John Mashey
@johnmashey.bsky.social
1.4K followers
2.2K following
1.6K posts
Semi-retired computer scientist, ancient UNIXer, "Big Data"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mashey
Last 20 yrs: chasing anti-science disinfo, esp. on climate or tobacco, helping defend scientists.
Supporter of UCSF, CSLDF, NCSE, CSI, member AAAS, AGU.
Posts
Media
Videos
Starter Packs
Reposted by John Mashey
Reposted by John Mashey
Reposted by John Mashey
Reposted by John Mashey
Reposted by John Mashey
Reposted by John Mashey
![Dear Steve,
I hope you are well.
In your Monday WSJ column, you criticize the National Academies for not reviewing your DOE Climate Working Group report. To my knowledge, the Academies have never offered an unrequested review of a government scientific report. I am sure they would have been happy to review your report if DOE had asked them to. Though DOE chose not to do so, under Information Quality Act guidelines, an independent peer review (like that the Academies often conducts for the federal government) is required for it to be legal to use the report in rule making. (See Section III in 70 FR 2664)
In your Monday column, you do not mention that — seeing no evidence that your report had been the subject of any meaningful independent peer review — more than 85 experts volunteered our time in the month of August to review your report. The approximately 450-page compendium of comments, co-edited by Andrew Dessler and me, evaluates each portion of your report. In case you have not seen it, you can find the expert review here: https://doi.org/10.22541/essoar.175745244.41950365/v2
Your column recapitulates a number of the errors and misrepresentations in the DOE report, which are evaluated in detail in the expert review.
For example, you state that US heat waves “aren’t more common in recent decades than they were in the decades around 1900”.
As we write in the expert review, the DOE report “highlights the Dust Bowl period of the 1930s as a time of unusually hot temperatures in the United States.” However, “over such a small area [as the contiguous US], natural variability can play a large but temporary role. The Dust Bowl was indeed an exceptional event, although unrelated to greenhouse-gas forcing, and the decadal climate conditions that drove the Dust Bowl are not occurring today…. If you take out the 1930s, there are clear trends [in the contiguous US] towards more extreme temperatures due almost certainly to radiative forcing.”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:lwszjazwq3nliquvxg6l332b/bafkreihpcj2bukoyypindqhv6bl3nhcftv7tmzjnd6y5tvq5y4i6kncfc4@jpeg)
Reposted by John Mashey
Reposted by John Mashey
Reposted by John Mashey
Reposted by John Mashey
Reposted by John Mashey
Reposted by John Mashey
Reposted by John Mashey
Reposted by John Mashey
