I had been thinking that the U.S. government should conduct independent research on climate change. The Department of Energy did just that. In a speech to the U.N., Trump claimed that the DOE report proved he had been right about "Climate Alarmism." However, both Trump's comments and the report itself have been widely criticized.
I'm familiar with some of the report's authors, several of whom have opposed Climate Alarmism for decades. For that reason, some people might view the report as biased. I find Judith Curry particularly interesting, because she began as a Climate Alarmist working with the IPCC but later changed her views. She initially received high praise, but when she acknowledged that she might have been wrong, she was denounced and ostracized by much of the scientific community.
The report presents several ideas I've also discussed for decades. The data shows that temperature changes occur very gradually, giving humanity ample time to adapt. The same can be said about sea-level rise. It also appears that the commonly cited claims of extreme climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ are not supported by the temperature and CO₂ data.
There is likewise no apparent trend in extreme weather events.
It is also clear that increased CO₂ has improved crop yields and plant growth all over the planet.
The Climate Alarmists have a long history of failed predictions. I've been following this for decades. This includes claims that arctic sea ice would disappear decades ago, and that certain coastlines would be under water.
It is possible, although not entirely certain, that global warming will produce some short term inconveniences for maybe the next 100 to 150 years, by which time we will run out of fossil fuels. However, the long term trend is quite different. We have been in the Pleistocene Ice Age for the last 2.5 million years. The Earth goes through a cycle where we get a brief warm period roughly every 100,000 years. Most of the time, half of North America is covered by a mile of ice. We are past due for the cool down part of the cycle, and the period from the years 1500 to 1850 is known as the "Little Ice Age." This is why we heard reports of an imminent new Ice Age in the 1970s. It is likely that increased atmospheric CO₂ has reversed this cooling.
Everything I have read about the IPCC shows an extreme level of bias. They only hire people who believe in catastrophic man-made warming.
In some areas, government policy has driven up energy costs to the point that there is a public backlash. Likewise, multiple international policies, financial pressures, and climate initiatives have discouraged the use of fossil fuels by developing nations.
' The world's several dozen global climate models offer little guidance on how much the climate responds to elevated CO2, with the average surface warming under a doubling of the CO2 concentration ranging from 1.8°C to 5.7°C [Section 4.2]. Data-driven methods yield a lower and narrower range [Section 4.3]. Global climate models generally run "hot" in their description of the climate of the past few decades − too much warming at the surface and too much amplification of warming in the lower- and midtroposphere [Sections 5.2-5.4]. The combination of overly sensitive models and implausible extreme scenarios for future emissions yields exaggerated projections of future warming.
Most extreme weather events in the U.S. do not show long-term trends. Claims of increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts are not supported by U.S. historical data [Sections 6.1-6.7]. Additionally, forest management practices are often overlooked in assessing changes in wildfire activity [Section 6.8]. Global sea level has risen approximately 8 inches since 1900, but there are significant regional variations driven primarily by local land subsidence; U.S. tide gauge measurements in aggregate show no obvious acceleration in sea level rise beyond the historical average rate [Chapter 7].
Attribution of climate change or extreme weather events to human CO2 emissions is challenged by natural climate variability, data limitations, and inherent model deficiencies [Chapter 8]. Moreover, solar activity's contribution to the late 20th century warming might be underestimated [Section 8.3.1].
Both models and experience suggest that CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and excessively aggressive mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial [Chapters 9, 10, Section 11.1]. Social Cost of Carbon estimates, which attempt to quantify the economic damage of CO2 emissions, are highly sensitive to their underlying assumptions and so provide limited independent information [Section 11.2].
U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate'
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/DOE_Critical_Review_of_Impacts_of_GHG_Emissions_on_the_US_Climate_July_2025.pdf
I'm familiar with some of the report's authors, several of whom have opposed Climate Alarmism for decades. For that reason, some people might view the report as biased. I find Judith Curry particularly interesting, because she began as a Climate Alarmist working with the IPCC but later changed her views. She initially received high praise, but when she acknowledged that she might have been wrong, she was denounced and ostracized by much of the scientific community.
The report presents several ideas I've also discussed for decades. The data shows that temperature changes occur very gradually, giving humanity ample time to adapt. The same can be said about sea-level rise. It also appears that the commonly cited claims of extreme climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ are not supported by the temperature and CO₂ data.
There is likewise no apparent trend in extreme weather events.
It is also clear that increased CO₂ has improved crop yields and plant growth all over the planet.
The Climate Alarmists have a long history of failed predictions. I've been following this for decades. This includes claims that arctic sea ice would disappear decades ago, and that certain coastlines would be under water.
It is possible, although not entirely certain, that global warming will produce some short term inconveniences for maybe the next 100 to 150 years, by which time we will run out of fossil fuels. However, the long term trend is quite different. We have been in the Pleistocene Ice Age for the last 2.5 million years. The Earth goes through a cycle where we get a brief warm period roughly every 100,000 years. Most of the time, half of North America is covered by a mile of ice. We are past due for the cool down part of the cycle, and the period from the years 1500 to 1850 is known as the "Little Ice Age." This is why we heard reports of an imminent new Ice Age in the 1970s. It is likely that increased atmospheric CO₂ has reversed this cooling.
Everything I have read about the IPCC shows an extreme level of bias. They only hire people who believe in catastrophic man-made warming.
In some areas, government policy has driven up energy costs to the point that there is a public backlash. Likewise, multiple international policies, financial pressures, and climate initiatives have discouraged the use of fossil fuels by developing nations.
' The world's several dozen global climate models offer little guidance on how much the climate responds to elevated CO2, with the average surface warming under a doubling of the CO2 concentration ranging from 1.8°C to 5.7°C [Section 4.2]. Data-driven methods yield a lower and narrower range [Section 4.3]. Global climate models generally run "hot" in their description of the climate of the past few decades − too much warming at the surface and too much amplification of warming in the lower- and midtroposphere [Sections 5.2-5.4]. The combination of overly sensitive models and implausible extreme scenarios for future emissions yields exaggerated projections of future warming.
Most extreme weather events in the U.S. do not show long-term trends. Claims of increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts are not supported by U.S. historical data [Sections 6.1-6.7]. Additionally, forest management practices are often overlooked in assessing changes in wildfire activity [Section 6.8]. Global sea level has risen approximately 8 inches since 1900, but there are significant regional variations driven primarily by local land subsidence; U.S. tide gauge measurements in aggregate show no obvious acceleration in sea level rise beyond the historical average rate [Chapter 7].
Attribution of climate change or extreme weather events to human CO2 emissions is challenged by natural climate variability, data limitations, and inherent model deficiencies [Chapter 8]. Moreover, solar activity's contribution to the late 20th century warming might be underestimated [Section 8.3.1].
Both models and experience suggest that CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and excessively aggressive mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial [Chapters 9, 10, Section 11.1]. Social Cost of Carbon estimates, which attempt to quantify the economic damage of CO2 emissions, are highly sensitive to their underlying assumptions and so provide limited independent information [Section 11.2].
U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate'
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/DOE_Critical_Review_of_Impacts_of_GHG_Emissions_on_the_US_Climate_July_2025.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment