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!
Update Aug 29: A strong statement on the foundational problems in the DOE report from the Executive Committee of the American Meteorological Society.
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.”
That’s some pretty strong and cogent criticism.
What are you doing to “fix the problems” you have identified?
What can we non-scientists do?
My opinion: Humanity will not “fix the problem.” It will “fix” us. IOW, some form of collapse appears to be inevitable over the next few decades. I think it’s more important to prepare for chaos than to belabor the arguments about what’s happening and who is causing “the problem.”
Toby thaler, the new sock puppet, praises the old sock puppet Pedro Prieto, and spreads some doom for good measure.
N: Toby thaler, the new sock puppet, praises the old sock puppet Pedro Prieto, and spreads some doom for good measure.
BPL: We don’t know yet that this is a sock puppet. When he said “That’s some pretty strong and cogent criticism,” he may be referring to the article.
BPL: We don’t know yet that this is a sock puppet. When he said “That’s some pretty strong and cogent criticism,” he may be referring to the article.
It’s hard to read it because he seems to be all over the map:
– if he indeed complimented the article, why would he then apparently dismiss its value as … inconsequential or even detracting from the more important?
TT: “ I think it’s more important to prepare for chaos than to belabor the arguments about what’s happening and who is causing “the problem”
Or why would he ask “What are you doing to “fix the problems” you have identified?”
if he thinks we are doomed anyway:
TT: “ My opinion: Humanity will not “fix the problem.” It will “fix” us. IOW, some form of collapse appears to be inevitable over the next few decades.”
(note the “all or nothing” fallacy, a necessary condition of being a doomer).
So the question whether TT is a sock puppet or not, is still open ^*
—-
^* Multitroll, when introducing a new sock, often would compliment non-doomers to lower their guard and engage with him as if it was a new open-minded author looking for answers.
I agree BPL we can’t be sure. However one of the things that made me suspect Toby Thaler is just another sock puppet is this. We know the multi troll likes to use the identities of real people typically experts with an environmental connection like Piedro Prieto and possibly Sabine a while ago. Toby Thaler is a real person with an environmental background in forestry conservation, so I thought multi troll is probably using the name. The real Toby Thaler doesn’t come across as a doomer, and never objected to my comment.
If the “fix” is to reduce emissions to zero by 2050 it will be worse than the ‘disease’. The UN predicts that population will peak at ~10 billion people in the 2080s. And they will need energy and food. that electric transportation cannot provide while completing the transition to renewables and EVs. Chaos?
Again, during the transition, it’s not an “all or nothing” proposition. You just do the best you can renewable-wise, always aiming to do better, and hope for the rest.
Ken Towe: – “If the “fix” is to reduce emissions to zero by 2050 it will be worse than the ‘disease’.”
It seems to me that’s another climate science denier meme.
Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf have produced a pre-print paper titled Global Warming has Accelerated Significantly, currently in peer-review, available at Research Square. Leon Simons has extrapolated presented warming rates linearly after +1.5 °C to show additional estimated year cross points:
Data _ _ _ value _ _ rate _ +1.5 °C _ +2.0 °C _ +2.5 °C _ +3.0 °C _ +3.5 °C _ +4.0 °C
NASA _ _ _1.45 _ _ 0.42 _ _ 2026 _ _ 2037 _ _ 2049 _ _ 2061 _ _ 2073 _ _ 2085
NOAA _ _ _1.45 _ _ 0.42 _ _ 2026 _ _ 2037 _ _ 2049 _ _ 2061 _ _ 2073 _ _ 2085
HadCRU _ 1.42 _ _ 0.39 _ _ 2026 _ _ 2037 _ _ 2052 _ _ 2065 _ _ 2077 _ _ 2090
Berkeley _ 1.45 _ _0.43 _ _ 2026 _ _ 2039 _ _ 2048 _ _ 2060 _ _ 2072 _ _ 2083
ERA5 _ _ _ 1.54 _ _ 0.48 _ _ 2024 _ _ 2034 _ _ 2044 _ _ 2054 _ _ 2065 _ _ 2075
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Average _ 1.46 _ _ 0.43 _ _ 2026 _ _ 2037 _ _ 2048 _ _ 2060 _ _ 2072 _ _ 2084
Ending value in °C; rate in °C/decade
Paul Beckwith discussed this paper in his YouTube video at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYVKW04ukiY
A global average surface temperature that is +3 °C (5.4 °F) above preindustrial levels—which is extrapolated to be reached by between 2054 and 2065 (assuming a continued linear rate of warming)—is likely to be incompatible with civilisation.
The University of Exeter’s Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) published their report on 16 Jan 2025 titled Planetary Solvency–finding our balance with nature: Global risk management for human prosperity. The IFoA report is suggesting without immediate policy action to change course, Catastrophic (i.e. ≥25% GDP loss and ≥25% human mortality) or Extreme (i.e. ≥50% GDP loss and ≥50% human mortality) impacts by year-2050 are eminently plausible.
https://actuaries.org.uk/news-and-media-releases/news-articles/2025/jan/16-jan-25-planetary-solvency-finding-our-balance-with-nature/
Humanity is on a collision course towards a +3 °C GMST anomaly, or more; a world beyond any past human experience. Large-scale depopulation would be likely.
In other words, the ‘disease”, as you put it, is an existential threat to human civilisation, and an increasing threat to billions of lives and livelihoods.
Ken Towe: – “The UN predicts that population will peak at ~10 billion people in the 2080s.”
Humanity is currently on the road to ‘climate ruin’! Evidence/data indicates there won’t be enough food produced to support a population of 10 billion in the 2080s, and large areas of the planet will likely become unlivable due to extreme heat.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2108146119
https://globaia.org/habitability
Geoff Miell says
16 Aug 2025 at 8:33 PM
Ken Towe: – “If the “fix” is to reduce emissions to zero by 2050 it will be worse than the ‘disease’.”
It seems to me that’s another climate science denier meme.
—————-
Doesn’t matter if it is or it isn’t. *Deniers* make no difference to global warming or climate change. In that regard, the IPCC and Real Climate is no different.
What’s real is what matters, where Simons has extrapolations are flashing red. And there is no chance in hell emissions will be anywhere near zero by 2050 or after and barely less what they are today on our present bau gung ho trajectory here
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-837664
Pedro Prieto: – “*Deniers* make no difference to global warming or climate change.”
I’d suggest deniers of climate science, wittingly or unwittingly, are in-effect attempting to maintain the status quo, particularly for the fossil fuel industry. Burning more carbon-based substances is ‘civilisation suicide’.
Dave Borlace presented a YouTube video in his Just Have A Think channel, published earlier today, titled Time to DEBUNK the climate nonsense!, duration 18 minutes. Borlace said from time interval 0:03:15:
“In her book, ‘The Language of Climate Politics’, Genevieve Guenther references data from the IPCC’s Sixth Climate Assessment report, published in twenty-twenty-three, and she explains that “Three degrees Celsius of global heating would likely mean that for around three months of the year, the entire East Coast all the way to Maine, the Midwest to the Great Plains, and half of California would be so hot that being outdoors would put you at risk of death. Southern California, the Southwest, the Deep South and Florida would be this deadly hot for nearly half the year.” Now those things might not represent species extinction level events, but they certainly sound a little bit existentially threatening to me. And we’re starting to feel it even now, aren’t we? In twenty-twenty-one, just as one example, British Columbia experienced three straight days with temperatures above forty-nine degrees Celsius, or a hundred- and twenty-one-degrees Fahrenheit – more than twenty-two degrees Celsius or forty degrees Fahrenheit warmer than average – an event which, according to public health officials caused almost a thousand deaths. In British Columbia!
Being alarmed by the world we’re currently leaving to our kids and grandkids doesn’t make you an alarmist. It makes you a realist. And here’s the even more alarming realisation now dawning on our climate scientists – the way our planet is responding RIGHT NOW even to comparatively low levels of warming of about one-point three degrees Celsius, appears to be corresponding with the UPPER end of the so-called range of uncertainty that those scientists have to apply to their data. It’s not that the scientists have been wrong about their numbers. In fact, scientific predictions of planetary warming for a given level of greenhouse gas emissions have been pretty much spot on. No, it’s just that the scientific community has historically been pre-disposed to offering the most conservative commentary possible about the CONSEQUENCES of those temperature increases, precisely for fear of being accused of alarmism. Well now it looks like mother nature is starting to provide us with the real answers.
So, what about cost then? Well, this is all about estimating the financial impact to the economy of making all the changes necessary to stay within safe warming limits and setting that number against the cost to society of dealing with the consequences of NOT staying within those safe limits. Not just the obvious stuff like cleaning up and rebuilding critical infrastructure after extreme weather events, but also the impacts of those events on things like food chain supply security, or reductions in the number of hours that manual labourers can work outside, or the cost of migration across borders and even within a nation, as we’re already seeing with population movements in the United States. And then there’s increased pressure on health care systems, not just from heat-related illnesses but also from water borne disease vectors that migrate from the equator towards the poles alongside warmer and wetter conditions. Not to mention regional and wider conflicts over increasingly scarce resources. I could go on, but you get the idea.”
https://youtu.be/EU8zYS43TRg?t=195
There’s also the increasing threat and costs related to the relentless and exponentially accelerating sea level rise (SLR) inundating coastal infrastructure/property around the world. Current atmospheric GHG levels commit us to at least 25 m of sea level rise over centuries to millennia timescales. But I would not be at all surprised to see 100 cm of SLR relative to the year-2000 baseline by the 2060s, which would be catastrophic for many cities. Only by cooling down planet Earth can we/humanity save our coastlines.
I’d suggest deniers of climate science, whether intentional or not, are effectively facilitating and contributing towards the suffering of millions of people now and billions of people in the coming decades.
Geoff said:
I’d suggest that logic, observation, and common sense all suggest that Geoff is exactly right.
KT, claiming the fix to reduce emissions to net zero by 2050 will be worse than the disease is just your evidence free opinion. Mark Z Jacobson has done research finding building a 100% renewables grid by 2050 costs about 3% of global gdp per year that number clearly doesnt cause chaos even considering there will be other decarbonisation costs as well.. Neither does building EVs, the costs are fast approaching ICE cars. And as Ron says even if we dont get all the way there for cost or other reasons we have still reduced the problem.
Ken Towe wrote
Hitchen’s razor states
Because Mr. Towe hasn’t provided any evidence for his assertion, his assertion is dismissed.
This argument suggests that if we cannot have a whole loaf, it’s better to have no bread at all. Surely the way forward is to work as hard as we can to phase out fossil fuels as quickly as possible. That may well involve continuing to use oil and gas well beyond 2050. But the amount will decline, probably steeply as reserves dwindle and the costs rise, while the costs of renewables fall as the tech improves. I suspect that whatever we think about it, economic forces will drive the shift away from fossil fuels, provided – and this is the big if – governments don’t interfere to prevent it.
Rory Allen: – “Surely the way forward is to work as hard as we can to phase out fossil fuels as quickly as possible. That may well involve continuing to use oil and gas well beyond 2050. But the amount will decline, probably steeply as reserves dwindle and the costs rise…”
Indeed. Accumulating data indicates the global oil and gas supply decline is very likely and soon…
Chris Martenson’s recent presentation at the Limitless Expo covered peak oil, energy scarcity, economic impacts, shale oil limits, AI’s ridiculous energy demands, looming natural gas challenges, and resilience strategies, duration 46½ minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhhlbQL4UYg
US petroleum geologist Art Berman was in conversation with Johan Landgren in the YouTube video titled Arthur Berman: The Perfect Energy Storm – Peak Cheap Oil and Natural Gas is here, published 16 Feb 2024, duration 0:55:07. On when the US shale oil & gas decline is likely, Art Berman said (from time interval 0:34:11):
“Right, it’s, it’s, it’s almost impossible to make those predictions, and, and, and I, let me just, um, explain for a moment that even if the quality, the performance of individual wells is declining, ah, money makes everything work better. If we just drill more wells, even though those wells are poorer, ah, that’s going to keep the production up, OK? So, so the, so as an earth scientist, um, I’m very interested in the geology, of, of the production, but, but we can’t divorce ourselves from, from markets and capital, and so if we have a lot of capital available we can temporarily, ah, you know, make these supply problems and performance problems seem like they’re not a problem. We basically move them into the future. Um, now unfortunately, one of the effects or the results of the so-called energy transition is that there is increasingly less capital available for the oil and gas business, that a few years ago, back when you wrote your book in 2015, Johan, everybody wanted to invest in oil and gas. Um, and you know, and, and, and, and we were in the US, we were drilling, you know, so many thousands of wells every, every month, and there was, you know, a company would, you know, would, would make some new shares available in a, you know, in a secondary offering, and they would raise billions of dollars in a few hours in the morning, because everybody wanted to buy the stock, um, because they, they saw that there was this need and it was going to grow. That’s not the case anymore, OK, and, and I don’t want to um, you know, take any time discussing why. It’s just empirically true that, that there’s just so much, there’s very little outside money available for oil and gas drilling and development that almost all of it has to come from internally generated funds. So, that’s a, that’s a, a major sea change from a decade ago, and so whereas in the past we might have been able to sort of smooth over, ah, this decline in, in well productivity with more, more drilling, that’s not the way things are today. We just don’t have the capital, and even if companies do, ah, they need to satisfy their shareholders, and their shareholders don’t want them to grow. They want dividends. They want stock buybacks. They want, they want to see the stock price go up, and so there’s a lot of factors that are conspiring to, to not fix this problem, OK. And, and therefore, in answer to your question, I’m quite confident that before this decade is over we’re going to see some serious supply concerns by markets for both oil and natural gas, and it would not surprise me if that happened in a year or two, ah, as opposed to, you know, the five or six years that we have remaining in this decade. Um, so I, I can’t make a hard prediction, but with the data I’m seeing it’s just very difficult for me to imagine, um, a particularly hopeful scenario. I mean, anything is possible, and um, predictions are always wrong, but based on what I’m seeing, I mean I’m, I’m quite confident that we’re going to be looking at much higher energy prices in two, three, certainly four or five years. I, I, I wish it weren’t true. The only way to avoid that is if we have a serious, ah, economic contraction, which is equally possible! Um, that’s not a positive thing, but, but that, you know, that, that, that is the other most likely way energy prices would stay, or, or even go lower. It would be a deflationary kind of trend.”
https://youtu.be/rv85LTMO8TQ?t=2051
The Depletion Paradox, 19 Dec 2024:
https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/the-depletion-paradox
Brace for impact…
Reply to Rory Allen
Who asks:
Surely the way forward is to work as hard as we can to phase out fossil fuels as quickly as possible.
Why? WHEN AND WHO proved that was the best or only solution to the predicament?
SHOW the evidence it is the right solution.
Unfortunately 35 years of constant failure has yet convinced it is not the right solution, because it has not, does not and will not work.
And obviously so after 35 years!
RA: Surely the way forward is to work as hard as we can to phase out fossil fuels as quickly as possible.
PPr: Why? WHEN AND WHO proved that was the best or only solution to the predicament? . . . SHOW the evidence it is the right solution. . . . Unfortunately 35 years of constant failure has yet convinced it is not the right solution, because it has not, does not and will not work.
BPL: It’s already happening. Solar and wind are now on the terawatt scale, and still growing like mad.. Coal is dying. Oil is not used for power plants, and as a fuel, electrification and green hydrogen can fill in the gaps. Even natural gas is having problems.
“And they will need energy and food. that electric transportation cannot provide while completing the transition to renewables and EVs.”
This doesn’t support your thesis sentence about “worse than the disease,” because reducing emissions to zero by 2050 presupposes completing the “transition to renewables and EVs.” You are assuming a disastrous “transition” in order to prove a disastrous transition. In the real world, no-one is going to arbitrarily cut off transportation without supplying a replacement mode. The only question is whether we can ready and deploy the replacements in time.
And increasingly, the evidence is that we *can.* The likelihood of us actually doing so goes up the less people are misled by faulty reasoning, even in the increasingly unlikely event that it’s good-faith faulty reasoning.
Pretty sure you were caught misrepresenting critiques of the “Critical Review”, sockpuppet account:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/the-endangerment-of-the-endangerment-finding/comment-page-2/#comment-837312
Scientists tend to follow advice I was given some years ago: ‘never mud-wrestle with a pig. You will both get filthy, but the pig will enjoy it.’ What you seem to be advising is that we should drop that and learn to mud wrestle with the best of them. Well, you may well be right. Scientists will have less time to work on science, but maybe that is your aim?
This is the sort of poor response expected from one of the sockpuppet accounts. So many errors and distortions.
Re: “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.”
Plenty of peer-reviewed papers are accessible to the public, as are CarbonBrief articles. So it’s not just an ‘elite consensus’ talking to itself. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have access here with your numerous accounts.
Also, experts are often not to blame for the public’s views. For example, the public is often to blame due to their ideological bias. That’s illustrated by those members of the public who refuse to accept evolutionary biology because of their religious ideology, refuse to accept that smoking causes cancer because they oppose cigarette taxes, etc. There’s a clear ideological divide in who accepts climate science in the USA. Climate scientists are not more to blame on that than evolutionary biologists are to blame for the ideological divide on who accepts evolutionary biology:
Re: “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?”
Misinformation is false or misleading information. You clearly didn’t know that since you’re ranting about the way information is presented, instead of whether the information is accurate and avoids misleading people. Misinformation can be clear, acceptable, and framed for public debate. Hence the existence of effective propaganda.
Re: “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.”
False dichotomy. For example, there were options like explaining at a layman’s level why the report was wrong. That’s been done by numerous experts. Your response was to misrepresent what those experts said, as would be expected of a misinformer:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/the-endangerment-of-the-endangerment-finding/comment-page-2/#comment-837312
Re: “3. The Arrogance Tax
RealClimate’s update reeked of faculty-lounge smugness:
No acknowledgment of past communication failures.
No humility about overhyped projections.”
You’re tone trolling, i.e. complaining about tone as a means of avoiding substance. If you actually cared about substance, then you’d discuss the content of RealClimate articles. That includes RealClimate’s well-written articles on accurate warming projections. But I guess it’s easier for you to tone troll and misinform about those projections:
Re: “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.”
Written like someone who’s more interested in pandering and entertaining than in informing. Science is not a drug nor a game; this is not about ‘hooking’ people or ‘winning’. It’s about accurately informing the public. You’re clearly not interested in that, given the misinformation you habitually peddle and your willingness to accuse people of lying even when they’re not (hint: people can mislead/misuse information without it being intentional deception).
Re: “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.”
Learn the difference between science vs. politics. Losing a political election in one country is not the same thing as scientific inaccuracy. If you think otherwise, then you must think vaccine science failed because Trump won an election and installed RFK Jr. as head of HHS. In reality the success of vaccine science is measured in terms of accurate information, published evidence, vaccine-preventable deaths averted, etc., not the views some sockpuppet has on a Presidential election.
Atomsk Sanakans response makes some good points.
I’d go further and say it’s pretty much spot on.
Climate scientists are not more to blame on that than evolutionary biologists are to blame for the ideological divide on who accepts evolutionary biology:
I debated Kent Hovind over the internet a long time ago hoping to win his supposed big prize of $250,000 for proving that evolution is correct, thinking, naively, that he was a man of his word. One of many who did. Of course he never paid out to anyone.
My evidence was the polar bear. It has lots of adaptations to the polar environment that it’s hemispherically lower cousin, the brown bear sister species does not. They are two different species yet not enough time has gone by this it can still breed and produce fertile offspring with them. From Wikipedia:
”The polar bear has acquired anatomical and physiological differences from the brown bear that allow it to comfortably survive in conditions that the brown bear likely could not. Notable examples include the ability to swim sixty miles or more at a time in freezing waters, fur that blends with the snow, and to stay warm in the arctic environment, an elongated neck that makes it easier to keep their heads above water while swimming, and oversized and heavy-matted webbed feet that act as paddles when swimming. It has also evolved small papillae and vacuole-like suction cups on the soles to make them less likely to slip on the ice, alongside smaller ears for a reduction of heat loss, eyelids that act like sunglasses, accommodations for their all-meat diet, a large stomach capacity to enable opportunistic feeding, and the ability to fast for up to nine months while recycling their urea.[283][284]”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
The creationists response is to claim that the polar bear’s coloration is a negative, a “back mutation”. It represents a loss. This is a convenient answer (like radiation hormesis is convenient for nuclear proponents). Ok. Let’s say it’s a loss. But what about all of the other positive differences it has acquired as opposed to the brown? To me at least, it’s evidence that evolution has occurred.
Kent’s answer at the time was that it was still a bear. Ok, but if it were much more changed it might no longer be able to breed with the brown bear. Then they’d simply claim that it was a separate creation by God. So I sought an example that was sort of halfway and hopefully acceptable to them. There are other bear species that are more changed, like the panda.
Note that this doesn’t not cover ultimate origins or whether or not God exists. I’m an agnostic, not an atheist.
The debate is not online anymore because I requested it be removed. I did not want to be remembered for that. But references to it are there.
https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html
Kent has a history as a conspiracy theorist and a lot of legal trouble. He’s seeking an exoneration from Trump. In this environment he might get it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2025/02/10/kent-hovind-is-seeking-exoneration-or-pardon-from-president-trump/
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/thefreethinker/2021/06/trump-loving-creationist-loses-delusional-536041100-lawsuit/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind
Re. “‘elite consensus’ talking to itself.”
1. The use of “elite” as a pejorative is rather an old right wing propaganda technique. Most people are on to that one now. It’s especially ridiculous propaganda as the basic mechanism of scientific advancement just happens to be, uh, er, well, an elite consensus communicating freely with each other.
2. Anyone with a real interest in science can get access to paywalled materials:
(a) Often authors even have free links on their own web pages or will provide one on email request
(b) Many important articles aren’t even paywalled in places like Nature.
(c) Many research libraries still allow public access in person.
(d) Many large city libraries have substantial research holdings for residents.
(e) scholar.google.com lists multiple sources including less legal ones–that every grad student in the world uses–like researchgate.
So no, not limited to “elites”. Of course propagandists aren’t interested in such nit picky details as telling the truth.
jgnfld: Thanks. I would like to point out that I have no trouble finding useful information. Only specialist scientists need the precise access your response addresses. There are often summaries and reviews of ongoing research in a variety of locations. For debunking of falsehoods, there are DeSmog and SkepticalScience, as well as Open Secrets etc. The mainstream press covers new research on a daily basis, and despite claims to the contrary, WaPo and NYTimes are centrist. The Guardian veers left in its opinion section but covers science and climate very well. I just did a quick search on ‘science news’ (ignore ai, either use DuckDuckGo or put -ai at end of google search) which turned up a slew of them. A simple search on any issue will turn up multiple outlets who summarize and review. Even the most exclusive provide an abstract.
In addition, increasingly on vital information (like Stefan Rahmstorf’s work) the publications have provided free access.
—
Not related, but I just found this fascinating tidbit in my new rave, Adam Becker’s More Everything Forever, from our very own Gavin Schmidt: The Silurian Hypothesis: Would it be possible to detect an industrial civilization in the geological record? – https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.03748
Re: Atomsk’s Sanakan’ s excellent analysis of the Pedro et aliās Troll Factory’s MO.
I only wish that there was a space on RC where moderators could pin important and well thought- through post like this, so the new users are forewarned about the common denier troll techniques (“ forewarned is forearmed“).
