{"id":402613,"date":"2025-09-16T18:15:51","date_gmt":"2025-09-16T16:15:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=402613"},"modified":"2025-09-16T18:15:53","modified_gmt":"2025-09-16T16:15:53","slug":"gao-submits-comments-on-nasem-panel-tackling-epa-endangerment-finding-rescision","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=402613","title":{"rendered":"GAO Submits Comments on NASEM Panel Tackling EPA \u2018Endangerment Finding\u2019 Rescision"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Government Accountability & Oversight<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

From GAO Editor<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Comments on National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine\u2019s 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\u2019s (EPA) proposal to rescind its 2009 Endangerment Finding. Submitted via NASEM website.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

NOTE<\/strong>: Due to NASEM\u2019s restrictions on characters and attachments, full comments with footnotes available in PDF at https:\/\/govoversight.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/9.11.25-GAO-Comments-on-NASEM-Panel.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

COMMENT: Government Accountability & Oversight (\u201cGAO\u201d), 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]<\/sup><\/a> This review was announced in August 2025 for completion in September 2025. It was expressly prompted by the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In NASEM\u2019s haste to influence policy, NASEM stacked its panel for conducting this review (\u201cthe panel\u201d) 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\u2019 work in support of this same policy advocacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

NASEM PANEL IS INHERENTLY CONFLICTED TO THE POINT OF ABSURDITY<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

NASEM notes that \u201cThe conflict of interest policy of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (http:\/\/www.nationalacademies.org\/coi<\/a>) 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.\u201d[2]<\/sup><\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

13 of the 15 members of NASEM\u2019s \u201cFast-Track Review\u201d[3]<\/sup><\/a> have demonstrated a strong bias toward linking increasing atmospheric CO2 to supposedly dangerous global warming and a threat to human health.[4]<\/sup><\/a> 5 of these 15 members of the review panel have led or joined amicus briefs in favor of imposing the \u201cclimate\u201d policy and legal agenda including but not limited to those hinging on the EPA\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The following is representative, but by no means exhaustive, of the panelists\u2019 disqualifications[5]<\/sup><\/a>:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2020, George Washington University \u201cClimate and Health Institute\u201d Director Susan Anenberg<\/strong> signed on to an amicus brief in West Virginia v. EPA <\/em>promoting the climate agenda (heavily citing Shindell),[6]<\/sup><\/a> for the aforementioned group dedicated to climate activism and policy, which credits Ms. Anenberg for leading the signatories and \u201cdirectly contribut[ing]\u201d to the brief per the group.[7]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The brief\u2019s outline reveals its signatories had made up their minds, starting with item I: \u201cAnthropogenic climate change, fueled by emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, harms public health in the United States.\u201d 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: \u201cII. 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.\u201d 29 pages of argumentation of this deeply-held position follow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ms. Anenberg was described by her attorney for this activism, in an article \u201cBridging Silos: Environmental and Reproductive Justice in the Climate Crisis,\u201d as being on the frontlines of many battles, to which Anenberg \u201cprovided invaluable contributions.