Somewhat breaking news. A court filing (from 9/4) from DOE has noted that the Climate Working Group has been disbanded (as of 9/3). This was done to make the EDF/UCS lawsuit moot, but it also means that DOE is withdrawing the report, no-one will respond appropriately to the comments submitted, and (possibly) it becomes irrelevant for the EPA reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding.
What a farce.
Update: Via Andy Revkin, the EDF/UCS’s blistering response to the DOE filing. Pass the popcorn.
The truth has been cancelled. New technique, the lies the liars told to get their way didn’t happen, so nobody may call them lies. Abracadabra!
Unbelievable!
Susan, I fully agree with your opinion concerning this infamous method of smoke and mirrors. This method is not new, though, and I think you know that. It’s being used systematically by the Trump regime to hide the truth, and has so been by especially Trump himself since long ago, whenever his tricks come under scrutiny.
Such methods aren’t neither new nor original, so we shouldn’t be surprized, really. Instead we shall be prepared, and as also Gavin’s good work through the years and his swift response here in this case shows, he is. He is always prepared, as are many others. I thank him and them for that, just as I thank Michael Mann and Peter Hotez for this attempt of a broader analysis of what’s going on:
“There are five primary, interconnected forces behind the assault on science and reason. We call them the “five Ps”: the plutocrats, the petrostates, the pros (eg paid promoters of anti-science), the propagandists and – with important exceptions – the media. Together they have generated a perfect storm of antiscientific disinformation that now threatens humanity.
A nefarious web of actors including plutocrats in the US and Australia, along with libertarian tech bros, and petrostates such as Russia and Saudi Arabia fund and amplify deceitful, ideologically motivated antiscience. (…)
However, unlike the US, which has proven to be especially vulnerable to antiscience disinformation (having now elected the most antiscience government in its 250-year history), Australia – having stood at a crossroads four years ago – chose to take a different path. It elected a government that respects science and reason, even if it’s falling somewhat short of its commitments (eg lowering carbon emissions by 43% by 2030). The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, at least has recognised climate change as an existential threat, while Donald Trump has dismissed it as a hoax.
The dichotomy is equally stark when it comes to the Covid-19 pandemic. The numbers tell the story. Consider the state of Texas, where Peter lives and works. It has roughly the same population as the entire nation of Australia. Yet by September 2022, 90,000 Texans had died from Covid-19 (probably almost 40,000 of whom refused Covid immunisations after they were widely available). That’s almost four times the total number of Australian Covid-19 deaths.
What explains the divergent path of these two western nations when it comes to the acceptance of science and science-based policymaking? A number of critical factors allowed Australians to elect a more climate-forward government despite total inundation with climate disinformation by the Murdoch media and other conservative news outlets. Certainly, the enduring legacy of the black summer was a factor. But so too were several key attributes of Australian elections: compulsory voting, absence of partisan districting and preferential or “ranked choice” voting.
In the US, partisan districting (“gerrymandering”), low voter turnout and a polarised two-party politics that squeezes out moderates have combined to yield electoral representation that is at odds with the actual views of the people. For example, a Gallup poll from last year found that 61% of US adults were concerned about the climate crisis. Yet US policies are currently set by a party that denies the basic existence of climate change.
While there is a modest move in some states towards ranked choice voting, substantial changes in the American electoral system, such as compulsory voting, are unlikely to happen in the near term. (…)” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/sep/09/science-under-siege-weaponised-disinformation-michael-mann-peter-hotez
That we should work for substantial changes to the American electoral system is obvious to me, and has so been for a very long time.
What we urgently need is *proportional representation* like here in Scandinavia and most of northern Europe (the UK excluded!), the best system in my view being one like the ones in Denmark, the Netherlands, Switzerland and some more.
This is simply essential for the future of democracy everywhere in the world, because the US is world power number one. I’m not so sure that such substantial changes are unlikely to happen “in the near term” (for however long that may mean?) *if we all, and indeed of course especially the left in the US, really put all we can do into this effort.* Great things can happen very fast, history shows us.
It’s wrong and dangerous to look at history as an unchangable fate, to underestimate what we are able to achieve through mass mobilization. But it’s just too easy to do that. And that’s exactly what totalitarian and fascist or at least fascist tending regimes like the current ones in Russia, Saudiarabia, Israel etc. hope we do. We must in the West be urgently aware of the precursors and preparers of totalitarianism like the trumpian oligarchy and the Netanyahu fascist Likud-party regime and their attempts at ethnic cleansing and genocide, warmongering etc., because they know our weaknesses and illusions and they use them all the time. The pretend to be democratic, but they aren’t. And they act in concert, even if not by planning in any detail. They nonetheless further each other by intuition, and that’s what is going on in the world now – again, like in 1930-39. We must not fall asleep, neither get used to them, nor let us be taken by surprise by their methods. That’s why sites like Realclimate are so important.