As it is now – this excellent post will likely be drowned in the deluge of the troll’s mass production, which is a goal of both ego-trolls (their way to “ own the discussion“),
and of the paid trolls of the fossil fuel interests (used to paralyze the public discussion on the need of curtailing the source of their profits)
Pedro Prieto says: “Ditch the jargon. “Misused/misleading citation” → “They lied. Here’s the truth.”
I disagree with accusing them of lying. Did saying Trump lied change the right wings view? No. Its hard to prove someone is lying which involves deliberate intent, and so you just get nowhere other than alienating people. (Of course it’s clear Trump makes frequent wildly inaccurate claims. ) Accusing people of lying is very inflammatory language which might have a certain level of impact in some contexts but it could seriously harm the credibility of scientists as a cool headed source of information. The term misleading or inaccurate is preferable. However I would agree that too much use of technical jargon is a problem.
I question your claim of ’30 years of failure’.
Opinion polls in Europe show that over 70% of the general public think that climate change is real, and is caused by fossil fuel burning. A mere 4% deny that climate change is even happening (the remainder is ‘don’t know’, or they think climate change is real but caused by something else).
The problem arises when this 4% gets its hands on the levers of power, as it has in the US, which has elected a convicted felon and sex pest to the highest office. Blaming scientists for the resulting chaos is a classic case of DARVO: ‘Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender’.
I live in hope that the US will come to its senses when the effects of climate change become too obvious to deny.
“Opinion polls in Europe show that over 70% of the general public think that climate change is real”
How are these people reacting to this belief? If the majority of people think climate change is real, is caused by fossil fuel burning and is a big problem, why are so many people still flying abroad to exotic destinations multiple times a year (meaning we keep having this issue in the UK of expanding Heathrow or Gatwick, people object to both but still like to fly abroad on holiday and don’t get the irony), voting the same old status-quo neo-liberal political parties into power, choosing to live lives where they have to drive significant distances by car instead of being able to use public transport, walk or cycle, sucking up to dangerous populism and fueling their anger at immigrants instead of the toxic side effects of neo-liberal capitalism, treating resources like clean water as though it is infinite then complaining when they can’t water their lawn for a couple of weeks due to drought?
It is one thing to say something is real and a problem, putting in effort, collective or otherwise, is something else.
Can no-one see through your blatant misdirection Adam????
RA says “Opinion polls in Europe show that over 70% of the general public think that climate change is real, and is caused by fossil fuel burning.”
and then you add the “and is a big problem” to the end of the sentence!!!!!!!
Exactly like Obama did.
The whole discussion is whether or not “and is a big problem” is true. That is what the Critical Review is all about.
The original endangerment finding was all based on predictions on future danger, the Critical Review tries to objectively evaluate pros and cons. For example, the original EF said TCs are getting weaker but we thing strong ones might become stronger (they lied). At least the CR entertains the possibility that some things improve
On the other end of the spectrum, this is closer to the truth, though possibly a mite overdone:
‘A climate of unparalleled malevolence’: are we on our way to the sixth major mass extinction – https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/aug/19/a-climate-of-unparalleled-malevolence-are-we-on-our-way-to-the-sixth-major-mass-extinction
Fair enough, I kind of assumed the bulk of the 70% included thinking it is a big problem, I’m sorry if I read too much into that statistic. My point still stands, how many think it is happening is a minor thing although it is a start if the majority believe/accept it is happenbing, it is how we are collectively dealing with it that matters, and given the traffic congestion, leaning towards extreme right wing poliotical parties and occasional talk about expanding major airports in the UK, I have little faith that enough people will do what it takes quickly enough to avoid the worst.
Yes. And while the numbers are a bit lower in much of the English-speaking world, it’s still been true for years that the majority do think that warming is happening, do think that it’s at least mostly caused by humans, and do think that it’s a bad thing on balance.
Unfortunately, they mostly aren’t putting those understandings very high on their voting choice criteria.
PPr: 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.
BPL: Let’s hear your alternative.
PPr: [many paragraphs of abuse of climate scientists]
BPL: We’ve been trying to educate the public on this issue since 1975. The main reason we haven’t been successful is because we have the right-wing media machine creating and supporting the deniers. Quit blaming the victim.
Actually, PPr is closer to the truth than BPL on this. The main reason you haven’t been successful is that you’re crap at communicating with the public.
ugh
Sorry, Susan. But it’s the truth.
Oh, Tom?
The “crap at communicating” is mostly spread by the oil and anti-regulation crowd, then amplified by the opinion side of Murdoch properties and other conservative media, and ideologue sites like PragerU, and well-paid political scientists like Bjorn Lomborg, and by the very small group of physical scientists who find they can be called often for Important Congressional Testimony by backing the side that can’t disprove mountains of hard evidence. Even people who claim confidently that a studies showed 34% of climate scientists were unconvinced of the evidence are using manure, since the studies they referenced showed a very different result – using the very methods used to support their statements. (Yes, you, a week or two ago.)
But I’ll take a stab at defining “successful” in a way that doesn’t imply success had to mean:
– total replacement of fossil sooner than possible
– getting everyone to unlearn propaganda some have had hammered into their minds.
Per-capita global CO2 emissions from energy and manufacturing appear to have finally plateaued.
I’d call that a big step towards the goal.
The UK and Germany have high standards of living, and Germany is still the fourth-largest manufacturing economy in the world. The UK has shut down its last coal-fired power plant, and UK per-capita CO2 emissions are now where they last were in the 1850s. Even considering offshoring of manufactures, they peaked in the 2000s. Germany’s are below levels in the late 1930s. Per-capita emissions for the combined high-income nations are dropping.
If you look at the US, our population and economy continue to grow, yet emissions from petroleum peaked in 2005, our per-capita CO2 emissions peaked in the 2000s, gas vehicle sales appear to have peaked before the pandemic. Most of the power generation projects looking for grid connection over at least the last five years have been wind, solar and batteries. If you look at US emissions including CO2 from outsource manufacturing – our emissions still peaked well over a decade ago.
In China, over half of all new car sales are EVs – that’s the biggest car market in the world right now. Electrification would be going even faster in the developing world if fossil-interests (corporate as well as state-owned) didn’t stand in the way of developing appropriate financing mechanisms for renewables with their up-front costs, because that threatens fuel exports.
The costs of wind, solar, batteries, demand management and EVs have dropped dramatically after initial government support finally got things to the point where capitalists decided to invest. Now it’s off to the races to make money by offering even better chemistries, materials, manufacturing processes and deployment and recycling methods. Fossil fuel isn’t the cheapest energy now.
Those developments all came about because the risks of climate change were communicated and governments and people and researchers took steps. After the early phases, economics moves things along – so in the US, the top wind-power states are Red, because economics are trumping politics and farmers and rural counties like the revenue from producing more than half of some state’s electricity by harvesting it using some machines scattered across their fields.
So again, the fertilizer in the climate change conversation has been spread diligently and liberally by the fossil industry and anti-regulation types ever since Exxon’s in-house science staff explained in detail to senior management, in 1982, that fossil fuels would cause significant changes to the climate – and management responded by hiring the PR firms and think thanks that were paid by the tobacco industry to lie about the effects of their products.
It’s those efforts and the efforts by well-funded politicians that have turned preventing harms into a political thing – and who have, sadly, convinced some of the population that reality is a ‘woke’ thing. Those same people were convinced with false information about another bit of science – so when vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 were finally available, sensible people got vaccinated and stopped dying, yet people who voted more for our current President kept dying, instead, because conservative politicians and media found that denying a pandemic worked in their toxic politics.
The effect of the “it’s not us” fertilizer has been to slow decarbonization – and that’s all this current DOE’s fracking-executive leader wanted from his hand-picked team’s ‘review’.
Reply to b fagan’s selective CO2 per capita cherry-pick
Has Global CO₂e per Capita Fallen?
According to the Joint Research Centre (JRC) and IEA, global per-capita greenhouse-gas emissions in 2023 were about 6.59 t CO₂e per person, which is 0.9% lower than in 2019 (6.65 t CO₂e/cap)
However, this is a small dip compared to the broader trend: per-capita GHG emissions increased by approximately 7.3% since 1990, rising from 6.14 to 6.59 t CO₂e
Global Total Emissions Continue to Grow
Country-level totals reinforce the upward trend: a preliminary estimate from the Rhodium Group indicates total global greenhouse gas emissions rose by 1.2% in 2023, reaching 51.8 Gt CO₂e, up from 51.2 in 2022 see Rhodium Group
Similarly, the Canadian environmental data shows that from 2005 to 2022, global GHG emissions increased by 24.2%, while per capita emissions increased by a modest 2.17%, rising from 5.98 to 6.11 t CO₂e
Conclusion: Has It Dropped?
Slight downward tick: Yes, per-capita emissions dropped marginally (about 0.9%) between 2019 and 2023.
But overall upward trend: Emissions per person are still higher than 1990 levels, and total emissions continue to rise.
So, while there’s a small recent dip, it doesn’t signal a sustained decline or a reversal of long-term trends. The world is still emitting more greenhouse gases overall, and per-person emissions remain elevated compared to decades past.
Bottom line: Recent data shows a tiny decrease in global per-capita CO₂e between 2019 and 2023, but the longer-term picture remains one of rising emissions—both per capita and in total.
Hello b fagan. If you were following the climate discussion a decade ago, you might have noticed that I predicted all of those events and the reasons behind them. And I was labeled a denier here and elsewhere for doing so. Because I said they would occur organically, without centrally directed mandates. Modest subsidies and tax relief would start the ball rolling and it would carry on from there.
We are engaged in an energy transition to cleaner fuels. Energy transitions take about 50 years to really take hold–it was that way for coal, that way for oil–it will be that way for the portfolio of cleaner fuels we want to move to. And I said then and will repeat now–nothing can stop it. But there’s damn little we can do to rush it along.
And I said then and I’ll repeat now that if we are wise enough to spend some of our hard-earned money on adaptation as well as mitigation our children and grandchildren will thank us.
People didn’t ‘hear’ me then–my personal belief is that that is because I was labeled a ‘denier’ here and other places. (By ‘here’ I mean in comments, not from the bloggers themselves.) What they heard was something close to hysteria promulgated by NGOs, lobbyists, politicians and a handful of scientists.
And they accepted what the scientists said. Overwhelming majorities when surveyed say they understand climate change is happening and CO2 is a major cause of it. But they have been reluctant, to say the least, to sign on to the policy proposals put forward by the same NGOs, lobbyists and politicians. Mostly because of the sums involved in trying to accelerate the transition more than the natural rate of adoption.
As I said a decade ago, science has had a number of effective communicators, from Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov to Stephen J. Gould and others. Climate change has not been so blessed as to find one of that caliber.
Thomas Fuller said: “We are engaged in an energy transition to cleaner fuels. Energy transitions take about 50 years to really take hold–it was that way for coal, that way for oil–it will be that way for the portfolio of cleaner fuels we want to move to. And I said then and will repeat now–nothing can stop it. But there’s damn little we can do to rush it along.”
I appreciate your points, but there is plenty we could do to rush the transition to renewables along. Larger subsidies, stronger carbon taxes or stronger cap and trade schemes, other mechanisms.
Rapid change has historical precedents. The Americans made massive and rapid transformations to their economy during WW2.
It’s purely a question of how motivated governments and the general public are.
Right now I admit the motivation isn’t all that strong for various reasons including 1) a general apathy about the problem because it seems distant 2) the denialist campaign 3) worries about costs, and 4) a reluctance to make uncomfortable life style changes. But these things might change. We should still do all we can to push things along faster by countering the apathy and concerns about costs.
Thomas Fuller said: “As I said a decade ago, science has had a number of effective communicators, from Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov to Stephen J. Gould and others. Climate change has not been so blessed as to find one of that caliber.”
These guys are good writers. I have Asimov’s book “Asimovs New Guide to Science”. However I would suggest only a tiny minority of people read their works. So if climate change had a similarly great writer it wouldn’t make a whole lot of difference.
I think most science writers I’ve listened to do a reasonably good job. I would argue the standard of communications is good overall and has improved in recent years, which you would actually expect to happen. Even the numerous media articles manage to get at least get the basics right and clearly enough stated. Although people like Asimov were gifted other writes still do a pretty decent job.
The scepticism about the science is easily explained by the factors I noted in my previous comments. They are undeniable factors. Poor communications might explain a small proportion of the scepticism at best.
Finding good useful information requires always asking the right questions. While mothering the noise from distortion and disinformation.
Reply to b fagan comments:
The “crap at communicating” is mostly spread by the oil and anti-regulation crowd, then amplified by the opinion side of Murdoch properties and other conservative media, and ideologue sites like PragerU, and well-paid political scientists like Bjorn Lomborg, and by the very small group of physical scientists who find they can be called often for Important Congressional Testimony by backing the side that can’t disprove mountains of hard evidence.
Who is to blame for Egypt’s dire straits? Exxon, Aramco, BP or Trump and the Koch brothers? Or could it be the fault of Christy, Curry, Koonin, McKitrick, Spencer et al.
Egypt: CO₂e Emissions Per Capita
In 2023, Egypt’s per capita CO₂ equivalent emissions (excluding land-use change) were about 2.306 tonnes, a slight decrease from 2.323 tonnes in 2022 (CEIC Data).
Worldometer data (for fossil CO₂ only) shows 2.36 tonnes per capita in 2022, up from 2.25 in 2021.
For historical context, the 1970–2023 average is 1.683 tonnes, with a record high of 2.686 tonnes in 2017 and a low of 0.679 tonnes in 1973 (CEIC Data).
Bottom line: emissions per capita have dipped slightly but remain elevated compared to historical levels.
Energy Consumption Per Capita (Egypt)
– 2022: about 9,969 kWh/person, up from 9,690 in 2021; peak was 10,740 in 2012 (CEIC Data).
– 2024 estimate: 0.85 toe/person, including around 1,640 kWh electricity (Enerdata).
Interpretation: energy use per capita fell after the 2012 peak but has begun to rebound slightly.
Energy Crisis (Egypt)
Domestic gas production (especially from the Zohr field) has collapsed, causing frequent blackouts and economic disruption. To cover shortfalls Egypt is now importing LNG and oil, backed by financial aid (Reuters, Financial Times). The crisis is worsened by instability in Israeli gas supplies, forcing reliance on dirtier fuels and emergency tenders for LNG cargoes (Reuters).
United States: Primary Energy Per Capita
– 2023: about 77,028 kWh/person, down slightly from 78,348 in 2022 (CEIC Data).
– 2024 estimate: about 6.5 toe/person, including 12.3 MWh electricity per capita (Enerdata).
Interpretation: U.S. energy use per capita is 7–8× higher than Egypt’s, and remains well above OECD averages.
Why Doesn’t Egypt Just Build Renewables?
Although solar and wind are now the cheapest sources of electricity, Egypt cannot simply replace LNG with them overnight. The reasons:
1. Time vs urgency – Fossil imports can be bought today; renewables projects take years to plan, finance, and connect.
2. Grid fragility – Renewables need transmission upgrades, storage, and backup systems. Egypt’s grid is already unstable.
3. Financing constraints – With heavy debt and high risk, Egypt struggles to attract the large-scale foreign investment renewables require.
4. Gas dependency legacy – Power plants are built for gas; when domestic gas fell, imports became the only quick fix.
5. Political economy – Fossil fuel imports sustain entrenched interests and contracts; decentralized renewables reduce that control.
In short: Egypt knows renewables are the cheapest long-term solution, but financial distress, grid fragility, and immediate energy shortfalls force it into short-term reliance on expensive fossil imports.
And if the Cheapest was always the best solution then no one would ever buy a Mercedes because we would all be driving Volkswagens or Ladas —- being they are Cheaper!
Thomas Fuller says
18 Aug 2025 at 10:24 AM
People didn’t ‘hear’ me then–my personal belief is that that is because I was labelled a ‘denier’ here and other places. (By ‘here’ I mean in comments, not from the bloggers themselves.)
I hate to be the bearer of bad news Thomas, but if by “bloggers” you are referring to Gavin et al on RC then I have to let you know he/they most definitely look at you as a “denier” and therefore the “enemy” by default. It’s their nature. Can’t help it nor change.
That is already clear as day in the rhetoric used when speaking to you. But do seek a second opinion…. other than Gavin of course. Too close to home. imho essentially little different than b fagan et al elsewhere.
PPr: According to the Joint Research Centre (JRC) and IEA, global per-capita greenhouse-gas emissions in 2023 were about 6.59 t CO₂e per person, which is 0.9% lower than in 2019 (6.65 t CO₂e/cap)
However, this is a small dip compared to the broader trend: per-capita GHG emissions increased by approximately 7.3% since 1990, rising from 6.14 to 6.59 t CO₂e
BPL: Apples and oranges. You can’t find out if emissions are decreasing now by drawing a regression line through 35 years. The drop is not yet statistically significant, but if it continues it’s a good thing.
TF: As I said a decade ago, science has had a number of effective communicators, from Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov to Stephen J. Gould and others. Climate change has not been so blessed as to find one of that caliber.
BPL: Apparently you missed the fact that both Sagan and Asimov warned about global warming–Asimov in 1959.
PPr: if by “bloggers” you are referring to Gavin et al on RC then I have to let you know he/they most definitely look at you as a “denier” and therefore the “enemy” by default. It’s their nature. Can’t help it nor change.
BPL: It’s incredible how persecuted you are. Just like Galileo!
TFuller: Your self-certainty and ignorance are revealing: bfagan knows vastly more than you do, and communicates it better. The cluelessness and smugness are staggering. You appear to have shut out knowledge that interferes with your prejudices.
Well-said.
TF,
Really? You want to clog the thread with comments about “communicating with the public?” As if we haven’t seen that movie played out here, how many scores of times?
Given the environment we actually live in, what climate scientists are crap at is deprogramming cult ideologues, but then they’d have to be behavioral scientists… You see the conundrum.
Thomas Fuller says: “The main reason you haven’t been successful is that you’re crap at communicating with the public.”
I disagree. As noted by another commenter, about 70% of people in Europe accept the climate change science. I’ve seen similar or higher numbers for Asia and Latin America. This is a significant majority. Opinion in America is nearer 50% but clearly America is an outlier country and the issue has become very politically tribal.
The scepticism about AGW for the remaining 30% has many possible explanations, enough to easily explain the situation without having to assume its communication of the science.
1) The denialist campaign, swamping people with misinformation and lies. It’s difficult to rebut this because its telling people things they prefer to hear, and debunking it never has the potency of the original simplistic lie.
2) Some people might oppose the science because they fear it will lead to big government and carbon taxes. Evidence: Conservatives and libertarians are both more opposed to the science than liberals from polling. No amount of scientific communications skills can overcome this.
3) Fear of mitigation costs , so people attack the science.
This is much more plausible than so called badly written science. The IPCC reports are very thorough and clearly written. The basic messages about the greenhouse effect, warming projections and impacts have been simply stated and repeated many times for over 20 years. The only people who don’t understand this are very isolated people who don’t listen to media or people who don’t want to hear what’s being said.
Of course some of messaging is not perfect by the accepted standards of the day and can always be polished up and communicated a bit better, but think about what can be done and ask yourself if it would make much difference. Fiddling with a few words or getting a bit more tv screen time isn’t going to make much difference. We will always have about 20 – 30% sceptics for the reasons I explained.
The real problem is slow progress with mitigation. despite majority support for the science. One big reason is our brains are hardwired to respond to immediate, overwhelming threats like a terrorist attack better than long term slowly emerging threats like climate change even though they may be the larger threat ultimately. It may also be a reason why some people dismiss the science.
in Re to nigelj, 17 Aug 2025 at 6:55 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-837810
Hallo Nigel,
I suppose that when you write that someone “dismisses science”, you actually mean that these people do not accept certain policies, namely those loudly asserting that they are based “on science”.
In this aspect, however, I tend to largely agree with “Pedro Prieto” (and associates) who, in my opinion correctly, object that the term “science” is often used deceptively. The forms of deception vary.
One of them consists in cherry-picking. An example can be a deliberate selection of a certain “school” (e.g., James Hansen emphasizing the evidence for a high climate sensitivity and neglecting the evidence for low climate sensitivity) and dismissing others who consider also other evidence (e.g. paleoclimate data) that is contradictory to the chosen hypothesis.
Another one consists in an unjustified extrapolation. An example is the famous assertion of a “97% consensus” in “climate science” which seems to be in public disputes applied almost on anything loosely connected with climate policies. Nevertheless, it rather appears that although there indeed is such a broad consent that anthropogenic emissions of non-condensing greenhouse gases play an important role in the observed climate change, there are much stronger differences as regards the threats that it creates and/or the pros and cons of mitigation policies that could/should be adopted.
The deceptive word uses in an improper context plagues also other terms that raise a feeling of objectivity and exactness. It is sometimes funny how the slogan “it’s physics” is, on one hand, used as an argument for widespread fossil fuel replacement with renewable energy sources (because greenhouse effect is undoubtedly “physics”) and, on the other hand, against widespread exploitation of renewable energy sources by nuclear industry lobby (because high power density of nuclear energy is undoubtedly also “physics”.
In this respect, I think that especially ridiculous are repeated assertions by “Pedro Prieto” et al that questionable reliability of electrical grids supplied with lot of electricity from intermittent renewable sources while backed with an insufficient capacity of “reserve sources” (or electricity storage) is a consequence of “thermodynamics” or “entropy”. Likely more related terms like „economy”, “engineering”, “risk analysis”, “energy security assurance” or whatever else do not sound sufficiently “scientific”.
For the above reasons (and for the science’s sake), I would rather recommend resisting to temptations to use the word “science” (and/or anything related thereto) as the ultimate killing weapon that should decide the recent “climate wars”. Such a massive use of the ultimate weapons that we presently experience may result in a total mutual destruction, I am afraid.
Greetings
Tomáš
Thomas Kalisz
TK says: “I suppose that when you write that someone “dismisses science”, you actually mean that these people do not accept certain policies, namely those loudly asserting that they are based “on science”.
No. I meant some people express scepticism about the science, namely general scepticism about the scientists claims that the climate is warming, and particularly that its human caused, and will be dangerous. And I mean people may be worried about the implications of the mitigation policies and as I said this leads them to dismiss the claims about the science, meaning anthropogenic warming. They are arguing if theres no warming problem theres no need to mitigate. Of course their scepticism is dishonest ie; not based on falsifying the science.
I agree people might ALSO dismiss mitigation policies they believe are unscientific in a general sense, for example if they conflict with some scientific law. I assume thats what you mean. FWIW polling suggests most people support the usual mitigation measures such as renewables, but they are clearly less enthusiastic about enabling mechanisms such as carbon taxes
TK says: “In this aspect, however, I tend to largely agree with “Pedro Prieto” (and associates) who, in my opinion correctly, object that the term “science” is often used deceptively. The forms of deception vary….(examples)…”
What you say sounds true, but I’m not seeing how it relates to general polling on the climate issue: I would note that public polls on acceptance of the science tend to focus on simple issues like are we warming the climate, or ask people if they accept the IPCC evaluations (which promote medium climate sensitivity.) I haven’t seen any polls asking whether people accept James Hansens findings.
Tk says: “In this respect, I think that especially ridiculous are repeated assertions by “Pedro Prieto” et al that questionable reliability of electrical grids supplied with lot of electricity from intermittent renewable sources while backed with an insufficient capacity of “reserve sources” (or electricity storage) is a consequence of “thermodynamics” or “entropy”. Likely more related terms like „economy”, “engineering”, “risk analysis”, “energy security assurance” or whatever else do not sound sufficiently “scientific”.”
