes will be beneficial. APS News, 5 (8), 5. [Available online at https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/environmental.cfm.] Google ScholarSchultz, D. M., and V. Janković, 2014: Climate change and resilience to weather events. Wea. Climate Soc., 6, 157–159, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-14-00005.1. Link, Google ScholarShue, H., 1999: Global environment and international inequality. Int. Aff., 75, 531–545, doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.00092. Crossref, Google ScholarSlovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein, 1981: Facts and fears: Societal perception of risk. Adv. Consum. Res., 8, 497–502. Google ScholarStern, P. C., 2012: Psychology: Fear and hope in climate messages. Nat. Climate Change, 2, 572–573, doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1610. Crossref, Google ScholarStiles, W. A., 2012: ‘Toolkit’ for sea level rise adaptation in Virginia. Sea Level Rise and Coastal Infrastructure: Predictions, Risks, and Solutions, ASCE Council on Disaster Risk Management Monograph, No. 6, American Society of Civil Engineers, 78–100. Google ScholarStott, P. A., T. C. Peterson, and S. Herring, 2012: Introduction [in “Explaining Extreme Events of 2011 from a Climate Perspective”]. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 93 (7), 1041–1043. Link, Google ScholarSwiss Re, 2015: Natural catastrophes and man-made disasters. Sigma Rep. 2, 52 pp. Google ScholarThompson, A., and F. E. L. Otto, 2015: Ethical and normative implications of weather event attribution for policy discussions concerning loss and damage. Climatic Change, 133, 439–451, doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1433-z. Crossref, Google ScholarUCAR, 2012: Steroids, baseball, and climate change. AtmosNews, accessed 14 September 2015. [Available online at https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/attribution/steroids-baseball-climate-change.] Google ScholarUngar, S., 1992: The rise and (relative) decline of global warming as a social problem. Sociol. Quart., 33, 483–501, doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1992.tb00139.x. Crossref, Google ScholarUrgenda Summons, 2014: Summons in the case: Urgenda Foundation v. Kingdom of the Netherlands. Final draft translation, Urgenda, 122 pp. [Available online at http://www.urgenda.nl/en/climate-case/legal-documents.php.] Google ScholarVanderheidein, S., 2008: Atmospheric Justice: A Political Theory of Climate Change. Oxford University Press, 304 pp. Crossref, Google ScholarWeart, S., 1988: Nuclear Fear: A History of Images. Harvard University Press, 552 pp. Google ScholarWitte, K., and M. Allen, 2000: A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Educ. Behav., 27, 591–615, doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/109019810002700506. Crossref, Google ScholarYochum, G., and V. Agarwal, 2009: 2008 Virginia Beach tourism economic impact study. Old Dominion University Research Foundation, 60 pp. [Available at https://www.odu.edu/content/dam/odu/offices/economic-forecasting-project/docs/2008_vbecon_impact.pdf.] Google ScholarZaval, L., E. A. Leenan, E. J. Johnson, and E. U. Weber, 2014: How warm days increase belief in global warming. Nat. Climate Change, 4, 143–147, doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2093. Crossref, Google Scholarhttps://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/WCAS-D-16-0030.1