\u201d[8]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ms. Anenberg has disqualified herself from any such service as NASEM has appointed her, and the appointments of such biased panelists show the NASEM\u2019s hand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2021 Drew Shindell<\/strong> 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]<\/sup><\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2023 Mr. Shindell acknowledged he had already made up his mind. \u201c\u2018We in the scientific community produce things like giant IPCC assessments,\u2019 says Shindell, who has also contributed to the blog. \u2018But basically the story remains the same\u2014you have to stop using fossil fuels or you\u2019re going to wreck the planet\u2014which is what it was decades ago. \u2026Communicating the societal impacts of climate change and of different mitigation options, I think, makes the discussion more palatable,\u2019 he adds. \u2018If you can say, these<\/em> many fewer people will die from heat waves, the number of children\u2019s asthma hospitalizations will decrease by this<\/em> much, this<\/em> many more people will be employed in new energy industries\u2019 \u2026\u201d[10]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2020 Charles Driscoll<\/strong>, as an \u201cEnergy Modeler,\u201d joined Shindell<\/strong> on an amicus brief advocating for regulation of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, on the grounds that they are harmful, and that regulations, or \u201can energy policy that adequately addresses carbon [dioxide] emissions to help [the Statue of Liberty and other historical landmarks] above water.\u201d[11]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Messrs. Driscoll and Shindell have disqualified themselves from any such service as NASEM has appointed them, and the appointments show the NASEM\u2019s hand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2025, Kari Nadeau<\/strong> led an amicus brief in support of another Our Children\u2019s Trust lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that the Environmental Protection Agency has violated the plaintiff \u2018Climate Kids\u2019\u2019 constitutional rights by failing to protect them from \u201cair pollution from climate change\u201d [12]<\/a><\/sup> (as a \u201cmedical professional[] whose practice involves treating children affected by climate change <\/em><\/strong>and who ha[s] developed expertise in how climate change is affecting children\u2019s mental and physical health outcomes.\u201d) (emphases<\/em><\/strong> added).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is, the litigants, supported by Dr. Nadeua, sought EPA regulation of GHG emissions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Select positions from this pleading filed with the court include: \u201cAs 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\u2019s health.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAnthropogenic climate change has not only dramatically increased the surface temperatures of our planet, but has also substantially affected the \u2018exposome,\u2019 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.\u201d[13]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ms. Nadeau has disqualified herself from any such service as NASEM has appointed her, and the appointment shows the NASEM\u2019s hand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2015 David W. Titley<\/strong> testified to the U.S. House of Representatives advocating extreme policy changes in the name of anthropogenic climate change. Comments include, e.g., \u201cwe are certainly taking time that we should be using to start mitigating this\u2026 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\u2014which is fine. But at some point, we need to do something\u2026 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.\u201d[14]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2014 Titley signed a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court supporting the proposition that \u201cDefendants have violated their fiduciary duties by contributing to and allowing unsafe amounts of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere,\u201d and calling for regulation.[15]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mr. Titley has disqualified himself from any such service as NASEM has appointed him, and the appointment shows the NASEM\u2019s hand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2023 Michele Barry<\/strong> showed her mind was made up. \u201cI think we are on red alert. It should be all hands on deck with what is happening in our climate,\u201d she said. \u201cWhen the new normal in California is atmospheric rivers and excessive wildfires, that should be a wake-up call domestically. Globally we\u2019re seeing huge shifts of disease due to climate and distribution of vectors like mosquitoes and ticks.\u201d[16]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ms. Barry\u2019s interlocuter in that article wrote, \u201cHer center identified it [climate change] as a top priority in 2017 and funds dozens of initiatives to address the problem \u2014 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.