Watts just named Roger as a behind the scenes EPA Critical Review author :
“These critiques were based on peer-reviewed research by experts like Roger Pielke Jr., Steve Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Judy Curry.”
This is false
Please correct immediately
DOE Climate Working Group RIP
By Roger Pielke Jr.
The Honest Broker
September 10, 2025
https://www.aei.org/articles/doe-climate-working-group-rip/
From the above: “Responses to the CWG were often expressed with expletives, in personal terms, and focused on the alleged political and financial motivations of the members of the CWG.”
Mr. Pielke, I’m curious, is the above statement from your article describing scientists or members of the general public? I ask because this statement is stuck in the middle of paragraphs talking primarily about scientists (and the media in the preceding paragraph), which a reader could reasonably presume is describing scientists’ responses.
Stop trying to mandate opacity, Roger.
Russell Seitz,
The exTweet by Willard Watts did eventually appear to me in full.
In itself, there is ambiguity in the interpretation of the exTweet (ie either that “these critiques were .. by experts like Roger Pielke Jr., Steve Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Judy Curry” or that the “peer-reviewed research” was “by experts like Roger Pielke Jr., Steve Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Judy Curry.”) However, what makes the former interpretation more likely and probably correct is the absence of Steve Koonin in the “peer-reviewed research” cited by the the CWG report.
Willard did say what was quoted by Russell Seitz on exTwitter, as a google search currently shows it. I’m no expert with exTwitter, but it seems to me that whatever Willard said in that exTweet has been taken down. And that suggests what Willard exTweeted didn’t pass the test of time. Without seeing that exTweet, the full extent of that embarrasment cannot be known.
But Willard did in truth make that exTweet.
A very similar quote is made on Willard’s rogue planetoid Wattsupia:-
With the breaking news which “Roger Pielke Jr. has just reported.”, the demise of the CWG of Christy, Curry, Koonin, McKitrick & Spencer is given a novel spin in the Wattsupia declaration.
The primary cause was not the novelty. It is agreed it was the EDF/UCS lawsuit that caused the CWG disbandment.
The lawsuit argued that the CWG has been recruited back in March by the SecEng Christopher Wright and this “Climate Working Group worked in secret for months to produce a report for DOE and EPA that would provide justification for their predetermined goal of rescinding the Endangerment Finding.” They reported in May but their existence was only make public at the end of July when the EPA released its proposal to rescind the Endangerment Finding. Critically, “federal law does not permit agencies to create or rely on such secret, unaccountable groups when engaged in policymaking. In the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Congress mandated transparency< in the establishment and operation of any federal advisory committee, including by requiring that the group’s formation be promptly disclosed and that its meetings, emails, and other records be open to the public.” [My bold]
You can imagine, that is an exceedingly impressive hole the DOE & EPA and the CWG members have here dug for themselves.
But such embarrassment of climate champions Christy, Curry, Koonin, McKitrick & Spencer is unconscionable. There must be more to it!!!
Thus the novel spin.
This lawsuit is of course the work of lunatic tree-hugging communist liberals probably all infected by TDS (which for some strange reason not even a prolonged dose of Fox News or NewsMax can cure). Lunatics the lot of them!!!! So this crazy lawsuit should have been easily dismissed. However, according to Willard:-
This, of course, begs the question, Who was that “one member”?
And Willard is not one to leave the denizens of his rogue planetoid Wattsupia down-hearted. Yes, their brave climate champions were defeated by a despicable foe who resorted to “lawsuits, insults, and a bureaucratic guillotine (and) the CWG may be RIP, but the questions it raised aren’t going away. If anything, its short life exposed just how fragile the “consensus” really is.”
MAR, regarding your interesting account of the incompetence by some of the people involved in the DOE report. I sometimes wonder if the sceptical side of the climate debate just lack basic competence in life in general, making me even more suspicious of their scientific pronouncements. The following is an interesting example. The source material is the article “New Zealand Climate Science Coalition” Wikipedia:
The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition was a anthropogenic climate change denial organisation in New Zealand, formed in 2006 with aim of “refuting what it believes were unfounded claims about anthropogenic global warming”.[1] The Coalition came to prominence in 2010 when it challenged the methodology and accuracy of NIWA’s ( National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research a New Zealand government agency) historical temperature records (of warming in NZ) in court. The Coalition lost the case, could not afford to pay costs awarded against it and was forced into liquidation………….
