Who's Calling the Shots on Climate Science?
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) has ignited a debate with its expedited review on whether greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare in the U.S. This review, initiated by the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposal to revoke the 2009 Endangerment Finding, has drawn scrutiny due to the panel's composition.
Panel Composition Raises Concerns
The panel, perceived as heavily weighted with activists, appears to have a pre-determined conclusion. Many panelists have a history of advocating for policies that align with the EPA's current stance, calling into question the panel's impartiality and the integrity of the review process.
Conflict of Interest Policy Under Scrutiny
While the NASEM's conflict of interest policy allows exceptions if conflicts are unavoidable and publicly disclosed, the panel's members have shown strong biases toward linking atmospheric CO2 to dangerous global warming and health threats. Some have even led amicus briefs supporting climate policies, including those relying on the EPA's Endangerment Finding.
Public Stances and Prejudiced Views
Panel members have openly expressed their views in various forums. One member signed an amicus brief in West Virginia v. EPA, advocating for climate policies. Another admitted to having already formed an opinion, stating that the scientific community has been consistent in its message for decades.
Criticism Over Lack of Balance and Objectivity
The NASEM's initiative has faced backlash for its perceived lack of balance and objectivity. The panel's composition suggests an attempt to engineer a predetermined outcome, undermining the review's credibility. Critics urge the NASEM to reconsider its panel selection to ensure a fair and unbiased review.
NASEM's Shift Toward Advocacy
The NASEM's recent actions indicate a shift toward advocacy, presenting itself as a thoughtful arbiter while engaging in activism. This shift raises concerns about the integrity of the nation's leading institution of science advice. The NASEM is urged to return to its advisory roots and ensure transparency and impartiality in its processes.