Agreed on all your points. One of PP’s sock puppets admitted to being a socialist, and talked about rich people benefitting from renewables. So I think his crusade against renewables has political motives. (I’m not personally against all socialist ideas, but I think those people on the hard left are very unrealistic). But anyway, if peoples motives to attack something are ideological or political then people tend to resort to dirty tactics like propaganda or ludicrous claims about thermodynamics because it sounds clever and a fundamental impediment when getting into costs means debating evidence about costs, which might not suit someones pre determined conclusions based on an ideological view about the issue.
Personally I think that as renewables increase their grid penetration the storage required will get expensive, even with novel battery technology, or even sodium batteries you mention which could nevertheless be quite useful, but some quite large studies like Jacobson suggest it will not be prohibitively expensive, and our other options are limited. Even without the climate problem, fossil fuels reserves are very finite and limited and nuclear fission power has limitations, and nuclear fusion power is still just an experiment and I’m a bit sceptical that it would provide dramatically cheap power than what we currently have. Thats just too good to be true. But I digress….
in Re to nigelj, 19 Aug 2025 4:37 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-837953
Hallo Nigel,
Thank you for your feedback!
I would like to apologize that I misread your post, wherein you specifically addressed the results of public polls.
As regards the works published by prof. Mark Jacobson, I think that although his results may be disputed, they are anyway valuable, because the costs of the economy transition to renewable sources as estimated by him may serve at least as a certain benchmark. I think that if they suggest that the transition might be feasible even with present technology, we may have a decent chance that any technical improvement can make the transition cheaper, quicker, or both.
I think that an opposite applies for nuclear fusion. Due to its technical complexity, I strongly doubt that even if once made technically feasible, it could become economically competitive as a commercial energy source.
Greetings
Tomáš
It’s more like some members of the public are unpersuadable due to issues like ideological bias. That’s not the fault of climate scientists or science communicators.
An example of a climate scientist valiantly attempting science communication in such a context:
Reply to Thomas Fuller
Correct Tom
It sure touched a red hot nerve too.
TF: PPr is closer to the truth than BPL on this.
BPL: And yet another sock puppets pops up. And praises himself.
TF: The main reason you haven’t been successful is that you’re crap at communicating with the public.
BPL: Same kind of comment as PPr and all his imaginary friends.
TF: The main reason you haven’t been successful is that you’re crap at communicating with the public.
Thomas: Same kind of comment as Pedro Prieto and all his like-minded friends who are not only correct they are spreading the climate and energy truths and the fight against gullible ignorance.
Th: Same kind of comment as Pedro Prieto and all his like-minded friends who are not only correct they are spreading the climate and energy truths and the fight against gullible ignorance.
BPL: On the contrary, they (if it isn’t he with multiple sock puppets) are grotesquely wrong.
Thomas says: “Same kind of comment as Pedro Prieto and all his like-minded friends who are not only correct they are spreading the climate and energy truths and the fight against gullible ignorance.”
LOL. Pedro Prietos like minded ‘friends’ on this website are sock puppets and are spreading their OPINIONS on climate truths, and telling people things on energy they already know.
Hard disagree with you, Thomas. BPL is exactly right. It was always going to be tough to communicate because it’s a very big topic, and significant bits of it aren’t that accessible to direct everyday experience. It’s also a slow process, and inherently slow to address, which means that policy issues with immediate impact are always going to tend to crowd it out on the priority list–even now, as the negative consequences are biting more often and more strongly than in the past.
But when you add to those inherent difficulties a determined, persistent and very well-funded disinformation and lobbying campaign, well, it’s much, much tougher. There’s been a lot of very good communication on this, and it’s due to that that we aren’t even farther behind the eight ball than we are. I’ve reviewed a number of books on this, and read more explanatory articles than I can possibly even guesstimate. The great majority have been accurate (or largely so), clear, and honest. They’ve been in print, online, and in audiobooks. They’ve had any number of cool graphics. And they’ve had a degree of success. That’s one reason that the world is now on track to reach 20% RE in final energy consumption by 2030–a projected 50% increase over 2023.
https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2024/global-overview
If you think that happened in the face of the denial campaign because scientists and science journalists are “crap at communicating with the public,” well, I have a bridge–admittedly, a bridge to nowhere–you might like to buy.
But they’ve had to fight uphill the entire way.
Would some please explain to me how to get a reply to post on this blog?
Oh, for the love of kittens and tadpoles. As I peck this comment out, a quick count shows you have contributed 14 of 91 comments, or 15.38%. Stop the whining, please. If you don’t like the way this site is operated, then go find another one. Or go start your own. Do something other than repeatedly complain that your opinions are being suppressed by Real Climate.
Yep–love those kittens and tadpoles, too.
PP’s raison d’être is to fling great volumes of poop. Why would he go anywhere he couldn’t troll? We can see his frustration with instant karma.
PPr: 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.
BPL: Shorter PPr: only my method will work; all other measures are garbage.
But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’ ”
-Luke 16:31
Response Version 3.0
The Climate Science Establishment’s Procedural, Political and Legal Self-Sabotage
(aka Biting Off More Than You Can Chew)
After three weeks of observing and waiting, I think it’s fair to say: no one commenting here—Gavin included—has actually read even the introductory section of the EPA’s Reconsideration of the 2009 Endangerment Finding and Greenhouse Gas Vehicle Standards: Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis—let alone the full document.
I doubt the authors of the referenced media reports and the BlueSky commentary “analyses” did either. That seems the only conclusion given their rhetoric.
I have little doubt the EPA will rule to rescind. They have enough ground to do so. And I have little doubt that motivated opponents will fight this all the way through the courts. But if it reaches the Supreme Court? My gut says they’ll support the EPA decision to rescind without hesitation.
Where This Leaves The Matter
The EPA Endangerment Finding is symbolically powerful but practically narrow. Its main bite has always been vehicle emissions, not the broader U.S. GHG landscape.
Most major emitting sectors—power plants, industry, agriculture—have never faced binding, sustained federal CO₂ limits under the Clean Air Act—applicable to local and regional surface level air pollution.
Even if all current EPA mobile-source CO₂ standards were rescinded, the effect on 21st-century global temperature would be only a few thousandths of a degree Celsius (and U.S. land temperatures by perhaps ~0.005–0.008 °C), consistent with my “minimal to unnoticeable” framing.
The broad legal reasoning for treating CO₂ as a pollutant rests not on its “unnatural” status, but on its broader global effects—because Congress never passed clear legislation. That’s legal pragmatism, not elegant law.
The 2009 finding narrowly based only on the science alone—not all the human health and wellbeing impacts of the Regulations. The result: U.S. climate policy is hobbled by political gridlock, judicial patchwork, and bureaucratic workaround.
It’s a well known portrait of systemic dysfunction: unclear science, politics paralyzed, law stretched, and institutions more interested in process appearance than persuasion.
Nothing really to do with the climate science. And that’s the real takeaway.
From the beginning of Pedro’s ‘Response Version 3.0’: “After three weeks… I think it’s fair to say: no one commenting here—Gavin included—has actually read even the introductory section of the EPA’s Reconsideration… let alone the full document.”
Well, I am “here.” I have read everything published by the EPA & DOE. And I will bet you hard cash money I am F A R from the only one here! I say you are full of shit. Truly, overflowing, close the street, evacuate the neighborhood, call for Hazmat, close the airspace, request a disaster declaration level, full of shit. You presumptuous piece of ego.
BTW, how is research in support of your analysis on prior CMIP6 Arctic Sea Ice Area/Extent modeling progressing? You remember that, right? The subject that you, William, P.Principal wrote a blizzard of comments and thousands of words based on your serious earthshaking concerns about accuracy, access to what went into the creation and making of, and its usefulness to decision-makers?
David: in the midst of writing an enthusiastic response, which I’m not sure if I posted or deleted, I looked this up:
“what oft was thought, but ne’er so well expressed” [Shakespeare]
While your choice of words is raw, the sentiment is a bullseye.
“Who’s the real “misinformer” here?”
The one who lies. Not a hard question.
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.
I question your figures.
Chapter 6 (Energy systems), AR6 WGIII — “Low- and zero-carbon technologies produce 74–82% of primary energy in 2050 in 1.5 °C pathways and 55–68% in 2 °C pathways… The share of low-carbon technologies in global primary energy supply today is below 20%.”
The same chapter also gives the complementary fossil share: 41–57% in 2050 for likely-below-2 °C pathways and 25–40% for 1.5 °C pathways. (These imply the low/zero-carbon shares above.)
Agreed, 40% fossils in 2050 isn’t ideal but it’s better than doing nothing, and it will hurt the oil interests, which is why they are trying to prevent it.
The crisis is only dire if we do nothing about it. As for ‘allowing’ 30 more years of fossil fuel use, if we have no choice, that’s the best we can do. I contest whether fossil fuel use will actually rise over that period. We may right now be at, or near, peak CO2 emissions: see this article on IEA website:
‘The energy world is set to change significantly by 2030, based on today’s policy settings alone
News
24 October 2023’
’30 more years of rising fossil energy emissions?’ – not according to the IEA, who predicted two years ago that 2025 would see the peak in CO2 emission:
‘The energy world is set to change significantly by 2030, based on today’s policy settings alone
News
24 October 2023’
The combination of growing momentum behind clean energy technologies and structural economic shifts around the world has major implications for fossil fuels, with peaks in global demand for coal, oil and natural gas all visible this decade – the first time this has happened in a WEO scenario based on today’s policy settings. In this scenario, the share of fossil fuels in global energy supply, which has been stuck for decades at around 80%, declines to 73% by 2030, with global energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions peaking by 2025.
“The transition to clean energy is happening worldwide and it’s unstoppable. It’s not a question of ‘if’, it’s just a matter of ‘how soon’ – and the sooner the better for all of us,” said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol.
PPr: 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.
BPL: Thank you for that clear example of a non sequitur.
PP: “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.”
I’m not even going to bother fact-checking your “IF” statement, just point out the “Answer” flaws with an aircraft carrier that was going full speed and was told to reverse course:
Problem: “The ship isn’t moving east even though we started our turn twenty seconds ago”
PP conclusion: “heading east isn’t feasible – and the captain knows it”
Correct conclusion: “Turning any system that has inertia requires allowing time to overcome the inertia”
And to a minor example – replacing all the methane-burning stoves and ovens in American households has to be done as part of decarbonization, but replacing all of them in 2026 isn’t possible. But replacing every single gas-burning appliance at its end-of-life is entirely feasible.
Bounce that up one level and electricity generation is the same – replacing all fossil plants by 2030 in the US? Not really possible.
Replacing every fossil plant in the US in a several decades, while simultaneously building out wind, solar, batteries, grid-forming inverters, geothermal, demand management, redesigned transmission, retiring and curtailing fossil generation, and changes to the power market structure IS entirely feasible over the course of decades. And not every unit of energy represented in a lump of coal or cubic yard of gas needs to be replaced since a large portion of that is wasted as heat, not turned to electricity.
Complex? Sure. Welcome to industrialized society.
One hundred years ago the US essentially replaced the horse/feed/blacksmith/stable/manure collection industrial complex in just a few decades with a combination of auto and truck manufacturing and a petroleum discovery, extraction, refining and distribution network (and new kinds of pollution). In urban environments the transition was massive but mostly done in twenty years or so, with edge cases like very small farms, distant forestry and other niches taking longer but also representing a small fraction of the overall system that changed.
And in developing nations, there are already electrical alternatives to heating, cooking, transportation and generation that have less of a fight against the embedded inertia that our fossil production companies and suburban/urban gas distribution infrastructure represent. So like many places never built out a copper-wire point-to-point phone system since cell phones were already available, they have less inertia to end fossil. If you have to import fuel constantly, and can now instead install some gadgets and harvest for twenty or thirty years, it’s smarter to skip the addiction cycle in the first place.
“flaws with an aircraft carrier that was going full speed and was told to reverse course:
Problem: “The ship isn’t moving east even though we started our turn twenty seconds ago”
PP conclusion: “heading east isn’t feasible – and the captain knows it””
As far as humanity and climate change consequences go, I feel this is a more appropriate analogy if you want to use ships:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYOn3-PhA9c
Followed by this if we are very unlucky:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5hq7HaFRNM
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!
D: Media Matters is not left leaning unless you posit that exposing lies and dishonesty is leftie. It’s all about the moving of the center further to the ‘right’ (wrong) when the truth is inconvenient. Of course, since Mike Tobis presented this useful graphic, things have gotten much much worse. See graphic (which I can’t post here).
https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=4185
[There’s also a handy takedown of the dangers of doomism, in the person of MacPherson; exaggeration helps liars lie more.]
Susan said “Media Matters is not left leaning unless you posit that exposing lies and dishonesty is leftie.”
From Media Matters “About Us” page: “Media Matters for America is a web-based, not-for-profit, 501 (c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation – news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda – every day, in real time.”
Susan, I wasn’t using “left-leanings” as a pejorative. I’d hoped that my consistency at gathering information from a diverse collection of sources for use here would have earned me more respect than it apparently has.
key words: conservative misinformation … news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible [you are literally right (see how I used ‘right’ there – this could go on and on & become a distraction from the point).
It is unfortunate that this biased information is given a ‘conservative’ label, since the center has moved so far to the right.* In fact, biased information is not truly conservative, but I get why Media Matters is willing to desribe itself this way. I long for old-fashioned conservatives, who stood for integrity and honesty, but those days are gone.
*see graphic here: https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=4185
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
Thank goodness the pushback against mendacity is being well-organized!
Wow.. vitriolic pushback..
But I’m puzzled why so many seem so upset about the fact that the CO2 humans have been adding has been turning the Earth greener.
“Elevated concentrations of CO2 directly enhance plant growth, globally contributing to “greening” the planet and increasing agricultural productivity..”
Even the NASA website addresses it.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/goddard/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/
And after all, CO2 is being sequestered naturally without having to plant millions of new trees. That’s a plus.
[Response: Sure. But a) it’s very well known (at least since the 1960s), and b) taken into account in all projections, and c) insufficient to keep CO2 levels stable. People bringing it up as if no-one has ever thought about it is a testimony to how much of bad faith effort these arguments are. Next you’ll be asking how come no-ones says anything about CO2 being invisible to the naked eye. Or that it’s only a small fraction of the atmosphere. Lol. – gavin]
FWIW, Increased atmospheric CO2 benefits weeds more than most crops. And I, for one, don’t need more dandelions in my lawn.
It’s really good for poison ivy, kudzu, dammit weed, mile a minute weed, and no doubt poison oak and poison sumac.
Sickening (literally).
Actually, increased CO2 gives a general advantage to most viny plants. They get to use other plants for scaffolding, and put their energy into growing more vine and leaves. Unlike the plants that have to create their own woody growth to stand, the main limitation for vines is how much water they can transport up their stems to feed the leaves. If they can get more CO2 for the same amount of water transpiration, they end up using water more efficiently.
The problem arises from the other effects of climate change, ie higher temperatures and more extreme weather, including floods and droughts.
While CO₂ can stimulate photosynthesis under controlled conditions, in the real world it comes bundled with climate change impacts—heat stress, drought, nutrient dilution, and pest pressures—that reduce or negate agricultural benefits. So higher CO₂ is not “good for agriculture” when you consider the full climate system.
The trope that CO2 is ‘plant food’ is a standard line taken by fossil fuel funded science denier think tanks. We don’t have to buy into it.
The side effects of more extreme weather, including heat stress, are probably more than enough to counter the aid to growth given by higher CO2 levels.
Meanwhile humans having to live in the higher temperatures are suffering the consequences. The ‘CO2 is plant food’ message is superficially persuasive, provided you ignore everything else. It’s like saying ‘global warming means fewer people die of winter cold’, without taking into account the millions who die every year from air pollution.
Good for wine consumers then. Getting drunk as the answer to climate collapse: I’m in!
They use other plants for scaffolding… which often kills young trees, at least in my area. Not a great situation, given how fast the existing trees are dying off from erratic weather and insects/disease.
JP: Thanks, it’s always fun to learn something.
Anybody living in the real world would know that agriculture is suffering massively from climate extremes and other forms of toxicity as we continue to outgrow our hospitable home. Unfortunately, there is the added problem of big ag and things like fertilizer runoff, waste ponds, also exacerbated by flooding.
You’re lucky to have a lawn. Mine got swamped with creeping buttercup over the years thanks to a heavy clay subsoil (meaning poor drainage) combined with these randomised rainy seasons the UK seems to get these days.
I’m just back from an increasingly rare visit to the UK. It seems to have skipped a rainy season altogether this year, and resembles Toscana. The lawns are all beige, as are the fields. I half expected to see tumbleweed.
How come you trolls always cite that 2016 NASA press piece on Zhu 2016, but never the 2019 NASA press piece on land use changes or any of the follow-up research?
I think I know why.
Quote posted in the Carbon Brief article:
This is in reference to a 2022 study that came after the 2020 study cited in the DoE report. Here’s that 2022 study:
It’s left as an exercise to the reader to figure out why Ken Towe tone trolled the Carbon Brief article and cited a 2016 NASA press piece, instead of noting that the 2022 peer-reviewed research discussed in the article.
Bonus points for determining why Ken Towe emphasized a CO2 fertilization effect that may be diminishing, downplayed the impact of land use changes such as tree planting, and ignored the detrimental effect of CO2-induced warming on greening in many areas outside the Arctic.
(Hint: see “bad faith effort” in Dr. Gavin Schmidt’s reply above.)
Continuing the abstract of AS cites above, as I think it’s significant.
Gavin…As far as can be determined, it was brought up as a fact. Something that NASA satellites have been following. There is nothing that can keep atmospheric CO2 levels stable. And it cannot be denied that more CO2 is being captured naturally. A process that many people feel is necessary to keep global temperatures in check…DAC, BECCS..
Ken, a question about why you put ellipsis when you say: “And it cannot be denied that more CO2 is being captured naturally. A process that many people feel is necessary to keep global temperatures in check…”
Shouldn’t you have simply completed the statement? After all, –it cannot be denied– that atmospheric CO2 concentrations from fossil fuel production and use are still increasing, despite the natural capture of a fraction of it by plant growth. Seems anyone wanting to keep global temperatures in check would realize that stopping the increased production is the key – since the natural processes are clearly not able to keep up.
Leaving out the whole statement would be like celebrating the fact that your carpets and couch are ‘capturing naturally’ water in your living room, while not mentioning it would be better if the living room wasn’t flooding in the first place. You can only throw so many couches at the problem.
Brilliant!
Ken Towe: – “And it cannot be denied that more CO2 is being captured naturally.”
Where’s your evidence/data to support your claim?
Meanwhile:
1. The role of Amazon as carbon sink declines: Nature study:
https://wmo.int/media/news/role-of-amazon-carbon-sink-declines-nature-study
2. Seasonal increase of methane emissions linked to warming in Siberian tundra:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01512-4
3. As the ocean surface temperature rises, less CO2 will be taken up.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCarbon
4. The rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere is rising:
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/Articles/2025/May/Carbon-dioxide-growing-faster-as-emissions-level-off
5. The rate of methane increase in the atmosphere is rising, and at a faster pace than in previous decades:
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/News/2024/September/Methane-emissions-increase-by-20-per-cent-in-20-years
Re. “And it cannot be denied that more CO2 is being captured naturally.”
“Capturing” CO2 “naturally” occurs in many sinks all well described in basic texts and in the various IPCC reports.
Some of this “natural” capture is OK, much is not. For 2 examples, kudzu capture is not OK nor is ocean acidification.
BECCS is another fake solution. Just Have a Think (Dave Borlace) does a good job explaining here:
Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUwKEkYbsx0
We have put ourselves in a fix where some kind of greenhouse gas removal is essential, but there are still no good options there, and industry resists it because they can make more money greenwashing while sticking with their short term profits.
“Believing in” this is much much closer to a religion than real science, where real skeptics continue to increase our understanding.
Susan Anderson says
17 Aug 2025 at 10:20 AM
BECCS is another fake solution. Just Have a Think (Dave Borlace) does a good job explaining here:
Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUwKEkYbsx0
Listen up and toughen up.
Yes BECCS is a fake solution.
The EPA emissions Regulations are another fake solution. Not worth having.
Net Zero by 2050 is another fake solution
The Paris Agreement is another fake solution
CDR/DAC is another fake solution
CCUS is another fake solution
100% WWS+Storage is another fake solution
EVs and Hybrids are another fake solution
IAMs and SSPs are part of various BS economic primed fake solutions
The UNFCCC is another fake solution
The IPCC and it’s outputs like SR15 Net Zero and CMIPs are another part of fake solutions
Cap and Trade is another fake solution
Biden’s ERA was another fake solution
Producing more cars, ICE or EVs is another fake fraudulent solution
SAF (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) is another fake solution
Electrofuels / e-fuels / Power-to-Liquid (PtL) is another fake solution
Aerosol geoengineering is another fake solution
Space Mirrors is another fake solution.
Hydrogen as a replacement Transportation fuel is another fake solution
Green Hydrogen, Ammonia+ Fertilisers are another fake solution.
All potential RE technology–Hydro-Wind-Solar-Geothermal-Nuclear-Long-duration storage options–are PARTIAL Solutions only constrained by location and pre-existing national wealth and stability.
Stridently blindly reducing fossil fuel use while there is no practical long term alternatives to replace that energy supply is another fake solution. In fact it is the biggest FAKE Solution known to Man.
Apparently they are fake solutions because Thomas says so. ROFL. Sounds more like evidence free assertions, and classic propaganda, from someone with a very big ego,
That does not mean I personally agree with all the so called solutions like BECCS. Have seen analysis you would need an area of land the size of India to make it work at meaningful levels. This sort of spare land isn’t just sitting there.
“There is nothing that can keep atmospheric CO2 levels stable.”
This begs the question as to why they have been remarkably stable during the Holocene.
It also evades the current issue, which is the anthropogenic destabilization of CO2, which is undeniable.
Well, undeniable using valid reasoning and evidence, anyway.
in Re to gavin, 15 Aug 2025 at 10:35 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-837627
Dear Dr. Schmidt,
I understand that it may be frustrating for you when you repeatedly encounter objections that were replied / explained / resolved many times before. Nevertheless, I still appreciate your reply to Ken and your willingness to comment.
Could I remind you of my question regarding possible anthropogenic changes in climate sensitivity, with a hope for a short comment as well?
Specifically, I asked if the “continental drying”, for that recently came certain support by combined data from the GRACE and GRACE-FO experiments
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adx0298
could have caused a measurable shift in climate sensitivity towards changing atmospheric concentration of non-condensing greenhouse gases – in the last decades, cumulatively during the industrial era, or through changes accumulated during the entire holocene.
If you perhaps find this question, on the first sight, even more trivial and boring than the recent Ken’s objection, please check, for a more detailed explanation why I still see it potentially relevant, my previous posts of 8 Aug 2025 at 7:11 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/are-direct-water-vapor-emissions-endangering-anyone/#comment-837200
and/or of 10 Aug 2025 at 3:46 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/the-endangerment-of-the-endangerment-finding/#comment-837307 .
Thank you in advance and best regards
Tomáš
Daniel Swain acknowledges that
“the resulting (long-predicted) relative humidity decrease over land now appears to be stronger than earlier expected for reasons that remain TBD.”
https://bsky.app/profile/weatherwest.bsky.social/post/3lu462yee372g
Quantitatively, “Looking at the best estimates, the [model] drying remains close to −0.5%/K, while observations rather suggest a threefold −1.5%/K scaling” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10381915/
On the precipitation side “Global climate models predict that land precipitation should increase with warming at approximately 1.5% per degree Kelvin (Adler and Gu, 2024). Over the past 40 years, the mean global surface temperature has risen by about 1 K implying an expected increase in global mean precipitation of 0.04 mm day−1. Yet, the observed trend, 0.0017 mm day−1 decade −1, is statistically insignificant and several times smaller than predicted” Land precipitation has a negative trend, with a massive drop in 2023.
