The National Academies are politically corrupted
The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine was congressionally chartered in 1863 to do just that. However, as with so many of our venerated institutions in recent years, it has dived head-first into many progressive policy priorities and fallen prey to other destructive influences.
Science is suffering from a reproducibility crisis, where identifying bogus, manipulated, and politicized research has become a cottage industry. This is due in no small part to torch-wielding activists burning down institutions that produce research that fails to support the "right" conclusions. Rather than fighting it, the National Academies have too often given fuel to the torch-wielders. NASEM's tepid, caveated 2020 report on school reopening was a de facto invitation for teachers' unions to throw their weight around, prolonging the damaging closures. As if that weren't bad enough, the report included an epilogue on "the epidemic of systemic racism." Predictably, the students NASEM professed to be most concerned about were most harmed by the closures the report helped prolong.
Last month Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency announced it was beginning the process to reverse the 2009 Clean Air Act Endangerment Finding, which granted the feds authority to regulate CO. Since its inception, skeptics have worried that this policy was driven by progressive special interests. A recent dump of public records suggested the Obama-era officials' finding was pre-determined -- a no-no under the Administrative Procedures Act. This kicked off a very profitable period for researchers, consultants, and environmental NGOs who rushed to gorge at the trough of what they termed the climate crisis. NASEM, technically a non-profit foundation which has not only received significant government money to promote climate alarmism but has actively solicited private donations for that cause, decided it ain't gonna take the EPA's recent move lying down.
Marcia McNutt, president of NASEM's National Academy of Sciences, declared the organization will be conducting a "fast-track review" studying "the latest scientific evidence on whether greenhouse gas emissions are reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and welfare in the U.S." In other words, NASEM, tasked with providing advice to the federal government "whenever called upon," is taking the extraordinary step of proactively second-guessing the EPA's decision and advising the government, whether the government asked for it or not. Historically, it has been a responsive organization, weighing in to provide expertise to support the government's needs. Thus, it is highly unusual, if not unprecedented, for NASEM to insert itself into a federal agency process absent a request to do so -- and certainly to wade into a politically fraught subject at the center of a pending high-profile regulatory effort, such as rescinding the Endangerment Finding.
Ideology aside, NASEM appears to be heavily dependent on government support -- receiving approximately $200 million from government coffers in 2023. That is, until the Department of Government Efficiency began auditing federal research dollars suspected of being used improperly or to promote progressive policy priorities such as DEI, gender ideology, and climate alarmism.
TRUMP'S CULTURE WAR OFFENSIVE IS WORKING
The audit has hit NASEM hard. Contract cancelations and stop work orders have undoubtedly left the organization scrambling, with Ms. McNutt announcing in May that 250 of its 1100 staffers could lose their positions over substantial funding cuts. Staff reactions to scrubbing "wokeness" haven't mollified critics. One report revealed NASEM "members [] expressed outrage when staff were ordered to purge words such as 'health equity' and 'marginalized populations' from complete or near-complete reports this winter," and Ms. McNutt and NASEM chief operating officer Greg Symmes dissolved the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, "citing executive orders from Trump and NASEM's obligations as a federal government contractor."
Ms. McNutt and NASEM's decision to insert themselves further into the political fray is likely to attract more scrutiny. It is not far-fetched to think that fungible taxpayer funds that have yet to be fully DOGE'd might be deployed for this self-initiated activist effort to stop the EPA from derailing what many see as a climate alarmism gravy train. As a long-time VIP rider on the train, opposing the EPA may make sense to NASEM climateers. To outside observers, it looks like sour grapes soaked in evident financial conflicts.
Michael Chamberlain is the director of Protect the Public's Trust.
Flashback: Climate alarmism versus integrity at National Academies of Science
Flashback: For Shame: NAS Pres. Ralph Cicerone Turns Science Org. into political advocacy group: $6 million NAS study is used to lobby for global warming bill
Flashback: U.S. National Academy of Sciences Turns to Advocacy
Morano Excerpt: In the case of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, it has morphed into a warmist climate advocacy group. NAS, under Ralph Cicerone, is dedicated to producing science that fits the man-made global warming narrative.
