What is the President proposing with the commission on national climate security?

It seems to me that the climate establishment should welcome a critical review of the science contained in the various official reports. They should have nothing to fear. After all, they’ve told us over and over that the thousands of articles published in scientific journals are peer reviewed and that peer review is the gold standard. If the science is as robust as claimed, then an official, high-level review should put to rest the doubts that have been expressed over the last three decades by skeptical scientists. Of course, if the claimed consensus is a phony house of cards, then it’s understandable that they will fight like hell to stop it.      

Information Quality Act link

CEI’s petition documents multiple problems with the process EPA used to develop the 2009 Endangerment Finding, including: allowing an EPA employee to serve on the peer review panel, substantial conflicts of interest among the peer review panel, a failure to allow public participation in the peer review process, and EPA’s failure to certify how it complied with the Information Quality Act.

“Among major issues that have been raised and that we hope the commission will scrutinize: the models used have assumed climate sensitivities to CO2 concentrations significantly higher than recent research warrants; the models used have predicted much more warming than has actually occurred; predictions of the negative impacts of global warming have been made based on implausible high-end emissions scenarios; the positive impacts of warming have been ignored or minimized; and surface temperature data sets have been manipulated to show more rapid warming than has actually occurred,”

“The conclusions and predictions made by these reports are the basis for proposed energy policies that could cost trillions of dollars in less than a decade and tens of trillions of dollars over several decades,” the letter explained. “Given the magnitude of the potential costs involved, we think that taking the insular processes of official, consensus science on trust, as has been the case for the past three decades, is negligent and imprudent. In contrast, major engineering projects are regularly subjected to the most rigorous and exhaustive adversarial review. We suggest that climate science requires at least the same level of scrutiny as the engineering employed in building a bridge or a new airplane.”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/21/massive-coalition-backs-trumps-climate-science-committee/