Who's Calling the Shots on Climate Science?

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) has stirred up a storm with its fast-tracked review on whether greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare in the U. S. This review, prompted by the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposal to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding, has raised eyebrows due to the panel's composition. The panel, stacked with activists, seems to have a pre-determined conclusion. Many panelists have a history of advocating for policies that align with the EPA's current stance. This raises questions about the panel's impartiality and the integrity of the review process. The NASEM's conflict of interest policy allows for exceptions if conflicts are unavoidable and publicly disclosed. However, the panel's members have demonstrated strong biases towards linking atmospheric CO2 to dangerous global warming and health threats. Some have even led amicus briefs in favor of imposing climate policies, including those hinging on the EPA's Endangerment Finding.The panel's members have made their stances clear in various public forums. For instance, one member signed an amicus brief in West Virginia v. EPA, promoting the climate agenda. Another member acknowledged having made up his mind about the issue, stating that the scientific community has been consistent in its message for decades. The NASEM's initiative has drawn criticism for its lack of balance and objectivity. The panel's composition suggests an intention to engineer a predetermined outcome, undermining the credibility of the review. The NASEM should reconsider its panel selection to ensure a fair and unbiased review. The NASEM's recent actions suggest a shift towards 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 should return to its advisory roots and ensure that its processes are transparent and unbiased.