Category: Daily News

Daily News 29 Jul 2025

The DOE Scientific Report Underpinning the EPA’s Decision to Reconsider the 2009 Endangerment Finding on CO2

A Note to Journalists: Please take few minutes to read some of this so that maybe you can skip asking me for an interview.

Around 3 p.m. ET today, 29 July 2025, a Department of Energy report entitled “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate” will be made available here. This is the report providing the scientific basis for today’s announced decision by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to reconsider the 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding.

The report has 5 authors: John Christy, Judith Curry, Steve Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and myself.

We were asked by DOE Secretary Wright a few months ago to produce this report. As the first few pages of the report will explain, we had no pressure to come to any conclusions; we asked for complete autonomy.

Also, we had no knowledge through the whole process of what the decision-makers at the EPA were going to do regarding energy policy. We suspected the Endangerment Finding would be the topic of greatest interest, but we also knew that the EPA’s strategy for rescinding that could take a mostly legal approach, with little need for science arguments… for now.

Even today, I have no idea how much recent court rulings vs. updated (and less biased) science figured into the EPA’s decision.

Why a DOE Report to Support an EPA Decision?

My understanding is that the Trump Administration and all of its Executive Branch agencies have been very busy on myriad issues. Only one of the executive-level appointees in the Administration had the background knowledge and interest to invest in making this science report happen: Energy Secretary Chris Wright. I suspect (this is my reading between the lines) that it was agreed between the White House, EPA, and DOE that Sec. Wright would take the lead on the science document.

Chris called me at home and asked me if I would participate, and he asked who I would recommend for other authors of the report. He had been following my research for many years. He also had on his list of potential contributors the others who now appear on the report with me.

During preparation of the report we decided to avoid any engagement with the press on what we were doing. It would have only been a distraction, and we had little time to accomplish what the Obama Administration spent years and millions of dollars to produce as the original Technical Support Document (TSD) for the 2009 Endangerment Finding.

Our report has 141 pages, 350 references (most if not all peer-reviewed), 6.6% of which were studies we authored or co-authored. The report could not address every claim made in the 2009 Endangerment Finding. Instead, we focused on some of the central claims, the science underpinning them, and especially on the National Climate Assessments, especially NCA4 and NCA5 (the latest), which are relied upon by the U.S. Congress to assist in the making of laws and apportioning research funds.

One thing I learned through this process is how prolific and smart a researcher Ross McKitrick (U. of Guelph, Ontario) is. He was indispensable to our effort. But everyone brought their own experiences and opinions to the process, and we often had disagreements… but none that could not be quickly resolved.

Another thing I learned was just how poorly the science of climate change has been communicated to the public. For example, if you follow Roger Pielke, Jr’s research you will know that most of what the public has been told about climate change and severe weather has been a lie — and Roger still considers human climate change to be an issue worth addressing. It’s just not a “crisis”, and nothing we see in severe weather has been tied to human greenhouse gas emissions.

And that’s not a skeptical talking point, it’s according to the IPCC (!)

via Roy Spencer, PhD.

https://ift.tt/EPDeTcL

July 29, 2025 at 02:48PM

Daily News 29 Jul 2025

New Climate Assessment Report from US DOE

by Judith Curry

Climate science is baaaack

Energy Secretary Chris Wright has commissioned a new climate assessment report:

A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate

From the Secretary’s Foreword:

What I’ve found is that media coverage often distorts the science. Many people—even well-meaning ones—walk away with a view of climate change that is exaggerated or incomplete. To provide clarity, I asked a diverse team of independent experts to summarize the current state of climate science, with a focus on how it relates to the United States.

To correct course, we need open, respectful, and informed debate. That’s why I’m inviting public comment on this report. Honest scrutiny and scientific transparency should be at the heart of our policymaking.

Climate Working Group (CWG)

These reports were authored by the DOE Climate Working Group (CWG). Members of the Climate Working Group are: [link to biosketches ]

John Christy
Judith Curry
Steve Koonin
Ross McKitrick
Roy Spencer

The origins of the Group and rationale for selecting us are described in Secretary Wright’s Foreword:

To provide clarity, I asked a diverse team of independent experts to summarize the current state of climate science, with a focus on how it relates to the United States. I didn’t select these authors because we always agree—far from it. In fact, they may not always agree with each other. But I chose them for their rigor, honesty, and willingness to elevate the debate. I exerted no control over their conclusions. What you’ll read are their words, drawn from the best available data and scientific assessments.