Gore would have us accept as "unbiased", the science from the NAS under Cicerone, despite the fact that NAS took $6 million from Congress and lobbied for a cap-and-trade bill. See: National Research Council Chaired by Warmist Ralph Cicerone: Turned Org. into political advocacy group: $6 million NAS study used to lobby for climate bill
Despite the fact that Cicerone personally lobbied the for nations to reduce emissions at a UN conference. See: This is 'science'? NAS's Ralph Cicerone goes political -- Urges nations to reduce emissions at UN climate talks [email protected]
Despite the fact the U.S. National Academy of Sciences views on man-made global warming are predetermined. See: MIT's Lindzen Slams: 'Ralph Cicerone of NAS/NRC is saying that regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If gov't wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide'
Flashback: NAS Round Up
Climate Depot's Round up on NAS' National Research Council's media hyped political science scare report
Climatologist ridicules NAS warming panel: 'Another in a numbing succession of groupthink reports predicting end of the world unless U.S. dramatically reduces its emissions of Co2. Pronto' -- Report 'blatantly political': NAS report is 'designed to be used by unelected regulators as scientific cover for what our legislature refuses to do, which is to enact expensive and intrusive restrictions on emissions of Co2' -- Several authors are environmental activists, and the National Academies' President, Ralph Cicerone, has been on a mission to demonize carbon dioxide for decades'
NAS Panel Backs Manufactured Crisis to Tame Climate Change: NAS document lays out a strategy for manufacturing a crisis by both exaggerating climate threat and artificially raising fossil-fuel prices'
NAS/NRC Climate Panel Fails The Laugh Test: '5 of 23 panelists are or were staffers for env. activist orgs' -- 'Prior to publishing the NAS/NRC report, 19 of 23 made statements claiming global warming is a human induced problem and/or we need to take action to reduce CO2. That means 83% of panel was clearly and obviously biased before being selected. To claim that a report from such a small panel, comprised primarily of non-climate scientists and environmental activists, is objective and scientifically authoritative is a joke'
NRC predetermined outcome of report: 'Of the first eight names, only one appears to be a climate scientist. The others are engineers, lawyers, and public policy types' -- See how the best 'science' politics can manufacture is produced -- Media loves NRC's politically manufactured 'science'
Media hyped National Research Council panels are 'highly politicized and often stacked, with no climate skeptics included -- Report is more of an exercise in political rather than climate science'
Media hyped National Research Council (NRC) report exposed: 'NRC report is the opinion of a mere 21 authors - nearly all of whom had a longstanding record of global warming activism' -- 'Far from providing objective, expert proof of a global warming crisis, the NRC report provides objective proof that - despite their grandiose-sounding names - the National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council are more interested in political agendas than objective, fact-based science'
NRC predetermined outcome of report: 'Of the first eight names, only one appears to be a climate scientist. The others are engineers, lawyers, and public policy types' -- The carefully crafted "consensus" of man-made global warming has unraveled.
Background on NAS/NRC & Ralph Cicerone:
MIT's Lindzen: 'Cicerone of NAS is saying that regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If gov't wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide'
The National Academy of Sciences is Hertsgaard's evidence for climate fear: For Shame: NAS Pres. Ralph Cicerone Turns Science Org. into political advocacy group: $6 million NAS study is used to lobby for global warming bill
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is Mark Hertsgaard's strongest 'evidence' for climate doom?!
MIT's Lindzen: 'Cicerone of NAS is saying that regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If gov't wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide'
Cicerone's Shame: NAS Urges Carbon Tax, Becomes Advocacy Group -- 'political appointees heading politicized scientific institutions that are virtually 100% dependent on gov't funding'
Cicerone's Shame: NAS engaged in 'bureaucratic attempt to cook the books'
MIT's Dr. Richard Lindzen's 48-page Congressional Testimony: 'Increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming' -- 'Data is being analyzed with aim of supporting, rather than testing models' -- 'Incontrovertibility' belongs to religion where it is referred to as dogma...Cicerone [of NAS] is saying that regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If gov't wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide...We should stop accepting term, 'skeptic.' Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition.'