\u201d[17]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s hand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/em>). Of course, NASEM did not select six (or any) activists for the panel who are opposed to greenhouse gas regulation. Putting aside NASEM\u2019s longstanding policy of balanced inquiry,[18]<\/sup><\/a> however much it is or is not respected in practice,[19]<\/sup><\/a> adding balance with an equal number of activist-advocates countering this group\u2019s view would still fail to satisfy NASEM\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CURRENT AND RECENT CONTEXT SUPPORTS A CONCLUSION OF CONTINUED NASEM CLIMATE ACTIVISM<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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, \u201cThe 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.\u201d[20]<\/sup><\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Like its selected panelists, the NASEM has of late sought to play its role in supporting \u201cclimate\u201d litigants. This represents a continuation of recent decades of NASEM-driven or enabled ideological activism\u2014and particularly climate policy activism\u2014presented as if it were objective research and in the name of providing neutral science advice.[21]<\/sup><\/a> <\/sup>This activism now extends to the point of collaborating with the \u201cclimate\u201d 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):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cit 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\u2019s leading institution of science advice been compromised? That couldn\u2019t be the case, could it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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> a firm that is litigating almost two dozen climate cases that depend up claims of extreme event attribution<\/a>.6<\/sup><\/strong><\/a> Somehow, that litigator\u2019s role as a counsel-of-record in these various lawsuits was left off of the NAS public meeting agenda<\/a>.\u201d [22]<\/a><\/sup> (links in original)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

NASEM\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CONCLUSION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In sum, the NASEM\u2019s process up to and particularly including selection of its proposed panelists suggests an intention to engineer\u2014and certainly by design ensures\u2014a predetermined outcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The NASEM has, by commission and omission, discredited its review before it ever began\u2014assuming the panelists and\/or others have not also proceeded outside of NASEM\u2019s publicly asserted timeline.[23]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As NASEM has historically made clear, and even to this day still does in somewhat watered-down form, proper consideration of a party\u2019s suitability for participation in in such a role for requires an assessment of that party\u2019s history. Here, that history is in creating and feeding and even dependence in professional whole or part on the climate industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The NASEM should reconsider its panel which lacks any semblance of balance\u2014but instead is stacked with activists whose history as vocal participants in and to varying degrees beneficiaries of the crisis narrative driving \u201cclimate\u201d policy. By ensuring, seemingly by design, the panel reaches the current NAS leadership\u2019s desired outcome of a report to undermine EPA\u2019s reconsideration of its Endangerment Finding, NASEM has discredited its own effort, ab initio<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cAnthropogenic Greenhouse Gases and US Climate: Evidence and Impacts,\u201d https:\/\/www.nationalacademies.org\/our-work\/anthropogenic-greenhouse-gases-and-us-climate-evidence-and-impacts<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/sup><\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/sup><\/a> https:\/\/www.nationalacademies.org\/news\/2025\/08\/national-academies-launch-fast-track-review-of-latest-evidence-for-whether-greenhouse-gas-emissions-endanger-public-health-and-welfare<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/sup><\/a> See, e.g., \u201cNational Academy of Sciences Committee Bias: An Unscientific Rigging of a Scientific Review,\u201d CO2 Coalition, August 25, 2025, https:\/\/co2coalition.org\/publications\/national-academy-of-sciences-committee-bias-an-unscientific-rigging-of-a-scientific-review\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/sup><\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/sup><\/a> West Virginia, et al. v. EPA<\/em>, Nos. 20-1530, 20-1531, 20-1778, and 20-1780, https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/20\/20-1530\/211345\/20220125165209968_ELJC_WestVAvEPA_PublicHealthAmicus.