—— Disclaimer: the remainder of the text in this blog post reflects JC’s personal impressions/analysis and not that of the CWG.

This Group was assembled in April. I decided to accept Secretary Wright’s invitation for the following reasons:

I was impressed by what Secy Wright wanted to accomplish
I was familiar with the other group members and figured I could work with them
Most importantly, I saw an opportunity to set the record straight regarding what we know and what we don’t know about climate science, that would reach an important audience

I was happy to help with this but in the beginning, I confess that I was not at all sure that I would put my name on any report that came out of this. I tend to fly solo, and had not contributed to any multiple authored assessment report in several decades, for a number of reasons. While I had previously met each of my coauthors several times and was familiar with their work, I was not at all sure how this would go. Further, I was concerned about the short deadline for completing the report.

Short summary: all exceeded any hopes and expectations that I had.

Climate assessment report

The Report is a remarkable document, particularly since this was written so quickly and by a small team. I encourage you read the whole thing, it is relatively concise by the standards of climate assessment reports (closest in spirit and length to the IPCC First Assessment Report).

Given the time constraints, we had to be selective about which topics to cover. We selected topics that we judged to be of particular importance and relevance in the context of US climate and energy policy deliberations. The areas of expertise of the CWG members were also a factor in selection of topics.

While each CWG author has approved this document on a line-by-line basis, this is not a “consensus seeking” document. Uncertainties and areas of disagreement are clearly described.

The CWG framed the overall climate change issue somewhat differently from the IPCC and the US National Climate Assessments (NCA). Our assessment is very much data driven and considers natural climate variability as well as human causes. We consider a number of issues that we regard to be important, but have received short shrift (or were completely ignored) in the IPCC and NCA reports. Some examples:

Chapter 1 discusses the scientific rationale for considering CO₂ as a pollutant (or not)
Section 2.1 examines “global greening” including the benefits to agriculture
Section 2.2 provides a concise assessment of ocean alkalinity and the so-called ocean acidification problem, including the recent rebound of coral reefs
Section 3.2 provides clear justification against using extreme emissions scenarios in policy-relevant analyses
Section 3.3 provides a comprehensive assessment of the urban heat island effect
Chapter 4 assesses the uncertainties associated with climate sensitivity, with prominent discussion of Nic Lewis’ most recent work.
Chapter 5 challenges climate models with observations; it is difficult to argue that global climate models are fit for any policy-relevant purpose
Chapter 6 provides a comprehensive analysis of extreme weather in U.S., using the entire available data record back to 1900 (earlier where possible), with a context of natural climate variability
Chapter 7 challenges the extreme projections of sea level rise, and emphasizes the importance of vertical land motion in local sea level changes
Section 8.2 challenges conventional notions of attribution of global warming in terms of problems with the statistical analysis methods and inadequate assessment of natural climate variability
Section 8.4 highlights the declining planetary albedo and cloud cover since 2015, including analysis of contributions from natural variability
Section 8.6 assesses challenges and problems with attribution analyses of individual extreme events
Chapter 9 on agriculture shows that increasing CO₂ and warming is expected to be a net benefit to US agriculture
Section 10.3 addresses mortality from temperature extremes (both heat and cold), including a section on mortality risks and energy costs
Section 11.1 clarifies the unimportance of global warming in economic growth
Section 11.2 assesses the deep uncertainties associated with estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon
Chapter 12 concludes that U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate and any effects will emerge only with long delays.

If you only have time to read a few chapters, my favorites are Chapters 6, 8 and 11. But each chapter is pretty interesting – you will be surprised at what you learn from reading this! While a single individual took the lead on each chapter, every chapter had at least 2-3 team members providing substantial input. I regard this effort as being a case where the whole is substantially greater than the sum of the parts.

