In a period where skepticism towards climate science is notably gaining attention within the Trump administration, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has released a report that stands in stark contrast. This report, unveiled on Wednesday, underscores the ongoing impact of fossil fuels on global warming and emphasizes the detrimental effects of rising temperatures on public health and welfare.
The report from the 16-member science panel of the National Academies reaffirms the role of human activities in climate change. It highlights a continued commitment to transparency and inclusivity, elements that are increasingly being challenged by the current administration. This approach starkly differs from a recent publication by the Department of Energy, which was crafted without public input and authored by climate skeptics, aiming to contest the established scientific consensus on climate change.
“I do find the Academies themselves to be very transparent,” commented Carlos Martinez, an atmospheric scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists. “It’s a part of the robust nature of peer review, of scientific consensus and judgment, when it comes to collecting information, developing and vetting authors.”
The release of this report has already sparked controversy in political circles. Even before its publication, Congress initiated an investigation into its findings, with House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) labeling it a “blatant partisan act to undermine the Trump Administration.” The report serves as a response to an EPA proposal aimed at overturning the 2009 endangerment finding, a key decision that recognized greenhouse gases’ threat to human health.
Historical Context and Funding
Founded in 1863 during the Lincoln administration, the National Academies operates as an independent body providing scientific policy advice. Despite its long-standing history, it now faces potential downsizing due to federal research fund cuts under the Trump administration, threatening to lay off approximately 250 employees.
Despite these challenges, the report strongly upholds the 2009 endangerment finding. “The EPA’s 2009 finding that the human caused emissions of greenhouse gasses threaten human health and welfare was accurate at the time in 2009, it has stood the test of time exceedingly well, and is now even stronger, because it is being reinforced by new evidence,” stated Shirley Tilghman, the report’s committee chair.
Report Composition and Review
The National Academies’ report was developed by a diverse group of experts, including former Trump administration officials and individuals with industry ties. This inclusive approach contrasts with the DOE’s report, which involved a small group of climate contrarians and lacked transparency.
Martinez highlighted the disparity, noting that the DOE report involved only five authors, all known for opposing mainstream climate science, while the National Academies solicited extensive public comments and included varied professional perspectives.
Ongoing Legal and Public Disputes
The DOE’s report is currently entangled in a legal battle, with a federal judge recently criticizing its secretive development process. The judge acknowledged the environmental groups’ claims regarding the report’s lack of transparency, although the report remains in consideration for the EPA’s regulatory rollback.
Marcia McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences, emphasized the importance of diverse viewpoints in scientific research, contrasting this with the DOE’s unilateral selection process. “To say that we have set up a process that is going to bias the outcome, seems to me a little ludicrous compared to how the DOE study, which has obviously triggered this, was conducted,” she remarked.
Original Story at www.eenews.net