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/sup><\/a> https:\/\/climatehealth.gwu.edu\/action<\/a>. Ms. Anenberg also signed on to an amicus supporting the OSHA COVID vaccine mandate\u2014relevant 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, \u201cThe Doctors Who Cry \u2018Science\u2019: The AMA aligns itself with the left on abortion, climate, transgenderism and affirmative action,\u201d Wall Street Journal, August 24, 2025, https:\/\/www.wsj.com\/opinion\/the-doctors-who-cry-science-506d9b4e?mod=columnists_article_pos9<\/a>. The author continues, rightly, \u201cThe 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\u2026If the medical establishment wants to restore trust in science, then it should stop politicizing it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cBridging Silos: Environmental and Reproductive Justice in the Climate Crisis,\u201d Sara A. Colangelo, Georgetown University Law Center, California Law Review, Vol. 112, Pp. 1255-1319, https:\/\/scholarship.law.georgetown.edu\/cgi\/viewcontent.cgi?params=\/context\/facpub\/article\/3648\/&path_info=Colangelo_final.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/sup><\/a> Competitive Enterprise Institute, et al., v NHTSA<\/em>, D.C. Cir. 20-1145, https:\/\/climatecasechart.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/case-documents\/2021\/20210121_docket-20-1145_amicus-brief-9.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/sup><\/a> JoAnn Greco, \u201cMann in the Middle,\u201d The Pennsylvania Gazette, June 23, 2023, https:\/\/thepenngazette.com\/mann-in-the-middle\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11]<\/sup><\/a> American Lung Association, et al., Petitioners, v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al.,<\/em> D.C. Cir., 19-1140, https:\/\/climatecasechart.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/case-documents\/2020\/20200424_docket-19-1140_amicus-brief-6.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/sup><\/a> Genesis B. (G.B.), a minor, by and through her Guardian, G.P.; et al., v. USEPA, et al<\/em>., 9th<\/sup> Cir. 25-2473, https:\/\/static1.squarespace.com\/static\/655a2d016eb74e41dc292ed5\/t\/6882471d8ef10a72fbb06b1f\/1753368350424\/DktEntry+24+Medical+Professionals+Amicus+2025.07.23.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[14]<\/sup><\/a> In 2017 Titley testified to the U.S. House of Representatives advocating policy changes in the name of climate change. https:\/\/democrats-science.house.gov\/imo\/media\/doc\/07.12.17%20-%20Titley%20House_Science_Climate_Security_Testimony_.pdf<\/a>. Titley also has testified before the U.S. Senate, deploying activist dogma such as \u201cWe only have one planet\u2026 But we only have one planet.\u201d DATA OR DOGMA? PROMOTING OPEN INQUIRY IN THE DEBATE OVER THE MAGNITUDE OF HUMAN IMPACT ON EARTH\u2019S CLIMATE HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE, SCIENCE, AND COMPETITIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION, DECEMBER 8, 2015 https:\/\/www.govinfo.gov\/content\/pkg\/CHRG-114shrg21644\/pdf\/CHRG-114shrg21644.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[15]<\/sup><\/a> Alec L., et al., v. Gina McCarthy, et al<\/em>., No. 14-405, https:\/\/climatecasechart.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/case-documents\/2014\/20141003_docket-14-405_petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-1.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[16]<\/sup><\/a> Ruthann Richter, \u201cBeyond climate dread: Striving to improve health during the environmental meltdown June 2, 2023, https:\/\/stanmed.stanford.edu\/solving-environment-health-challenges\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[17]<\/sup><\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[18]<\/sup><\/a> Judging by its words and actions, the climate industry perceives balance and debate as existential threats, and that to \u201chold a public debate about climate science [and] write a line-by-line rebuttal of the National Climate Assessment\u201d constitutes \u201ca sustained assault on mainstream global warming research.