Last night, my inbox was filled with how the latest “National Climate Assessment” released by the administration counters what President Donald Trump and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt have said about the questionable assertions about man-made climate change and the policies that are derived from the ludicrous theories.

The following muck from The Washington Post is a great example of the elite media spinning a narrative that is demonstrably false in scientific terms but that fits their politically-motivated agenda:

The Trump administration released a dire scientific report Friday calling human activity the dominant driver of global warming, a conclusion at odds with White House decisions to withdraw from a key international climate accord, champion fossil fuels and reverse Obama-era climate policies.

To the surprise of some scientists, the White House did not seek to prevent the release of the government’s National Climate Assessment, which is mandated by law. The report affirms that climate change is driven almost entirely by human action, warns of a worst-case scenario where seas could rise as high as eight feet by the year 2100, and details climate-related damage across the United States that is already unfolding as a result of an average global temperature increase of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since 1900.

I will simply point out that the Climate Science Special Report, released by 13 federal agencies on Friday, is the product of Obama-era eco-activists who remain entrenched at those various agencies. No swamp has been harder to drain since Julius Caesar tried to get rid of the Pontine Marshes.

Furthermore, this news was released on Friday. Not only was it a Friday, but it was the day that President Trump was beginning a historic, 10-day trip to Asia.

How seriously, then, can we take this special report?

Not very, says Steven E. Koonin, undersecretary of energy for science during President Obama’s first term and is director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.

In The Wall Street Journal, Koonin says the report “misleads by omission.”

The world’s response to climate changing under natural and human influences is best founded upon a complete portrayal of the science. The U.S. government’s Climate Science Special Report… does not provide that foundation. Instead, it reinforces alarm with incomplete information and highlights the need for more-rigorous review of climate assessments.

A team of some 30 authors chartered by the U.S. Global Change Research Program began work in spring 2016 on the report, “designed to be an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change.” An early draft was released for public comment in January and reviewed by the National Academies this spring. I, together with thousands of other scientists, had the opportunity to scrutinize and discuss the final draft when it was publicized in August by the New York Times . While much is right in the report, it is misleading in more than a few important places.

One notable example of alarm-raising is the description of sea-level rise, one of the greatest climate concerns. The report ominously notes that while global sea level rose an average 0.05 inch a year during most of the 20th century, it has risen at about twice that rate since 1993. But it fails to mention that the rate fluctuated by comparable amounts several times during the 20th century. The same research papers the report cites show that recent rates are statistically indistinguishable from peak rates earlier in the 20th century, when human influences on the climate were much smaller. The report thus misleads by omission.

The entire piece is well worth reading for those who are interested in climate science. Perhaps the most interesting portion is Koonin’s solutions, which may be applied to future reports:

Several actions are warranted. First, the report should be amended to describe the history of sea-level rise, heat waves and other trends fully and accurately. Second, the government should convene a “Red/Blue” adversarial review to stress-test the entire report, as I urged in April. Critics argue such an exercise would be superfluous given the conventional review processes, and others have questioned even the minimal time and expense that would be involved. But the report’s deficiencies demonstrate why such a review is necessary.

Finally, the institutions involved in the report should figure out how and why such shortcomings survived multiple rounds of review.

Legal Insurrection has covered the Red Team/Blue Team debate process that Pruitt was hoping to implement.

I would like to point out that The National Climate Assessment is mandated by law, and the report has been largely prepared by the Obama Administration and their holdovers in the new administration to meet specific deadlines and requirements. I do not think that the Trump Administration has people yet in place who can clear away the swamp’s scientifically unsound climate change detritus.

So, yes, the Climate Science Special Report is….special, in the SNL-Church Lady meaning of the word.

I have my own special climate report: The swamp remains quite odorous and filled with stifling, hot air.