Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about membership:
Membership of the National Academy of Sciences is an award granted to scientists that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) of the United States judges to have made “distinguished and continuing achievements in original research”. Membership is a mark of excellence in science and one of the highest honors that a scientist can receive.
In my own professional life, I was not a scientist, and therefore I never much paid attention to the kinds of rewards and honors that practicing scientists pass out to each other. But at some point I became aware that there was something called the National Academy of Sciences, and that among scientists it was considered a big deal to get selected to become a member. This membership is one of those things that you cannot apply for; rather, one day you get “tapped” by some committee of super-elite gurus who invite you to come learn the secret handshake. Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about membership:
Membership of the National Academy of Sciences is an award granted to scientists that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) of the United States judges to have made “distinguished and continuing achievements in original research”. Membership is a mark of excellence in science and one of the highest honors that a scientist can receive.
(At some point in the 2010s, the NAS got somehow consolidated with comparable “academies” of engineering and medicine, to become a combined organization going by the name of the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, or NASEM. This post only concerns the Science part of the combined entity, although I have no reason to think that the other parts are any better.)
Well, as far as I can tell, they are all morons. Also, corrupt morons.
I last wrote about the NAS in February of this year, in a post titled “Would You Trust The National Academies Of Science To Tell You How Science Works?” The occasion for that post was that something called the Federal Judicial Center had just issued a new edition of its Federal Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. Recognizing that this subject went outside the core of its own expertise, the FJC had called on the NAS to take the main role in the drafting. In the new edition, a chapter from prior editions of the Manual titled “How Science Works” had been taken over by new authors, and substantially re-written and greatly expanded (from 18 to 61 pages). In the process, the new authors had inserted a series of howlers that not only did not fairly describe how science works, but actually got the whole process wrong by 180 degrees. I cited several examples in the February post, but this is the one that goes closest to the heart of the craziness: “While the often-stated maxim that correlation does not imply causation is true, in fact, correlation is the only means that we have of establishing causation in science.” That statement is just flatly wrong. Instead, the process for establishing causation in science operates through the falsification of alternative (“null”) hypotheses of causation. I do not know how anyone could even think to call themselves a “scientist” without basic understanding of that logical process.
And yet here was the NAS, supposedly a collection of the most elite among elite scientists, putting together a chapter of an official court Manual to tell non-scientists (lawyers and judges) “how science works,” and getting it 180 degrees wrong on the single most important point.
Which of course begs for a necessary consideration of the next question: Was this an innocent mistake by ignorant people, or was it an intentional distortion intended to further a political agenda?
Now, just last week, the National Academies have released their latest embarrassment, taking this fundamental fallacy and expanding and running with it. The event at issue was the release of a new Report called “Attribution of Extreme Weather Events and Their Impacts.” Here is the July 15 press release from NASEM, and here is another link to the body of the Report itself. The Report runs to some 175 pages, plus appendices.
The gist of the Report is that now, based on some sort of new research, we suddenly have the tools to “attribute” any extreme weather event of our choosing (hurricane, tornado, drought, flood, whatever) to “human activities.” “Human activities” in this context means the release of “greenhouse gases” into the atmosphere. With that, you can see where they are ultimately going, although this final piece is not mentioned in the Report: the basic idea is that every extreme weather event is the fault of the oil companies.
The very first line of the “Summary”reveals that they knew the conclusion before they started:
“Earth system changes driven by rising greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities are affecting characteristics of extreme weather and climate events, such as frequency and intensity.”
That’s nice. An how exactly do you know it? Here are the two fundamental questions that need to be addressed: (1) What are the alternative hypotheses that you have considered, and how have those been ruled out as the causes of the recent extreme weather events? And (2) what has been your consideration of the evidence, if any, that might contradict or undermine the hypothesis that “human activities” and increased greenhouse gas concentrations are the cause of these extreme weather events?
Get ready: In a Report of 175 pages, they don’t expend even one word to address either of those two questions.
Instead, it’s all about whatever confirming evidence they can find about correlation between extreme weather events and (slightly) increasing global temperatures. They claim to have a “foundational understanding” of the relationship between increasing greenhouse gases and extreme weather events. How they have achieved this “foundational understanding” without ever entertaining any alternative hypothesis is never mentioned. But the “foundational understanding” has supposedly been “strengthened” by the accumulation of evidence consistent with it (while deliberately ignoring all inconsistent evidence). Here is a lengthy quote from the Summary as to how the “foundational understanding” has been strengthened:
Over the past decade, advances in three key scientific pillars have continued to strengthen this foundation. First, physical understanding has matured through accumulation of observational and modeling evidence supporting long-standing theoretical expectations, so that increases in extreme heat and heavy rainfall events across much of the globe can be more confidently and precisely attributed to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Second, the length and quality of observational data have improved in some regions with another decade of data collection . . . , new satellite-based Earth-observing missions, and the development and improvement of homogenized, high-resolution data sets. Third, climate models continue to improve in their representation of critical processes. . . .
Consideration of alternative hypotheses or potentially conflicting evidence? Hey, we don’t do that, we’re scientists!
Readers of this blog and of many skeptic websites know well that the real evidence out there is that extreme weather events are not increasing at all. How dozens of these supposedly top “scientists” from the NAS could write this Report without mentioning or discussing any of this evidence is beyond me. It’s completely humiliating for them.
I won’t try in this post to give any comprehensive set of links here to data sets showing that extreme weather events are not increasing. But, as an example, here is a page at Watts Up With That with data on hurricanes. From that page, here is a chart compiled by Ryan Maue with annual data since the early 1970s on accumulated cyclonic energy:
Can you spot the increasing trend? Neither can I. These clowns from the NAS are claiming that even though ACE has not gone up overall, and has gone down in the most recent years, they just know that whatever hurricane comes through next is the fault of Exxon. That’s the level of quality of this work.
On July 14, the day before this Report was released, a guy named Pat Parenteau, gave an interview to Politico’s E&E News on this subject. Parenteau is a long-time advisor to a law firm called Sher Edling, which is known for representing dozens of plaintiffs in lawsuits against fossil fuel producers claiming harm from climate change. The E&E News article is behind paywall, but Energy in Depth here has the key quote from Parenteau:
“A report with the kind of gravitas that the National Academies can bring will be a huge boost to the plantiffs’ cases.”
