Investigating National Academies' alleged biased climate change assessment, led by Republicans

The House Oversight Committee, led by Chair James Comer, has expressed concern about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's climate science review, suggesting a potential lack of impartiality and a rush in its completion.

In a letter sent to National Academies President Marcia McNutt, Comer described the decision to conduct the review as a "blatant partisan act to undermine the Trump Administration." The review, which is being funded by the National Academies, focuses on greenhouse gas emissions and their potential impact on public health and welfare in the U.S.

The review is related to the endangerment finding, a legal and scientific foundation for climate regulations. The instruction to work on this review was given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2009 under Administrator Lisa Jackson. The report from the review is due at the end of this month.

The Committee's concern indicates a possible rush in the completion of the climate science review. The review is being conducted under an unprecedented short timeline, which has raised questions about its integrity. The Committee's letter implies a need for transparency in the process of the review.

The Committee is reviewing evidence gathered over a 16-year period for the climate science review. Their concern suggests a need for a fair and unbiased approach in the review process. The Committee's concern also suggests that the results of the review may have been predetermined, raising further questions about its impartiality.

The Committee's concern about the short timeline for the climate science review is shared by others. The review is being investigated by House Republicans, who are seeking documents and communications between academy officials and federal officials related to the endangerment finding and the review.

The report from the climate science review is intended to inform the Trump administration's attempt to roll back the endangerment finding. However, the Committee's concern raises questions about the fairness and impartiality of the review process, and the need for a thorough investigation into its conduct.