|
Several CO2 Coalition team members tuned into the National Academies of Sciences webinar last week hoping for a respectable assessment of extreme weather attribution. Instead, we witnessed the presentation of a 253-page report carefully constructed to reinforce the shopworn narrative that humans are causing a climate crisis.
The hour-long event remained largely superficial. The main takeaways? The committee had done “a great job” that was a major improvement over the 2016 report, and — unsurprisingly — the field of climate research now needs significantly more funding and more modeling.
There was no serious examination of whether human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are driving meaningful changes in the frequency or severity of extreme weather. The report simply assumes this connection from the start and builds on top of it.
The webinar ignored the recent decline in hurricane numbers and intensity. It made no mention of the far more extreme heat and weather of the 1930s. Historical context was almost entirely absent.
Committee Chair James W. Hurrell noted that the study had been funded in part by the Bezos Earth Fund and other groups aligned with the popular notion of climate doom, while assuring listeners these funders had no influence on the conclusions.
The report repeatedly leans on “the consensus” and highlights the sharp rise in attribution studies as proof of scientific advancement. That rise looks far more like the result of available funding than stronger evidence. Committee members and report reviewers included none of the well-known scientists with data and research refuting a crisis narrative. Absent were prominent independent voices such as those of William Happer, Richard Lindzen, or Steve Koonin.
The report breaks new ground in Chapter 5 by attempting to calculate real-world damages supposedly caused by “climate change” and by explicitly discussing legal implications. By attaching the National Academies’ name to damage estimates, the study hands climate litigators exactly what they have been seeking — a prestigious citation to support lawsuits and demands for settlements.
The entire analysis rests heavily on climate models and “counterfactual” scenarios — essentially seeking to quantify how much milder weather would be if humans were not worsening it. These are layered assumptions presented as science. This approach starts with a conclusion that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful and works backward, rather than following the evidence wherever it leads.
The National Academies of Sciences have replaced what should be its stamp of scientific integrity with the imprimatur of an ambulance chaser.
The CO2 Coalition will continue to cut through the narrative and deliver the full scientific picture — including the uncertainties, the historical record, and the well-documented benefits of atmospheric CO2.
| 