Further from EID:
The people involved in the report’s development include Michael Burger, an academic and attorney for climate plaintiffs’ firm Sher Edling, as well Delta Merner, who leads the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Climate Accountability Campaign and served on the NAS committee guiding the report’s development until January 2025. Both Burger and Merner have publicly discussed the critical relationship between attribution science and climate litigation.
The federal government needs to completely defund the NAS today, if not sooner. Also, I call on every member of the NAS to resign. If you stay in, you are complicit in this total scam.
UPDATE, July 24: John Christy sends along links to two of his recent papers. The first, published in April 2026, is titled “Declines in hot and cold daily temperature extremes in the conterminous US, 1899–2025.” That’s right, it’s declines rather than increases. The second, from November 2019, co-authored with Ross McKitrick, is titled “Assessing changes in US regional precipitation on multiple time scales.” From the abstract of the second paper: “We show that 2000-year proxy-based reconstructions of the Palmer Modified Drought Index for the US Southeast (SE) and Pacific Coast (PC) regions exhibit LTP and reveal post- 1900 changes to be within the range of longer-term natural fluctuations.” John says that an updated version of the second paper is currently under review pending publication. Needless to say, the NAS Report did not cite and completely ignored both of these two papers (along with all other adverse evidence).
President Trump signed an executive order titled ‘Restoring Gold Standard Science’ on May 23rd 2025, aiming to overhaul research-integrity policies and ensure that federal government-sponsored science is “transparent, rigorous and impactful”. The order sparked concern among scientists who fear it could lead to political interference in scientific research and undermine independent scientific inquiry.
President Trump has laid into a new report from the National Academy of Sciences that purports to support ‘extreme weather’ climate litigation. He’s right to do so.
There is a particular kind of institutional decay that announces itself not through incompetence but through overreach – the moment a body built to advise quietly converts itself into an advocacy outfit. That moment arrived in plain view last week when the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine released a 253-page report claiming that scientists can now attribute individual heatwaves and rainstorms to man-made emissions “with a high degree of confidence”, and wildfires, droughts and cyclones with “moderate confidence”. Two days later, President Trump did something no prior occupant of the White House had quite dared to do: he called the report what it is on Truth Social: “Fraudulent, biased and misleading,” ordering federal suspension and debarment officials to review the Academies’ conduct and taxpayers’ exposure to what he termed “Climate Fraud”.
The howls of outrage were immediate and predictable. But strip away the theatre of a Presidential Truth Social post – capital letters, “Radical Left Dumocrats”, the invented spelling – and what remains is a serious institutional question that deserved to be asked years ago: has the National Academy of Sciences become an advocacy organisation wearing the borrowed authority of ‘consensus science’?
From weights and measures to trial-lawyer auxiliary
Congress chartered the National Academies in 1863 for a modest and useful purpose: advising the government on technical matters such as the calibration of currency and the protection of ship hulls from corrosion. It is worth dwelling on how far the institution has travelled from that brief. As the Wall Street Journal’seditorial board observed in its own broadside against the report, published the same weekend under the pointed headline ‘A Climate Coup at the National Academies of Science’, the new document explicitly frames itself as “relevant to policy and legal decisions pertaining to climate change and liability for losses sustained as a result of extreme weather and climate events”. That is not the language of scientific advice. It is the language of a legal brief.
The report goes further, noting that its methodology could help state and local governments demonstrate the “concrete injury” needed to establish standing in lawsuits against fossil fuel producers, and that it might “inform” measures such as Vermont’s climate superfund law – which empowers state officials to calculate the “financial impact” of greenhouse gas emissions and then demand payment from energy companies to cover it. As the Journal‘s editors put it with admirable bluntness, “the point is to put a scientific gloss on a coercive exercise of government power”. The scientific gloss provides a legal strategy, built to order, for a litigation campaign that has been running for the better part of a decade against the companies that keep the lights on.
None of this should surprise anyone who has followed the emergence of so-called ‘attribution science’ as a distinct field, nor is it the first time House Republicans have raised the alarm: members of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology argued that the report presents a conflict of interest precisely because attorneys involved in ongoing climate litigation helped establish the scientific standards the Academies used.
As noted in these pages in an earlier article examining the Naturepaper on “the scientific case for climate liability”, the World Weather Attribution initiative itself has admitted that, unlike any other branch of climate science, “event attribution was originally suggested with the courts in mind”. That is a remarkable thing for a scientific field to concede about its own origins. Most disciplines discover applications for their findings after the fact. Attribution science was conceived, from the outset, as a tool for tort lawyers – the conclusion came first, and the methodology was reverse-engineered to support it.
The conflict-of-interest problem
The most damning detail in the whole affair, and the one that ought to trouble even sympathetic observers of the Academies, concerns Michael Burger, the Executive Director of Columbia Law School’s Sabin Centre for Climate Change Law. Burger assisted with the new report and is cited approvingly within it. What the report does not mention is that Burger is also a counsel at Sher Edling LLP, the law firm that has led – and profited handsomely from – the wave of municipal and state lawsuits against ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and the rest of the industry. This is not a minor conflict of interest tucked away in a footnote. It is the central actor in the litigation campaign helping write the scientific document that the litigation campaign will then cite as independent authority.
This is not the first time the pattern has surfaced. The WSJ editorial board reminds readers that a climate chapter written for the Fourth Edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence – a joint publication of the Federal Judicial Centre and the National Academies, distributed to federal judges as guidance on how to weigh expert testimony – drew heavily on Burger’s prior work without proper attribution. That chapter, once the plagiarism and the conflicts came to light, was quietly retracted by the Federal Judicial Centre in February. Electronic copies had already gone out to hundreds of federal judges the previous December and, as one report on the affair noted dryly, could not be recalled. Judges across the country had already been handed a manual instructing them, in effect, on how to receive plaintiff-side attribution evidence – drafted substantially by a plaintiffs’ lawyer.
