K. NAS’ Valuing Climate Damages is Based on Peer Review and Consensus, Not Scientific Method, and Thus Provides No Reliable Scientific Evidence to Support the Proposed Rule

Thus, the NASA/NAOO data that argues we are experiencing the hottest temperatures in recorded history is false and manipulated, another egregious violation of scientific method. Accordingly, none of the manipulated data can be used scientifically to prove there is a climate related risk from fossil fuels and CO2, nor provide any no reliable scientific evidence to support the proposed rule.

K. NAS’ Valuing Climate Damages is Based on Peer Review and Consensus, Not Scientific Method, and Thus Provides No Reliable Scientific Evidence to Support the Proposed Rule

In 2017, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimating the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide (2017). For whatever reason, the book expressly stated that it was not following scientific method, but instead stated that it was adopting “peer reviewed literature” as the ““Scientific basis” for all “modules, their components, their interactions, and their implementation.” “RECOMMENDATION 2-2 The Interagency Working Group should use three criteria to evaluate the overall integrated SC-CO2 framework and the modules to be used in that framework: scientific basis, uncertainty characterization, and transparency. • “Scientific basis: Modules, their components, their interactions, and their implementation should be consistent with the state of scientific knowledge as reflected in the body of current, peer-reviewed literature.’’ Id., p. 47 (emphasis added). With all due respect, this very prestigious scientific group chose not to follow scientific method. Instead, they based their analysis and thus all of its recommendations on peer review and consensus, which provide opinions but have no value as scientific evidence. No matter how distinguished the group, groupthink support of theories does not make them reliable science. Theories become reliable science when their predictions agree with observations. Climate models’ predictions of warming have turned out to be hundreds of percent larger than observed warmings. Accordingly, this book does not provide any reliable scientific evidence to support the