The minutes for the NAS Panel here includes a reading list. They provide citations for each of the PPT presentations, including ours. They mention a “handout” and “CD” from us.
The “handout” was a formal written presentation to the panel, setting out the points in our PPT. It deserves a citation. I wonder whether they even gave it to the panel members. The reading list includes the Comments on our work by Von Storch-Zorita and by Huybers, but it does not include our Replies (which were also on the CD). I know that it was probably a mistake and no harm was intended, but, at best, it’s amateurish.
I wonder how they made up this reading list? There aren’t any articles on spurious regression or calculating confidence intervals. There aren’t any articles about replication standards or disclosure.