{"id":451408,"date":"2026-06-21T06:22:32","date_gmt":"2026-06-21T13:22:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=451408"},"modified":"2026-06-21T06:22:34","modified_gmt":"2026-06-21T13:22:34","slug":"nasem-and-independent-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=451408","title":{"rendered":"NASEM and \u201cIndependent Science\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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

By Charles Rotter<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is a word that does a lot of heavy lifting in American public life, and the word is \u201cindependent.\u201d 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 \u201cNational Academies\u201d and some part of your brain files it next to \u201cthe multiplication tables\u201d and moves on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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<\/a> 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 \u201cindependent\u201d means now.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let me start with the judges, because that is the cleaner story.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For more than thirty years, federal judges have relied on something called the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence<\/a>, 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<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

The two named authors, Jessica Wentz and Radley Horton, are both affiliated with the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law<\/a> 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\u2019s acknowledgments thanked Michael Burger, the Sabin Center\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201cneutral\u201d means.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201cadapted, and in some cases excerpted\u201d from the authors\u2019 own prior work. That prior work is a 185-page law review article from 2020<\/a> whose lead author was Burger, the litigating attorney, and which argued that attribution science was robust enough to support climate lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Warren Kindzierski, in an analysis for the American Enterprise Institute<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is not a neutral guide that leans a little. That is a litigation brief with the FJC seal on the cover.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And the climate chapter was not the end of it. Roger Pielke Jr. went through the manual in his Honest Broker newsletter<\/a> 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<\/a> under the title \u201cWhen Courts Rely on Unreliable Science,\u201d found the broader manual now does something the older editions did not: it repeatedly asserts \u201cconsensus\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What happened next is the actual story<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When this came to light, twenty-seven state attorneys general wrote to the FJC<\/a> and asked them to pull the chapter, on the straightforward ground that the judiciary\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
AG Climate Science Manual Letter<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Here is the part to hold onto. NASEM refused to follow suit.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/a>. It is still in the copies already mailed to judges. NASEM\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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. <\/strong>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/a> 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.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/a>, 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.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The schoolchildren<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is the judicial story so far. Running alongside it is a second one, which surfaced this week<\/a>, and it points at the schools.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A parents\u2019 organization called the American Parents Coalition wrote to Congress asking for an investigation into NASEM\u2019s 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 \u201cEquity in K-12 STEM Education,\u201d and NASEM-funded organizations producing lesson plans that frame environmental science around systemic racism and recruit students into climate advocacy campaigns. The coalition\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/strong> The throughline is that \u201cthe science,\u201d as delivered by the independent science body, keeps arriving pre-attached to politics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Follow the money, as usual<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And then there is the funding, which is where these things usually end up. The American Energy Institute report that has been circulating<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201cindependent\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201cyou can stop checking.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