Information quality and peer review

This report has been evaluated under DOE guidelines to meet Federal standards. This includes an internal review from eight scientists/administrators employed by the DOE. The reviews were quite interesting and varied, and several were very useful. The CWG made a number of fairly minor changes to the Report in response to the reviews, and added a number of references, and we are responding in detail to their comments. As I understand it, the DOE will arrange for a more formal external peer review.

DOE welcomes public comments on this report and is setting up a website for comments. The CWG expects to expend considerable time responding to the comments. We’ve already seen a pretty broad range of comments from the DOE scientists; it will be interesting to see what the what the public comments look like

Speaking from the perspective of individuals who have commented on the IPCC and NCA reports only to see our comments ignored, we plan to take a different approach. Rather than primarily seeking to defend our Report, we regard the open comments as an opportunity for dialogue, learning, and clarification of areas of disagreement. We expect to spend considerable time and effort in responding to the comments.

At some point, I assume that the CWG will be charged with writing a revised, more comprehensive report that responds to the external comments (we shall see).

JC reflections

The full significance of the DOE CWG Report remains to be seen. Here is what I’m hoping for:

Redirection of climate science (at least in the U.S.) away from alarmism and advocacy and towards better understanding of the fundamentals of climate dynamics.
Motivation of future climate assessment reports to address important issues raised by the CWG (that the IPCC and NCA have previously ignored or inadequately assessed)
A comprehensive approach to assessing US risk from extreme weather and climate events (along the lines described in my book Climate Uncertainty and Risk)
Breaking the link between energy policy and human-caused climate change, whereby anthropogenic climate change currently “mandates” emissions targets, preferred energy production methods, etc.

Hopefully the CWG Report will kick start some of this.

The looming US policy issue is the EPA Endangerment Finding (2009). Based on my meager understanding, this is more of a legal issue than a scientific one (JC note to journalists: I have no comment on the endangerment finding). But the bigger issue is this. In the U.S., one major political party (~half the population) think that fossil-fueled climate change is an existential threat, while the other major political party (the other ~half of the population) wants to ignore this issue and focus on energy abundance. The net result of this dichotomy is a political/policy windshield wiper effect, where we’ve seen: in the Paris Agreement (Obama), withdraw from the Paris Agreement (Trump I), back in the Paris Agreement (Biden), withdraw from the Paris Agreement (Trump II). This is not good for energy policy, climate policy, or climate science.

What is needed is some sane middle ground that realistically assesses climate risk. An honest assessment of climate change science is a starting point (the CWG Assessment Report), which acknowledges uncertainties and areas of disagreement. It seems like Secy Wright has the right approach to energy policy (from his Foreword):

Climate change is real, and it deserves attention. But it is not the greatest threat facing humanity. That distinction belongs to global energy poverty. As someone who values data, I know that improving the human condition depends on expanding access to reliable, affordable energy. Climate change is a challenge—not a catastrophe. But misguided policies based on fear rather than facts could truly endanger human well-being.

We stand at the threshold of a new era of energy leadership. If we empower innovation rather than restrain it, America can lead the world in providing cleaner, more abundant energy—lifting billions out of poverty, strengthening our economy, and improving our environment along the way

A hugely important issue falls between the cracks of energy and climate policy, and that relates to extreme weather and climate events. Attributing extreme weather events to fossil-fueled warming has been a key propaganda tool to spur “Climate Action,” with the inference that bad weather would go away if we stop burning fossil fuels. This kind of thinking has led us to ignore the real sources of our vulnerabilities to extreme weather, allowing us to throw up our hands and do nothing because “climate change.” Although there is little to no link between extreme weather events and fossil-fueled warming (see the CWG Report), the U.S. currently has substantial vulnerabilities (and electric utility systems are hugely vulnerable to extreme weather events). Assessing and managing such risks requires good weather and climate data, improved weather and seasonal climate forecasts, and better warning systems – much care is needed to avoid gutting critical information and services in the current budget cutting zeal.