One retraction might be an embarrassment. A second report, released five months later featuring the same actor and pursuing substantially the same legal agenda, is something closer to an institutional pattern – what David Wojick, writing on Watts Up With That website some years back, described as the Academy’s evolution “from guardians of science to an alarmist fortress”. Institutions rarely announce their capture by groupthink. They simply keep producing the same kind of document, staffed by the same networks, funded by the same interests, until groupthink becomes the institution’s ordinary business.
Follow the funding
It also matters as to who paid for the report. Part of the funding, as the Daily Caller reported, came from the Bezos Earth Fund – the $10 billion philanthropic vehicle established by Amazon’s founder, which has poured money into climate advocacy, activist journalism and litigation-adjacent research since 2020. There is nothing illegal about foundation funding research it favours. But there is something worth noting when a nominally independent scientific academy, chartered by Congress and substantially funded by American taxpayers, produces a document serving the strategic interests of billionaire-funded activist litigation – and does so using the imprimatur of disinterested expertise that taxpayer funding is meant to secure.
The ‘climate liability’ paper published in Nature last year attempted to quantify, down to the dollar, the specific damages attributable to individual oil and gas companies, estimating that Chevron’s emissions alone caused between $791 billion and $3.6 trillion in heat-related losses between 1991 and 2020. That paper was underwritten by the same activist ecosystem: law firms working on contingency, foundations with declared advocacy missions and NGOs as proxy plaintiffs whose stated purpose is ‘legislation through litigation’, bypassing the elected legislatures that would ordinarily set energy and climate policy. The National Academies report simply extends this machinery one further step up the credibility ladder, converting activist economics into what looks, to a busy federal judge without a physics or econometrics background, like ‘consensus science’.
The attribution chain was never solid
The scientific case underlying all of this – the claim that individual weather events, and the economic losses that follow from them, can be attributed with confidence to the historical emissions of a named company – rests on a flimsy chain of inference with at least three weak links.
The first link runs from carbon dioxide emissions to global mean surface temperature, a relationship that depends on climate sensitivity estimates still disputed within the scientific literature itself, with published ranges running from roughly 1.5°C to 4.5°C of warming for a doubling of CO2.
The second link, ‘pattern scaling’, attempts to translate that global average into specific regional and local weather outcomes – a method that imposes a linear, orderly relationship onto a chaotic and non-linear climate system. The IPCC’s own reports as well as independent researchers such as Roger Pielke Jr. have shown how such pattern scaling does a poor job explaining actual trends in hurricanes, droughts and heatwaves once the data are normalised for population growth and economic development.
The third link, translating weather extremes into quantified economic losses, ignores the adaptive capacity of modern economies – air conditioning, flood defences, crop resilience – that has driven a dramatic long-term decline in weather-related mortality, as Bjørn Lomborg has documented at length.
Each of these links is contestable on its own terms. Multiplied together across the ‘end-to-end’ framework that this style of research proposes, the uncertainty compounds rather than cancels. Tort law asks for ‘but-for’ causation: that the harm would not have occurred but for the defendant’s conduct. A model producing damage estimates for a single company spanning a range of several trillion dollars – as the Nature paper did for Chevron – is not evidence of precise causation, but rather of spurious claims dressed up in the mock certainty of numbers and dollar amounts.
There is also a more fundamental omission running through the entire attribution literature, one that the National Academy of Sciences report shares with its predecessors: the studied silence on the benefits of the very gas being prosecuted. Carbon dioxide is not merely an externality to be priced and litigated against; it is, among other things, plant food, and NASA’s own satellite data have documented a substantial global greening effect over recent decades, with researchers finding that CO2 fertilisation explains roughly 70% of the observed increase in global leaf area since 1982, an area equivalent to twice the size of the continental United States. A genuine cost-benefit accounting – of the kind William Nordhaus’s Nobel-winning integrated assessment models are meant to enable – would weigh these benefits against the harms before assigning liability. The attribution literature, by contrast, counts only one side of the ledger. It is advocacy dressed in the vocabulary of science, selectively blind to any finding that would complicate its verdict.
A reckoning worth having
None of this is to say that Trump’s chosen instrument – a suspension and debarment review, more commonly used to bar contractors guilty of fraud or safety violations from further federal work – is obviously the right lever, or that his framing, with its capital letters and conspiratorial flourishes, will do much to persuade anyone not already persuaded. Presidential bombast is a blunt tool, and the more considered critique here belongs to the Journal’s editorial board and to the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, whose members raised the underlying conflict-of-interest concerns well before the President reached for his phone. But the underlying complaint is sound, and it would remain sound if it had been delivered in the driest bureaucratic prose imaginable. A body established by Congress to give federal judges disinterested technical guidance has instead handed them a document substantially shaped by the very lawyers profiting from the litigation that the document is meant to inform.
The Soviet Union’s Lysenko episode showed what happens when ideological conformity displaces empirical rigour inside an institution wearing the trappings of science. The National Academy of Sciences exhibits a modern Lysenkoism rife across the climate change debate. American federal judges, weighing genuinely complex scientific questions in courtrooms across dozens of pending climate lawsuits, deserve better than manuals ghost-written, in substance if not in name, by the plaintiffs’ bar. So, for that matter, does the American taxpayer footing part of the bill.
President Trump signed an executive order titled ‘Restoring Gold Standard Science’ on May 23rd 2025, aiming to overhaul research-integrity policies and ensure that federal government-sponsored science is “transparent, rigorous and impactful”. The order sparked concern among scientists who fear it could lead to political interference in scientific research and undermine independent scientific inquiry. In Leftist-progressive circles, it has become fashionable to treat any political scrutiny of a scientific body as an assault on science itself – a framing that conveniently forecloses the harder question of whether the body in question has behaved as a scientific one. The path forward is clear: federal agencies and tax-funded NGOs such as the National Academy of Sciences must adopt rigorous, transparent and falsifiable standards to ensure that science serves truth, not power.
Whatever one makes of President Trump’s chosen words, the underlying demand – that a body claiming the authority of disinterested science should actually be disinterested – is one any serious defender of scientific integrity ought to be able to endorse. Surely the most litigated-against President in US history is right in ensuring that judges overseeing climate litigation in the courts are provided truly objective scientific advice.