In making his decision in favour of NIWA, Justice Venning noted that at least two of the people representing the Coalition at court did not have scientific qualifications in the field of climate science. On that basis, he ruled that evidence presented by Terry Dunleavy, a former journalist who was a founding member of the trust was inadmissible. He said: Dunleavy “has no applicable qualifications” and “his interest in the area does not sufficiently qualify him as an expert”. Justice Venning also questioned the credentials of Bob Dedekind, a computer modelling and statistical analyst whose “general expertise in basic statistical techniques does not extend to any particular specialised experience of qualifications in the specific field of applying statistical techniques in the field of climate science”.
Tim Lambert writing in ScienceBlogs said “The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition isn’t made up of climate scientists, but is just a group of global warming skeptics who gave themselves a fancy title. And they just got caught combining temperature data from different places to get rid of the inconvenient warming trend in New Zealand.”[14] ….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Climate_Science_Coalition#:~:text=The%20New%20Zealand%20Climate%20Science,written%20by%20climate%20change%20deniers.
See also
nigelj,
The idea that somebody who hasn’t a piece of paper with “climatology” written on it isn’t allowed to challenge someone who has – that sounds a bit old fashioned.
The judge was using this lack-of-credentials to dismiss evidence although that may have been more in the form of advice to all lunatics trying to overturn evidence-based science in a court of law. I think the more important part of the judge’s ruling (in that Wiki link) is his comment “I am satisfied that the methodology applied by NIWA was in accordance with internationally recognised and credible scientific methodology.”
These CWG nutters recruited by the Trump administration can show scientific credentials.
But I don’t think they were the folk who screwed-up here (although that doesn’t give the green light for their denialist theorising). The problem they face is that the administration appointed nutters into top positions at these various departments and agencies who don’t know what they are about, to the point that their underlings (who they likely mistrust) are not asked to do stuff the would normally do, or are even aware that stuff is required doing. How could underlings point out what was required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act if they are never told this CWG has been created?
MAR says: “The idea that somebody who hasn’t a piece of paper with “climatology” written on it isn’t allowed to challenge someone who has – that sounds a bit old fashioned.”
I think it’s a legalistic thing. Expert witnesses have to actually have relevant expertise. I’ve been involved in a couple of civil law cases and this seems to be the firm procedural rule or expectation. The Climate Science Coalition should have known the courts require expert witnesses to be experts. with relevant expertise. They CSC messed up in an administrative sense.
If they had used Dunleavy as a non expert witness they might have got away with it. But they didn’t. Although it’s also possible they just couldn’t find enough people with relevant expertise. The point is the whole thing was a comedy of errors by the CSC.
I agree with your other points in your second paragraph.
Thank you for pointing this out. The first link you posted isn’t opening for me for some reason. So I’ve posted alternative versions below:
Last I checked, Dr. Judith Curry of the Climate Working Group said their work was on hold, without explicitly saying the group was disbanded. She instead wrote like someone still planning on updating her report, including figuring out which comments she would need to substantively respond to. That doesn’t sound like someone who expected their group to be dissolved and/or its report withdrawn:
But her comment is likely outdated, and maybe this came as a shock to her. I won’t shed any tears, though, on behalf of their misinformation-filled report.
Popcorn time indeed. Laws still matter. Speaking out still matters. Overwhelming evIdence still matters.
Maybe…
” I won’t shed any tears, though, on behalf of their misinformation-filled report.”
Professor Sanakan…Could you please point out some of the misinformation you found filled in the report.
Why? It’s not like you’d accept evidence-based rebuttals, anymore than you accepted any of the other cogent rebuttals written on the report.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/the-endangerment-of-the-endangerment-finding/#comment-837073
Your comments on global greening made that evident
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-837627
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-837680
Hi, Ken. I’m not Atomsk’s Sanakan, but here’s a bit of misinformation in their report (I’d argue several bits of misinformation). Emphasis mine everywhere below, typos in block quotes are quoted from sources.
They have a graph with this caption:
They didn’t mention they trimmed the tropical stratosphere out of their edited copy, or that the original included three additional (northern and southern extratropical plus 60N-60S) along with the tropics. Possibly because their attempt to have people draw a false conclusion was harder with the full chart.
Their report:
And here’s a quote from the IPCC WGIAR5 Chapter 10
Then in the supplemental material for Chapter 10:
So the graph they pretend was hidden, unmentioned, deep in the supplemental material was actually:
– directly referenced in the chapter as being in the supplemental material
– the discrepancy they claimed they were exposing was discussed directly in Chapter 10
– even the formatting they claimed they had to ‘fix’ with their annotations was mentioned
– and they didn’t mention (but the IPCC did) why they passed over Figure 10.8, which the report mentions is MORE robust, and instead they focus on the referenced supplemental chart 10.SM.1 which was specifically described in the chapter as LESS robust.