And finally, I can make one prediction with confidence. The Michael Mann wing of the climate debate will hate this Report because: the CWG authors are reputable scientists outside of their “tribe,” the Report demonstrates that Mann et al. are losing control of the climate narrative in the U.S., and because Trump Derangement Syndrome. There is a preview from a July 8 NYT article that caught a hint of the DOE activity

Their usual strategy of ad hominem attacks won’t be effective against the CWG Report, which is evidence based, thoroughly documented, and logically argued.

JC recommendations for climate science/scientists: Embrace the complexity of climate science and acknowledge uncertainty and disagreement. Stop with the faux “consensus” enforcement and stop playing power politics with climate science. Constructively participate in the dialogue that DOE and the CWG Report are attempting to foster, in the interests of returning objective physical science to the climate issue. US federal funding for climate research is being decimated by the Trump administration – good riddance to much of this, but if we are to salvage this field of scientific research, then different foci and types of behavior are needed.

Media: Andrea Woods in DOE’s Office of Public Affairs is handling things, please contact her if you have any questions. andrea.woods@hq.doe.gov. The ringer on my phone is turned off. And a reminder: I have no comment on the endangerment finding.

For my assessment/analysis of related topics, see my book Climate Uncertainty and Risk:

Chapter 4 Mixing Science and Politics
Chapter 10 Climate Risk and its Assessment
Chapter 14 Mititgation and the Energy Transition
Chapter 15 Climate Risk and the Policy Discourse

The post New Climate Assessment Report from US DOE appeared first on Climate Etc..

via Climate Etc.

https://ift.tt/flMt6Jh

July 29, 2025 at 01:59PM

Daily News 29 Jul 2025

Skeptics Win, Endangerment Finding Axed – Truth Finally Prevails in The Climate Wars

Today is a monumental win for climate skeptics

Today’s decision by the Environmental Protection Agency to remove the Carbon Dioxide Endangerment Finding represents a pivotal shift in America’s approach to climate policy—one rooted in evidence, not ideology. For years, this “finding” has served as the legal justification for an array of costly, far-reaching regulations targeting everything from our nation’s power plants to the cars we drive and the energy bills we pay. Its removal is a direct response to mounting evidence that the basis for this rule was always more about speculative modeling and political maneuvering than sound science. Watch the announcement here:

The Carbon Dioxide Endangerment Finding, first enacted in 2009, rested on claims that rising levels of CO2 posed a dire threat to public health and welfare. These claims, trumpeted by alarmist voices in the media and bureaucracy, relied heavily on computer models that have since proven to be chronically inaccurate, consistently forecasting more warming than actually observed. In the years since, we’ve witnessed a remarkable gap between dire projections and reality: global temperatures have not followed the “runaway” path predicted, and extreme weather events—despite breathless coverage—remain well within the range of historical variability.

Yet while the U.S. was tying itself in regulatory knots, China and other major emitters continued to expand their coal-fired power generation, wiping out any hypothetical benefit of America’s self-imposed restrictions. According to multiple independent sources, China has increased its annual CO2 emissions by over 70% since 2005 and now burns more coal than the rest of the world combined. The idea that the U.S. could “lead by example” and coax the rest of the world into similar sacrifices has been thoroughly debunked by the facts on the ground.

The real-world effects of the Endangerment Finding were felt not in the climate, but in American households and businesses. Energy prices rose, manufacturing jobs fled overseas, and everyday citizens bore the burden of expensive, symbolic gestures that did nothing to alter the climate trajectory. The American people deserve policies that produce measurable results, not more of the same costly theater.

By removing the Endangerment Finding, the EPA is signaling a long-overdue return to rational, evidence-based policy. This action acknowledges that CO2 is not a pollutant in any meaningful scientific sense but a fundamental component of life on Earth—one that, at current atmospheric concentrations, has proven benefits for plant growth and agriculture. The change is not about neglecting environmental stewardship; rather, it’s about discarding unproductive policies and focusing on real solutions grounded in evidence, innovation, and economic reality.

The Role of WUWT and Climate Skeptics Over the Past 25 Years to Reach This Point

Today’s announcement did not happen in a vacuum. It is, in many respects, a testament to the perseverance and integrity of climate skeptics who have spent decades challenging the so-called “consensus.” For over 25 years, voices from outside the mainstream—scientists, meteorologists, engineers, and informed citizens—have raised legitimate questions about the certainty and direction of climate science and the wisdom of policies derived from it.