There is a word that does a lot of heavy lifting in American public life, and the word is “independent.” When an organization describes itself as an independent, nonpartisan, evidence-based source of scientific advice, what it is really telling you is that you are supposed to stop checking. The brand does the work. You hear “National Academies” and some part of your brain files it next to “the multiplication tables” and moves on.
There is a word that does a lot of heavy lifting in American public life, and the word is “independent.” When an organization describes itself as an independent, nonpartisan, evidence-based source of scientific advice, what it is really telling you is that you are supposed to stop checking. The brand does the work. You hear “National Academies” and some part of your brain files it next to “the multiplication tables” and moves on.
I want to talk about what happens when you do check, because over the past few months a number of people have checked, and what they found is worth your time.
The organization in question is the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, NASEM, which Abraham Lincoln chartered in 1863 to give the federal government independent scientific advice. It is about as established as an American scientific institution gets. It also takes in something on the order of 205 million dollars a year in federal funds. And it has had at least two separate credibility problems surface this year, one aimed at judges and one aimed at schoolchildren, which between them tell you most of what you need to know about what “independent” means now.
Let me start with the judges, because that is the cleaner story.
For more than thirty years, federal judges have relied on something called the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, produced by the Federal Judicial Center and, in its latest edition, developed with NASEM. The manual is the thing a judge reaches for when a case involves DNA, or epidemiology, or toxicology, and the judge needs a neutral explanation of how the science works so they can tell reliable expert testimony from junk. It has been cited in more than 1,700 opinions and handed to thousands of judges. The whole value of the thing is its neutrality. It is supposed to teach judges how to weigh science, not tell them which side to believe.
The fourth edition, the first update in fifteen years, came out at the end of December 2025 with a brand-new chapter on climate science. And the chapter, it turned out, was written by people from one side of an active fight.
The two named authors, Jessica Wentz and Radley Horton, are both affiliated with the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia, an outfit whose stated mission is to develop legal techniques to advance climate litigation. That alone would raise an eyebrow. But the more interesting name is the one that was not on the author list. The chapter’s acknowledgments thanked Michael Burger, the Sabin Center’s executive director, who is also of counsel at Sher Edling, the law firm that has brought dozens of the climate-damage lawsuits against energy companies currently moving through the courts, including cases pending before the Supreme Court.
So we have a reference guide, handed to judges, on a scientific question at the heart of active litigation, written by advocates for one side of that litigation, with a hand from a lawyer who is actually litigating the cases. You do not have to know anything about climate science to see the problem. You only have to know what the word “neutral” means.
It gets worse, and this is the part I find genuinely remarkable. A footnote in the chapter quietly admits that the discussion of attribution science was “adapted, and in some cases excerpted” from the authors’ own prior work. That prior work is a 185-page law review article from 2020 whose lead author was Burger, the litigating attorney, and which argued that attribution science was robust enough to support climate lawsuits.
Warren Kindzierski, in an analysis for the American Enterprise Institute, ran a text comparison between the FJC chapter and that 2020 article. The overlap, in the two sections most relevant to litigation, the detection-and-attribution methods and extreme-event attribution passages, ran between 41 and 48 percent. Nearly half of the most legally important passages in a neutral judicial reference guide were lifted, word for word or lightly reworded, from a litigation-strategy article co-written by a lawyer suing energy companies.
That is not a neutral guide that leans a little. That is a litigation brief with the FJC seal on the cover.
And the climate chapter was not the end of it. Roger Pielke Jr. went through the manual in his Honest Broker newsletter and documented further problems beyond the one chapter that got pulled. A separate review by William Kindzierski and Stanley Young, published by the National Association of Scholars under the title “When Courts Rely on Unreliable Science,” found the broader manual now does something the older editions did not: it repeatedly asserts “consensus” over substantive scientific conclusions, and in several chapters fails to flag known problems with study replicability and research bias. In other words, the document that is supposed to teach judges how to spot unreliable science had, in this edition, started quietly modeling the opposite habit.
What happened next is the actual story
When this came to light, twenty-seven state attorneys general wrote to the FJC and asked them to pull the chapter, on the straightforward ground that the judiciary’s own research arm should not be predetermining contested questions in cases the judiciary is currently hearing. And the FJC, to its credit, did. On February 6, the director wrote back and said the climate chapter had been omitted from the manual and removed from their website.
Here is the part to hold onto. NASEM refused to follow suit.
The FJC, the body actually responsible for the judges, looked at the situation, saw the problem, and removed the chapter. NASEM, the body that calls itself the independent scientific conscience of the nation, kept it. The chapter is still on the National Academies website. It is still in the copies already mailed to judges. NASEM’s president wrote to the Wall Street Journal to say the Academies would not disavow it. When the institution responsible for the audience backs away from a tainted document and the institution responsible for the science digs in to defend it, you have learned which institution is captured.
I want to be fair to the authors, because they are not hiding. Wentz has said publicly that the criticism is bad-faith and aimed at suppressing climate information, that she has never been a witness or counsel in climate litigation, and that the science in the chapter is sound. Some climate scientists have rallied to defend it. Those are real positions and the people holding them may actually believe them. But none of that touches the actual objection, which was never that the science is wrong. The objection is that a document whose entire purpose is neutrality was drafted by partisans, ghost-assisted by a litigant, and half-copied from a litigation playbook. A chapter can be scientifically defensible and still be the wrong thing to hand a judge, for exactly the reasons the manual itself spends its other chapters explaining. If a forensic accountant submitted a damages report with those conflicts, it would be thrown out under the very evidentiary standards the manual teaches.
And this is not a complaint confined to the usual climate-skeptic corners. Bill Barr, who served as U.S. attorney general under two presidents, wrote in the Washington Post that the manual exists to serve a bedrock principle of the legal system, which is that judges are impartial and must receive unbiased help on technical matters, and that the climate chapter had taken a sharp turn away from it. When a former attorney general is writing op-eds in the Washington Post about the integrity of a judicial science manual, the thing has stopped being a niche dispute about climate and become a dispute about whether the institutions that certify neutrality are still neutral.
