"Earlier this year, we were critical of the US's National Academies of Science for seemingly refusing to respond to the Trump administration's attacks on science. That reticence appeared to end in August with the release of the DOE climate report and the announcement that the EPA was using that report as the latest word on climate science, which it argued had changed considerably since the initial EPA decisions on this issue in 2009."
"In response, the National Academies announced that it would fast-track a new analysis of the risks posed by greenhouse gases, this one done by mainstream scientists instead of a handful of fringe figures. The goal was to get it done before the EPA closed its public comment period on its proposal to ignore greenhouse gases. Obviously, this poses a threat to the EPA's planned actions, which apparently prompted Republicans in Congress to step in."
Failure to complete the DOE revision process would leave the EPA vulnerable to claims that it relied on an incomplete draft report for scientific justification. The DOE's tactics to protect internal documents risk creating larger problems for the administration's agenda. The National Academies moved to fast-track a mainstream scientific analysis of greenhouse gas risks and aimed to finish before the EPA's public comment deadline. That expedited study posed a threat to the EPA's planned actions and provoked Republican intervention. Rep. James Comer launched an investigation, demanded documents, and alleged partisan motives and problematic philanthropic ties related to the study leadership.
Read at Ars Technica
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]