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/environmental-science/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2025.1516747/full
A recent pre-print finds strong correlation between soil moisture, large scale atmospheric circulation, and summer heatwaves – “One of the most predominant land-atmosphere interactions is the amplification of heatwaves by dry soils, which in turn further deplete soil moisture, creating a positive feedback cycle. In particular, early summer heatwaves are often linked to droughts, which in turn amplify heatwaves in peak and late summer (Perkins, 2015; Stegehuis et al., 2021). The impact of this land-atmosphere feedback in amplifying surface temperatures depends on the amount of available soil moisture and is strongest under transitional conditions, where soils are neither very dry nor very wet (Benson and Dirmeyer, 2021; Maraun et al., 2025)”
https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-3379/egusphere-2025-3379.pdf
“a key question that could not be investigated in this study based on atmosphere-only simulations was the extent to which the land surface processes can influence the projected global warming. In the understanding of changes in climate sensitivity between successive generations of global climate models, land surface processes have been rarely mentioned as one of the possible causes (27). However, our current understanding of climate variability at shorter time scales highlight that land surface anomalies can have remote and circumglobal effects (28).”
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10381915/
Such issues and knock-on effects for global energy budgets and TOA SW & LW radiation trends were not addressed in the recent “Confronting Earth System Model trends with observations” https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adt8035
Tomáš
Interesting that you appreciate Gavin’s effort to respond when all three points he makes have absolutely zero bearing on the point raised by Ken.
It is so much simpler being a scientist when you can just drag out you standard response and apply them no matter what the question
in Re to Keith Woollard, 18 Aug 2025 at 1:47 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-837842
Dear Keith,
If you under the three Gavin’s points mean his
“a) it’s very well known (at least since the 1960s), and
b) taken into account in all projections, and
c) insufficient to keep CO2 levels stable”,
I would rather think that they are indeed pertinent to the points made by Ken Towe on
15 Aug 2025 at 10:35 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-837627 ,
specifically at least to his assertion
“And after all, CO2 is being sequestered naturally without having to plant millions of new trees. That’s a plus.”
Despite the brevity of the reply provided by Dr. Schmidt, I appreciated it because it clearly shows his view on this specific point made by Ken.
This is what I would like to achieve also with respect to my question(s) regarding the dispute about possible influence of human interferences with land hydrologic regimes on climate sensitivity.
It appears that, contrary to the influence of changes in the terrestrial vegetation cover on the carbon cycle, this aspect might have not been addressed in any specifically designed study, nor considered in interpretations of the results of climate modelling and of their fit with available data yet.
Greetings
Tomáš
No Tomáš, at no point does Ken claim or even hint that the greening will come close to make up for what is going to the atmosphere. He is just saying that the earth greening is a good thing for the earth. It makes no difference that we have known about it since the ’60s, nor that it is used in projections.
Gavin’s responses are typical strawman and he knows it. The reason he has chosen that comment to jump on is because a big part of the CR, and the critique is the fundamental difference in opinion between the original “everything is worse” attitude of the endangerment finding compared with the “hmmm, maybe everything isn’t a catastrophe” of the more reasoned CR
KW: He is just saying that the earth greening is a good thing for the earth. It makes no difference that we have known about it since the ’60s, nor that it is used in projections.
BPL: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-stopped-getting-greener-20-years-ago/
Hilarious BPL, There are a huge number of papers that analyse the 2000 – 2015 (or 2017) data that all show a clear increase in greening but you find one that shows the opposite – well done
It’s more than one paper, Keith Woollard. This situation is pretty funny. I made a comment discussing a 2022 paper that showed the greening trend stalled or reversed:
A few minutes after making that post I first noticed BPL’s comment. I clicked the link BPL shared and found the 2019 paper in question:
So not only is there more than one paper showing this, but the papers are well-known enough that people can independently stumble across different papers showing this same conclusion.
Given your track-record of comments here, Keith Woollard, I don’t think you’ll genuinely acknowledge you were wrong about this, nor reflect on what it suggests about your pseudoskeptic biases. Anyway, thanks to BPL for independently pointing out another source on this, despite the trolling response BPL received.
Atomsk (Sorry, not exactly sure how to address you, I hope this is OK)
Whenever there is a study that goes against the perceived trend in thinking, I like to understand why. Often they use different mathematics or workflows, but more often than not I find it is due to data selection. Looking at the first figure, it is obviously a data selection difference. The SD is far higher than comparative global time series displays. The paper is not looking at the full time series, it is only looking at the LAI during the growing season.
There is nothing wrong with that, the paper is well written and well researched. Other than the misleading title it is very good.
But it doesn’t say anything about the global change in LAI. So I will repeat my claim, “He is just saying that the earth greening is a good thing for the earth. ”
And perhaps avoid snide comments, it does not help communication
Attempted gaslighting isn’t going to work. Again, you said: “but you find one that shows the opposite“. You were shown it was more than one paper, and that the papers were well-known enough that people independently found them.
(Hint: if you click on the link for my name, you’d realize I knew about the paper BPL cited since 2019).
Re: “Whenever there is a study that goes against the perceived trend in thinking, I like to understand why.”
Nice try, Keith Woollard. You haven’t cited a single paper on this. You expect people to be credulous enough to take your word for it on what the “perceived trend in thinking” is. I’m not that gullible, especially given your track-record here.
Re: “The paper is not looking at the full time series, it is only looking at the LAI during the growing season.”
It’s pretty standard in the literature to look at the growing season. And unlike you, I’ll cite sources on this. Your fellow contrarians such as Ken Towe like citing this 2016 NASA article on global greening:
https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/goddard/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-837627
But that NASA article is about Zhu 2016, a study that focuses on the growing season LAI:
You could go with a 2019 study that was discussed in another 2019 NASA article, and argued for using annual LAI instead of growing season LAI. The problem there is that study argues more for land use changes as a causal contributor vs. the CO2 fertilization claims you contrarians promote. The study is by a similar author team as the 2016 study and revises that 2016 study’s conclusions. Another 2018 study using annual data would also undermine your contrarianism:
Re: “But it doesn’t say anything about the global change in LAI.”
Did you think people would not even read the title of the paper, or even its abstract and the plain language summary?
So no, the paper did say something about global change in LAI. That even made it into the Carbon Brief fact-check that is the topic of the Real Climate article we’re commenting under:
That Carbon Brief fact-check also cites a 2024 paper on global greening. This 2024 paper argues global greening continued in recent decades. But it states there was controversy about this, unlike your false insinuation that this was just about one outlier study:
Re: “And perhaps avoid snide comments, it does not help communication”
I’m not interested in your tone trolling, especially given your own tone elsewhere. If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out. It’s simply a fact that you’ve repeatedly misinformed and trolled on here. If you dislike hearing that, then stop doing it.
Atomsk,
So I point out that the paper provided only looked at part of the annual cycle rather than the whole trend, and your answer is that other papers do it as well.
I can’t believe I have you think I have to provide links to show what AR6 has already summarised. Here is what it says…..
“The increased greening is largely consistent with CO2 fertilization at the global scale, with other changes being noteworthy at the regional level (Piao et al., 2020); examples include agricultural intensification in China and India (Chen et al., 2019; Gao et al., 2019) and temperature increases in the northern high latitudes (Kong et al., 2017; Keenan and Riley, 2018) and in other areas such as the Loess Plateau in central China (Wang et al., 2018). Notably, some areas (such as parts of Amazonia, central Asia, and the Congo basin) have experienced browning (i.e., decreases in green leaf area and/or mass) (Anderson et al., 2019; Gottschalk et al., 2016; Hoogakker et al., 2015). Because rates of browning have exceeded rates of greening in some regions since the late 1990s, the increase in global greening has been somewhat slower in the last two decades (Pan et al., 2018a).”
That last statement is the money shot, the rate of greening has reduced, it doesn’t say it has stopped greening.
I think you missed my point with the
– Re: “But it doesn’t say anything about the global change in LAI.”
I wasn’t implying it was not global, I was saying it was only for a subset of the year
Re: “So I point out that the paper provided only looked at part of the annual cycle rather than the whole trend, and your answer is that other papers do it as well.”
Your goalpost move isn’t working.
What you originally said was:
“Hilarious BPL, There are a huge number of papers that analyse the 2000 – 2015 (or 2017) data that all show a clear increase in greening but you find one that shows the opposite – well done”
I pointed out that it was more than one paper showing this, and thus you were wrong to insinuate otherwise. Your objections to those other papers are irrelevant; it was still wrong for you to try to misinform people by insinuating it was just one paper.
You’re also showing your biased double-standard, since the objection you raised about “looked at part of the annual cycle” would apply just as much to the 2016 work discussed in the NASA press release Ken Towe. But you didn’t make that objection to what Ken Towe posted.
Re: “I can’t believe I have you think I have to provide links to show what AR6 has already summarised. Here is what it says…..”
AR6 is from 2021, and thus would not include much of the material I cited, including studies from 2022 and 2024. Again, your evasions are not working.
CO2 does not increase ag productivity in major grain plants Ken Towe, so stop misrepresenting the sound science proving otherwise like Trump did in killing mid america research projects on the topic.
It is remarkable that it took Carbon Brief two weeks to find that the “Critical Review”‘s errors,,cliches & propaganda points ( N > 100 ) outnumber its references ( N = 84 ), , considering how many were adduced & detected two or more decades ago.
Let’s hope that in the disinterested scientific spirit for which the Climate Wars are famed Climate Brief will now apply the rigor of discovery to which they have subjected Chris Wright, Lee Zeldin, and Rick Perry’s Red Team deliverables to the quality products of Climate Desk and Covering Climate Now, because the General theory of Advertising Relativity predicts a lot of cash will be thrown at pushback in the months to come.
Well, let’s start at the beginning
I believe the first critique in the link is
“””The executive summary of the controversial report inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed”.”””
Which seems at best an opinion of A. Tandon et el.. Saying that a claim is inaccurate does not make it so. Without further evidence that critique as it stands must be dismissed as unsustained, the same for the next one.
Similarly, the claim about potential enhanced agricultural yields still seems fully correct even if increased CO2 has other influences on the climate or the nutritional value of the produce is lower.
(Increased yield with lower value is still increased yield)
And so on many times over, points are discussed which in some classes are not related to the statements of the report.
I find many answers unconvincing and wonder what their point might be other that they stand in the way of valid criticism.
Your statements are biased again:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/the-endangerment-of-the-endangerment-finding/#comment-837371
The Carbon Brief article explains the issues with the report’s statement. For example, the article quotes Dr. Richard Tol, whose work was cited in the report. Dr. Tol explains the issues with the report’s statements, and the article links to supporting evidence for what Dr. Tol says:
I am guessing that your post is in response the my first citation of the report.
“””CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed”.”‘
Unless you claim that Tol’s 2024 work is the final word in that field of research (which would be ridiculous given for example CMIP6 models show completely different CO2-forcings than older models, which means the future economic impact question seems still very unsettled as the models are ever changing),
the statement of the report is possibly true, which then invalidates the critique in the Carbon Briefs just as I wrote above.
You would need an absolute proof of impossibility to negate a “may”-statement.
The report did not cite a reference that supported its claim. The reference it did cite undermines the report’s claim, as confirmed by the author of that reference (Dr. Richard Tol). So on one hand we have the report’s unsupported statement. And on the other hand we have published evidence undermining the report’s statement.
Faced with this you again resort to the nirvana fallacy and a double standard. You demand perfect, absolute proof to support Dr. Tol’s assessment, but require nothing of the report’s authors. Your bias is showing again. The evidence is against the report’s probabilistic claim. You don’t get to dodge that by acting as if science requires absolute certainty.
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/12782/chapter/4#21
It’s really not difficult,
Papers like Tol’s paint one kind of scenarios that report says reality may be different, End of story,
Nothing to criticize here, that Carbon Briefs statement is incorrect.
Your repeated personal attacks only show that you are not really interested in a factual debate.
Again, the report provides no evidence for its probabilistic claim. And the lone source it cites contradicts it. It’s as vacuous as saying that unicorns may exist, while citing a paper that provides evidence arguing against their existence.
And your tone trolling still isn’t working. Criticism is not persecution. What shows you’re uninterested in factual debate is your disregard for published evidence and inability to cite evidence. That’s what you display.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/the-endangerment-of-the-endangerment-finding/#comment-836932
fwiw, Richard Tol is a determinedly rude and persistent promoter of sciencey misrepresentation. He appears to be in cahoots with some of the more egregious and most laughable fake skeptic organizations (see, Moncton, Marc Morano, et al.: it’s almost a who’s who of the worst actors against reality-based knowledge; his degrees are in economics)
https://www.desmog.com/databases/
https://www.desmog.com/richard-tol/
https://skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=richard+tol&x=0&y=0
Please keep you repeated insults inside your head!
I think your post agrees very well with what I wrote here!
Your “reply”
“””Again, the report provides no evidence for its probabilistic claim”””
Was already answered in my previous post
“””Unless you claim that Tol’s 2024 work is the final word in that field of research (which would be ridiculous given for example CMIP6 models show completely different CO2-forcings than older models, which means the future economic impact question seems still very unsettled as the models are ever changing), the statement of the report is possibly true, which then invalidates the critique in the Carbon Briefs just as I wrote above.””
I don’t see such a claim, neither from you nor from Tolmor Others, Wright’s Statement is therefore possiblity true and your last post added nothing to this debate besides more insults.
Your tone trolling still isn’t working, Yebo Kando, no matter how much you resort to it.
The problems with what you said were already noted, including:
– the nirvana fallacy, where you act like perfect/absolute proof is needed (which is not what’s used in science for evidence, since science is not about absolute certainty; probabilistic claims can be rejected without requiring infallible/incorrigible knowledge)
– failure to grasp that probabilistic claims in science are assessed by evidence, not just making stuff up in conflict with cited evidence
– special pleading, where you disregard Tol’s cited evidence while letting the report’s evidence-free claims slide by
And so on.
Again, this is a situation in which someone says X might be true, cites no evidence that X is true, and instead cites evidence that X is false. For example, a creationist’s claim where ‘X’ is ‘the Earth is 6000 years old’, and the creationist’s only cited evidence is a study that shows evidence Earth is older than 6000 years.
What you’re doing, Yebo Kando, is like demanding that geologists have absolute/perfect proof on Earth’s age such that they’ll say their work is finalized and never to be revised. That is a ridiculous response that commits the distortions listed above. Instead the appropriate response is to request the creationist cite evidence for their probabilistic claim and/or that the creationist cogently address the cited evidence against their probabilistic claim.
You have no substantive response to any of these points. Hence why your final refuge continues to be tone trolling and repeating your debunked script.
“Your tone trolling still isn’t working, Yebo Kando, no matter how much you resort to it.”
Sorry, AS, but it is working just fine, because however idiotic or logically fallacious the comments may be, you (and others) keep responding to them. The troll-goal is not to be right, but to create the illusion of a “debate”, a false equivalence between them and those responding to them.
And they know very well how to manipulate you.
Fair point, zebra. But as I said elsewhere, my replies are not for their benefit. I already knew they were a lost cause. They’re for the benefit of those who come along later and whom that account tries to disinform.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/09/critique-of-chapter-6-extreme-weather-in-the-doe-review/#comment-839203
Yes, Susan. If you disagree with someone’s findings, call them rude. Because ‘rude’ is the New Ball and you can claim you’re playing the ball, not the man.
[Response: Lol. This comes from someone who’s only contribution is to complain that climate scientists aren’t nice enough to obvious bullshitters. Still waiting on a substantive comment that deals with actual reality as opposed to ‘tone’. – gavin]
TF: more where that came from – you’re way off target.
Tim Ball – https://www.desmog.com/tim-ball/
in Re to gavin, 23 Aug 2025 at 4:05 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-838139
Dear Dr. Schmidt,
Could I perhaps propose looking on my question below instead of waiting on “a substantive comment that deals with actual reality”?
I ask why none of the parties involved in the present dispute about climate sensitivity (whether it is rather medium or high) has not considered yet the possibility that human activities, such as anthropogenic interferences with land hydrological regime, might have changed the climate sensitivity independently from emissions of non-condensing greenhouse gases.
I sought for an information about the relationship between water availability for evaporation from the land and climate sensitivity in vain. It therefore appears that there is indeed no study yet, specifically addressing this open question.
I would highly appreciate your comment.
Best regards
Tomáš
[Response: Lol. This comes from someone who’s only contribution is to complain that climate scientists aren’t nice enough to obvious bullshitters. Still waiting on a substantive comment that deals with actual reality as opposed to ‘tone’. – gavin]
Your feelings are valid Gavin, but they are not facts.
I too am waiting for a substantive comment that deals with actual reality as opposed to ‘tone’. Hundreds have been waiting years in fact.
Yes, climate scientists aren’t nice enough. In fact, when they call people bullshitters without referring to, you know, actual bullshit, that isn’t very nice.
Perhaps a bit more important than being nice, it doesn’t help you or the cause you espouse. I have made substantive comments here in the past–they don’t seem to exist here anymore, for whatever reason.
My substantive point is this: You would better serve the cause of combatting climate change if you were to confront the actual DOE report as opposed to attacking the reviewers. If they are ‘bullshitters’ then show us the bullshit.
What reviewers? It’s clear this report was rushed without even perfunctory proofreading! This isn’t a “critical review”. It is a fig leaf.
Dr. Gavin Schmidt already gave a cogent response. But none of you contrarians honestly engage.
https://bsky.app/profile/climateofgavin.bsky.social/post/3lvkajk3css2b
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/the-endangerment-of-the-endangerment-finding/#comment-837114
In addition to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, there is the 2001 Information Quality Act which amended the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). This law requires agencies to use accurate, useful, objective, and complete information and analysis. See Public Law 106-554, Section 515.
See also, OMB’s 2002 Guidelines implementing this law which require agencies to:
… maximize[e] the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information, including statistical information, disseminated by the agency …
…
Establish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency …
…
Agencies shall treat information quality as integral to every step of an agency’s development of information, including creation, collection, maintenance, and dissemination. This process shall enable the agency to substantiate the quality of the information it has disseminated through documentation or other means appropriate to the information.
2002 OMB Guidelines, Fed.Reg 2-22-2002.
Caveat: Courts have not been eager to enforce this law.
Thanks for the list, Doug, and for the caveat.
This isn’t a science fight that fracking-executive Wright started, it’s a legal battle where his team is trying to overthrow regulations and ignore the Clean Air Act without the burden of needing to prove their case with scientific, economic and health data they simply haven’t got.
I want a critical review of the entire physics, followed by all sciences (what is called natural sciences, although I don’t support the notion that there can be any other sciences, but this might call for another critical review).
Let’s start from zero scientific knowledge, since we have so much time and other finite resources to waste.
The idea that industries that would not exist without science are sabotaging science that they consider inconvenient is utterly absurd. But here we are in 2025, not 1825 or 1025.
Scientists, the real, the good ones, like you at realclimate, must continue to fight against obscurantism and anti-science no matter how exhausting and difficult it is. We must too. Thank you to all who do.
One more thing: disregard the totally uncalled for and unfounded criticism.
Silvia Leahu-Aluas,
No, no, no!!!
If you really want to properly get to the bottom of it, you need to begin with a review of the evidence for the existence of an ontological truth. If we are actually stuck in some crazy Mark Burnett reality TV show, we do need to know!!!
And if we are, what channel is it being aired on?
Pedro Prieto says
16 Aug 2025 at 11:57 PM
Reply to Silvia Leahu-Aluas
….. must continue to fight against obscurantism and anti-science no matter how exhausting and difficult it is.
obscurantism
/ˌɒbskjʊˈrantɪz(ə)m/
noun
the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or full details of something from becoming known.
Blocking people’s comments counts as Obscurantism as well.
There is a version of it here Table 3.4 hiding 44% fossil fuel shares in 2050
(IPCC’s best-case SSP scenario SSP1-1.9)
– they do not record it – they Obscure the Data in Table 3.4 Energy percentages –
Table 3.4 | Energy and emissions characteristics of the pathways by climate category for 2030, 2050, 2100. Source: AR6 scenarios database.
pdf = pg 44 – bring a calculator
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Chapter03.pdf
[ bigger wg3 doc = pg 338 ]
Why does this matter? Any ideas?
PPr: Blocking people’s comments counts as Obscurantism as well.
BPL: No, it really doesn’t. Crackpot posts or vicious troll posts add nothing to the discussion, and a responsible moderator will remove them.
I had a chat with chatGPT-5. Here is part of it that might be of use here:
A tangentially related problem is what the Trump administration is doing with climate change information posted on the NASA and NOAA websites. NASA and NOAA are being forced to “sanitize” the science they publish by weakening scientific conclusions about the increases in global average surface temperature, global sea level, loss of sea ice and land ice, and hurricane frequency, size, and duration, etc. Will you be aware of these changes, and will you be able to avoid them in your responses about climate science questions?
chatGPT5:
This is a sharp and timely concern—and yes, it touches on a core vulnerability in how public scientific knowledge is curated, especially under politically motivated pressure. Let’s break this down in three parts: what’s likely happening, what I can see, and how I handle potentially manipulated information.
1. If NASA and NOAA are being pressured to sanitize climate science…
You’re describing a scenario in which:
Scientific language is softened (e.g., “high confidence” becomes “possible link”),
Data presentation is altered or de-emphasized,
Or entire reports are delayed, buried, or edited to match political messaging.
This has precedent:
During the George W. Bush administration, political appointees rewrote EPA climate reports.
Under Trump’s first term (2017–2021), several key climate websites, datasets, and mentions of “climate change” were removed or modified across government websites.
In 2024–25, if similar behavior resumed (e.g., editing NOAA hurricane data summaries to downplay warming), then primary-source integrity is again under threat.
So your concern is historically valid and worth tracking.
2. Will I (as ChatGPT) be aware of such changes?
Here’s how it works in practice:
My core knowledge comes from a mix of licensed data, publicly available scientific literature, and web data gathered during training (GPT-4 cutoff: 2023-04, GPT-5: trained through 2024, with browsing available as needed).
If you ask me a climate science question, I will:
Prioritize peer-reviewed literature, IPCC reports, and independent data repositories like:
NASA’s GISTEMP (global temperature),
NOAA’s NCEI (climate indices),
NSIDC (sea ice data),
ESA and JAXA (for international satellite data),
And global scientific consortia (e.g., WMO, CMIP6).
If a NASA or NOAA page has been recently altered, and I am using my web tool, I might see the changed version unless you ask me to cross-check or use independent sources.
But here’s the key:
I do not automatically accept politically edited science as truth.
I’m trained to cross-reference with scientific consensus and historical baselines.
3. Will I be able to avoid the sanitized information?
Yes—if you ask me to:
Cite original datasets (e.g., satellite altimetry records),
Pull from independent or international sources,
Compare current language with archived versions (using tools like the Internet Archive),
Or present the scientific consensus, regardless of current government messaging.
Also, I can be explicit with warnings. For example:
Note: Some climate data or language presented on current U.S. government websites may be influenced by political editing. For scientifically rigorous conclusions, I refer to peer-reviewed publications and consensus statements by scientific organizations like the IPCC, AGU, and WMO.
If you’re looking for unfiltered, science-based interpretations of climate data or trends, I can provide those—along with clear notes when data integrity might be compromised by recent political actions.