The manual, it turns out, was one piece of a larger effort. The same authors and institutions are connected to something called the Climate Judiciary Project, run by the Environmental Law Institute, which has set out to educate judges on climate science, including some judges presiding over the very climate cases the education is relevant to. Reporting on newly surfaced documents describes judges being recruited and hosted at events in places like Napa Valley, Palm Beach, and Hawaii. The House Judiciary Committee has opened an investigation into whether this amounts to an improper attempt to influence the federal bench. I do not know how that investigation will come out, and I am not going to pretend the reporting settles it. But the manual chapter and the judicial-education program are clearly branches of the same tree, and the tree is not neutral.
The schoolchildren
That is the judicial story so far. Running alongside it is a second one, which surfaced this week, and it points at the schools.
A parents’ organization called the American Parents Coalition wrote to Congress asking for an investigation into NASEM’s federal funding, after tracing some of it into K-12 curriculum material. Their letter points at a 2023 NASEM workshop on gender identity in schools, a 2024 NASEM report titled “Equity in K-12 STEM Education,” and NASEM-funded organizations producing lesson plans that frame environmental science around systemic racism and recruit students into climate advocacy campaigns. The coalition’s framing is openly political, and you can take their specific characterizations with whatever seasoning you prefer. I have not read every one of the underlying documents and I am not going to vouch for every adjective in a parents-group press release.
But step back from the adjectives and the structural point is the same as the judicial one. An organization that presents itself as the neutral arbiter of what counts as science is putting its thumb on the scale, in the same direction, in two completely different arenas at once. In the courtroom it is attribution litigation. In the classroom it is environmental justice curriculum. The throughline is that “the science,” as delivered by the independent science body, keeps arriving pre-attached to politics.
Follow the money, as usual
And then there is the funding, which is where these things usually end up. The American Energy Institute report that has been circulating traces several million dollars flowing to NASEM from foundations associated with the usual climate-philanthropy names. The Sabin Center, whose people wrote the judicial chapter, is itself funded by climate-litigation philanthropy. The private foundation that helped fund the manual also gives to groups that fund the lawsuits. None of this is hidden. It is all in the footnotes, for anyone who reads footnotes.
I am not telling you that every scientist at the National Academies is an activist, because that would be false and stupid. The Academies do an enormous amount of careful, genuinely neutral work, and most of the people there are exactly what they say they are. What I am telling you is that the word “independent” is no longer doing what it is supposed to be doing. It has become a credential that gets applied at the front door and then quietly suspended once you are inside, on the topics that matter most to the people writing the checks.
The whole arrangement runs on the reputation. The reputation was earned over a century and a half of real work, and it is now being spent down, a chapter at a time, a curriculum at a time, to launder a particular set of conclusions through a name that used to mean “you can stop checking.”
So do not stop checking. When a federally funded body tells you its conclusions are independent and settled and not to be questioned, that is precisely the moment to read the footnotes, find out who wrote the chapter, and ask who paid for it.
Comments on National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Fast-track Review of the Evidence on Whether Greenhouse Gas Emissions are Reasonably Anticipated to Endanger Public Health and Welfare in the U.S., in Response to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposal to rescind its 2009 Endangerment Finding. Submitted via NASEM website.
Comments on National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Fast-track Review of the Evidence on Whether Greenhouse Gas Emissions are Reasonably Anticipated to Endanger Public Health and Welfare in the U.S., in Response to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposal to rescind its 2009 Endangerment Finding. Submitted via NASEM website.
COMMENT: Government Accountability & Oversight (“GAO”), a 501(c)(3) non-profit public policy group with a particular focus on the areas of energy and environmental policy, submits these comments on the provisional appointments to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) committee tasked with conducting a fast-tracked review of evidence whether greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare in the U.S..[1] This review was announced in August 2025 for completion in September 2025. It was expressly prompted by the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to rescind the regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant, known as the Endangerment Finding. With this fast-tracked review, the NASEM has deviated from its history and practice, according even to its current president, to insert itself into a regulatory proceeding.
In NASEM’s haste to influence policy, NASEM stacked its panel for conducting this review (“the panel”) with activists whose records boast of well-chronicled histories of advocacy for predetermined conclusions on the question at hand. The panelists also share in common support for the federal policy under review by the EPA for rescission, and panelists are on record citing fellow panelists’ work in support of this same policy advocacy.
In short, this proposed panel is inherently disqualified for its stated purpose, under any rational assessment or standard. Numerous panelists have spent years citing to their science credentials to assert expert status in promoting certain public policy and litigation outcomes. They are activists, hand-picked by NASEM for an exercise in deciding whether they and their fellow panelists have been right all along. This is surely why these panelists were selected. It is inconceivable that NASEM did no due diligence on the history of, or randomly selected, these panelists with records of open and avowed activism of the very conclusion that they supposedly have yet to reach. Should NASEM argue otherwise, and that in its haste it had instead actually skipped any due diligence in assembling this panel, that would damn both the panel and the process itself.
This NASEM initiative presents a case study in pre-ordained positions. The provisional panel reflects significant impermissible bias. The panel raises serious concerns not only with the overall composition and balance of the committee, but what this action by NASEM says about its process, intentions, and credibility. NASEM should not reflect such activism, and should scrap this panel, outright. Failure to do so endorses a thoroughly discreditable process and outcome.
NASEM PANEL IS INHERENTLY CONFLICTED TO THE POINT OF ABSURDITY
NASEM notes that “The conflict of interest policy of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (http://www.nationalacademies.org/coi) prohibits the appointment of an individual to a committee authoring a Consensus Study Report if the individual has a conflict of interest that is relevant to the task to be performed. An exception to this prohibition is permitted if the National Academies determines that the conflict is unavoidable and the conflict is publicly disclosed.”[2] NAASEM discloses and moves past conflicts for two panelists (Lee and Wall). Those concerns are only the beginning of the conflicts inherent in this panel.
