The first somewhat comprehensive reviews of the DOE critical review are now coming online.
First out of the gate is a nice interactive from CarbonBrief based on direct input from scientists whose papers were cited, sometimes in misleading or false ways. They have a nice color-coding for which is which.
There is a complementary effort from a group led by Andrew Dessler (sign up here to get notifications of updates). We’ll add the links here when it is released.
Meanwhile, the DOE is being sued by EDF and UCS on procedural grounds (turns out that there are actual laws about how you are supposed to get unbiased expert advice into government rulemaking – who knew?!).
There are multiple threads on Bluesky, or on blogs that address more specific points – for instance, Zeke Hausfather makes some salient points on the misuse of his work.
Importantly, the National Academies are setting up a fast track assessment process to provide input into the EPA proposed ruling (deadline is August 27th for submissions). This has the potential to be the most relevant effort, and so hopefully mostly everything will be funneled through this as well as the specific process that DOE has initiated for it’s report (which has no statutory standing on it’s own).
Stay tuned!
There is an official web-page which says it is “seeking input from the public, especially from interested individuals and entities, such as industry, academia, research laboratories, government agencies, and other stakeholders” and giving a deadline of 2nd Sept 2025.
“Meanwhile, the DOE is being sued by EDF and UCS on procedural grounds (turns out that there are actual laws about how you are supposed to get unbiased expert advice into government rulemaking – who knew?!).”
Thank you for this new article and the links provided. The link (“who knew?!”) to ‘The Conversation’ Aug 12th article is salient, providing information on four separate laws Wright and Zeldin are running afoul of, of which FACA is one.
Response Version 2.0 to the Climate Science Establishment’s Self-Sabotage
Let’s not mince words: the climate science establishment’s response to the DOE/EPA Critical Review is a masterclass in how to lose the public while winning academic footnote wars.
1. The Ivory Tower Has No Doors (And They Like It That Way)
The “elite consensus” crowd has spent decades perfecting the art of talking to themselves—peer-reviewed papers, Bluesky echo chambers, CarbonBrief citation bingo—while failing spectacularly to reach the 50% of Americans who think they’re full of shit.
Fact: The DOE report’s Executive Summary was clear, accessible, and framed for public debate.
Your “rebuttal”: A late, fragmented, jargon-stuffed mess buried in niche blogs. Who’s the real “misinformer” here?
2. Strategic Malpractice
When the DOE dropped its review, you had two choices:
Engage the public with crisp, viral counter-messaging.
Hide behind lawsuits and National Academies procedures.
You picked #2—proving you’d rather litigate than persuade. Newsflash: Courts don’t change hearts. They just fuel backlash.
3. The Arrogance Tax
RealClimate’s update reeked of faculty-lounge smugness:
No acknowledgment of past communication failures.
No humility about overhyped projections.
Just “sign up for updates”—as if the public owes you their attention.
Meanwhile, the DOE framed its critique in terms people care about: jobs, costs, scientific integrity. You framed yours in terms you care about: citation errors, procedural grievances.
4. How to Fix This (But You Won’t)
If you actually want to win:
Fire every “communications” staffer who thinks a Bluesky thread counts as outreach.
Hire storytellers—advertisers, podcasters, even conspiracy theorists—who know how to hook an audience.
Ditch the jargon. “Misused/misleading citation” → “They lied. Here’s the truth.”
Go where the people are: Tucker Carlson. Joe Rogan. TikTok dances with climate graphs.
The Hard Truth
You had 30 years and trillions in funding to make this case. Now you’re losing to a DOE PDF and a reality-TV president.
Either adapt or admit you’re the problem.
“30 years of failure? You’ve made your bed. Lie in it.”
Your ‘climate emergency’ rhetoric clashes with IPCC modelled reality:
– SSP2-4.5: 70% fossils in 2050
– SSP1-1.9: Relies on sci-fi carbon removal
If the crisis is so dire, why do all IPCC pathways allow 30 more years of rising fossil energy emissions?
Answer: Because full decarbonization isn’t feasible—and they know it.
Thanks to Real Climate and the other members of the scientific community for speaking up and providing accurate information and letting the public know about it.
I think the current administration’s effort to repeal the endangerment finding as written is too flawed to survive a legal challenge. Many legal experts are surprised how ham-handed the effort is. That challenge will need evidence, and I am thankful to the scientists for offering it.
Courtesy of Media Matters:
“The Trump administration launches assault on the EPA’s endangerment finding following decades-long right-wing media campaign” – Written by Ilana Berger, Published 08/14/25 2:26 PM EDT
.
https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/trump-administration-launches-assault-epas-endangerment-finding-following-decades-long
.
“Conservative outlets played key roles in the junk science echo chamber of fossil fuel-funded efforts to quash the ‘holy grail’ of climate policy”
“To rescind the endangerment finding, which Zeldin has referred to as ‘the holy grail of the climate change religion,’ Vox reports that he will have to ‘establish a factual record that climate change isn’t happening due to burning fossil fuels, and that even if it is, it doesn’t hurt anything.’ ”
Putting aside Media Matters left-leanings, the story does a fair job of pointing out the long (and continuing) practices that have been very influential in the creation of a mirage. That climate scientists are almost all willing alarmists, and in service to uber-leftists. Which is a steaming oily pile of crap!
Thank goodness the pushback against mendacity is being well-organized!