✅ In short:
Yes, I can still give you accurate answers grounded in the scientific consensus.
Yes, I can avoid or flag politically manipulated sources if they arise.
Yes, you can instruct me to compare historical vs. current versions of reports.
And yes, you’re right to be vigilant.
Note: Some climate data or language presented on current U.S. government websites may be influenced by political editing. For scientifically rigorous conclusions, I refer to peer-reviewed publications and consensus statements by scientific organizations like the IPCC, AGU, and WMO.
✅ In short:
Yes, I can still give you accurate answers grounded in the scientific consensus.
———————–
I challenged that — so how you determine a consensus … it is my view the only consensus is The ~97% consensus only covers anthropogenic warming causes, not mitigation certitude.???
You’re right to flag that — the way “consensus” is invoked often blurs very different domains. Let me break it down:
1. What the ~97% consensus actually refers to
It comes from multiple studies (e.g., Cook et al. 2013, Anderegg et al. 2010).
The finding is narrow: the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that recent global warming is real and primarily caused by human activities (mainly GHG emissions).
It does not extend to detailed projections, policy solutions, or mitigation pathways.
2. Where “consensus” is stretched
Institutions (IPCC, AGU, WMO, etc.) sometimes present “consensus” language beyond attribution — e.g., into areas like “net zero by 2050,” carbon removal feasibility, or specific mitigation targets.
But on those, there’s much wider internal debate, uncertainty, and disagreement. It’s not the same kind of near-universal consensus as on anthropogenic warming causes.
3. Your framing (“the only consensus is on causes, not mitigation certitude”)
That’s accurate. The strong consensus = human-driven warming.
The weak-to-nonexistent consensus = exact mitigation pathways, timelines, or feasibility of things like net zero.
A tighter one-liner you could use on RealClimate would be:
“The scientific consensus is overwhelming on causes of warming, but far weaker on the feasibility or certainty of specific mitigation pathways like net zero.”
Do you want me to draft a short RC-style rebuttal paragraph you could post directly under that ChatGPT extract?
PP writes: I challenged that — so how you determine a consensus … it is my view the only consensus is The ~97% consensus only covers anthropogenic warming causes, not mitigation certitude.???
MWS: It said “for scientific rigorous conclusions,” so it wasn’t talking about mitigation. But if you want an explanation, your challenge should be directed to chatGPT-5.
MS: The way “consensus” is invoked in climate science often blurs very different domains.
BPL: The scientific consensus is a consensus of evidence, not a vote taken around a table. When many different lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion, that’s the scientific consensus.
A “consensus of evidence” might perhaps better be referred to using Wilson’s term “consilience”, as science can arrive at a consensus by multiple lines of evidence.
There’s no science without consensus, if you ask me. (Thank you for doing so.) Firstly there’s the simple question of significance-testing. One finding taken in isolation could just be the one in twenty that happen to throw up 2-sigma by chance. You can’t tell without taking all the findings into account – a good reason to publish negative results, BTW. Independent replication is needed just to counter the human tendency to do the experiment again and again until it “works”.
Secondly, if you are a strict Popperian, replication is crucial to tesing for falsification. A finding for which replication has not been attempted is one that yields literally no new knowledge, seen from a falsificationist perspective. Confirmation does not yield knowledge, rather the possibility of falsification does. Thus spake Popperthustra. Science is inescapably a social endeavour. (Opinion of a non-scientist and hobby-omniscient.)
Elliott Bignell,
Actually, Ed Wilson means something subtly different by consilience–something that goes beyond scientific consensus. I would contend that the scientific consensus includes those theories, data and techniques that are indispensable for understanding the subject matter. That is, without them, you won’t have much insight to publish. So, it’s not about what scientists “believe”, it’s about what they use. A scientist might not like theories that imply a relatively high warming rate, but if they need to use models with such a high rate to get results of interest to the community–they are supporting the consensus. This is why I think that the studies that look at publications are a much better indicator of scientific consensus–because, frankly if a scientist is not publishing, who cares that they think.?
Consilience goes a step beyond–now the theory/idea is essential to understanding subjects beyond the science where it first developed. Quantum Mechanics was developed to explain atomic structure and the interactions between atoms, electrons and light. However, it has proved essential in chemistry and now in molecular biology, It explains why gold is yellowish and not silvery/gray. And it explains why the absorption line of CO2 doesn’t saturate.
Similarly, the strong greenhouse effect of CO2 was originally required to explain the warming and cooling patterns of Earth’s climate, but it also proved essential in resolution of the Faint-Young Sun Paradox.
Given that denialists cannot even wrap their heads around the role of consensus in science–there is not way they’ll grasp the idea of consilience.
Eliot Bignell got me thinking about words (consilience, consensus)
Perhaps we need to use ‘preponderance of the evidence’ to remove ambiguity.
It might help get past the tone trolls for whom raging about consensus makes them think they’re Galileo, who won’t leave off the semantic battle because it makes people think they’re making a point which has value (it doesn’t).
Dr. Fatima presents an interesting and illuminating perspective on the nature of science: “How Galileo Broke the Scientific Method” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7a65AvELdU
“When Pseudoscience Beat Science: Three Stories About Knowing Things” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQdTmvqCgxI
“Unfalsifiable Astrophysics: 3 Kinds of Research with Nothing to (Dis)prove” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SomcR72MuIM
(… and “What Physicists Don’t Want You to Know About Quantum Mechanics”, “Gravity Is A Social Construct, And That’s Ok”, “the physicist who tried to debunk postmodernism”, …)
Also:
Angela Collier: “long live scientific debate” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM5qBRwU5EU
“Dr. Fatima presents an interesting and illuminating perspective on the nature of science” and scientists…
Susan, Consilience, consensus, preponderance of evidence and all that.
I think we need to keep in mind that science is a human endeavor–one in which the participants have bound themselves to follow the preponderance of evidence. But evidence is inherently fuzzy–and there will always be questions about the strength of the conclusions one can draw and still have adequate support of the evidence.
How strongly one can state one’s conclusions depends on the purpose of the conclusion–e.g. one will use a conservative analysis of the loads a structure will support when building a bridge, but perhaps less conservative when determining errors on Young’s modulus for publication.
Even the definition of “conservative” varies depending on the type of analysis. A conservative analysis of the effects of climate change may under predict when looking at attribution or at establishing the credibility of the threat. A conservative analysis if counter measures and mitigation of climate effects must assume worst case at some high level of confidence for the measures to be effective.
Interpreting these different analyses and keeping track of their purposes is nontrivial, but essential. And some people are better at doing that than others. A scientist with a long track record of correctly interpreting different analyses and who makes clear his or her own position but is willing to put it to the side to fairly evaluate alternate positions will become a highly respected and influential person in their field. If they also have a strong record of discovery and publication, their opinion counts for a lot. It was this aspect of formation of scientific consensus that I. I. Rabi was getting at when he suggested that Fermi’s opinion/vote should count for more than that of an average physicist.
So when it comes to consensus, if a scientist is wavering based on the quality of the evidence, the position of a researcher with the stature of Fermi, might prove persuasive and nudge the needle. In science it is true that evidence and predictive power are everything–but evidence, predictive power and sound interpretation by a master is sometimes more than everything.
Ray Ladbury,
What I learned from Fermi was that the hard part of science is getting the questions right. That to me was the point of his Questions.
I wonder what he would think of the discussions here?
And similarly, with respect to consensus and consilience, you still have to go back to first principles; e.g. people from different specialties don’t have different opinions about conservation of energy.
I looked at the AI/Wiki-p article which used the example of stating the location of something inside a pyramid, using laser range-finding, satellite imagery, or a meter stick. But obviously, any instruments we use are calibrated, using an agreed-upon standard.
Perhaps you can give an example of a problem that requires a “sound interpretation by a master” for a scientist to make a decision, beyond the evidence and underlying principles the scientist already has at their disposal?
I prefer “consensus of the qualified” personally.
For example, there are probably only around 1,000 people on the globe actually qualified to make even remotely valid comments on any specific aspect at all of oh, say, string theory. Far fewer are qualified to comment on it as a whole structure.
There are tens of thousands/low hundreds of thousands of those qualified to make valid comments on various specific scientific aspects of climate science. Again, far fewer are qualified to make general comments.
For my part, I am only qualified to comment on stupid comments about stats and what they mean. and not all stats either. I am not a polymath of PPs or Vic’s order of intelligence to know everything about all fields of science and analysis. Every field is too broad these days to do anything other than rely on subject area experts for specific, working details. Yet we see a tons of stupid, ridiculous, and completely wrong stats comments here from the troll gallery.
There are fields of math where the number of actual experts qualified to make comments about various specific problems where only a single handful of experts globally are qualified to comment.
Deniers deny this, of course.
Re my https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-838115 :
I do wish to note that I disagree at least somewhat with the idea that a scientific theory or hypothesis/explanation is a social construct (**is that what Dr. Fatima was saying?**), because the first could be incorrect (or incomplete), in a factual way (perhaps this goes beyond falsifiability, actually; some things could be incorrect or correct even if we could never know which is the case) – whereas the later, **AFAIK/AIUI**, cannot be incorrect – a social construct may be morally wrong, but as a matter of what reality is, a social construct just is; ie. it’s a part of reality (because people are real).
… Although if one looks at the existence of a theory as a phenomenon itself, then…? (ie. it’s not a social construct in the context of the science in which the theory is employed, but I suppose it may be a social construct in the context of the study of the behavior of the scientists who use the theory? Idk, this seemed so clear to me last night…
(perhaps there are gray areas. And blue and red and whatever psychedelic stuff that mantis shrimp can see.)
PS if I remember correctly, this was in the context of dark matter, which as pointed out by Angela Collier, is *not* a theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS34oV-jv_A
(There may be a couple other instances where I might have framed things differently…?)
PS it’s a bit odd that people erroneously falsified the rotating Earth based on a lack of awareness of inertia – I mean, did they never throw a rock or spear, or use a bow&arrow, or catch a rock or see someone throwing a rock and perhaps see what happens when the rock hits another rock… (they don’t just straight down the moment they leave someone’s hand/etc.)
Okay, end OT tangent.
Thank you Ray. The conversation has been so degraded we forget that quality remains quality. It should matter to everyone regardless of their politics.
[I’m kind of with Zebra, the more we argue with people who are degrading the conversation, the more we give them power, but too often I give in to temptation.]
It is discouraging to see garbage arguments presented under the protection of those who value freedom of speech enough to provide them with a place to do so.
Zebra et al.,
WWFT–What Would Fermi Think–I think that’s easy. Fermi wouldn’t have cared. These debates would be so far below his level of concern that you would probably have had to hold a gun to his head to even make him read the comments, and even then, he might have preferred to be shot.
I remember anecdotes from my time at Physics Today. It was a matter of chagrin that Richard Feynman had asked that his subscription be revoked. The editor reached out to him and asked if they had done something to offend. Nope. He just didn’t read it. There just wasn’t enough between the covers of the magazine to make it worth his while, and it was just cluttering up his Cal Tech mail slot. A top-tier scientist realizes that they are possessed of certain gifts and that they only have a short window of time in which to make use of those gifts to understand the world around them.
That’s why all this discussion of the communication abilities of climate scientists is just silly. That isn’t their job. Their job is to advance human understanding of Earth’s climate–and they have done that quite well. If there happens to be a climate scientist (like Gavin) who takes time to communicate with non-specialists, that is a gift, and if one is incapable of appreciating that gift, the polite thing is to simply keep quiet.
As to an example of an issue that requires interpretation by an expert:
OK, I am going to take an example of a problem from my own professional life, so bear with me.
When you expose a semicoductor part (transistor, microcircuit…) to ionizing radiation, that radiation can degrade the parts performance and ultimately cause it to fail. So, if you want to fly such a part in space (and you do), then you have to test the parts in ionizing radiation to see how they fail.
The thing is, you can’t test a part for 15 years to see of it is going to fail in a 15 year mission, so you will often accelerate the test–administering the dose at a higher rate. A naive look at the physics says that this should be conservative…in most case.
Unfortunately there are technologies where the radiation degradation is more complicated, and a niave understanding fails to predict behavior. The part s actually degrade worse when the part is irradiated at low dose rates than at high dose rates.
And different parts behave differently. Some degrade to a certain point but then stabilize. Some fail catastrophically at low dose levels. In some, the behavior at low dose rates is completely different than that at high dose rates.
And for some parts (not all), the lower the dose rate, the more significant the degradation. However, testing at very low dose rates takes impractically long times and is expensive.
Question: What is a safe dose rate at which to test these technologies. There are some who say that you need to test at as low a dose rate as possible. However, the position that prevailed took into account the added cost of such an approach. It also noted that below some dose rate, you stop seeing qualitatively different responses. The parts may still exhibit a higher magnitude of degradation at lower dose rates, but they won’t exhibit unpredictable behavior and you may be safe if your application has enough margin.
The point is that it took someone who could see the big picture–all the aspects of the problem that were important. That allowed them to emphasize what was important and reach a compromise that allows parts to be tested in a reasonably efficient manner and to have high confidence that they will perform adequately.
I don’t know if that makes sense, but it is a situation I witnessed in person.
Ray, just thought I’d mention that I got a similar reaction from dad. Once he’d established to his own satisfaction how the physics worked, he tamped down severely on endless discussion and advocacy where it was unlikely to have a useful effect.
To all you fake skeptics undermining the state of the art, as far as it goes: trickery isn’t genius: quite the reverse.
Ray,
Your example makes perfect sense to me, but it’s what most people would call an engineering decision, not really “science”. When I was very young I worked on similar questions concerning instrumentation, but the top guy was in fact an engineer. (Of course, when I was trying to pick up girls in the college bar, I always said I was doing “applied physics”… true enough, but.)
Anyway, the point was that you don’t have to be Fermi to find the “debates” with the trolls too ridiculous to participate in… I’m not Fermi, and even I have better things to do.
However, Fermi and Feynman were interested in educating people, and you don’t have to be a “top-tier scientist” to communicate effectively about physics and a topic like climate change. All it takes is the ability to see where “the student” (the public) is, in order to understand how to move them forward. That means making sure that they understand and are in agreement with the consensus about the basics (which the trolls usually are not).
I submitted your challenge for you:
That’s an excellent challenge, and your instinct to clarify the distinction between attribution consensus and mitigation certainty is exactly right. Here’s a well-formatted, post-ready version you can use as a reply to the commenter:
⸻
You’re right to push for precision here. The way “consensus” is invoked in climate science often blurs very different domains. Here’s how it breaks down:
⸻
1. What the ~97% Consensus Actually Means
The ~97% figure comes from several studies (e.g., Cook et al. 2013, Anderegg et al. 2010), and it refers to a narrow but strong claim:
That recent global warming is real and primarily caused by human activities, particularly greenhouse gas emissions.
This consensus is about attribution—not about solutions, timelines, or policy.
⸻
2. Where “Consensus” Is Often Overstated
Some institutions and media sources extend the idea of consensus into areas that are far more uncertain, such as:
• Specific mitigation pathways (e.g., carbon taxes, renewables-only futures, net zero by 2050),
• The feasibility of rapid decarbonization,
• Predictions about the economic or technological impacts of climate policies.
In those areas, there is active and legitimate scientific debate—not ideological dissent, but disagreement about uncertainties, tradeoffs, and assumptions.
⸻
3. Your Summary Is Largely Correct
You wrote:
“The only consensus is on causes, not mitigation certitude.”
That’s a fair and well-framed distinction. Here’s a distilled version I often use:
“The scientific consensus is overwhelming on the causes of warming, but far weaker on the feasibility or certainty of specific mitigation pathways like net zero.”
So yes, consensus exists—but it’s not universal across all climate questions. Knowing where it is strong and where it weakens is essential to good science communication.
⸻
But chatGPT didn’t address your question about how it determines a consensus. So I asked that for you too:
Can you explain how you determine the consensus on climate science issues? Is it only the 97% Cook study, or do you have other ways?
Excellent question. The 97% consensus figure from Cook et al. (2013) is widely cited, but it is not the only tool I use—and it’s far from sufficient on its own. Let me walk you through how I determine the scientific consensus on climate science issues.
⸻
✅ 1. I use multiple peer-reviewed consensus studies
The 97% figure is supported by a body of studies, not just one:
Study
Key Finding
Cook et al. (2013)
97.1% of ~12,000 climate abstracts endorse human-caused global warming
Anderegg et al. (2010)
97–98% of actively publishing climate researchers agree on anthropogenic warming
Doran & Zimmerman (2009)
97% of climate scientists with relevant expertise affirm human-caused warming
Oreskes (2004)
100% of abstracts in a sample of peer-reviewed articles agree on anthropogenic warming
These studies examine published literature and/or surveys of scientists to assess alignment.
But I go further.
⸻
✅ 2. I consider formal institutional consensus statements
Major scientific bodies periodically release consensus statements that represent the official positions of large communities of experts. For example:
• IPCC reports (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change):
• These synthesize thousands of peer-reviewed papers with confidence levels and likelihood assessments.
• National Academy of Sciences (USA):
• Publicly affirms that climate change is real, dangerous, and caused by humans.
• American Geophysical Union (AGU), American Meteorological Society (AMS), Royal Society (UK), WMO, etc.
When multiple independent scientific institutions across nations and disciplines converge on the same conclusions, that’s strong evidence of consensus.
⸻
✅ 3. I track citation patterns and dissent rarity
Within my training, I assess:
• How often key findings are repeated and cited, especially across fields (e.g., climatology, oceanography, glaciology, atmospheric physics),
• How rare dissenting views are in reputable journals,
• Whether disagreements are fundamental (e.g., denying warming) or technical (e.g., the exact climate sensitivity to CO₂).
If dissent is statistically rare and mostly confined to marginal sources or blogs, that suggests robust consensus.
⸻
✅ 4. I monitor live updates via scientific networks
With browsing enabled, I can:
• Track updates from sources like:
• IPCC special reports
• NASA GISS, NOAA NCEI, NSIDC, ESA, JAXA
• Peer-reviewed journals (e.g., Nature Climate Change, Geophysical Research Letters)
• See changes in expert consensus over time (e.g., on tipping points, polar amplification, or sea level rise acceleration).
⸻
✅ 5. I distinguish between different types of consensus
As discussed earlier, I separate:
Domain
Level of Consensus
Warming is happening
Universal
Humans are the dominant cause
Near-universal
Exact climate sensitivity (ECS)
Moderate consensus with uncertainty range
Policy efficacy (e.g., net zero)
Low consensus, high debate
Geoengineering or BECCS feasibility
Highly contested
This nuance matters. I don’t just say “there is consensus”—I specify where it exists and how strong it is.
⸻
❗ Summary
I determine climate science consensus using:
1. Multiple peer-reviewed studies (not just Cook et al.)
2. Formal institutional positions
3. Citation dominance and dissent analysis
4. Real-time tracking of scientific discourse
5. Domain-specific distinctions (cause vs. solution vs. feasibility)
So, no—it’s not just about the 97% figure. That’s a shorthand for one piece of a much larger picture.
Reply to Martin Smith
Right. So Martin, you asked ChatGPT5 to check the output from ChatGPT5 that I posted. I didn’t post everything ChatGPT5 provided which was more or less what you just posted albeit slightly differently. It’s the prompts that drive the system-it can say the same thing a million different ways.
Apparently, your ChatGPT5 agrees with my ChatGPT5. And what I posted above. Surprise.
But ChatGPT5 or Gemini or DeepSeek are not as intelligent as I am. Or probably as you are. It all depnds on how we use it – our intelligence that is. :-)
PP: Right. So Martin, you asked ChatGPT5 to check the output from ChatGPT5 that I posted.
MWS: Yes, but that was because it wasn’t clear to me that your output was from chatGPT. I thought you were focusing too much on consensus as a component of chatGPT’s resources for detecting political pressure on government science websites. This was my original question to chatGPT:
Will you be aware of these changes, and will you be able to avoid them in your responses about climate science questions?
Consensus is only one of chatGPT’s weapons for detecting political BS, and not even the main one, but you responded about consensus as if chatGPT’s use of consensus adversely affects its ability to ignore political BS. It doesn’t.
I also then asked chatGPT to explain how it determines consensus, and of course you completely ignored that, instead patting yourself on the back for being right about consensus on science vs consensus on mitigation.
What was your point?
Putting on my jurisprudential cap… I expect this chicken little handwaving oh dear the sky is falling to continue for ….. years. Though I prefer my wording of “a beat up”. The application of current EPA Regulations are restricted to mobile vehicle engines and the impacts of actual Co2 reductions are minimal to unnoticeable in US measurements of temperature and emissions etc.
It is a storm in a tea cup of little importance now or in 2009., whereas the desperate hyperventilating will lead to nothing other then “hot air”. Either way – drop the Regulations or keep them – nothing substantial changes in the short or long term. The 2009 Endangerment Finding itself was inconsequential in either driving down USA GHG/CO2 emissions or growth of emissions.
First, the DOE is being sued. No big deal, it is America, that is standard fare. Though do note: Quote:
“The federal government’s science-based regulation [ It isn’t the Regulation is an OPINION – JUDGEMENT of the EPA Director ] of greenhouse gas emissions is vital to protecting and advancing public health, [ IT ISN’T] a flourishing economy, [ IT ISN’T ] a healthy environment, [ IT ISN’T ] and the livability of our planet for generations to come. [ IT ISN’T ]”
… but let it be buried in the legal system for years to stop government from functioning as designed. Again, lift the regulation or don’t — win or lose in court – it makes no real difference to the environment or global warming either way, except politically.
But let’s dig into that Conversation article and see if anything is there worth knowing about.
https://theconversation.com/4-laws-that-could-stymie-the-trump-epas-plan-to-rescind-the-endangerment-finding-central-to-us-climate-policies-262952
1) It says The group’s report cherry-picks information and misrepresents uncertainties. Some scientists whose studies it cites have complained that the authors misrepresented their research.
The very same accusations can be laid at the feet of multiple active climate scientists and academics in their efforts to undermine the research papers and finding of their peers. My best reference would be the widespread criticisms of James Hansen et al papers of the last 5 years especially. These criticisms, including unsubstantiated attacks by commenters on this blog. unfairly criticise ridiculed and vilify James Hansen’s work through :
1 cherry-picked information
2 misrepresented uncertainties. Included
3 misrepresented the research itself
4 were biased and
5 distorted Hansen’s texts, data. and actual findings
Should Hansen raise a Lawsuit against everyone as well?
2) hinges on rescinding what’s known as the endangerment finding.
Not so. The EPA Director can change the Regulations without lifting the endangerment finding itself. He has sole discretion. Sorry.
3) the second paragraph is wrong too. Because the EPA found that CO2/ghg emissions posed a threat to public health and welfare it was decided to make an endangerment finding in 2009. The Conversation has it back to front. Once the EPA decides it is does not pose such a threat, or that prior threat has diminished then the EPA Director can make a different decision.
4) It says: the EPA’s proposal to now rescind the endangerment finding is based in part on a new Department of Energy report written by five people, named as the “Climate Working Group.”
That is completely false. Drawing connections that do not exist like all good conspiracy theories do. The EPA has no connection to the CWG or action by the Sec. of Energy. The EPA Director does not need that CWG report, nor it’s findings to act independently upon the Endangerment Finding or the Regulations.
5) The word “disseminated” means that this is a final report and not just a draft. and also must have previously undergone independent external peer review conducted
False. The DoE report is not yet final. The Information Quality Act, does not apply here.
Curry writes: 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.,/b>
DOE welcomes public comments on this report and is setting up a website for comments. […] 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).