13 of the 15 members of NASEM’s “Fast-Track Review”[3] have demonstrated a strong bias toward linking increasing atmospheric CO2 to supposedly dangerous global warming and a threat to human health.[4] 5 of these 15 members of the review panel have led or joined amicus briefs in favor of imposing the “climate” policy and legal agenda including but not limited to those hinging on the EPA’s Endangerment Finding, and as such are even somewhat extreme-outliers in the extent of their activism. A sixth is on record with disqualifying comments reflecting her stridency on the issue. This panel cannot view the evidence with neutral eyes and come to its own conclusions because its members are on record stating that they have prejudged the outcome.
The following is representative, but by no means exhaustive, of the panelists’ disqualifications[5]:
In 2020, George Washington University “Climate and Health Institute” Director Susan Anenberg signed on to an amicus brief in West Virginia v. EPA promoting the climate agenda (heavily citing Shindell),[6] for the aforementioned group dedicated to climate activism and policy, which credits Ms. Anenberg for leading the signatories and “directly contribut[ing]” to the brief per the group.[7]
The brief’s outline reveals its signatories had made up their minds, starting with item I: “Anthropogenic climate change, fueled by emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, harms public health in the United States.” The rest of the headings are similarly disqualifying for any party to the brief who wants to present himself as an unbiased or neutral arbiter on these issues: “II. Climate change severely harms the health of vulnerable populations; III. The Clean Air Act empowers EPA to take regulatory action to protect the public from adverse health effects due to climate change.” 29 pages of argumentation of this deeply-held position follow.
Ms. Anenberg was described by her attorney for this activism, in an article “Bridging Silos: Environmental and Reproductive Justice in the Climate Crisis,” as being on the frontlines of many battles, to which Anenberg “provided invaluable contributions.”[8]
Ms. Anenberg has disqualified herself from any such service as NASEM has appointed her, and the appointments of such biased panelists show the NASEM’s hand.
In 2021 Drew Shindell was one of nine signatories to an amicus brief advocating for regulation of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, asserting that greenhouse gas emissions are harming Americans.[9] Upon further scrutiny, perhaps NASEM will notice that this is the topic the panel is to address in an objective, unbiased fashion. Other panelists cite Shindell in their own briefs.
In 2023 Mr. Shindell acknowledged he had already made up his mind. “‘We in the scientific community produce things like giant IPCC assessments,’ says Shindell, who has also contributed to the blog. ‘But basically the story remains the same—you have to stop using fossil fuels or you’re going to wreck the planet—which is what it was decades ago. …Communicating the societal impacts of climate change and of different mitigation options, I think, makes the discussion more palatable,’ he adds. ‘If you can say, these many fewer people will die from heat waves, the number of children’s asthma hospitalizations will decrease by this much, this many more people will be employed in new energy industries’ …”[10]
In 2020 Charles Driscoll, as an “Energy Modeler,” joined Shindell on an amicus brief advocating for regulation of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, on the grounds that they are harmful, and that regulations, or “an energy policy that adequately addresses carbon [dioxide] emissions to help [the Statue of Liberty and other historical landmarks] above water.”[11]
Messrs. Driscoll and Shindell have disqualified themselves from any such service as NASEM has appointed them, and the appointments show the NASEM’s hand.
In 2025, Kari Nadeau led an amicus brief in support of another Our Children’s Trust lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that the Environmental Protection Agency has violated the plaintiff ‘Climate Kids’’ constitutional rights by failing to protect them from “air pollution from climate change”[12] (as a “medical professional[] whose practice involves treating children affected by climate change and who ha[s] developed expertise in how climate change is affecting children’s mental and physical health outcomes.”) (emphases added).
That is, the litigants, supported by Dr. Nadeua, sought EPA regulation of GHG emissions.
Select positions from this pleading filed with the court include: “As a result [NB: of anthropogenic climate change, i.e., from emissions], the effects of climate change will have, and are already having, a disproportionate impact on children’s health.”
“Anthropogenic climate change has not only dramatically increased the surface temperatures of our planet, but has also substantially affected the ‘exposome,’ the totality of environmental conditions (physical, chemical, biological, and social factors) to which a person is exposed throughout their lifetime. This changing exposome presents real threats to all humans, but it presents a special threat to children, both because they are more sensitive to changes today, and because they will live longer portions of their lives in these riskier and less stable exposomes.”[13]
Upon further scrutiny, perhaps NASEM will notice that this is the exact same topic the panel is expected to address in an objective, unbiased fashion.
Ms. Nadeau has disqualified herself from any such service as NASEM has appointed her, and the appointment shows the NASEM’s hand.
In 2015 David W. Titley testified to the U.S. House of Representatives advocating extreme policy changes in the name of anthropogenic climate change. Comments include, e.g., “we are certainly taking time that we should be using to start mitigating this… We need to transform our energy system. The Federal Government, the Congress can be very, very helpful on that. So, but we are not doing that right now, sir, because we have these debates that—which is fine. But at some point, we need to do something… So, you know, I am probably like the reformed smoker. But it was really just simply looking at all these independent lines of evidence. That, to me, said we have got an issue here, and we are going to have to do something.”[14]
In 2014 Titley signed a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court supporting the proposition that “Defendants have violated their fiduciary duties by contributing to and allowing unsafe amounts of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere,” and calling for regulation.[15]
Mr. Titley has disqualified himself from any such service as NASEM has appointed him, and the appointment shows the NASEM’s hand.
In 2023 Michele Barry showed her mind was made up. “I think we are on red alert. It should be all hands on deck with what is happening in our climate,” she said. “When the new normal in California is atmospheric rivers and excessive wildfires, that should be a wake-up call domestically. Globally we’re seeing huge shifts of disease due to climate and distribution of vectors like mosquitoes and ticks.”[16]
Ms. Barry’s interlocuter in that article wrote, “Her center identified it [climate change] as a top priority in 2017 and funds dozens of initiatives to address the problem — from projects in South Asia to reduce coal consumption to studies of how dams and other agricultural systems are causing a rise in parasitic diseases.”[17]
Ms. Barry has disqualified herself from serving as a neutral academic arbiter, as NASEM has appointed her to be, and the appointments show the NASEM’s hand.