Watts Up With That (WUWT), which I founded in 2006, has played a key role in this effort. WUWT has provided a public platform for data-driven scrutiny, extended quotes from source material, and open debate on climate claims that were often presented as “settled science.” Over the years, millions of readers have turned to WUWT as a resource for honest analysis and transparent discussion, rather than alarmist dogma and political posturing. Through its detailed posts and vigorous comment sections, WUWT has empowered a generation of climate realists to ask tough questions, demand accountability, and resist the intimidation tactics of those invested in the status quo.

Perhaps nothing better illustrates the necessity of this skepticism than the Climategate scandal of 2009, where a trove of emails from prominent climate scientists exposed a charade disguised as science. The communications revealed attempts to manipulate data, suppress dissenting views, and stonewall requests for transparency—all in the service of defending a narrative rather than advancing understanding. Climategate confirmed what many skeptics had long suspected: that the so-called consensus was enforced through politics, not evidence, and that open inquiry was often treated as a threat rather than a requirement of science.

From the outset, climate skeptics were dismissed as “deniers” and painted as outliers, even as they brought forth data and analysis that contradicted the doomsday narratives dominating headlines. They questioned the overreliance on models with poor track records, the manipulation and cherry-picking of temperature datasets, the politicization of research funding, and the relentless conflation of weather with climate. These challenges were often met not with scientific debate but with ad hominem attacks and attempts to silence dissent.

Yet it is precisely this skepticism—this refusal to bow to groupthink—that has preserved scientific integrity and prevented far worse policy mistakes. The tireless work of independent analysts, bloggers, and organizations has revealed errors in climate data handling, exposed conflicts of interest, and demanded transparency in the review and publication of climate research. Skeptics have consistently pointed out that climate is an immensely complex, poorly understood system, not a simple machine governed by one trace gas.

Over time, many of the arguments made by skeptics have proven prescient. The failure of climate models to accurately predict temperature trends, the non-materialization of the “hockey stick” catastrophe, the persistent downward adjustments to estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2—these have all vindicated a more cautious, critical approach to climate science. Importantly, the skeptical community’s insistence on open data and reproducibility has forced a grudging shift toward greater transparency in mainstream climate research.

Today, as the EPA walks back one of the foundational rules of American climate policy, the importance of these skeptical voices can no longer be ignored. Policymakers are beginning to realize that real progress requires confronting inconvenient facts, not suppressing them. The narrative has shifted from unquestioning acceptance of alarmist predictions to a more mature, data-driven conversation about climate and energy. The very arguments once ridiculed as “fringe” are now being echoed in the halls of government and public policy.

None of this would have been possible without those who dared to speak up and challenge the narrative, often at great personal and professional cost. I am proud to be one of the many who stood up and actively worked against it. I am thankful for the words of encouragement and the pledges of support to WUWT through donations and subscriptions, plus the support of generous private donors (you know who you are) that allowed us to continue the fight. The removal of the Endangerment Finding is, in many ways, a victory for those who believe in scientific rigor, open debate, and policies that serve the public interest—not just political expediency.

As we move forward, it’s crucial to remember that skepticism is not the enemy of science; it is its engine. Only through open inquiry, constant questioning, and a willingness to confront dogma can we ensure that climate policy remains grounded in reality and truly serves the nation’s needs.

I will have a follow-up post for tomorrow. For now, Charles and I are taking the rest of the day off. We’ve earned it – Anthony

Oh, one last thing; a personal message to Dr. Michael Mann:

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/BhlumgW

July 29, 2025 at 01:00PM

Daily News 29 Jul 2025

Reclaiming ‘Environmentalism’ From the Climate Extremists

By Gary Abernathy

This article was originally published at The Empowerment Alliance and is re-published here with permission.

Americans are reclaiming ‘environmentalism’ from the radical left.

Certain words and phrases take on new meaning as time goes by, often due to the politicization of our language. A clear example of such evolution is in regard to what it means to be an environmentalist.