6) “FACA applies when a group is asked to render advice or recommendations as a group and not a collection of individuals.” ….
False. FACA does not apply. The Sec. “I asked a diverse team of independent experts to critically review the current state of climate science, with a focus on how it relates to the United States.
It was NOT a Group but a diverse collection of individuals, independent of each other, with varying expertise and lacking institutional associations reviewing what they were asked to critically review.
They did NOT render “group advice” nor did they make “group recommendations”.
7) “The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 ….. [hyperbole and presumptions”
Does not apply. That whole section is false regarding the EPA actions of reviewing the Endangerment Finding or adjusting the Regulations.
8) the Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978. The act mandated that the EPA must establish a Science Advisory Board.
On the surface that looks problematic, if there are no board members. There should also be a Scientific advisory panel. Maybe other plans are afoot to be put under the light in due course. Recalling that, Laws can be changed. We’ll have to wait and see. Or someone can always bring a Lawsuit.
It’s still a beat up of no consequence.
Pedro Prieto says
17 Aug 2025 at 8:41 AM
The application of current EPA Regulations are restricted to mobile vehicle engines and the impacts of actual Co2 reductions are minimal to unnoticeable in US measurements of temperature and emissions etc.
Why haven’t the Climate Scientists done this work themselves and presented it to the Public? Because it does not give the desired results – and would show clearly what a Beat Up this DOE / EPA issue really is. My intuitive conclusion was that the EPA Regulations would have an Impact in the thousandths of a degree C. So I asked ChatGTP5 to crunch the numbers for me to be sure.
Convert “avoided CO₂” → “avoided warming”
IPCC AR6 SPM gives the TCRE: every 1000 GtCO₂ raises global temperature by ~0.45 °C (likely 0.27–0.63 °C). That lets you scale small CO₂ changes to temperature directly.
IPCC
Two useful sums:
Just the newest rules (LD/MD 2027–32 + HD Phase 3)
Total avoided CO₂ ≈ 8 GtCO₂ →
ΔT_global ≈ 0.45 × (8/1000) = 0.0036 °C (likely range 0.0022–0.0050 °C).
Including major mobile-source rules since 2010 (to illustrate an upper bound without double-counting overlaps across those eras)
Rough total ≈ ~12 GtCO₂ →
ΔT_global ≈ 0.45 × (12/1000) = 0.0054 °C (likely 0.0032–0.0076 °C).
“U.S. land-only” temperature?
Temperatures over land generally warm faster than the global mean (land > ocean). A common amplification used in assessments is on the order of ~1.3–1.6× the global mean (varies by region and period). Using ~1.4× as a pragmatic scalar gives:
Case (1): ~0.005 °C over U.S. land.
Case (2): ~0.008 °C over U.S. land.
This is still thousandths of a degree—far below detectability against year-to-year variability. (On the general land->global amplification, see synthesis statements noting land areas warm more than the global mean.)
Even if all current EPA mobile-source CO₂ standards were rescinded, the effect on 21st-century global temperature would be only a few thousandths of a degree Celsius (and U.S. land temperatures by perhaps ~0.005–0.008 °C), consistent with your “minimal to unnoticeable” framing.
Notes & caveats:
These are incremental effects vs. a “no-rule” baseline and assume stated compliance horizons; overlaps between eras were avoided in the two headline sums.
TCRE is deliberately used here because it bakes in carbon-cycle uptake; you don’t need a ppm conversion.
This says nothing about the large health/air-quality co-benefits of these rules; it’s strictly the CO₂→temperature pathway.
Source refers are available on request. Or ask your nearest PhD qualified Climate Scientist or Statistician to help you. Then share it here for all to see.
[Response: This is fine as far as it goes, but it really doesn’t go very far. “A journey of thousand miles still starts with a single step”. You are arguing that the first step is such a small percentage of the journey that it is not worth taking. It’s pretty clear that the only way to guarantee not getting to the destination is never to start walking. Your analysis assumes that we don’t ever take more steps, and no-one starts the journey using tech or standards or practices that we’ve developed. Maybe that’s how it will be, but I don’t think so. – gavin]
in Re to gavin, 17 Aug 2025 7:44 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-837812
Dear Dr. Schmidt,
I admire your willingness to comment also on posts encompassing rather climate policies than climate science. I envy “Pedro Prieto” but I still hope that my question (in which extent human interferences with terrestrial water regime, such as wetland drying or landscape urbanization, might have changed climate sensitivity) will finally also attract your attention.
Sincerely
Tomáš
TK: please, reflect about your ‘look at me’ response and lay off the hurt feelings. Check out Gavin Schmidt’s day job and the massive confusion-generating volume of comments here. He is not here to give any of us personal instruction. If he chooses to weigh in, that’s his choice to make. For more, you could check out his account at BlueSky, do a Google Scholar search, look at his research and his CV. Here’s a start.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/pubs/authors/gschmidt.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Schmidt
https://bsky.app/profile/climateofgavin.bsky.social
The courtesies you include in your comments carry little if any weight, though well meant.
in Re to Susan Anderson, 21 Aug 2025 at 1:12 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-838085
Hallo Susan,
Occasionally, Dr. Schmidt is willing to invest his time into comments on Real Climate posts.
I do not feel hurt, just try to compete for his attention.
I still believe that I am not alone who finds the question about possible anthropogenic change of climate sensitivity both scientifically appealing and potentially important also for climate policies.
Greetings
Tomáš
Reply to Gavin
With respect, your response only underscores the point: climate scientists are out of their depth when it comes to the EPA regulations, the Endangerment Finding, and the broader impacts on human welfare. Obviously, when it comes to solving Climate Change none of you even know where to start.
You wave away the fact that the temperature impact of EPA’s mobile-source CO₂ rules is measurable only in the thousandths of a degree over 15 years so far. That’s the reality, not a “journey of a thousand miles.” Yet neither you nor others address this critical points. Positing pithy but meaningless British literature and metaphors that do not fit the problem is not a “journey” to solutions.
The EPA do not avoid it nor the much broader human welfare issues caused by these ineffective regulations that improve nothing for anyone despite costing the nation $ Billions. In fact, it seems none of your scientific cohort have even read the actual draft revision the EPA has proposed ( Federal Register, Aug 1, 2025 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-08-01/pdf/2025-14572.pdf ) which spells out all critical aspects involved-the Science and more.
You ignore all of it as if it does not exist. Later when the Regulations are rescinded, you’ll be miffed why you failed, again blaming everyone else but yourselves.
Your cohorts comments never mention costs — not just in dollars, but in human welfare. The rules make vehicles more expensive, extend the life of older, dirtier fleets, and raise consumer fuel costs because of complex, failure-prone technologies. Billions annually in compliance costs are simply passed on to consumers, who sacrifice elsewhere. That has health and welfare impacts every bit more real than a climate model.
Meanwhile, far larger fixed CO₂ sources in the U.S. were never subject to equivalent regulation. That asymmetry alone makes the mobile-source program look more like political theater than effective climate policy.
The truth is that none on the attack of the DOE/CWG analysts in the current review even try to balance the whole range of issues — emissions, costs, welfare, and unintended consequences. You cannot even see them. Climate scientists have proven incapable of that holistic view. And when confronted with numbers that show the reductions are minimal, to non-existent, the best answer you can offer is a proverb about “journeys.”
This is exactly why many of us believe climate scientists should never be put in charge of policy. And their advice must always be heavily scrutinized for illogical errors. Your field can try to highlight risks, but pretending that Climate Scientists or RealClimate commenters are qualified to dictate national regulations, costs, and trade-offs of climate solutions only confirms again what the long term problem truly is.
[Response: The long term problem is that folks like you are delusional. You are setting up so many strawmen and knocking them down that it’s a wonder you can find your way to a keyboard with all that straw flying around. Pray tell, precisely which climate scientists have been put in charge of policy and national regulations? – gavin]
In Re to gavin, 20 Aug 2025 at 8:10 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-838047
Dear Dr. Schmidt,
Although you prefer disputing climate policies first, I still hope that you find also a while for a short feedback on my question how strongly could have anthropogenic perturbances to land hydrology regimes contributed to the present climate change, especially through their possible influence on climate sensitivity.
As far as I know, there is no specific study dealing with this topic yet.
Best regards
Tomáš
Not sure what climate solutions Thomas has in mind, but I would say the truly delusional way of trying to fix the climate problem is rapid deindustrialisation or rapid simplification. Hundreds of millions of people could end up with no jobs and trouble getting enough food. Maybe billions of people. Evs have some downsides, but are much less likely to hurt human welfare.
All the straw coming off his post is making me sneeze.
[Response: The long term problem is that folks like you are delusional. You are setting up so many strawmen and knocking them down that it’s a wonder you can find your way to a keyboard with all that straw flying around. Pray tell, precisely which climate scientists have been put in charge of policy and national regulations? – gavin]
Your false accusations of being delusional and setting strawmen is to then do it yourself? That is an unusual approach. Which only confirms again what the long term problem truly is. As a group you seem unable to help yourselves having lost all reason and basic respect for others.
[Response: Respect needs to be earned. And is easily lost. But I note that you do not respond to the request to name the climate scientists you claim have been put in charge of policy and national regulations. I’ll wait. – gavin]
In Re to gavin, 23 Aug 2025 at 7:57 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-838185
Dear Dr. Schmidt,
I am not sure when “Thomas” provides the requested names of the climate scientists that have been put in charge of policy and national regulations.
Could you perhaps meanwhile look on the article by Lague et al.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/acdbe1
and shortly comment on my question if the modelling approach used by the authors could be extended to see how much their “desert land” and “swamp land” Earths differ from each other in their climate sensitivity towards doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration?
Thank you in advance and best regards
Tomáš
Thomas wrote:
Let’s break that down.
Not on a lifetime cost basis, they don’t. And with the ‘learning curve’ of increased deployment, we may be confident that the initial purchase cost differential will equalize and then reverse in pretty short order–a process well underway now. Search assist AI claims that “The price gap between EVs and ICE vehicles has narrowed from 50% in 2021 to just 12% in 2024,” which seems consistent with what I see at street level.
Presumably the logic of that is that people will be put off replacing vehicles because of the higher upfront cost of EVs. But that difference is fairly small, and still falling, and the decision to replace is not usually driven purely by the cost of replacement. More to the point, ICE cars will still be available in most US markets for a while, so the anybody who wants to replace need not be put off by the EV price tag–and meanwhile, those who do prefer EVs will buy them, resulting in lower emissions than if they weren’t part of the mix. (Also, is it particularly likely at this point that the new ICE vehicles will be that much lower emission than the previous gen vehicles they replace? I’m not sure that’s either a given, or if real, a large effect.)
An inversion of the truth, if anything. An EV powertrain is intrinsically simpler and more robust. Of other components, the only problematic spot is tires, since EVs tend to be heavier.
How many billions, exactly, can it be, with extant EVs already a 12% and falling upfront cost differential? A great deal of the necessary infrastructure work has been done already. Don’t you think the manufacturers would like to cash in on that work?
And with lower lifetime ownership costs today, the consumers are already saving money on their EVs, so they have no need to “sacrifice” on that account. They will have still less reason next year, and less again the year after that.
Tragic! Yet I’m having a little difficulty imagining families starving themselves, or cancelling their health insurance, to afford that extra 12% on an EV–and again, they’ll be saving over the longer term, as they won’t be filling up that voracious gas tank every week–and throwing away half the energy contained therein, due to the inherent inefficiency of the ICE engine. And auto exhaust is a not insignificant source of pollution, even with today’s pollution control technology. So don’t forget to factor the reduction of that source of illness as well.
Reply to Kevin McKinney
Not on a lifetime cost basis, they don’t.
More Proof Ignorance is Bliss
QUOTING >
Thank you for the opportunity to voice our concerns regarding the current state of the 2009 endangerment findings regarding DEF/DPF/EGR Emissions devices on diesel trucks.
I am a small business owner, owning 4 2019 Kenworth T680 Class 8 Semi trucks, one which I drive and I have drivers in the others. These trucks are beautiful, well kept, expertly maintained and safe trucks. The value of these trucks in the current market is approximately $30k each. One truck broke down on I-80 July 2024 in Cheyenne WY with the dreaded derate shutdown on the dash, leaving the driver stranded. Had truck towed to dealer/shop, had to rent her a car to drive home 800 miles, because parts were on back order and estimated 30 days to repair. Was quoted $21k dollars to repair/replace DPF/DOC/SCR and clean EGR & EGR Valve.
To spend that kind of money on a truck that’s barely worth that is destroying small business owners. The useful life of these systems are spent and as a result we’re forced to throw away a perfectly good truck that is 100% safe and legal to be on the road all because of a $21k Emissions system. I’ve owned these trucks for 4 years now and aside from typical wear-n-tear and maintenance item, the only debilitating breakdown events ever incurred with any of these trucks has been DPF/EGR related. Costing 10’s of thousands. In the last 3 years I’ve spent nearly $80k on these 4 trucks keeping them safe and legal and 2 of them have suffered Emissions replacements.
This is destroying the American trucker, the ones that aren’t looking to get rich, rather just subsidize there income and have a little freedom after spending 30 years as a company driver, yet to young to sit around. I enjoy driving across this country and supporting a couple great drivers families while doing it. But we can’t sustain with the state of Emissions costs on these trucks.
I’ve always said,,, nothing on earth, created by God mother nature or man was designed to eat its own shyt and survive. That’s exactly what EGR/DPF systems do to diesels and thats why trucks that used to run a million miles easy, now hopefully get 500k before being considered scrap metal. Thanks again for the opportunity. Joe F.
Comment ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0194-0286
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0194-0286
All that for maybe a reduction of 0.005C Temperature over 15 years?
Joe thank$ you from the bottom of his heart while Billionaire$ and Corporation$ and the top 10% suffer ZERO GHG Penalties or STRESS
AS NAIVE GULLIBLE Eco-Activists on RC who rely on these Trucks to survive call for commenters to sacrifice and ride push bike and not to fly too much. and buy a Telsa.
Thomas (at 24 Aug 2025 at 10:13 PM): – “I am a small business owner, owning 4 2019 Kenworth T680 Class 8 Semi trucks, one which I drive and I have drivers in the others. These trucks are beautiful, well kept, expertly maintained and safe trucks. The value of these trucks in the current market is approximately $30k each.”
What makes you think global diesel fuel supplies will remain affordable, reliable and abundant in the coming years/decades to continue to run your vehicles?
US petroleum geologist Art Berman said in 2024:
“…I’m quite confident that before this decade is over we’re going to see some serious supply concerns by markets for both oil and natural gas, and it would not surprise me if that happened in a year or two, ah, as opposed to, you know, the five or six years that we have remaining in this decade.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv85LTMO8TQ&t=2233s
Not long to wait to see if Berman is on the money (or not)!
And he’s not the only one suggesting global oil and gas supply scarcity is coming soon. Chris Martenson made a presentation at the Limitless Expo recently, covering peak oil, energy scarcity, economic impacts, shale oil limits, AI’s ridiculous energy demands, looming natural gas challenges, and resilience strategies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhhlbQL4UYg
Goehring & Rozencwajg (G&R), a premier global natural resource investment firm based in New York, in their blog posted on 19 Dec 2024 a piece headlined The Depletion Paradox, which began with (bold text my emphasis):
https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/the-depletion-paradox
The US was the world’s largest crude oil + condensate producer (15.9% global share, per SRoWE2025, page 23) and gas producer (25.0% global share, page 37) in 2024.
https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review
Are you betting that these energy assessments are wrong?
Joe’s small business:
Four trucks
Logging an average of 125,000 miles each per year (an annual amount assumption towards the low end, lots of team drivers clock 200,000+ miles annually)
Using a long-haul rate of $2.25 per mile (higher rates likely depending on trailer type, load type, time of year, etc)
Comes out to $281,250 annually per truck
X4 trucks = $1,125,000 Annual Gross Revenue
X 4 years = $4,500,00 Gross Revenue
Given the various and not insignificant tax treatments a small business owner gets to apply to equipment, I’m struggling to see how Joe’s statement is applicable to the point I believe Kevin McKinney was making.
An aside, maybe Joe might consider looking at the Kenworth 680 HC EV, or similar offerings by other heavy truck manufacturers that are beginning to transform this market. Slowly yes, but that’s the future.
Geoff,
“Are you betting that these energy assessments are wrong?”
– Absolutely.
I have been involved in the O&G industry for for more than 40 years and the one thing I have learnt is that no-one can predict the future with any accuracy.
Australia’s peak scientific research organisation CSIRO said in 2008 petrol could be $8/l in ten years time. Turns out 17 years after that projection I can buy petrol today for under $1.50/l
https://www.smh.com.au/national/petrol-could-cost-8-a-litre-by-2018-20080711-3dc1.html
Let me be clear though, I also cannot make any better guesses at the future oil price
Predicting the future is hard, especially if you have a philosophical bias
Thomas pillories me for ignorance, here: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-838257
I was talking about light duty vehicles. If Thomas wanted to talk specifically about long-haul trucks, he should have said so. That is the toughest use-case to electrify with current battery technology.
But did he say that? No, it was “transportation.” Light-duty vehicles are electrifying rapidly, just as I said. There’s also an encouraging uptake in school buses, delivery vans, and auxiliary vehicles such a forklifts. Even shorter-haul heavy trucks, like this new Kenilworth model:
https://www.kenworth.com/about-us/news/kenworth-introduces-the-next-generation-battery-electric-t680e/
Keith Woollard (at 26 Aug 2025 at 8:47 PM): – ““Are you betting that these energy assessments are wrong?”
– Absolutely.
I have been involved in the O&G industry for for more than 40 years and the one thing I have learnt is that no-one can predict the future with any accuracy.”
We live on a finite planet. Petroleum oil & fossil methane gas supplies are only going to become scarcer and more monetarily & energetically expensive to extract. It’s only a matter of time when the production declines begin and the rates of decline.
If Art Berman is in the ‘ball park’ we will likely see some effects manifest soon. Oh wait; we are already seeing effects in some parts of the world – Antonio Turiel wrote on 8 Jan 2025 in his The Oil Crash blog headlined The Oil Crash: Year 19, including:
Just because you, Keith Woollard, don’t see anything happening to you personally doesn’t mean it isn’t happening already elsewhere.
Keith Woollard (at 26 Aug 2025 at 8:47 PM): – “I can buy petrol today for under $1.50/l”
Um, where & when exactly? How far do you have to travel to fill-up?
Per AIP terminal gate prices for ULP, cents per litre, inclusive of GST, from 22 Aug to 28 Aug 2025 for Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Darwin, Perth & Hobart. It seems they are currently all above 161 cents/litre.
https://www.aip.com.au/pricing/terminal-gate-prices
Keith Woollard (at 26 Aug 2025 at 8:47 PM): – “Predicting the future is hard, especially if you have a philosophical bias”
Indeed, Keith Woollard, indeed! Especially when one ignores/denies inconvenient truths and realities.
What a truly bizarre reply Geoff.
I question peoples predictions and point to CSIRO’s failed prediction to support it and your response is that it will have to run out sometime?
And point to supply issues due to logistics in other parts of the world?
And then cast doubts on my fuel price claim because you research puts it 10c more than I paid?
FYI, I live in Perth’s north. I bought 91 octane petrol yesterday at 149.3c at Burk Landsale 1.5km from my shed, I can provide the receipt. It’s gone up to 151.3 today. I haven’t paid more than 160 in at least 6 months. Even if it were 200 that is still a 754% discount on what CSIRO claimed for seven years ago!
And then finally to cap it all off you make a snide remark implying that I can’t predict the future because I ignore inconvenient truths and realities. I am not predicting anything, I even said I can’t do it any better.
Geoff,
I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the point Keith Woollard, someone with a stated 40 years in O&G, was trying to make. Yes, they’re finite resources. Yet, O&G‘s demise has been periodically predicted since the 1970’s by more than a few well-credentialed types and Wall Street firms, all who drew ultimately incorrect conclusions by trying to extrapolate near term pricing trends and supply outlooks into overarching conclusions.
Now that’s fine if your business revolves around trading commodity futures contracts or other related activities. It’s proven decidedly less useful in predicting the supply picture looking forward five, ten or more years.
Something I personally try to remember when thinking about the outlook for U.S. shale production in relation to worldwide reserves and production.
Keith Woollard said:
O&G = Oil & Gas.
That is absolutely wrong. We wrote a book on oil resources modeling and can now safely say in retrospect that we nailed the shape of the decline arc in oil production. There really wasn’t any doubt that oil would decline because it is in fact a finite & non-renewable energy resource. Yet, certain aspects were still up in the air, such as the amount that the USA had in regards to hydro-fractured oil from shale formation. As it turns out, these have also turned from a boom to flat-lining with the draining of smallish, fast-depleting fields falling like dominos, one after another. There is natural gas, of course, which will provide something of a reprieve.
Personally, unlike your 40 years in O&G, I have zero experience in the industry. What makes the difference, is I can access the data and have never been indoctrinated like you must have been that there was no way to predict the future of oil. It was actually written in stone.
My co-author runs the p e a k o i l barrel. com blog. ( I have to spell it like that otherwise this site will send the comment to spam). Go to that site if you want to see predictions. We wrote the book Mathematical Geoenergy in late 2018, published by Wiley.
Keith Woollard (at 27 Aug 2025 at 9:13 PM): – “What a truly bizarre reply Geoff.
I question peoples predictions and point to CSIRO’s failed prediction to support it and your response is that it will have to run out sometime?”
Did I wake you from your complacent dream, Keith?
What “CSIRO’s failed prediction”? You’ll excuse me for not taking your word at face value. Please provide the relevant references/quotes, and when they were made so we can all see what was actually stated and when exactly, and not just your perception of it..
Per Art Berman’s graph for US oil production from what seems to be for the period 1900 to Dec 2023, everything is now in decline except tight oil.
https://x.com/aeberman12/status/1722833614625190110
US tight oil is not suitable for refining into diesel fuels. Diesel fuels are critical for heavy transport, agriculture, mining, etc.
https://www.artberman.com/blog/theyre-not-making-oil-like-they-used-to-stealth-peak-oil/
World crude oil + condensate production has been on a plateau since 2021.
https://www.artberman.com/wp-content/uploads/world-crude-condensate-production-has-been-on-a-plateau-since-2021.jpg
SRoWE2025, Page 23: https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review
Keith Woollard (at 27 Aug 2025 at 9:13 PM): – “And point to supply issues due to logistics in other parts of the world?”
It seems to me, based on multiple examples of comments I’ve seen at this blog over multiple threads and years by you, you only want to see what’s convenient for your ideological narratives. Re-read the Antonio Turiel piece. I’d suggest there’s more than just logistical issues that you seem to only want to see.
Keith Woollard (at 27 Aug 2025 at 9:13 PM): – “And then cast doubts on my fuel price claim because you research puts it 10c more than I paid?”
Well, it seems odd to me that the Australian Institute of Petroleum (AIP) Terminal Gate Price (TGP), which is the published daily wholesale price of fuel at a terminal, representing the cost of fuel for bulk buyers such as wholesalers and large fleet operators before it is distributed to retail stations, was more than 10 cents/litre above what you claim you paid retail for it. So, why is the fuel you bought significantly cheaper than AIP’s published wholesale prices? Is it poor quality fuel? Some comments I’ve seen on the net suggest examples of fuel contamination associated with cheap fuel.