In short, these are parties who deploy their science credentials as experts in promoting their desired public policy outcomes; they are, by and large, activists (see FN 8, supra). Of course, NASEM did not select six (or any) activists for the panel who are opposed to greenhouse gas regulation. Putting aside NASEM’s longstanding policy of balanced inquiry,[18] however much it is or is not respected in practice,[19] adding balance with an equal number of activist-advocates countering this group’s view would still fail to satisfy NASEM’s own standards: no panelist should ever be selected to purportedly engage in such analysis of a position on which they have a record of predetermination, let alone such extensive and strident activism cited above.
CURRENT AND RECENT CONTEXT SUPPORTS A CONCLUSION OF CONTINUED NASEM CLIMATE ACTIVISM
There are other strong suggestions that this NAS/NASEM initiative is not intended to be impartial, but instead was begun and staffed for the purpose of reinforcing the very claim it is purportedly designed to test. As stated recently by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, “The Committee is concerned that this study is being conducted with partisan aims in mind, as the National Academy of Sciences has made several questionable decisions in past years while under your leadership, exposing potential partisan bias.”[20] GAO sees no evidence to counter or balance that impression, and shares and incorporates that concern here, adding context and further support for that conclusion.
Like its selected panelists, the NASEM has of late sought to play its role in supporting “climate” litigants. This represents a continuation of recent decades of NASEM-driven or enabled ideological activism—and particularly climate policy activism—presented as if it were objective research and in the name of providing neutral science advice.[21]This activism now extends to the point of collaborating with the “climate” trial bar on their litigation campaign. That recent foray into supporting the climate litigation industry (on top of decades of increasing policy activism) prompted University of Colorado Professor Roger Pielke, Jr. to write (hyperlinks in original):
“it would be fair to ask whether the NAS Attribution committee is about science advice at all, or instead, a not-so-subtle form of institutionalized stealth advocacy in support of climate litigation. Has the integrity of the nation’s leading institution of science advice been compromised? That couldn’t be the case, could it?
The first public meeting of the NAS Attribution committee will take place a few weeks from now. On that agenda is a litigator from Sher Edling, LLC, a firm that is litigating almost two dozen climate cases that depend up claims of extreme event attribution.6 Somehow, that litigator’s role as a counsel-of-record in these various lawsuits was left off of the NAS public meeting agenda.”[22] (links in original)
NASEM’s new-normal is assisting and engaging in advocacy, all while presenting itself as merely a thoughtful arbiter and advisory body. Regardless, the conflicts NASEM presents are inescapable.
CONCLUSION
In sum, the NASEM’s process up to and particularly including selection of its proposed panelists suggests an intention to engineer—and certainly by design ensures—a predetermined outcome.
The NASEM has, by commission and omission, discredited its review before it ever began—assuming the panelists and/or others have not also proceeded outside of NASEM’s publicly asserted timeline.[23]
The evidence strongly supports a conclusion that, with its choice of panelists who under any rational test are conflicted out and precluded from serving on this panel, the NASEM is continuing its history as an institutional example of biased activism. Indeed, it would be stunning if panelists NASEM selected, each of whom are on records supporting a particular outcome, somehow came to any other conclusion.
As NASEM has historically made clear, and even to this day still does in somewhat watered-down form, proper consideration of a party’s suitability for participation in in such a role for requires an assessment of that party’s history. Here, that history is in creating and feeding and even dependence in professional whole or part on the climate industry.
The NASEM should reconsider its panel which lacks any semblance of balance—but instead is stacked with activists whose history as vocal participants in and to varying degrees beneficiaries of the crisis narrative driving “climate” policy. By ensuring, seemingly by design, the panel reaches the current NAS leadership’s desired outcome of a report to undermine EPA’s reconsideration of its Endangerment Finding, NASEM has discredited its own effort, ab initio.
The NASEM should return to its advisory roots, and cease mobilizing efforts seeking to influence law and regulatory policy. If it insists on continuing on this course, it should first be more candid about its objectives, rather than merely obvious; nonetheless, the NSAEM should scrap this panel and begin anew, properly, without such glaring biases including in its selection of panel participants.
[7]https://climatehealth.gwu.edu/action. Ms. Anenberg also signed on to an amicus supporting the OSHA COVID vaccine mandate—relevant given the similarities of the lockdown/mandate movement share with the climate movement. Several panelists signed on to amicus briefs in abortion-related cases. In short, they are policy activists. See, e.g., Allysia Finley, “The Doctors Who Cry ‘Science’: The AMA aligns itself with the left on abortion, climate, transgenderism and affirmative action,” Wall Street Journal, August 24, 2025, https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-doctors-who-cry-science-506d9b4e?mod=columnists_article_pos9. The author continues, rightly, “The AMA and the rest of the medical establishment have cried science so many times to support their progressive views that many Americans no longer believe them on anything…If the medical establishment wants to restore trust in science, then it should stop politicizing it.”
[18] Judging by its words and actions, the climate industry perceives balance and debate as existential threats, and that to “hold a public debate about climate science [and] write a line-by-line rebuttal of the National Climate Assessment” constitutes “a sustained assault on mainstream global warming research.” Scott Waldman, “Trump team readies more attacks on mainstream climate science,” Climatewire, August 19, 2025. This defining characteristic of “climate” discourse – that it shall not challenge the crisis narrative – does not suggest confidence in the merits of that narrative. “ClimateGate” revealed the ugly history of back-room dealing to keep work that threatened the manufactured consensus from publication. This is all readily available in the public record, including but not limited to the exhibits and transcripts of testimony in Michael E. Mann v. Simberg, et al., D.C. Sup. Ct., 2012 CA 008263 B (2024).
[19] Although NASEM has deprioritized adherence to this most basic consideration of balance, its formerly strong posture against conflicts, or the lack of objectivity which this panel offends, is longstanding. NAS’s view of balance is found at, e.g., “[A]n individual should not serve as a member of a committee with respect to an activity in which a critical review and evaluation of the individual’s own work… is the central purpose of the activity, because that would constitute a conflict of interest, although such an individual may provide relevant information to the program activity.” The National Academies, Policy on Committee Composition and Balance and Conflicts of Interest, for Committees Used in the Development of Reports, May, 2003; Policy on Composition and Balance, Conflicts of Interest, and Independence for Committees Used in the Development of Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations, National Academies, Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Revised January 30, 2025.