USA Today touts NRC report -- Compares Climate Change Skeptics to Birthers
Cicerone's Shame: NAS Urges Carbon Tax, Becomes Advocacy Group -- 'political appointees heading politicized scientific institutions that are virtually 100% dependent on gov't funding' -- 'This is the same kind of foolishness that led the IPCC to overreach in proposing climate policies'
Meteorologist Joe D'Aleo of IceCap.Us: 'NAS was established by Abraham Lincoln but under recent appointees and Pres. Ralph Cicerone it has become a joke' -- NAS is now 'an advocacy group for government policy not a trusted impartial agency for science issues'
For Shame: EPA chief Lisa Jackson cancels Democrat fundraising appearance -- only after media reports
Cicerone's Shame -- Morphs NAS into IPCC: 'It's time to pull the plug on public funding for these [NAS] science-fiction writers'
For Shame: NAS Pres. Ralph Cicerone Turns Science Org. into political advocacy group: $6 million NAS study is used to lobby for global warming bill
Clueless USA Today: 'Still skeptical? Could this be a tough week for climate skeptics?' Why? 'Multiple U.S.-funded reports and data all say same thing: global temperatures are rising' -- Climate Depot Response: 'More government funded propaganda reports from science political hacks like NAS Chief Ralph Cicerone only prove that the global warming movement has learned nothing from Climategate. The more scientists turn to political activism, the more their 'cause' becomes a joke.'
President of National Academy of Sciences Cicerone, says UN IPCC responsible for public losing confidence in climate science
This is 'science'? NAS's Ralph Cicerone goes political -- Urges nations to reduce emissions at UN climate talks
Flashback: Other science groups face skeptical rebellion
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) also issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view. But rank and file AMS members reject the warmist view. See:American Meteorological Society Members Reject Man-made Climate Claims: 75% Do Not Agree With UN IPCC Claims -- 29% Agree 'Global Warming is a Scam' & Meteorologists Reject U.N.'s Global Warming Claims: Only 1 in 4 American Meteorological Society broadcast meteorologists agree with UN
The Canadian Academy of Sciences reportedly endorsed a "consensus" global warming statement that was never even approved by its governing board.
Science groups like the American Geophysical Union have touted the warmist view while employing former Gore staffers and ideologues like Chris Mooney. See: Look of Love: AGU leaders mesmerized by the Goreacle: 'American Geophysical Union president McPhaden, executive di. McEntee and other AGU leaders worshipped the Goreacle'
&
Climate's POLITICAL SCIENCE Exposed: Warmist activist Chris Mooney appointed to American Geophysical Union's (AGU) board -Pielke Jr. Reacts: 'Appointing an English major who has written divisively about the 'Republican War on Science' to help AGU oversee 'science communication' is more than a little ironic...To the extent that AAAS and AGU endorse the Democratic policy agenda, or just appear to do so, it reflects their role not as arbiters of knowledge claims, but rather as political actors'
Scientists from around the world have spoken out publicly to dissent from the crafted "consensus." See: SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Challenge UN IPCC & Gore
And the Earth's climate is not cooperating with of man-made global warming fears. See: Climate Depot Special Report: A-Z Climate Reality Check -- Sub-Prime Science Exposé: 'The claims of the promoters of man-made climate fears are failing' -- Presented to UN Summit
Other developments have cast doubt the "consensus" expressed by science organizations.
In 2009, the world's largest science group, the American Chemical Society (ACS) was "startled" by an outpouring of scientists rejecting man-made climate fears, with many calling for the removal of the ACS's climate activist editor.
On May 1, 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of over 80 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position and more than 250 scientists urged a change in the group's climate statement in 2010. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a "considerable presence" of scientific skeptics exists.
A 2010 Open Letter signed by more than 130 German scientists urging German Chancellor to "reconsider" her climate views. See: 'Consensus' Takes Another Hit! More than 130 German Scientists Dissent Over Global Warming Claims! Call Climate Fears 'Pseudo 'Religion'; Urge Chancellor to 'reconsider' views - August 4, 2009
More than 100 international scientists challenged President Obama's climate claims, calling them "simply incorrect." In December 8 2009, 166 scientists from around the world wrote an Open Letter to the UN Secretary-General rebuking the UN and declaring that "the science is NOT settled."
Russian scientists "rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming".
India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC "be called to account and cease its deceptive practices," and a 2008 canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is "settled."
Scientific meetings have been dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here
Also UN IPCC's William Schlesinger admitted in 2009 that only 20% of IPCC scientists deal with climate.
Despite these developments, global warming promoters have sought to cite a survey alleging 97% of climatologists agree with the "consensus" view. But the survey does not hold up to scrutiny. See: 'Consensus' claims challenged: Only 77 scientists were interviewed to get 97.4% agreement -- 'It would be interesting to learn who these individuals are' & Climate Con: 97% 'Consensus' Claim is only 76 Anonymous Self-Selected Climatologists
National Academy of Sciences loses the plot on sea level claims: ' The report was unmitigated nonsense...While this is a comedy, it is also a tragedy'