This - a 'journal article' with Grok-3 as lead author - is the kind of junk we can expect, along with cherry-picking the least damaging impact estimates. *If* we're lucky, and they don't go into full denial mode.
But...for this to be used in federal decisions, it must be treated as a "Highly Influential Scientific Assessment," subject to data quality, peer review, and public comment requirements as did all previous NCAs. To even *appear* legitimate, they'll need to follow these something like these steps.
Comments