I call that sneaking around.
Check for yourself –
PDF of Chapter 10
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf
And Chapter 10 Supplement
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/chapter-10sm-detection-and-attribution-of-climate-change-from-global-to-regional-supplementary-material/
This is not the first time Judith Curry did not testify under oath as a witness for the climate deniers. It happened in Held v. Montana where she was to testify, but lawyers for the state decided not to call her–probably because the rebuttal and cross exam would have discredited her even more than is now the case. As a result, the State District Court wrote a fine opinion upholding Montana’s Constitutional right to a Clean and Healthful Environment–upheld by the Montana Supreme Court.
Thank you for pointing that out. Our Children’s Trust is on to even bigger cases, we can only hope that in each of them Judith Curry is a (no-show) witness, for the climate deniers .
All of us should support these youngsters and their exceptional team of lawyers.
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/
This is not the first time Judith Curry did not testify under oath as a witness for the climate deniers.
Thanks for the genuinely interesting comment, Russ, but I had to pause for a few seconds at the beginning. Heh. Surely there are countless times Curry did not testify?
It reminded me of an old Rocky and Bullwinkle bit:
Rocky: Bullwinkle, who do you see that isn’t here?
Bullwinkle: Among others, Prince Souvanna Phouma of Laos!
I read the EDF/UCS’s court filing. Yikes. I knew in principle that the administration’s legal strategy and behavior was bad, but I had no idea how bad until I read saw the details. This is a lawsuit and so the EDF/UCS are pushing for a particular outcome, so the filing is not a dispassionate and neutral view of events and the law. Even taking that into consideration, there are parts that are not arguable either in fact or law, and my reaction to them was you can’t make this stuff up.
There should be a bingo and/or a drinking game about the attorneys working for the trump administration for each time they get sanctioned by the courts of the bar association.
Lol. Let’s do the drinking game first! This makes bingo so much more enjoyable ;-)
Am I the only non-American who is baffled by the fact that a website dealing with ‘Climate science from climate scientists’ seems to have been filled recently with posts about politics, law and court rulings?
I for one would value a summary – preferably from a climate scientist – summarising in simple terms, the political and legal situation in America at the moment. To an outsider, it seems pure chaos.
Rory Allen.
Yep, that’s the gist of it.
Ok, I’m not a climate scientist, but maybe I can give you a starting point.
“In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity” ~ Sun Tzu
The party currently masquerading as Republican under Trump is sending out sending out political shock troops to disrupt all areas of American life and government. Think of throwing a bowling balls at groups of standing pins.
A mess is created, institutions are damaged or destroyed, lawsuits ensue, and while people are tangled up in trying to deal with the mess, Trump’s troops are already off “flooding the zone” elsewhere with more works of “creative destruction.”
You can see in the threads here some of the trouble makers, the Machiavellian players, and the naïfs who want to focus on the stated goals of the attacks while completely misreading the actually agenda at play, which for all intents and purposes is essentially fascist.
So, you have a glimpse of the rot in America’s underbelly, and how it gets neglected by whatever segments of society have been so cosseted that they couldn’t find their own asses with two hands.
The attacks on science are particularly pernicious, because that’s the area that teaches people how to stay grounded in reality.
Agreed. Of course that’s precisely why the government and its lackeys is attacking science. With no science the fascists become the only real source of information. It’s George Orwell stuff.
And unfortunately once governments become fascist it is very difficult to get rid of them. Look at Syria. I hope America’s constitution stops the fascism going too far, but will it? Maybe it will be the next thing to be shredded.
Indeed. There is much discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of the constitution. That don’t count for much if it’s simply ignored. The Supreme Court, which rules on matters constitutional, is currently stacked with Federalist Society wingers and has it looking like a rather flimsy barrier to Tump’s activities.
In any case, here as in other areas, chaos works in Trump’s favor. He has got to be one of the most litigious people on the planet. He is perfectly at home, ensconced in his mega-midden built of lawsuits, gumming up the works.
I’m not a climate scientist, but you can read all about it in a previous RC post, “Critiques of the Critical Review (https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review) and subsequent posts. A summary from my PO as a once-wannabe professional Ecologist and Evolutionary Biologist, who’s been participating on RC since 2008:
The US Dept. of Energy has historically been a productive and respected science agency. Since January, it’s been suborned by the Trump kakistocracy, and is now a weapon of carbon capital against collective (i.e. government) action to decarbonize the US economy. One previous such collective action was the US Environmental Protection Agency’s 2021 formal finding that CO2 is a pollutant that can be regulated under the EPA’s authority. The SCOTUS declined to hear an appeal of a lower court’s decision that the EPA’s “endangerment” finding was lawful. Then the Denier-in-Chief was elected, his captive EPA wants to rescind the Endangerment finding, and his captive DOE hired five of the tiny minority of notorious denialists with scientific credentials, to support the EPA’s request with “science”.