\u201d Scott Waldman, \u201cTrump team readies more attacks on mainstream climate science,\u201d Climatewire, August 19, 2025. This defining characteristic of \u201cclimate\u201d discourse \u2013 that it shall not challenge the crisis narrative \u2013 does not suggest confidence in the merits of that narrative. \u201cClimateGate\u201d 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.,<\/em> D.C. Sup. Ct., 2012 CA 008263 B (2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[19]<\/sup><\/a> 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\u2019s view of balance is found at, e.g., \u201c[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\u2019s own work\u2026 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.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[20]<\/sup><\/a> https:\/\/oversight.house.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/National-Academies-of-Sciences-President-McNutt-re-Endangerment-Finding-Letter-09032025.pdf<\/a>. Consider that (NASEM was unable to perform, even after all this time, a similar study on the origins of COVID-19 on the grounds that (per NASEM\u2019s President, Marcia McNutt, \u201cPresident, @theNASciences, former Editor-in-Chief of Science journals, AAAS\u201d (https:\/\/x.com\/Marcia4Science<\/a>), Aug. 13, https:\/\/x.com\/Marcia4Science\/status\/1911509590178693512<\/a>), the Academies required the government to ask it to do so, yet hurried on its own initiative to produce a paper to counter a government report on \u201cclimate\u201d (using undisclosed donor funds; ee, e.g., Roger Pielke, Jr., Aug. 22, 2025, https:\/\/x.com\/RogerPielkeJr\/status\/1959054773757649109<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[21]<\/sup><\/a> 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 \u201cmultilateral approaches to sustainable and equitable development and international peace.\u201d https:\/\/www.nasonline.org\/directory-entry\/maurice-f-strong-yfykr3\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consider how, in 2001, when the proceedings that ultimately led to the initial Endangerment Finding were getting underway, \u201cthe White House requested the National Academy of Sciences to assist the Administration in its review of climate change policy. The Academy \u2018is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research . . . .\u2019 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.\u201d Massachusetts et al. v. EPA<\/em>, 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\u2019s conversion into an advocacy organization and active enabler of the climate industry, even the climate litigation industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[22]<\/sup><\/a> Roger Pielke, Jr., \u201cAttribution Stealth Advocacy at the NAS,\u201d American Enterprise Institute, Nov. 4, 2024, https:\/\/www.aei.org\/articles\/attribution-stealth-advocacy-at-the-nas\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[23]<\/sup><\/a> The NASEM\u2019s 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, \u201cAnthropogenic Greenhouse Gases and US Climate: Evidence and Impacts,\u201d https:\/\/cei.org\/regulatory_comments\/cei-comments-on-nasem-report-on-greenhouse-gas\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Comments on National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine\u2019s 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\u2019s (EPA) proposal to rescind its 2009 Endangerment Finding. Submitted via NASEM website.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":365353,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","advanced_seo_description":"Explore the GAO's concerns about NASEM's review of EPA's Endangerment Finding. Discover insights on panelist biases and implications for climate policy.","jetpack_seo_html_title":"Analysis of NASEM's Biased Panel on EPA's Endangerment Finding","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691838013,691829997,691818056,691833292,691838014,691820884],"class_list":["post-402613","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-endangerment-finding-2","tag-carbon-dioxide-co","tag-climate-change","tag-epa-environmental-protection-agency","tag-government-accountability-oversight-gao","tag-nasem","fallback-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0u.s.-environmental-protection-agency-scaled-1.jpeg?fit=2560%2C1920&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1GJL","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":400868,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=400868","url_meta":{"origin":402613,"position":0},"title":"James Comer Probing Major Science Group Over Potential Partisan Climate Review","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"09\/08\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman James Comer announced Wednesday he is investigating the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) over an expedited review that possibly was designed to undermine President Donald Trump\u2019s agenda.","rel":"","context":"In \"Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (EPA)\"","block_context":{"text":"Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (EPA)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=environmental-protection-agencys-epa"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AQOU-aZUGVJqzJWaFocsIFyDMIluUITwBQgmaT8yWXP1OqSoyp8aAb1GpKI02kE2SOUBuRenECaCA9aTLF-A3aHSJw1tddNWpu1QqZdZ2O48Ldgmy1w-kSiFMr0kIfgtZEElTMrH_yZYGQriBOLSdu2xAkAsxQ.