The 4th U.S. Nat'l Climate Assessment was released a year ago, but only now is the full extent of the administration's plans to dismantle it coming to light, thanks to a series of articles by @scottpwaldman. His latest: eenews.net/stories/106176…
@scottpwaldman There are many stunning aspects to this story, but let me highlight just one: the perceived need for an "adversarial review" for NCA4 Vol 1, the climate science special report. science2017.globalchange.gov 
@scottpwaldman Why stunning? Because NCAs are not published until they've been reviewed by:
1/ experts at every relevant federal agency
2/ experts convened by @theNASEM, whose review of the 500pp report was over 100pp long
3/ the public. Yes, anyone.
4/ experts at the federal agencies again
1/ experts at every relevant federal agency
2/ experts convened by @theNASEM, whose review of the 500pp report was over 100pp long
3/ the public. Yes, anyone.
4/ experts at the federal agencies again
@scottpwaldman @theNASEM What happens to these comments? The authors responded to each one, our responses were reviewed, and then it was all posted publicly. So *anyone* had the chance to comment, and we responded to *all* of them.
@scottpwaldman @theNASEM So where, exactly, would anyone plan to find "experts" that somehow surpass the quality of the experts convened by the National Academy of Science? And ... why? The answer's right here; they didn't even want climate scientists to review a climate science report.
@scottpwaldman @theNASEM This is just the latest in a long line of attempts to discredit fundamental, peer-reviewed, and frankly, extremely basic science for nothing more than political reasons. For other examples, see:
@scottpwaldman @theNASEM A thermometer isn't red or blue; it doesn't give us a different answer based on how we vote. And while we can say, "I don't believe in gravity!" if we step off the cliff, we're still going doing. The dangerous question is, how many people are we taking down with us.