Decades ago, concern for the environment largely centered on keeping the land free of clutter, the water protected from contamination, and the cities unpolluted by soot and smog. One of the major environmentalist movements of the 1960s was fronted by then-First Lady “Lady Bird” Johnson, who initiated a campaign to “Keep America Beautiful.” Johnson explained that her passion for beautification was in perfect concert with other important objectives.

“Getting on the subject of beautification is like picking up a tangled skein of wool,” she wrote in a 1965 diary entry. “All the threads are interwoven – recreation and pollution and mental health, and the crime rate, and rapid transit, and highway beautification, and the war on poverty, and parks – national, state and local. It is hard to hitch the conversation into one straight line, because everything leads to something else.”

The campaign to clean up the national landscape was bolstered by a heavy rotation of public service television ads showing litter along highways, waterways and parks, and imploring people to “Keep America Beautiful.” Most famous in the long-running campaign was an early 1970s ad ending with a closeup of actor Iron Eyes Cody, a teardrop falling from one eye as he surveyed a polluted environment. (Cody turned out to be an Italian American, not a Native American as portrayed, but that’s another story.)

But as the “global warming” movement came into vogue, the definition of environmentalism began to shift. Leftwing media, politicians and organizations began to define environmentalism almost solely on the basis of adherence to its greenhouse gas theories and its demonization of the fossil fuel industry. In their world, anyone supporting our most reliable and dependable energy sources – natural gas, fuel oil and coal – disqualified themselves as environmentalists. In fact, they were accused of being “anti-environment.”

Too often, the left’s political targets played right into their hands, struggling to defend themselves and sometimes even downplaying or ridiculing the importance of a clean environment. By allowing “environmentalism” to be redefined and coopted by the radical left, true environmentalism was lost. Fortunately, a recent action by President Trump will help reverse course.

While the passage and signing of the “One Big, Beautiful Bill” grabbed most of the attention over the Independence Day weekend, an executive order signed by Trump on July 3 may have an even more lasting impact. The president’s “Make America Beautiful Again” order, “establish(ed) a council tasked with conserving public lands, protecting wildlife populations and ensuring clean drinking water,” as the Washington Post described it, while adding that the order remained “silent on climate change.”

While the Post and other leftwing news outlets cling to the “climate change” definition of environmentalism, Trump’s executive order is a first step toward reclaiming the term and unifying the country around the concept of a cleaner world.

Trump’s order decrees that all federal land management agencies will “promote responsible stewardship of natural resources while driving economic growth, expand access to public lands and waters for recreation, hunting, and fishing, encourage responsible, voluntary conservation efforts, cut bureaucratic delays that hinder effective environmental management, and recover America’s fish and wildlife populations through proactive, voluntary, on-the-ground collaborative conservation efforts.”

Trump’s order was inspired by the years-long efforts of 27-year-old Benji Backer, a “conservative environmentalist” who leads a group called, “Nature is Nonpartisan.”

“This issue needs to get out of the culture wars,” Backer told the Post. “People just are so divided over President Trump, right? But if he could do one thing that brings people together, and it’s protecting the environment, it would change the course of the issue forever.”

By returning “environmentalism” to its original purpose of protecting the air, land and water, the Trump administration will open the doors for those targeted by the left as environmental villains, welcoming everyone – right, left, middle – to actively engage in real environmentalism.

Those who provide America and the world with our most affordable and reliable energy sources have long cared about preserving the environment, in particular by investing in new technologies that make traditional energy cleaner than ever.

For example, advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies used to extract natural gas have allowed the United States to lead all major industrialized countries in carbon reductions. Home heating oil burner emissions have been reduced to near zero levels, while the sulfur content has been reduced from 1% to about 0.5%. And rapidly evolving coal plant technology means that modern pollution controls reduce nitrogen oxides by 83%, sulfur dioxide by 98%, and particulate matter by 99.8%.

As Benji Backer says, it’s time to move environmentalism out of the realm of the culture wars. Americans across the political spectrum love the environment and understand the need to protect it. Led by the president’s “Make America Beautiful Again” commission, the day is here when we can once again declare in unison that we are all environmentalists.

Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation. Abernathy’s “TEA Takes” column will be published every Wednesday and delivered to your inbox!

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.