I’ll leave further amplification to the folks with climate-adjacent PhDs.
A summary from my POV, goddammit!
Pass the popcorn?
“The CWG strongly recommends to federal officials that “[t]he risks and benefits of a
climate changing under both natural and human influences must be weighed against the
costs, efficacy, and collateral impacts of any ‘climate action’, considering the nation’s
need for reliable and affordable energy with minimal local pollution.”
What’s wrong with that? It’s true that the climate action being suggested would severely impact global economies as it did during the pandemic travel lockdowns. Urgent reductions in CO2 emissions would keep carbon in the ground but would make the energy transition to renewables and EVs much more difficult and expensive. And reducing emissions toward zero by 2050 would take none of the CO2 already added out of the atmosphere to lower global temperatures. A little more attention to economic realities and less partisan bickering would help. The world needs energy for transportation to move forward..
You keep saying that.
Repetition does not increase its truthfulness.
Ken Towe @11 Sep 2025 at 7:45 AM
There’s nothing wrong with assessing the risks and benefits of climate change against costs of mitigation. Mainstream assessments find the risks of climate change outweigh the benefits of climate change and costs of mitigation. The problem is the rest of the DOE report is of very dubious quality, so it cannot be used as a reliable guide to either risks and benefits or mitigation strategies.
Climate change mitigation won’t severely effect economies like the covid travel restrictions and lockdowns, because climate mitigation is being done more gradually than the abrupt pandemic policies, and involves energy substitution rather than what amounted to no flying and de-industrialisation during the pandemic.
You say urgent reduction in CO2 costs money. However without some urgency of CO2 reductions we wont stop dangerous climate change so we just have to spend the money. You say reducing emissions toward zero by 2050 would take none of the CO2 already added out of the atmosphere to lower global temperatures. But the planet will gradually go back to preindustrial levels of CO2 naturally. There is no need to do this urgently with technology if at all. The main goal is to prevent dangerous levels of warming.
The world does indeed need energy for transportation to move forward. We will have the energy in the future. The only difference is an increasing component of the energy is renewables. So in summation all your concerns are unfounded Ken.
All renewables are being delivered and installed using vehicles that run on fossil fuels. The same is true for food and all of the material being used. If carbon is kept in the ground by reducing emissions toward zero none of this can take place for very long. The costs to humanity would be too large, “dangerous” warming or not.
Ken Towe, you’re wrong about transport, and your comments are just detail free assertions so I dont find them convincing.. Some heavy trucks already use hydrogen fuel cell technology and its highly likely some of them transport components related to renewables. Thus will increase as EVs gradually replace ICE vehicles.
You dont justify your claim that costs are too high. Studies show the cost of renewables and electrified transport is around 5% of gdp per year until 2050. Im not sure why you think that is too large. Governments waste that sort of money on tax cuts for rich people and other crazy schemes. So we could easily afford renewables just by reducing wasteful spending.
If I’m wrong about transport show us where any significant renewable project today is being done by vehicles that don’t use gasolines or renewable biofuels. And where are groceries being delivered by EVs . Remember there are eight billion people who need to be fed.
“All renewables are being delivered and installed using vehicles that run on fossil fuels. The same is true for food and all of the material being used. ”
Holland ,The Isles of Greece, Nantucket, La Mancha, New Amsterdam, and the Age of Sail beg to differ.
KT: All renewables are being delivered and installed using vehicles that run on fossil fuels. The same is true for food and all of the material being used.
BPL: Then we need to replace those vehicles with ones based on other fuels, or batteries. I believe Norway just launched a cargo ship that runs on hydrogen, Vehicles do not have to be fossil fueled.
“You say reducing emissions toward zero by 2050 would take none of the CO2 already added out of the atmosphere to lower global temperatures. But the planet will gradually go back to preindustrial levels of CO2 naturally. There is no need to do this urgently with technology if at all.”
Nigelj, are you saying mankind doesn’t need to advance and deploy technology to augment nature in removing atmospheric CO2? That it’s not an urgent need?
David, I think we need to develop technology to remove CO2 from the air, because its near impossible to get all emissions to zero. In other words to get to net zero we need to reduce emissions but also remove some significant Co2. But Im not sure we need to go further and try to quickly get right back to preindustrial levels of CO2. The costs would be high and the gain seems small.
Nigelj…Are you aware that it is not possible to take even one part-per-million of the CO2 already added out of the atmosphere by 2050…if ever?