[21] The NAS was established by Congress in 1863 to advise the federal government on scientific issues. Since then, as it marched toward its current activist mission, the NAS even made longtime Malthusian, and Club of Rome and UN Earth Summit organizer Maurice Strong the first non-citizen winner of its Public Welfare Medal, for his tireless support of “multilateral approaches to sustainable and equitable development and international peace.” https://www.nasonline.org/directory-entry/maurice-f-strong-yfykr3/.
Consider how, in 2001, when the proceedings that ultimately led to the initial Endangerment Finding were getting underway, “the White House requested the National Academy of Sciences to assist the Administration in its review of climate change policy. The Academy ‘is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research . . . .’ NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE: AN ANALYSIS OF SOME OF THE KEY QUESTIONS, preface (2001). Under its congressional charter, issued in 1863, the Academy has a mandate to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters when requested.” Massachusetts et al. v. EPA, 415 F.3d 50, 367 U.S. App. D.C. 282 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Its conversion into a climate-activist organ is indisputable on current evidence including but not limited to that cited herein. In the instant matter, not only did the administration did not bother (given said body of evidence/work), and the NAS took it upon itself to convene an emergency proceeding to impede reform NAS’s conversion into an advocacy organization and active enabler of the climate industry, even the climate litigation industry.
[23] The NASEM’s proposed timeline for producing this work is suggestive (particularly combined with the totality of its history and the circumstances) of work in fact being done behind the scenes before/during this process of empaneling the authors, despite the impropriety of doing so. We incorporate by reference here August 27, 2025 Comments of Daren Bakst/Competitive Enterprise Institute, “Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases and US Climate: Evidence and Impacts,” https://cei.org/regulatory_comments/cei-comments-on-nasem-report-on-greenhouse-gas/.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) have created a committee purportedly to have an unbiased assessment of the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to repeal the regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant, which is known as the Endangerment Finding.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) have created a committee purportedly to have an unbiased assessment of the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to repeal the regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant, which is known as the Endangerment Finding.
The NASEM announcement of the study stated that the committee should “contain the requisite expertise to address its task and whether the points of views of individual members are adequately balanced such that the committee as a whole can address its charge objectively.”
In our review of the backgrounds of committee members, we found that 13 of the 15 have a strong bias toward linking increasing atmospheric CO2 to supposedly dangerous global warming and a threat to human health. In other words, the committee was constructed to reinforce the very claim it is purportedly designed to test rather than carry out an impartial investigation.
By populating the committee with members whose views embrace the so-called “consensus” opinion that increasing CO2 is leading to dangerous warming and harm to human health, the NASEM has stacked the deck to arrange a pre-determined outcome which will oppose repeal of the Endangerment Finding.
The possibility of an honest evaluation of the science underlying CO2’s actual role in the environment, which is that of a plant food necessary for all life, is unlikely.
The U.S. National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) are holding a “Climate Crossroads Summit” on July 11-12. Virtual attendance is open to all.
The U.S. National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) are holding a “Climate Crossroads Summit” on July 11-12. Virtual attendance is open to all.
These “Academies” are supposed to give objective advice to Congress but they might as well be the Green Party of Germany. Here is your chance to hear ridiculous alarmism at the highest national level.
The website say “There will be numerous discussions and other opportunities for virtual participants to engage throughout the program.” I will be surprised if skeptics are allowed to speak, but we can try.
The supposed “crossroads” is the usual nonsense refrain that we have to (finally) act fast before it is too late. Here is how NASEM puts it: “The global community is in a crucial window for addressing the many threats climate change poses to the planet and society. To meet these challenges, the nation and the world must harness the full complement of knowledge and skills across science, engineering, and medicine.”
So “crucial window — many threats — nation and world must”. In this case we must harness knowledge, which is an obscure but entertaining metaphor.
It might be hard to sit through two long days of this green junk but I encourage people to at least look in a bit. This is what Congress is getting from the once great National Academies that we are paying big bucks for. Confusion in a green wrapper.
Also under the big green tent, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) has dedicated the latest issue of its quarterly magazine “The Bridge” to climate alarmism.
The official title is “Engineering the Energy Transition” which is explained thusly: “This issue explores the energy transition needed to address the mounting threats of climate change. The articles are an excellent resource to help inform meaningful decisions and steps for energy-related contributions to reduce carbon emissions.”
So “mounting threats — energy transition — reduce carbon emissions”. More pure green junk.
They buy right into net zero. The NAE President’s piece is titled: “President’s Introduction The Goal of a Net Zero Carbon Energy System: The Importance of How”.
Given that a net zero energy system is impossible it is no surprise that there are no real how’s here. Just the usual arm waving and exhortations to somehow come up with something. But I suppose somehow is a how of sorts. Okay not really. Every net zero “plan I have seen is not a plan, just a wishlist. Wishes are not plans.
If they ever actually did the engineering it would quickly become obvious that net zero is wildly impossible. For example I calculated roughly what it would take, using batteries as backup, to simply replace today’s US fossil fueled power generation with wind and solar. At today’s prices it comes to around $150 trillion for the batteries, which is nearly seven times annual GDP. See my study and others at https://www.cfact.org/netzerorealitycoalition/.
The net zero energy transition Bridge issue has an article on storage as well, of course. Here is a summary excerpt, where LDES stands for Long Duration Energy Storage which does not exist:
“Progress in the integration of renewable energy requires both significant increases in the amount of energy storage on the grid and the development of new types of energy storage that can ensure reliability over days and seasons. While there is cause for optimism on this front, continued investment in research, development, and deployment of LDES technologies is crucial to enable electric grid decarbonization.”
This is a wish, not a plan. And so it is with net zero everywhere we look. There is no plan.
You can watch the summit of net zero nonsense or read about the somehows. In either case the US National Academies have clearly lost sight of their mission, blinded by the green light of alarmism.
You must be logged in to post a comment.