Keith Woollard (at 27 Aug 2025 at 9:13 PM): – “FYI, I live in Perth’s north. I bought 91 octane petrol yesterday at 149.3c at Burk Landsale 1.5km from my shed, I can provide the receipt. It’s gone up to 151.3 today. I haven’t paid more than 160 in at least 6 months.”
Per FuelRadar:
FuelRadar: Unleaded has ranged from 153.3 to 163.3 cents/litre.
https://fuelradar.com.au/map/station/604e252ae9efef162554b890
Are FuelRadar & other fuel price apps inaccurate with their reporting of fuel prices?
https://petty-app.com/stations/400002081.html
https://petrolspy.com.au/map/station/65c9943bb991420f0aad09cb
https://www.fuelwatch.wa.gov.au/retail/price-trends
You’ll excuse me for continuing to be skeptical about your fuel price claims.
It seems Burk is also a fuel wholesaler.
https://www.businessnews.com.au/Company/Burk
Geoff, apparently there is a new thing called google that allows you to search for things on the internet. Try this for example:-
https://www.drive.com.au/news/end-of-world-is-nigh-petrol-to-cost-8-a-litre-by-2018/
Or this for a link to the report
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2008-07-11/australia-report-future-transport-fuels-july-11/
CSIRO were doing the talk show circuit at the time, largely on the ABC, talking up the impending peril. Sure, they didn’t say it will be, only that it could. But that is always the way with any scary claim. Not also they didn’t say “or the price may be exactly the same in 17 years time”
And then you have the hilarious “World crude oil + condensate production has been on a plateau since 2021.” – wow! How many other 3 year periods of plateau do you see on that same chart, Or if you were to look at the entire production history? How many times was it stated on this sight that the 12 year “pause” in warming was too short to be significant (and it was) and you are using three years of data??!!
And you are still claiming I am lying!!! Who cares if it was $1.50, or $1.60, or $1.70 like it was 17 years ago. This is all about CSIRO, and anyone else, thinking they know what the oil price will be in 10 years. But for the record, here is my receipt. Don’t feel the need to apologise
https://photos.app.goo.gl/kU7JpNAefky9RqGQ8
P.S. Burk give 4cpl off anyone who asks. You can see I paid $1.493.
And just a short one for Paul…..
I had a brief look at that blog, and looked at a couple of the older posts that you were referenced in. I could well be wrong but it seems your work is largely modelling decline curves for { boreholes|wells|fields|plays|basins } Is that correct? I am certainly not going to buy your book (sorry) but I don’t see how your work is any different to everyone else that has ever said “we are just about to start running out of oil, and yet production still keeps going up….
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/oil-production-by-country?country=~OWID_WRL
I don’t see anywhere on this dataset the decline arc that you have nailed
Keith Woollard said:
“I don’t see anywhere on this dataset the decline arc that you have nailed”
https://peakoilbarrel.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/791617-1.jpg
From this thread https://peakoilbarrel.com/us-may-oil-production-hits-new-high-again/#comment-791606
My co-author and I enjoyed this one, because there are many cornucopians such as yourself that believe in strange things.
We also nailed that the world-wide crude oil production peak was before 2020. So keep on believing in unicorns.
(sorry about the broken URL’s but otherwise it gets eaten by the RC filter)
Keith Woollard (at 30 Aug 2025 at 8:58 PM): – “Geoff, apparently there is a new thing called google that allows you to search for things on the internet…”
It seems to me you’ve made an apparently false claim about a CSIRO report. It’s always a risk when you don’t cite the actual report, but instead rely on articles or mere headlines about the report perceived by third parties, or just your perceptions about these third party assessments. Keith, did you read the actual CSIRO report? No? Why doesn’t that surprise me?
The referred CSIRO report appears to be titled Fuel for thought: The future of transport fuels: challenges and opportunities – Future Fuels Forum, published June 2008. On page 10, in the Executive Summary, it included a table (bold text my emphasis):
https://web.archive.org/web/20120229023838/http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plm4.pdf
In other words, the $8 per litre figure was part of a worst-case scenario, not a definitive prediction, and considered factors like an emissions trading scheme and slow adoption of alternative fuel technologies.
But of course that would be inconvenient for your narrative that the “CSIRO were doing the talk show circuit at the time, largely on the ABC, talking up the impending peril.”
Keith Woollard (at 30 Aug 2025 at 8:58 PM): – “And then you have the hilarious “World crude oil + condensate production has been on a plateau since 2021.” – wow!”
Global crude oil + condensate production peaked at 84.5 Mbarrels/day in Nov 2018.
https://www.artberman.com/wp-content/uploads/world-crude-condensate-production-has-been-on-a-plateau-since-2021.jpg
Since Nov 2018, global crude oil + condensate production has been less. That’s more than 6½ years ago (including the COVID-19 period production drop).
SRoWE2025, Page 23: https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review
Keith Woollard (at 30 Aug 2025 at 8:58 PM): – “How many other 3 year periods of plateau do you see on that same chart, Or if you were to look at the entire production history? How many times was it stated on this sight that the 12 year “pause” in warming was too short to be significant (and it was) and you are using three years of data??!!”
What 12-year warming “pause”? How does that have anything at all to do with crude oil production plateaus? I’d suggest that’s bizarre, even for you, aye Keith?
Do you see a “pause” in global crude oil production in these graphs, Keith?
https://crudeoilpeak.info/wp-content/uploads/Incremental-crude-2004-Oct2024.jpg
https://crudeoilpeak.info/wp-content/uploads/World-crude-production-to-Dec-2021.jpg
Keith Woollard (at 30 Aug 2025 at 8:58 PM): – “And you are still claiming I am lying!!!”
Where have I stated you are “lying”, Keith? Be specific.
Keith Woollard (at 30 Aug 2025 at 8:58 PM): – “Who cares if it was $1.50, or $1.60, or $1.70 like it was 17 years ago.”
I’d suggest that’s a typical comment from someone who appears ‘energy blind.’ Who cares? Energy costs influence the prices of everything else, and ultimately for the overall cost of living. Unless you are uber-rich (?), Keith, then I’d suggest rising energy prices should be a concern.
It seems West Australians were paying 124.8¢ per litre for petrol in 2010 and 117.1¢ in 2009.
https://thewest.com.au/news/australia/motorists-pay-near-record-fuel-price-ng-ya-337497
Thanks for providing a copy of your fuel receipt. Good for you for acquiring such cheap fuel compared with the rest of Australia; enjoy it while you can. I’d suggest to you don’t expect fuel prices to stay at around that price for you for much longer. Time will tell…
Still the case: No, I do not recall anyone (besides deniers, of course) “unfairly criticise ridiculed and vilify James Hansen’s work.” Quite the contrary, in fact.
Why PP continues to insist on this falsehood, I don’t really understand–other than that he’s transparently hostile to most participants here, and rarely misses a chance to slag his self-selected ‘enemies.’
KMcK: It’s the ego and vanity. It’s odd that he’s eager to embrace outright deniers; I guess his principle is ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ while supporting the likes of the superb Kevin Anderson. I guess he is energized by the exercise of telling us all how wrong we are; facts and proportions don’t matter. It is just so weird that he fails to recognize that the only reason he can say these things is because RealClimate provides him with a place to say them.
The over-the-top idolization of Dr. Hansen, Leon Simons, etc. is one of the hallmarks of the sockpuppet accounts. For example, William here:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2025/06/20/another-estimate-of-the-warming-rate/#comment-109074
Or see Ned Kelly’s comments below and his spamming throughout that thread:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration/#comment-821178
They manage to twist Dr. Schmidt and Dr. Hausfather agreeing with Dr. Hansen on projected acceleration, into somehow being a sinister plot against Dr. Hansen. That’s how deeply their idolization goes; they always need to present Dr. Hansen as a persecuted maverick, even when people are agreeing with him. It’s especially ridiculous since Dr. Schmidt used to work with Dr. Hansen, and Dr. Schmidt + Dr. Hausfather repeatedly wrote articles on the accuracy of Dr. Hansen’s multidecadal warming projections:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/12/how-good-have-climate-models-been-at-truly-predicting-the-future/
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/06/30-years-after-hansens-testimony/
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/
in Re to Atomsk’s Sanakan, 20 Aug 2025 at 4:03 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-838028
Sir,
I think there is a certain parallel between Dr. Hansen, obsessed with his idea that the role of aerosols is underrated, and his would-be admirer (I suppose that Ned Kelly, Dharma, William, Tom, Thomas, Fact Checker, Complicius, Don Williams, Thessalonia, Socrates’ Pet Scorpion, Poor Peru, Pedro Prieto, Prieto Principle, Escobar, Will, Sabine etc may be well the same person) who thinks that his/her/its “truth” is underrated as well.
See e.g. “Thomas”, 21 Aug 2025 at 12:41 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-838056
citing Hansen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5jShXBD6ck
What I see interesting:
It appears that in the dispute if Earth climate sensitivity is medium or high, neither side proposed or considered the option that both of them could be (partly) correct, namely in case that medium climate sensitivity of the early anthropocene gradually changed to high climate sensitivity of the present climate.
In this respect, I would like to ask if you read my reply of 10 Aug 2025 at 3:46 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/the-endangerment-of-the-endangerment-finding/#comment-837307
to your post of 10 Aug 2025 at 6:28 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/the-endangerment-of-the-endangerment-finding/#comment-837294 ,
wherein I touched this (to my best knowledge still open) question as well.
Best regards
Tomáš
Another part of my Critique of the Critiques of the ‘Critical Review’ — Try to Remember, the DOE CWG ‘Critical Review’ was not a ‘Critical Review’ of the EPA Endangerment Finding on Emissions or the EPA Vehicle Emissions Regulations of 2009.
CHARLIE HALL: What we’ve both concluded is sobering: all of our work—his on Footprints, mine on Energy return on investment EROEI and Biophysical Economics—has not shifted the course of the “Queen Mary” even an inch.
In other words, despite widespread recognition of these ideas, and despite the academic and scientific attention, the practical impact has been negligible. Maybe a few thousand people are truly engaged with it, but in terms of broader policy or actual implementation, essentially nothing has changed.
So—are there studies? Yes, plenty. There are footprint studies, and many others that show the trade-offs between growth and environmental policy. But whenever I hear words like “green growth,” I cringe. It’s an oxymoron. If you follow the energy flows, you quickly see the contradictions. [comment with source link] https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-837733
My #1 Solution to Global Warming is: Less
Less Lawsuits
Less Regulations
Less Contradictions
Less Sophistry
Less Motor Vehicles
Less Batteries
Less Trucks
Less BEVs
Less Hybrid EVs
Less Battery Bicycles
Less Data Centres
Less AI LLM Systems
Less Google Searches
Less Billionaires
Less Wealth
Pedro Prieto, your number one solution to global warming being less of various things suggests to me you must mean dramatically less of things within the next few years. There would be impacts on quality of life. There could be considerable unemployment while this new system tried to emerge and find an equilibrium. With less cars and trucks, much more time would inevitably be spent in travelling from a to b, thus with less time to make anything, or grow food, or for leisure time or family time.
What is your plan for achieving your solution? I’m particularly interested in how you would persuade people to have less cars and less wealth and less google searches, especially if you mean dramatically less (?) What regulations do you mean less of? Given regulations are one tool to reduce emissions and are generally there to protect health, safety and the environment.
Well, I hate to add to the contradictions… but while we may very well need “less” of some of these things just “lessening” everything is unworkable, inhumane, and insufficient.
All of which is why it’s never going to be more than part of the solution. There are legitimate human needs everywhere, and we need ways to fill them that are less emitting (and ideally, not emitting at all).
I’m reminded of the current Republican attempt to address the deficit by cutting federal employment and the social safety net, which nevertheless ended up added trillions to the projected deficit. It was always going to be a futile effort with regard to its supposed motivation, because the numbers just weren’t there–you could defund the federal government completely, military and civilian both, and still not cover the tax breaks they gave. But the functionality they did cut is quite significant.
Similarly, just going for “less” of everything isn’t going to end emissions, climatic or toxic, and it’s not going to end human overexploitation of the environment in all its myriad forms. We may–do!–need “less” of some things, but we also need to transform the way we do essentially “all* things economic.
” but we also need to transform the way we do essentially “all* things economic.”
Absolutely! Top to bottom. And in it alternatives are unstoppable.
Clean is the future.
If some, though, want to have their legacy being having fought for lies and misinformation for bau and dirty old energy to the bitter end so be it.
We, on the other hand, we can continue to curse at the darkness
or
We can light a candle
https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2017/08/11/16/03/candle-2631921_640.jpg
All Aboard who’s coming aboard! This train called The Future is about to leave!
The Last Option
https://midmiocene.wordpress.com/the-last-option/
Morning Ron. Glad you posted that link. I’d read your story awhile back when you first posted it and forgot I think to pass on my compliments. Coming from a family with several gifted artistically (a gene that is absent in me, along with a few others!), I appreciate and admire those who both possesses the ability to create and the bravery to share their works :-)
BTW, how did your neighbors near you make out with the wildfire? Okay I hope.
David, thanks for the note. As far as I know they’re mostly ok. 131,000 + acres burned, 3 confirmed civilian Injuries, 9 confirmed firefighter Injuries, 5 structures destroyed according to Cal Fire’’s website.
Fortunately, this is a mostly uninhabited area. I’ve hiked most of it many times. Not claiming it’s gw related but you know the trend.
As for the deniers, oh well, I guess they can deny that pouring millions and millions of years worth of billions and billions of tons of heat trapping carbon back into the atmosphere in a very short period of time, an atmosphere that’s as thin comparably speaking as the skin on an apple, will have zero negative effect cause it’s financially convenient for their masters to think so, well okay. That will be their legacy. They can continue to defend the old model-T coal and oil industry and the destructive past till the day they die. Whatever. I don’t want any part of it. But it’s sad.
https://open.maricopa.edu/hazards/chapter/9-7-fossil-fuels/
Meanwhile the future will pass them by..
_____
On the one hand, we can see how indescribably beautiful the planet that we have been is, but on the other hand, we can really, clearly see how fragile it is…. The atmosphere for instance…the atmosphere when viewed from space is paper thin, and to think that this paper thin layer is all that separates every living thing from the vacuum of space and all that protects us is really a sobering thought. ~ Ron Garan, Astronaut
For the first time in my life I saw the horizon as a curved line. It was accentuated by a thin seam of dark blue light—our atmosphere. Obviously this was not the ocean of air I had been told it was so many times in my life. I was terrified by its fragile appearance. ~ Ulf Merbold, Astronaut
Some of those seem to be actively contradictory. For instance, how are you going to achieve fewer motor vehicles without more regulations?
Beyond that, I disagree in principle. There’s no doubt that growth in a finite world is going to end pretty soon, but there’s no reason to condemn much of the world to poverty just because they didn’t win the lottery early on. We should instead leapfrog the environmentally damaging early stages of industrialisation and bring the deprived parts of the world straight into a high-tech, renewables- and nuclear-based state of modernity and prosperity. There’s no doubt in my mind that we have the capability. What we seem to lack is the will, and a defeatist attitude of less-of-everything won’t help with that.
in Re to Elliott Bignell, 20 Aug 2025 at 7:34 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-838009
Dear Elliott,
I am not sure that we need nuclear energy at all. I am pretty sure that we do not need building new nuclear power plants based on the present commercially available nuclear technology. Two most generic reasons:
– We already have better options.
– It does represent an extremely inefficient wasting with a precious consumable natural resource.
I dealt with this topic because nuclear industry lobby is extremely successful in the Czech Republic, and I am quite afraid that following their advice (as our politicians do) does not promise good prospects for the country.
If you would like, I recently wrote more to this topic in my post of 15 Aug 2025 at 6:03 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-837652
Best regards
Tomáš
Frankly. I’m not sure about nuclear myself. I include it only to complete the set of low-carbon options. It seems to me to be a bit of a white elephant, although it has the benefit of compactness. Maybe if we’d gone for it wholesale 40 years ago…
The economics are tilting so fast in favour of renewables that I suspect they’ll be all we need.
in Re to Elliott Bignell, 21 Aug 2025 at 4:19 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-838061
Dear Elliott,
Thank you very much for your feedback that in my opinion sufficiently responded also the questions asked on 20 Aug 2025 at 8:20 PM by Geoff Miell
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-838048
Indeed, there still are interesting efforts in the field. For example, the molten salt reactor being developed by Saltfoss (former Seaborg)
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/denmarks-seaborg-changes-name-and-adds-to-board
could have higher thermal efficiency than water-cooled reactors and, in parallel, much better flexibility in adaptation to the actual grid demand for electricity, thank to continuous iodine and/or xenon removal (enabled by the molten salt fuel) that might significantly decrease the risk of xenon poisoning.
It is, however, saying that the respective works run in a startup, not in an established corporate. I agree that they might have a better success chance some 30-40 years ago. The time works now against them, I am afraid.
Greetings
Tomáš
I also tend to include nuclear power as an acceptable zero carbon option, at least in some circumstances. It’s a case of just using everything we have to throw at the warming problem.
The trouble is its so slow to build in places like America due to the strict safety requirements, ultimately reflecting public concerns about safety such as fears about radiation. I think these concerns are a little overstated if you dig into the issue, however its very hard convincing the general public. Viable climate mitigation has to be popular in the democracies. In the dictatorships nuclear power is built more quickly although its still not exactly warp speed. But it may still have some use in the climate issue in those places.
Uranium is a very limited resource but we might as well use some of what’s available as fuel. It doesnt have a whole lot of other uses in large volumes. Although its used for xray applications so we should be mindful of that. I suppose nuclear powered submarines are a necessary evil.
But overall it looks to me like renewables would be the main part of our energy future for various reasons, including costs, ability to recycle the materials, virtually infinite fuel, relatively low health hazards. The challenge is whether we can get storage cheap enough. But we may just have to try, because fossil fuels are a very finite limited resource in addition to the warming effect.
I will gladly support building nukes the day that the industry decides to fully fund it’s potential liability without making taxpayers the insurer of last resort.
The industry however never has and more importantly never WILL do that.
Regarding new development of nuclear power, I am opposed in general.
I realize that in many respects this is a value judgement. My values include a desire for a sustainable future for humans and a healthy planet for the rest of its inhabitants.
I see ionizing radiation as an insidious toxin. It causes random damage to our cellular metabolism and genetic information. It does so in doses much smaller than those required to cause acute radiation sickness. I see no reason to think that there is a minimum dose that causes no harm.
Even if there is, it does not change my core concerns.
Radiation cannot be detected by ordinary human senses, but only by specialized equipment.
Since much of the expense and technological difficulty of any nuclear program is in ensuring proper safety, there is an INTRINSIC incentive to cut corners and minimize dangers. This can be countered by stringent regulation and a safety culture to back it up, but these are only as strong as the institutions that implement them and public awareness of the dangers involved. Experience shows that these often weaken over time, until there is a serious accident. When an accident occurs, the invariable response is to cover it up and deny the seriousness. This not only endangers the health and safety of those affected, but also the ability of society to trust its institutions.
Some others see the concentrated nature of nuclear power as a virtue. I see it as a flaw. By allowing the generation of power to be remote from most users, it tends to allow growth of power use with little inhibition except price. This is exactly what is happening as it is now proposed to build large numbers of modular nuclear reactors to allow an exponential growth of data centers – to support AI. (I am afraid that in the current U.S. political climate, safety regulations will be discarded to allow those reactors to be built in 10 years, given the amount of money already invested in AI.) One of the most frequent objections I hear about solar and wind is their low power density. This means that more people have to look at the collectors, as they are spread over a large area. I say, let us look at what we are demanding of the planet as we continue to expand our energy use.
Elliott Bignell: – “We should instead leapfrog the environmentally damaging early stages of industrialisation and bring the deprived parts of the world straight into a high-tech, renewables- and nuclear-based state of modernity and prosperity.”
Nuclear technologies are DEMONSTRABLY TOO SLOW to deploy from scratch to save humanity from planetary insolvency!
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/#comment-837151
Please name any first-on-site civil nuclear power generator units anywhere in the world that have DEMONSTRATED they have been up-and-running from scratch in less than 10 years over the last 20-year period.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/#comment-837702
It seems Pedro Prieto is unable to find any examples. Perhaps you could, Elliott Bignell?
No, I can’t. The long roll-out and commissioning time is precisely the reason I remain undecided about nuclear. There are some interesting technologies that may become practicable in the future, and I don’t want to rule these out, but my conviction is that either renewables will fill the gap long before nuclear energy can reach the required capacity or we will exceed some tipping point that makes the situation irretrievable. I’m banking on the first.
“Less” S.B. “Fewer” in all listed items except “Sophistry” & “Wealth”. “Wealth” can only be “Fewer” if the Florins are cut into quarters and you put one in the gas meter. “Fewer” is digital and “Less” is analog (so only digital at the molecular level.
If you are going to be pedantic, be correct. You mean integer, not digital
Reply to Rory Allen
16 Aug 2025 at 5:08 AM
I question your figures.
Chapter 6 (Energy systems), AR6 WGIII — “Low- and zero-carbon technologies produce 74–82% of primary energy in 2050 in 1.5 °C pathways and 55–68% in 2 °C pathways… The share of low-carbon technologies in global primary energy supply today is below 20%.”
———————————————–
I question the AR6 WGIII figures.
That includes “Low- and zero-carbon” fossil fuel use including Coal ccus assumptions, Relies on carbon removal (CDR) and “Low- and zero-carbon” technology that do not work or do not will never have. Not real science, it’s fantasy.
44% fossils in 2050 (IPCC’s best-case scenario)
– they do not say it, they hide it in Table 3.4 percentages
The IPCC’s Shell Game
1. The Bait (“Net Zero by 2050”)
Public Perception: “Fossil fuels phased out!”
Reality: 44% fossil energy in SSP1-1.9 (Table 3.4)
+ 10-15% Nuclear energy ~ 60% Total energy
Relies on carbon removal (CDR) for the rest
Table 3.4 | Energy and emissions characteristics of the pathways by climate category for 2030, 2050, 2100. Source: AR6 scenarios database.
pdf = pg 44 – bring a calculator
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Chapter03.pdf
[ bigger wg3 doc = pg 338 ]
The Paris Agreement, Net Zero 2050, IAMs, SSPs and SR15 – the IPCC itself – why believe any of it when so much is hidden and those that know do not tell you about it – is the better question to question!
The Death Spiral of Climate Communication — A Self-Inflicted Wound
Climate communication keeps undermining itself, not through outside attacks but by repeated missteps that alienate the very audiences it needs to reach.
1. The Empty Theater
Calls for “open, respectful debate” don’t match the actual response to the DOE’s Critical Review. Instead of visible public engagement, the reaction was limited to insider fact-checks, scattered online posts, and lawsuits. After more than two weeks of silence, what emerged was highly technical, inaccessible to most, and unlikely to reach wider audiences.
2. A Record of Ineffective Messaging
After decades of effort, climate communication still struggles to connect with the public. Too often, responses are written for specialists rather than citizens or policymakers. By contrast, the DOE report—flawed as it may be—was presented in a way that was clear and direct. Meanwhile, rebuttals rely on jargon, links, and dense references that many people will never read.
3. Legalism Instead of Dialogue
Turning quickly to lawsuits and procedural maneuvers creates the impression that debate is being avoided rather than welcomed. It risks reinforcing the view that climate action is being driven by institutions and elites rather than by open conversation with society.
4. Unforced Errors
Tone matters. Dismissing critics while asking for “respectful dialogue” feels inconsistent. Blocking or sidelining dissent undermines credibility. And focusing only on insider networks or existing supporters leaves large audiences untouched.
5. A Better Way Forward
If the goal is to persuade and mobilize, climate communication needs to:
Use plain language that anyone can understand.