There is a word that does a lot of heavy lifting in American public life, and the word is \u201cindependent.\u201d 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 \u201cNational Academies\u201d and some part of your brain files it next to \u201cthe multiplication tables\u201d and moves on.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":451424,"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":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"jetpack_seo_schema_type":"","_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":true,"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":[691826872,691843741,691820884,691841233,691818426],"class_list":["post-451408","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-bias","tag-environmental-justice-curriculum","tag-nasem","tag-reference-manual-on-scientific-evidence","tag-science","fallback-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/0-Screenshot-2026-06-21-152043.png?fit=1527%2C805&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1TqM","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":402613,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=402613","url_meta":{"origin":451408,"position":0},"title":"GAO Submits Comments on NASEM Panel Tackling EPA \u2018Endangerment Finding\u2019 Rescision","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"09\/16\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"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.","rel":"","context":"In \"\u2018Endangerment Finding\u2019\"","block_context":{"text":"\u2018Endangerment Finding\u2019","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=endangerment-finding-2"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0u.s.-environmental-protection-agency-scaled-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0u.s.-environmental-protection-agency-scaled-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0u.s.-environmental-protection-agency-scaled-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0u.s.-environmental-protection-agency-scaled-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0u.s.-environmental-protection-agency-scaled-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":398644,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=398644","url_meta":{"origin":451408,"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":382704,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=382704","url_meta":{"origin":451408,"position":2},"title":"Defund The National Academy of Sciences!","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/11\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Here\u2019s an article you might find interesting from Science magazine on June 2. The headline is \u201cNational Academies, staggering from Trump cuts, on brink of dramatic downsizing.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/0Screenshot-2025-06-11-083347.png?fit=1200%2C758&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/0Screenshot-2025-06-11-083347.png?fit=1200%2C758&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/0Screenshot-2025-06-11-083347.png?fit=1200%2C758&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/0Screenshot-2025-06-11-083347.png?fit=1200%2C758&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/0Screenshot-2025-06-11-083347.png?fit=1200%2C758&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":398457,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=398457","url_meta":{"origin":451408,"position":3},"title":"The National Academies are politically corrupted \u2013 \u2018Has dived head-first into many progressive policy priorities\u2019","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"08\/28\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine were congressionally chartered in 1863 to do just that. However, as with so many of our venerated institutions in recent years, it has dived head-first into many progressive policy priorities and fallen prey to other destructive influences.","rel":"","context":"In \"2009 Clean Air Act Endangerment Finding\"","block_context":{"text":"2009 Clean Air Act Endangerment Finding","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=2009-clean-air-act-endangerment-finding"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/AQMJyT9ttt2TxAAhND_zo4ixEwz_gJ0O5DAzksp89XBkZoTi7bgAooP4sIhUJiBvg8PTGmfh46nT-Le30WLS5TjSgo5Go5TugWL6wgmT53Oh8kl9_yPAXq9jK-0KzhyG7FnEs8Xrd5ARFm4AURL8BP55R0rT3Q.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\/AQMJyT9ttt2TxAAhND_zo4ixEwz_gJ0O5DAzksp89XBkZoTi7bgAooP4sIhUJiBvg8PTGmfh46nT-Le30WLS5TjSgo5Go5TugWL6wgmT53Oh8kl9_yPAXq9jK-0KzhyG7FnEs8Xrd5ARFm4AURL8BP55R0rT3Q.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/AQMJyT9ttt2TxAAhND_zo4ixEwz_gJ0O5DAzksp89XBkZoTi7bgAooP4sIhUJiBvg8PTGmfh46nT-Le30WLS5TjSgo5Go5TugWL6wgmT53Oh8kl9_yPAXq9jK-0KzhyG7FnEs8Xrd5ARFm4AURL8BP55R0rT3Q.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/AQMJyT9ttt2TxAAhND_zo4ixEwz_gJ0O5DAzksp89XBkZoTi7bgAooP4sIhUJiBvg8PTGmfh46nT-Le30WLS5TjSgo5Go5TugWL6wgmT53Oh8kl9_yPAXq9jK-0KzhyG7FnEs8Xrd5ARFm4AURL8BP55R0rT3Q.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/AQMJyT9ttt2TxAAhND_zo4ixEwz_gJ0O5DAzksp89XBkZoTi7bgAooP4sIhUJiBvg8PTGmfh46nT-Le30WLS5TjSgo5Go5TugWL6wgmT53Oh8kl9_yPAXq9jK-0KzhyG7FnEs8Xrd5ARFm4AURL8BP55R0rT3Q.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":381622,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=381622","url_meta":{"origin":451408,"position":4},"title":"National Academies Face Extinction Because\u2026 TRUMP!","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/05\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Last Saturday, the morning after a news article announced major job losses coming at the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), National Academy of Sciences President Marcia McNutt wrote an apologetic memo to employees. Her statement to STAT that 250 people could lose their positions by summer\u2019s\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)\"","block_context":{"text":"Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=department-of-government-efficiency-doge"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/ChatGPT-Image-28.-Mai-2025-09_53_37-1.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/ChatGPT-Image-28.-Mai-2025-09_53_37-1.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/ChatGPT-Image-28.-Mai-2025-09_53_37-1.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/ChatGPT-Image-28.-Mai-2025-09_53_37-1.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/ChatGPT-Image-28.-Mai-2025-09_53_37-1.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":400868,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=400868","url_meta":{"origin":451408,"position":5},"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":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/451408","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=451408"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/451408\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":451425,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/451408\/revisions\/451425"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/451424"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=451408"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=451408"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=451408"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}