At any rate it's infuriating that scientists who follow rules, processes and methods are dismissed, as the CWG did for the hundred of people who worked on NCA5. The NCA report was scrubbed from previous govt websites but you can still find it here! 10/10 repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/61...

CWG admitted as much in emails telling each other they didn't really look at health. Several DOE reviewers said they didn't have expertise in topics they were asked to review too! So blind leading the blind to a predetermined location. This is why we have formal assessment processes and methods! 9/

A major point of EPA endangerment finding is that GHGs endanger human health. And yet the CWG had zero health experts and couldn't be bothered to look at the overwhelming evidence in that field! NCA5 had a whole chapter on human health written by eminent experts at CDC, NCAR, etc 8/

NCA5 process took > 2 YEARS because of all meetings, reviews, responses, multiple drafts etc. The CWG had only a few weeks and were told what the end product needed to look like. Which even that they failed to do! CWG report said almost nothing about human health (nor about ecosystems btw) 7/

The CWG group's emails note that they should get a formal review and several members plot about who would be 'sympathetic' - eg DOE not only cherry picking authors but cherry picking reviewers of those authors! They decided against NASEM as 'not objective' - that's the pot calling the kettle 🙄 6/

NCA5 had external review editor assigned to our chapter team to make sure we responded to all these comments appropriately and the text reflected our changes - EVERY chapter had an external review editor! We also had public meetings where people could hear what we were doing. CWG had none of that 5/

We got several sets of public and agency review comments and a full review with detailed comments by a National Academy of Sciences (NASEM) consensus panel. EVERY comment had to be responded to. The CWG got internal DOE review comments but were told most would be ignored and not to edit too much! 4/

Meetings all had to follow FACA guidance as to who could be there and what was public. It was a pain sometimes for those of us outside govt as to when we could speak with agency scientists! But it was meant to wall off any whiff of undue influence and ensure transparency in the process 3/

The CWG people clearly thought they were subbing for the National Climate Assessment (NCA) process. I led the Ecosystems chapter of NCA5. Not once did I ever meet or hear a political appointee ANYWHERE (Interior, Energy, EPA) having any input or thoughts about NCA content or process. 2/

Great to see this!!

Then sent to prominent env website - never got any response. Finally submitted to Science mag as a letter - still under review. 🤷‍♀️ When our media outlets don't have interest in these issues, it's not fair to blame scientists for not engaging! 🧪 #scicomm 2/2

In the meantime the US Nationally Determined Contribution (our main obligation under Paris) remains filed on the UNFCCC website: unfccc.int/sites/defaul...
Let's keep trying to meet these goals!