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AQOU-aZUGVJqzJWaFocsIFyDMIluUITwBQgmaT8yWXP1OqSoyp8aAb1GpKI02kE2SOUBuRenECaCA9aTLF-A3aHSJw1tddNWpu1QqZdZ2O48Ldgmy1w-kSiFMr0kIfgtZEElTMrH_yZYGQriBOLSdu2xAkAsxQ.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AQOU-aZUGVJqzJWaFocsIFyDMIluUITwBQgmaT8yWXP1OqSoyp8aAb1GpKI02kE2SOUBuRenECaCA9aTLF-A3aHSJw1tddNWpu1QqZdZ2O48Ldgmy1w-kSiFMr0kIfgtZEElTMrH_yZYGQriBOLSdu2xAkAsxQ.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AQOU-aZUGVJqzJWaFocsIFyDMIluUITwBQgmaT8yWXP1OqSoyp8aAb1GpKI02kE2SOUBuRenECaCA9aTLF-A3aHSJw1tddNWpu1QqZdZ2O48Ldgmy1w-kSiFMr0kIfgtZEElTMrH_yZYGQriBOLSdu2xAkAsxQ.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AQOU-aZUGVJqzJWaFocsIFyDMIluUITwBQgmaT8yWXP1OqSoyp8aAb1GpKI02kE2SOUBuRenECaCA9aTLF-A3aHSJw1tddNWpu1QqZdZ2O48Ldgmy1w-kSiFMr0kIfgtZEElTMrH_yZYGQriBOLSdu2xAkAsxQ.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":398644,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=398644","url_meta":{"origin":402613,"position":1},"title":"Analysis: National Academies Ignores the Scientific Method \u2013 \u2018Review of backgrounds of NAS committee members, found that 13 of 15 have a strong bias\u2019 to climate alarm view","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"08\/29\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) have created a committee purportedly to have an unbiased assessment of the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s proposal to repeal the regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant, which is known as the Endangerment Finding.","rel":"","context":"In \"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)\"","block_context":{"text":"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-dioxide-co%e2%82%82"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/AQMv5pRtthSd01pCneye8MqTG4w7Zb6A_XBn8oqpiC0qGAFdOjJFNhrcFg8OK7xzZirkm2ETnZaBQWX3Pywx5G_5fRxmHZHK1M2Gm1EpKkBqsNWW-QJ-yDV3QmrqoKGilDydZB8pv1E1QVzmxThfSl_DbCp1_g-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/AQMv5pRtthSd01pCneye8MqTG4w7Zb6A_XBn8oqpiC0qGAFdOjJFNhrcFg8OK7xzZirkm2ETnZaBQWX3Pywx5G_5fRxmHZHK1M2Gm1EpKkBqsNWW-QJ-yDV3QmrqoKGilDydZB8pv1E1QVzmxThfSl_DbCp1_g-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/AQMv5pRtthSd01pCneye8MqTG4w7Zb6A_XBn8oqpiC0qGAFdOjJFNhrcFg8OK7xzZirkm2ETnZaBQWX3Pywx5G_5fRxmHZHK1M2Gm1EpKkBqsNWW-QJ-yDV3QmrqoKGilDydZB8pv1E1QVzmxThfSl_DbCp1_g-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/AQMv5pRtthSd01pCneye8MqTG4w7Zb6A_XBn8oqpiC0qGAFdOjJFNhrcFg8OK7xzZirkm2ETnZaBQWX3Pywx5G_5fRxmHZHK1M2Gm1EpKkBqsNWW-QJ-yDV3QmrqoKGilDydZB8pv1E1QVzmxThfSl_DbCp1_g-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/AQMv5pRtthSd01pCneye8MqTG4w7Zb6A_XBn8oqpiC0qGAFdOjJFNhrcFg8OK7xzZirkm2ETnZaBQWX3Pywx5G_5fRxmHZHK1M2Gm1EpKkBqsNWW-QJ-yDV3QmrqoKGilDydZB8pv1E1QVzmxThfSl_DbCp1_g-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":425719,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=425719","url_meta":{"origin":402613,"position":2},"title":"Pre-Cooked and Politically Timed: How Obama\u00b4s EPA Faked the Endangerment Finding to Meet Copenhagen Deadlines","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/11\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"In December 2009, under the Obama administration, the EPA issued the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Clean Air Act Section 202(a). This concluded that six greenhouse gases (CO\u2082, methane, nitrous oxide, HFCs, PFCs, and SF\u2086) qualify as air pollutants that endanger public health and welfare,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)\"","block_context":{"text":"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-dioxide-co%e2%82%82"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-11-183050.png?fit=1127%2C941&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-11-183050.png?fit=1127%2C941&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-11-183050.png?fit=1127%2C941&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-11-183050.png?fit=1127%2C941&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-11-183050.png?fit=1127%2C941&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":438963,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=438963","url_meta":{"origin":402613,"position":3},"title":"Climate