“Atmospheric CO2 levels are expressed in parts per million by volume (ppm). To convert from ppm to gigatonne of carbon, the conversion tables of the CDIAC, (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) advise that 1 part per million of atmospheric CO2 is equivalent to 2.13 Gigatonnes Carbon. Using the 44 over 12 rule, this means 1 ppm = 7.8 Gigatonnes of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.”
Those 7,800 million tons will have to go somewhere permanent and while doing it CO2 will continue to be added..Global storage today is only in the few millions of tons. You can forget about removing CO2 from the air.
KT: The world needs energy for transportation to move forward..
BPL: Yes, but it doesn’t have to be fossil fuel energy.
Barton.. try delivering and installing any major renewable project without using vehicles that run on fossil fuels. And then do the same thing for transporting food and all of the materials required.
The report intellectually stands and is the subject of an open debate. There is reason for CO2/climate optimism–and a need to dial back the emotions and vitriol.
[Response: Lol. -gavin]
https://www.desmog.com/robert-l-bradley-jr/ – extract from denier database info ->
Credentials
Ph.D., political economy, International College, Los Angeles.
M.A., economics, the University of Houston.
B.A., economics, Rollins College.
Background
Robert Bradley Jr. is the founder and CEO of Institute for Energy Research (IER). Bradley spent nearly 20 years in the business world including 16 years at Enron where he served as corporate director of public policy analysis and as a speech writer for Kenneth L. Lay.
Robert Bradley has been associated with a range of conservative and free-market think tanks; he was an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and Competitive Enterprise Institute CEI), an Energy and Climate Change Fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) in London, and an honorary senior research fellow at the Center for Energy Economics. He has been a member of the Academic Review Committee for the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University.
He is also the author of several books including Climate Alarmism Reconsidered (2003) and Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not ‘Green’ (Cato Institute, 1997), and formerly ran the website Political Capitalism.org.
Susan.. trying to discredit the messenger instead of addressing the message is not what most research scientists do. The same for using the word “denier”. Maybe you should have posted your background for comparison.
1. Bradbury made precisely ZERO scientific statements.
2. Bradbury is a lobbyist not a scientific researcher.
2. Bradbury implies a “debate” where there is none.
3. As gavin points out, Bradbury’s hypocrisy here is massive.
Don’t think Sue’s science credentials are relevant to her analysis of Bradury’s debate/lobbyist/propaganda style.
I am finding chatGPT’s POV to be useful to get a clear and concise summary, so I submitted this question. Try it. See what you think:
Several contrarian climate scientists wrote a report for the US Department of energy titled “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate.” It has now been withdrawn, allegedly because of a legal issue, but I think it was withdrawn because it achieved its real desired effect, which I think is to discredit the science that proves global warming is real, that it is caused almost entirely by burning fossil fuels, and the consequences will be bad for the human race. Can you analyze the report and provide a critique as if you were asked to peer review it? A link to the report is below.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/DOE_Critical_Review_of_Impacts_of_GHG_Emissions_on_the_US_Climate_July_2025.pdf
Thank you, Martin. Interesting exercise. I tried copy-pasting your question with the link to the PDF into both ChatGPT and Grok. Though structure and formatting of the two responses differed markedly, both AIs reached similar conclusions, with a couple of brief paragraphs on “Strengths”, followed by long, detailed sections titled (ChatGPT) “Major and fatal weaknesses (these undermine the report’s conclusions)”, and (Grok) “Major Weaknesses”.
Caveat: I don’t have accounts on either ChatGPT or Grok, but I do have a history on both, so they may be customizing their responses to me. Does anyone here know how to eliminate that possibility?
I asked chatGPT about this myself, but it was some months ago so I don’t have the explanation handy. But it basically said it does tailor the tone of its responses to the tone of my requests. It didn’t use the word “tone” and I don’t recall the words it did use, but it was kind of adamant that it does not tailor the facts and the meaning of its responses. It calls’m as it sees’m.
But now I will ask chatGPT about this again.
Martin…I can make a critique of what you have thought about the report…
“….which I think is to discredit the science that proves global warming is real, that it is caused almost entirely by burning fossil fuels, and the consequences will be bad for the human race.”
No serious person needs additional proof that the climate has been warming again since about 1975. And nobody will deny that the activities of eight billion people have benefited from burning carbon to improve their standards of living. The statistical correlation between Mauna Loa CO2 and global population has been almost perfect. But asserting that the consequences will be bad for these billons of people is almost entirely the result of model forecasts that have trouble incorporating natural variability in hindcasting the past except in the most general ways.. Models that tend to ignore/dismiss that the very high levels of atmospheric CO2 in the geological past were beneficial to life at that time. Even when the pH of the oceans was becoming less alkaline because of it.
The real problem remains: What SHOULD humanity REALISTICALLY do, keeping in mind that natural variability might again alter the direction of a changing climate as has happened in the past.
Thanks, Ken. I asked chatGPT to review your critique. What follows is from chatGPT, with one parenthetical comment from me about the formatting of a table…
Full Text of the Comment (for reference):
Martin…I can make a critique of what you have thought about the report…
“….which I think is to discredit the science that proves global warming is real, that it is caused almost entirely by burning fossil fuels, and the consequences will be bad for the human race.”
No serious person needs additional proof that the climate has been warming again since about 1975. And nobody will deny that the activities of eight billion people have benefited from burning carbon to improve their standards of living. The statistical correlation between Mauna Loa CO2 and global population has been almost perfect. But asserting that the consequences will be bad for these billions of people is almost entirely the result of model forecasts that have trouble incorporating natural variability in hindcasting the past except in the most general ways.. Models that tend to ignore/dismiss that the very high levels of atmospheric CO2 in the geological past were beneficial to life at that time. Even when the pH of the oceans was becoming less alkaline because of it.
The real problem remains: What SHOULD humanity REALISTICALLY do, keeping in mind that natural variability might again alter the direction of a changing climate as has happened in the past.
⸻
Section-by-Section Analysis
⸻
✅ Valid or Reasonable Observations
1. Acknowledgment of recent warming
“No serious person needs additional proof that the climate has been warming again since about 1975.”
• ✅ Valid. This is consistent with the instrumental temperature record (NASA, NOAA, HadCRUT, etc.), which shows rapid warming since ~1975.
• However, this statement does not acknowledge attribution—the causes of warming—which is a central point of contention.
2. CO₂ increase correlates with population/industrialization
“The statistical correlation between Mauna Loa CO2 and global population has been almost perfect.”
• ✅ Roughly accurate. CO₂ emissions have risen in tandem with population growth and fossil fuel use. However, while correlation is real, causation is well established: the rise in CO₂ is chemically and isotopically attributable to fossil fuels—not merely population.
⸻
⚠️ Questionable or Misleading Claims
3. Mischaracterization of models and their limitations
“…the consequences will be bad… is almost entirely the result of model forecasts that have trouble incorporating natural variability in hindcasting the past…”
• ❌ Misleading. Climate models do account for natural variability (solar, volcanic, ENSO), and they have done a reasonable job in hindcasting temperature trends, especially when both natural and anthropogenic forcings are included.
• The model skill issue is overstated here. In fact, multiple studies (e.g., Hausfather et al. 2020) show that climate models from the 1970s and onward have predicted warming rates quite accurately.
• Importantly, negative consequences are not inferred solely from models but also from observed trends: increasing heatwaves, sea-level rise, glacial retreat, ocean acidification, biodiversity loss, etc.
4. “High CO₂ in the past was beneficial” argument
“…very high levels of atmospheric CO₂ in the geological past were beneficial to life at that time…”
• ⚠️ Partially true but highly misleading. Yes, CO₂ was higher during some geologic periods (e.g., the Carboniferous or Cretaceous), and life existed—but:
• Those periods were tens of millions of years long, giving life time to adapt through evolution.
• Sea levels were vastly different. Coral reefs and many coastal ecosystems would not have survived that transition at modern time scales.
• Today’s human civilization is adapted to a stable Holocene climate—even relatively small shifts in temperature, precipitation, or sea level cause massive disruption.
• Also, past warm periods (e.g., PETM ~55 Ma) are associated with mass extinctions, ocean anoxia, and ecological upheaval. It is misleading to imply that “high CO₂ = net benefit to life.”
5. Ocean acidification downplayed
“Even when the pH of the oceans was becoming less alkaline because of it.”
• ⚠️ Minimization. Ocean acidification is well-documented, and declining pH has real impacts on calcifying organisms (e.g., corals, shellfish). This is not just an abstract chemical shift—it affects ecosystem services and food webs.
⸻
❌ Logical Fallacies or Weak Reasoning
6. Natural variability might reverse climate change
“…natural variability might again alter the direction of a changing climate as has happened in the past.”
• ❌ Unfounded implication. Natural variability is superimposed on long-term trends. It can cause temporary slowdowns or accelerations, but:
• There is no known natural mechanism currently operating that could reverse the long-term anthropogenic warming trend.
• Internal variability (e.g., ENSO) may shift patterns temporarily, but net radiative forcing from GHGs dominates.
• The idea that natural variability could reverse the warming trend without a corresponding decrease in GHGs is physically unsupported.
• This is often used rhetorically to delay action, even though the risk of delay is that mitigation becomes harder and more costly.