Industry Intersectionality","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"04\/12\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"In short, \"Climate Industry Intersectionality\" spotlights how climate advocacy has fused environmental claims with social engineering, creating a powerful, self-perpetuating sector. Whether this delivers better outcomes for people and the planet depends on scrutinizing evidence, trade-offs, and incentives rather than narratives. Truth-seeking requires separating measurable physical risks from policy rent-seeking\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"climate lawsuits\"","block_context":{"text":"climate lawsuits","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-lawsuits"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-Climate-Industry-Intersectionality.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-Climate-Industry-Intersectionality.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-Climate-Industry-Intersectionality.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-Climate-Industry-Intersectionality.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":425649,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=425649","url_meta":{"origin":402613,"position":4},"title":"EPA Endangerment Finding Was\u00a0Pre-Cooked","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/11\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 2009 Endangerment Finding which determined that greenhouse gases (GHGs) like CO\u2082 endanger public health and welfare was predetermined politically rather than based on open scientific deliberation.","rel":"","context":"In \"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)\"","block_context":{"text":"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-dioxide-co%e2%82%82"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-11-100410.png?fit=1092%2C937&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-11-100410.png?fit=1092%2C937&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-11-100410.png?fit=1092%2C937&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-11-100410.png?fit=1092%2C937&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Screenshot-2026-02-11-100410.png?fit=1092%2C937&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":405947,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=405947","url_meta":{"origin":402613,"position":5},"title":"Funding for green groups soared after 2009 endangerment finding, nonprofit finds","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"09\/30\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Fed grants to organizations increased from $350 million in 2009 to nearly $1.4 billion in 2023, analysis finds.","rel":"","context":"In \"Biden Administration\"","block_context":{"text":"Biden Administration","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=biden-administration"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AQN6D-9fMJBJdhAXTKCJGLqNAEfmfXCtWGnpFRwLn9Q1_OcDGgZpdeFUbva_plDAqWOnj1L8G7omlz5Y4Ss8-zyhkdu7YHhvO7UdXm5tEskk5zeBzGsU8Bi9HcM33AAlQt69z0p8RhllRitu-pa5HBbcL0P2ig.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AQN6D-9fMJBJdhAXTKCJGLqNAEfmfXCtWGnpFRwLn9Q1_OcDGgZpdeFUbva_plDAqWOnj1L8G7omlz5Y4Ss8-zyhkdu7YHhvO7UdXm5tEskk5zeBzGsU8Bi9HcM33AAlQt69z0p8RhllRitu-pa5HBbcL0P2ig.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AQN6D-9fMJBJdhAXTKCJGLqNAEfmfXCtWGnpFRwLn9Q1_OcDGgZpdeFUbva_plDAqWOnj1L8G7omlz5Y4Ss8-zyhkdu7YHhvO7UdXm5tEskk5zeBzGsU8Bi9HcM33AAlQt69z0p8RhllRitu-pa5HBbcL0P2ig.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AQN6D-9fMJBJdhAXTKCJGLqNAEfmfXCtWGnpFRwLn9Q1_OcDGgZpdeFUbva_plDAqWOnj1L8G7omlz5Y4Ss8-zyhkdu7YHhvO7UdXm5tEskk5zeBzGsU8Bi9HcM33AAlQt69z0p8RhllRitu-pa5HBbcL0P2ig.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AQN6D-9fMJBJdhAXTKCJGLqNAEfmfXCtWGnpFRwLn9Q1_OcDGgZpdeFUbva_plDAqWOnj1L8G7omlz5Y4Ss8-zyhkdu7YHhvO7UdXm5tEskk5zeBzGsU8Bi9HcM33AAlQt69z0p8RhllRitu-pa5HBbcL0P2ig.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/402613","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=402613"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/402613\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":402617,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/402613\/revisions\/402617"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/365353"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=402613"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=402613"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=402613"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}