⸻
Philosophical Framing and Rhetoric
7. “Realistic action” vs “idealism” framing
“What SHOULD humanity REALISTICALLY do…”
• ⚠️ This is a classic rhetorical move: shifting the debate from “Is it real?” to “What can we realistically do?”—which is fair as a question, but risks normalizing inaction if the challenges are framed as too hard.
• The answer to “What should we realistically do?” depends on societal values:
• Minimize long-term risk?
• Maximize economic growth?
• Protect the vulnerable?
• But invoking realism without quantifying risk or acknowledging escalating harm is often a way of evading responsibility.
⸻
Peer Review Summary (supposed to be a table, but it doesn’t copy/paste right)
Category
Evaluation
Scientific Accuracy
Mixed. Accurately acknowledges recent warming and CO₂ trends, but misrepresents models, underplays ocean acidification, and oversimplifies the relevance of ancient climates.
Use of Evidence
Selective and anecdotal. Avoids mainstream consensus literature and ignores observed impacts already occurring.
Internal Logic
Weak. Asserts uncertainty and natural variability without quantifying likelihood or scale, and implies policy paralysis.
Rhetorical Tactics
Uses “reasonable voice” to deflect criticism while promoting doubt. Frames action as unrealistic without evaluating cost of inaction.
Policy Relevance
Avoids explicit policy recommendations, but implicitly argues for delay or minimal response.
Final Thoughts
This response is emblematic of “lukewarmer” rhetoric—a style of argument that concedes the basics (yes, warming is happening; yes, humans contribute) but:
• emphasizes uncertainty disproportionately;
• invokes natural cycles vaguely;
• appeals to “realism” to stall or soften action;
• uses geological history out of context to minimize current risk.
While civil and superficially reasonable, it obscures the actual state of climate knowledge and misleads readers about the scope, urgency, and attribution of climate impacts. If used as a basis for policy decisions, it would likely encourage inaction at a time when action is needed.
“While civil and superficially reasonable, it obscures the actual state of climate knowledge and misleads readers about the scope, urgency, and attribution of climate impacts. If used as a basis for policy decisions, it would likely encourage inaction at a time when action is needed.”
“…at a time when action is needed…”
“What SHOULD humanity REALISTICALLY do…”
Slo.. where do wet stand on this important issue?
KT: But asserting that the consequences will be bad for these billons of people is almost entirely the result of model forecasts
BPL: No, it’s not. The consequences are already happening, and they’re bad. Flooding along coastlines, droughts in continental interiors, shrinking of glaciers a billion people depend on to provide fresh water, etc.
KT: Models that tend to ignore/dismiss that the very high levels of atmospheric CO2 in the geological past were beneficial to life at that time.
BPL: The key phrase here is “to life at that time.” There were no trillions of dollars worth of coastal infrastructure during the Mesozoic. There was no agriculture to fail.
OK Gavin, et. al.
If this is a farce, you set the date and time, let’s debate. And I want every single point and reference backed up by published, peer reviewed articles so nobody gets to be accused of gish galloping.
The only “farce” I see is a community that denies the very real and indisputable reality that we are living in arguably the best time in all recorded human history. Do you want to know what a farce is?
RCP 8.5
NOAA “billion dollar disaster” dataset
Kotz, et. al. 2024 Nature
Global “browning”
Coral “catastrophe”
Howard, et. al. 2024 JAMA
Every global observational heat death related index
If you think for even one moment that this is going away (by cowards who want to sue them on procedural grounds), think again.
The era of climate hysteria is over. I think you already know this.
Remove “every global observational heat death related index” as a farce. What I meant to say is Luthi, et. al. 2023 Nature Communications”.
I would use “every global observational heat death related index” to rebut Luthi, et al. and other authors who use modeling to come up with absurd heat death numbers.
Nothing like using real world numbers to rebut fairy tales and unicorns.
S: The only “farce” I see is a community that denies the very real and indisputable reality that we are living in arguably the best time in all recorded human history.
BPL: No, we’re not. Fascism is defeating democracy around the world. In the United States, the lifespan is decreasing. Seven million people die every year because of air pollution. Four wars are going on–Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo. People are kept as slaves in brothels, factories, and sweatshops. Forest fires have become larger and harder to control. I could go on.
S: The era of climate hysteria is over. I think you already know this.
BPL: Unfortunately, the climate itself continues to damage our civilization more, and kill people. In any case, the fact that a fascist regime is suppressing climate research in our country ignores the fact that other countries know very well what is going on.
Ah, one of the “Debate Me” Bros. Sorry, dude, scientific debate occurs predominantly between the covers of scientific journal, where rhetorical flourishes and Gish Gallops tend not to survive peer review. You are free to join this debate any time you wish. I’d even help you get your thesis in shape for submittal.
Until then, you aren’t even in the room.