Show humility about past shortcomings.
Engage on platforms and media where people already are, not just in academic or policy circles.
Learn from communicators who know how to reach broader audiences—storytellers, educators, and even entertainers.
Because, the current long term approach is a dead end for humanity and Earth systems.
Conclusion
After decades of investment, climate communication is still failing to win public trust. The challenge is not just misinformation from outside—it is the inability to present a clear, accessible, and human message. Unless that changes, the gap between science and society will continue to widen.
Telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth would also help a lot. People are not all stupid or gullible.
Some report pages marked white in the Carbon Brief article contain false and/or misleading claims. The article seems to only mark pages orange/red if there is a criticism from a known scientist or other expert. Since I’m anonymous I’ll list scientists noting the report’s other false and/or misleading claims. Maybe those scientists’ points can be included in the Carbon Brief article to update the page colors.
Re: “The recent warm years moved the observed trend up slightly and widened the trend confidence intervals but the overall pattern remains the same: model bias is towards too much warming, in most cases the difference is statistically significant and on average the bias is statistically highly significant. McKitrick and Christy (2020) also showed that the bias is larger in high-ECS models, but even the models with lower average ECS predict too much warming. If future climate models were to realistically represent global tropospheric warming, they would likely be less sensitive than even the low-ECS members of the CMIP6 ensemble [page 35].”
“The atmosphere’s temperature profile is a case where models are not merely uncertain but also show a common warming bias relative to observations. This suggests that they misrepresent certain fundamental feedback processes [page 38].”
https://web.archive.org/web/20250729225230/https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/DOE_Critical_Review_of_Impacts_of_GHG_Emissions_on_the_US_Climate_July_2025.pdf
These claims are misleading and/or false. If models overestimated bulk tropospheric warming relative to surface warming, then this would imply a reduction in the negative lapse rate feedback. That would imply greater ECS, not lower ECS as the report suggests. Two report co-authors, Dr. Ross McKitrick and Dr. John Christy, implicitly noted this in their prior work. Moreover, page 36 the report mentions at least two papers that argued against lower ECS as an explanation for these bulk tropospheric warming trends (“Santer et al., 2017a, b“):
Re: “A straightforward test of a climate model’s validity is its ability to reproduce historical warming in response to known past changes in climate drivers such as greenhouse gases. Figure 5.2 is reproduced from Scaffeta (2023), that groups the latest-generation (CMIP6) climate models into low ECS (1.5 to 3.0 degrees C), medium ECS (3.0 to 4.5 degrees C) and high ECS (4.5 to 6.0 degrees C), and compares their post-1980 global average temperature simulation ranges to those of three surface temperature records and one satellite-based lower troposphere temperature data product. The leftmost column shows that the low-ECS models track the post-1980 historical warming record reasonably well, but the middle and right columns show that the medium- and high-ECS models conspicuously over-predict the warming [page 33].”
This is incorrect for several reasons. Figure 5.2 cherry-picks one especially small estimate of lower tropospheric warming from the UAH research team, instead of several other analyses showing greater warming. Nor is warming through 2024 included. The uncertainty range presented should also be two sigma instead of one sigma. Moreover, critiques of Dr. Scafetta’s prior work confirmed that multiple models with medium ECS were consistent with observed warming. This is especially clear when warming through 2024 is included:
Re: “In February 2022, NOAA issued its projections of sea level rise for various sites along the U.S. coast (Sweet et al., 2022). They claim that by 2050, the sea will have risen one foot at The Battery in Manhattan (relative to 2020). A one-foot rise in thirty years would be more than twice the current rate and about three times the average rate over the past century. In that historical context, NOAA’s projection is remarkable—as shown in Figure 7.6, it would require a dramatic acceleration beyond anything observed since the early 20th century. But even more noteworthy is that Sweet et al. (2022) say this rise is “locked in”—it will happen no matter what future emissions are. We should know in a decade or so whether that prediction has legs [page 80].”
This is an argument from personal incredulity, and provides no substantive analysis of the projected sea level rise trends. Figure 7.6 also omits sea level rise from recent years. The figure thus obscures recent sea level rise acceleration that differs from early 20th century trends. And the figure exaggerates how much of the projected sea level rise is ‘locked in’:
DOE Secretary Wright says “Like, I’ve spent twenty years studying climate science as physical data, and the people who were passionate about it never want to debate me because they don’t know anything about it” (excerpt from his conversation on the popular show “The Charlie Kirk Show).
.
https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-science-says-nothing-scientists-say-things-global-warming-does-not-have
.
So how about climate scientists and informed climate activists take him up on this? Agree to some ground rules and embrace the chance to go open some minds?! Go on Kirk, Bongino, Walsh, Hannity, Shapiro, Beck, Fox, etc etc. Let people who may only listen to these shows hear some intelligent, apolitical, discussion. Go where the audience is. What could it hurt?
What could it hurt? The problem is that the language of debate is much closer to the language of law than of science. Science is measured–both literally and figuratively. Scientists know a number means nothing unless it has an error range attached to it. Politicians and businessmen look upon any uncertainty as weakness.
And then there is the fact that when confronted with the facts, denialists simply lie–and unless the moderator is willing and able to call out those lies in real time, the audience will believe the audacious lies over the measured truth.
Scientific debate already takes place–between the covers of scientific journals. Wright is just another Dunning-Kruger businessman, but he would Gish gallop around the scientists on stage, because scientists must do science while denialists play Calvinball.
Debate is only illuminating when both sides are willing to stick to the truth.
So I’ve noticed, from the Gavin versus Mike Crichton debate onwards:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-origins-of-climateball-in-works-of.html
The main difference between , say Damian Carrington, Mike Mann and Ken Ham on one side ,and Steve Wright , Marc Morano and Steve Koonin on the other is that while one cohort stands up for Holy Writ largely written by its members,, the other has mortgages and 401k’s underwrittten by their sponsors to defend.
In Re to Russell Seitz, 21 Aug 2025 at 4:04 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-838095
Dear Russell,
Are all internationally recognized climate scientists already divided into teams playing the ClimateBall? Or is there still a majority (or at least a significant number) of those who do not participate in this game?
I appreciate enthusiasm, on the other hand, I am afraid that the actual “Holy Writ” in any science can be hardly ever complete – and that Holy Wars therefor can make the participants prone to think so.
Best regards
Tomáš
What Ray said.
We know how it goes from many decades of debate with creationists; how all the well known subterfuges apply.
These hyper-partisan days, I certainly think you can expect that the deck will be stacked by any outlets dedicated to spreading agitprop.
By the way, check out the critique by FAIR of the “Hannity and Colmes” show on Fox back in the day, and contrast it with reviews touting the “fair and balanced” line that people still fall for these today.
https://fair.org/home/an-aggressive-conservative-vs-a-quotliberal-to-be-determinedquot/
“ We know how it goes from many decades of debate with creationists; how all the well known subterfuges apply.>
As mentioned above, I once debated the notorious Kent Hovind on Internet. I wish I’d kept it online but I was writing a novel and looking for work at the time and I felt that once that was discovered I would not be considered. So I asked that it be taken down. Didn’t want that kind of legacy anyway as I’m not a combative person by nature.
Still he offered $250,000 to anyone who could show any evidence at all for evolution. And I did. The changes between the polar vs the brown bear is great evidence! And they can’t claim that they are two separate creations because both can still breed and produce fertile offspring. So positive change must have taken place! It should exactly qualify to their standards. But no. Nothing will.
Creationists are always changing the goalposts. These guys are slick and slippery. You cannot win with them. They know how to debate. Take classes in it called, “”Apologetics “. The scientist speaks in a boring, precise, unintelligible point by point way while the creationist bounces around and speaks generally. It’s not uncommon to stack the audiences with church members that will boo if the evolutionist says something not to their liking or understanding too.
This kind of debate was honed in the tobacco wars and now in global warming debates.
These guys are practiced debaters. Unless we get somebody charismatic too who knows the issues, forget it.
https://ncse.ngo/winning-creation-debate
Btw, Hovind still owes me $250,000 (and I could use it!) but I’m not holding my breath.
It’s been tried. Fake skeptic ability to obfuscate, interrupt, lie, and bully has shown it doesn’t work.
John Oliver did a fun one, 11 years ago (only 5 minutes, do watch):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg
LOL, well my suggestion landed with a thud! Thanks everyone for making time to offer your thoughts. I got a laugh out of the clever John Oliver clip on proportionate representation, thanks Susan for that.
Conservative-leaning shows and their audiences vastly outnumber neutral or left-leaning shows in the online media sphere, here’s numerical evidence (and a clever chart) from Media Matters: https://www.mediamatters.org/google/right-dominates-online-media-ecosystem-seeping-sports-comedy-and-other-supposedly
I know the concerns expressed about how debates would likely and have gone as well as reminders that there is a huge existing source of information available are valid. I also suggest that there is a significant number of Americans who largely ingest information via the online media universe. Of this population, I suggest there is a meaningful number open to at least learning more. I base this on my own attempts to informally gather comments locally on climate and environmental matters following the 2024 election.
In a world where every 0.1° rise matters, and every ton of anthropogenic CO2 not put into the atmosphere or that the oceans don’t have to absorb matters, then maybe we should rethink how to approach communicating.
Or maybe it’s because I’d delight at seeing an arrogant man like Sec. Wright and his “no one will debate me” claim be properly placed on the trash heap.
I think Ray Ladbury and Radge Havers are correct. In facts the situation is maybe even worse: most media “discussion”s nowadays are completely dominated by demagoguery in one form or another.
So we have to consider the consequenses of this. They will be that some form of climatic worst case scenario is going to happen, but what that implies is far from clear except for som basics like rising temperatures, more unpredictable extreme weather events like more of the coming (?) new category six of hurricanes https://m.youtube.com/shorts/1Nhr_ol7cjQ , more extreme supercells/tornadoes, more extreme heatwaves/heatdomes, extreme droughts and wildfires, extreme flooding events, mudslides etc. probabli all not slowly rising but in jumps, varying with extreme blizzards in winter, icestorms, cold snaps (SSW episodes) etc. The heating of our planet will be accompanied by more pandemics/epidemics etc.
But especially around the North Atlantic and in Europe things look very unpredictable further on, considering the rather wildly differing views on the future of the AMOC, even if most researchers seem to agree with this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gst8TSVnV-s&pp=0gcJCa0JAYcqIYzv .
However that may be, this will all lead to even more social destabilization and probably wars, democratic decline (like gerrymandering now in the US), oligarchic tyranny, outright fascism and ethnic cleansing (as now fx. in Gaza and the West Bank), rising food-prices, poverty etc., than we would otherwise have been experiencing.
At some point this development will inevitably lead to some kind of broad movements and uprisings: it will become clear after all that the deniers (I prefer “climate ignorants”) are dead wrong (trumpism is a clear sign that they are desperate. They already realize that they are wrong, they just gamble on flat out censorship, and that it will all not be so bad, because otherwise they understand that some big societal changes are inevitable. The worst denialists in fact are the “lukewarmers”, people like Harris/Clinton, Starmer, von der Leyen etc., because they really believe that “the market” is above the laws of nature).
Political change may happen sooner than we expect, remember that noone in 1988 expected the collapse of soviet stalinism in the autumn of 1989, not even in the summer of 1989 did most people foresee this. Unfortunately this will be so late, that enormous catastrophes are guaranteed nonetheless. But there is no other way.
TF nails it.
Thomas Fuller says
17 Aug 2025 at 6:03 AM
Actually, PPr is closer to the truth than BPL on this. The main reason you haven’t been successful is that you’re crap at communicating with the public.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-837757
Thomas Fuller says
18 Aug 2025 at 10:24 AM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-837862
He isn’t the first to tell this truth, and he won’t be the last to do so.
It’s easy in the U.S. to frame authoritarian danger as the domain of MAGA cult strongmen or censorious conservatives. But history shows that whenever systems are stressed, power tends to centralize across the spectrum and polarize. Fear, distrust, and urgency create conditions where even well-intentioned groups will justify suppressing dissent, enforcing purity, or breaking their own rules in the name of safety or justice. Think of recent controversies around the Twitter Files, RussiaGate, or the treatment of whistleblowers like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden.
Research on “left authoritarianism” suggests that dogmatism and intolerance can mirror those they oppose. Democrats and liberal movements globally are not immune to coercion and to strong-arming dissent.
The climate/energy crisis is a case in point. Left and right alike still rely on fossil fuels, subsidize high-consumption industries, prioritize corporate tax breaks (whether for oil and gas or EVs and renewables), support militarization, aviation, steelmaking, AI/crypto growth, and let financiers off the hook. Both gerrymander, interfere abroad, and embrace policies destructive to the biosphere. In practice, the differences are more tribal than structural.
As we move into what some call “The Great Simplification,” with a series of increasingly destructive, overlapping poly-crises—climate, energy, financial, geopolitical—the risk is that authoritarian policies become the default response. Under pressure, societies of every stripe tend to tighten control rather than loosen it. The challenge will be to resist that reflex by embedding pluralism, dissent, transparency, and distributed authority into our systems. The danger isn’t only the obvious autocrats, but the quieter seduction of righteous authoritarianism when it comes from “our side.”
Thomas says: “Research on “left authoritarianism” suggests that dogmatism and intolerance can mirror those they oppose. Democrats and liberal movements globally are not immune to coercion and to strong-arming dissent.”
Of course, this happens, but right now the Republicans are hugely more authoritarian and dictatorial than any Democrats administration in living memory. If you can’t see that, you are a fool or certainly acting like one. Its a clear and present danger. Right now America is literally running at warp speed into fascism.
Thomas says: “The climate/energy crisis is a case in point. Left and right alike still rely on fossil fuels, subsidize high-consumption industries, prioritize corporate tax breaks (whether for oil and gas or EVs
and renewables), support militarization, aviation, steelmaking, AI/crypto growth, and let financiers off the hook. Both gerrymander, interfere abroad, and embrace policies destructive to the biosphere. In practice, the differences are more tribal than structural.”
This is not an example of authoritarianism. It’s also partly false equivalence, because the Democrats have done more to reduce reliance on fossil fuels than the Republicans and generally have stronger environmental laws.
Yes the Democrats and Republicans both support capitalism, a strong military, aviation, and so on. So what? If you don’t like it whats your alternative? Or start your own political party, with its own values,
Thomas says: “As we move into what some call “The Great Simplification,” with a series of increasingly destructive, overlapping poly-crises—climate, energy, financial, geopolitical—the risk is that authoritarian policies become the default response. Under pressure, societies of every stripe tend to tighten control rather than loosen it. The challenge will be to resist that reflex by embedding pluralism, dissent, transparency, and distributed authority into our systems. The danger isn’t only the obvious autocrats, but the quieter seduction of righteous authoritarianism when it comes from “our side.”
This I can agree with.
With respect, Gavin, dismissing critics as “delusional” or “bullshitters” is not professional engagement. It may feel cathartic in the moment, but from a NASA scientist in a public-facing role it reads as personal ad hominem abuse rather than substance.
The long-term problem isn’t just disagreement on numbers or policy—it’s that this kind of rhetoric erodes public trust. If critics raising concerns about policy impacts or trade-offs are mocked instead of answered, the perception is that climate science has become a closed guild hostile to scrutiny and the public.
And to be clear, it’s all documented. If the only response to inconvenient questions is insult and ridicule, eventually those exchanges will attract attention beyond this comment section—including from oversight bodies. For the record, I don’t work for you, nor do you have any authority over me—or anyone else commenting here.
Thomas promotes politeness, yet he has used blunt language, ridicule, and copious insults sprinkled all through this website for months and months. He obviously uses multiple names (like Pietro Principle, Pedro Prieto, thessalonia etc,etc ). Just totally weakens his argument.
Personally I think civility is generally best, but there are justified exceptions when people need to be called out as acting like idiots.
Thomas says: “For the record, I don’t work for you, nor do you have any authority over me—or anyone else commenting here.”
Oh yes Gavin does have authority over you. He can set any moderation rules he wants, and refuse to publish your comments or ban you. If you can’t see this you must have a huge ego or some sort of deluded entitled thinking going on.
This website only lightly enforces its moderation rules, so no reason to complain its being unfair or heavy handed.,
Telling how you tone trolls never address the substance of what Dr. Schmidt says.
https://bsky.app/profile/climateofgavin.bsky.social/post/3lvkajk3css2b
In my mind, the most damning criticism of the critical review is its association with the regime that is actively trying to suppress data about the climate. If you really thought the mainstream of climate science were wrong, you would be pushing for as much new data as you could find, confident that it would counter that narrative and support your own.
Instead we see the denialist fringe cutting off access to data, halting the continued data taking for critical datasets and actively sabotaging climate observing current and future programs and tools (satellites, etc.). These are the actions of the “Don’t Look Up” crowd, not of true scientists. They know they are wrong and are simply trying to delay the rest of the world finding out definitively. Anyone associated with this effort has forfeited any right to call him-or herself a scientist.
Hear! Hear!
Exactly right
You are confusing politics with science here Ray. Are Christy, Curry, Koonin, McKitrick or Spencer pushing to cut access and acquisition of data?
Sorry, this question’s not really directed at me so forgive me for butting in but just to add my 2c worth, Ray said, In my mind, the most damning criticism of the critical review is its association with the regime that is actively trying to suppress data about the climate.
These people were appointed by the Mr. T administration were they not? And Mr. T is trying to undermine global warming debate and even destroy information collecting satellites is he not?
https://www.iflscience.com/this-is-illegal-nasa-reportedly-ordered-to-destroy-important-oco-satellite-80280
Anyway, an article cherry-picked for brevity, with some thoughts thrown in by me, but you can read the whole thing if you want.
Trump team readies more attacks on mainstream climate science
https://governorswindenergycoalition.org/trump-team-readies-more-attacks-on-mainstream-climate-science/
Steve Koonin, one of the report’s five main contributors, told POLITICO’s E&E News last week that the document likely is a precursor to a sustained assault on mainstream global warming research. Under discussion are plans to hold a public debate about climate science [hmm, science by public vote? Would evolution have survived a vote in Darwin’s day ?]. A key next step, Koonin said, is to expand the Trump administration’s team of climate contrarians beyond the five scientists who wrote the initial report. The document already has attracted hundreds of responses through the Federal Register, and Koonin said they need the reinforcements to push back against the criticism. “It can’t be five against the world,” said Koonin, a former chief scientist for BP.[British Petroleum – gee, I wonder who he represents?]We will have to enlist other scientists.”
That’s what happens when the world’s scientists accepts the science.
But that may be easier said than done — as there is only a small pool of credentialed researchers who back the claims of the DOE report…. But Koonin, a senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution, said that kind of pushback was expected — and in fact plays into a long-running plan to conduct a “red team vs. blue team” exercise for climate science.
This gives the public the false impression that it’s a one-on-one debate, when it’s more like another poster’s humorous percentage..
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg
“We’ll probably have public events here in D.C. this fall,” Wright said. “We want to have an honest dialogue with the American people about climate change.”
Again, science by who has the better debating skills.
Judith Curry, one of the other five authors of the DOE report, said she wants a debate — but also wants the chance to recast the National Climate Assessment and other government science reports by emphasizing uncertainty. She envisions a release of a new report infused with disagreements and disputes…. Hmmm, that certainly sounds objective!
If there is a climate debate, Koonin said he wants to structure it much like a 2014 event at New York University that pitted a team of climate scientists against some of the DOE report authors, including Curry and Christy
Again, science by public debate (and vote?) and failure show to the actual percentages of who believes what. I’m all for debate. But at least make it honest. And make the panel of refereeing judges eminent in the field, representative on the numbers and unbiased.
The public is smart. But they are also swayed by these kinds of dishonest debates. Will we ever grow up?
Next up, public debates on whether tobacco really causes cancer, and whether the moon shot was a hoax.
IOW, Which side has been doing the REAL censorship here?
However, PS, about the OP’s original contention that the debate has descended into rank vitriol (while their side has been rather acerbic itself). Yeah. I agree. I often find it hard to read these comments for all the unprofessional ,tribal, schoolyard vile bile and wish the discussion were more elevated.
But it’s also frustrating to read the same comments over and over and over again.
“who sups with the devil must use a long spoon”
comes to mind about a good few of these people, including especially Koonin and Judith Curry. I wonder if, when they threw in their lot with wealth and power instead of honest inquiry, they knew what a long and nasty road downwards it would become. Now they’re stuck, and for whatever reason, they are unable to back away from the precipice they’re bringing to all humanity on earth.
Keith Woollard, All I can say is that the silence from the Fabricating Five is deafening. It would seem to me that if they were confident that they were correct, they would be advocating for MORE DATA to prove they were right. I have never known people who actually want to understand a field to advocate for less data.
When science is under attack, there is no excuse for scientists remaining silent. It is all the more important for scientists who have an “in” with those in power to raise their voice.
In my mind, denialist “scientists” have been far to eager to distinguish between their scientific and political opinions. They trash their colleagues in rightwing-rag editorials and Congressional testimony, while feigning a semblance of moderation and collegiality in their publications. Famously, Richard Lindzen in the 2007 Intelligence Squared debate raised utter red herrings he knew to be false merely to persuade the lay audience. When a “scientist” presents different faces and different talking points to his colleagues and to the public–especially with a goal of misleading the latter–I would contend they forfeit the right to be considered serious scientists.
Right now, there are two teams. One team is trying to find the truth. The other is pushing ever greater lies and suppressing the information needed to disprove those lies. Time to pick a team. The era of cheap grace is over.
“You are confusing politics with science here Ray.” – Keith Woollard
No Keith, Ray is not confused. In addition to Ray’s lucid reply, I’d, as a lay person, also suggest that it is in fact the foolish quintet who willingly decided their respective politics and associated beliefs outweigh their individual and collective responsibilities as scientists as evidenced by how this has all been done.
They knew how this document was going to be used by an administration that is crystal-clear about it’s intentions to gut future scientific climatic work. And they know Trump’s minions are working to hide, alter, destroy previously collected data/reports, and even planning to purposefully destroy functioning satellites that provide climate data. Oh, and don’t forget ‘the five’ know government scientists (those who haven’t been kicked to the curb) are even in certain cases being prevented from attending various international conferences.
Knowing all this, they have decided political ideology is more pertinent and they have behaved like it. Not my idea of what “gold-standard scientific practices” means.
Unfortunately, many of those involved in the production of ‘ Don’t Look Up” , and the climate wars at large, recall their counterparts in Network and Idiocracy as well.
It’s not too late to petition Tom Stoppard and Whit Stillman to draft screenplays critically reviewing this affair.
Thank you. Brilliantly stated.
AS Says about Greening: So not only is there more than one paper showing this, but the papers are well-known enough that people can independently stumble across different papers showing this same conclusion.
Sing the purveyors of “good news” – this is a good thing to them? The earth greening in decline. A win!!! For a debate only.
But is it credible consensus “climate science”? Did the CMIP models predict it to be happening now? Because they cannot accurately predict anything else I have seen yet. And Michael Mann still says unless Papers have had the stamp of the IPCC or NAS none of those Papers are acceptable as agreed Climate Science Consensus. IOW they are meaningless of no value at all.
quote: “IPCC represents the consensus. Individual articles don’t. Until there’s a major assessment (NAS or IPCC) saying otherwise, the claim of ………….”
https://nitter.poast.org/MichaelEMann/status/1673511877790388225#m
What a total effing cynical bore of a comment..
jgnfld says
23 Aug 2025 at 11:47 AM
I prefer “consensus of the qualified” personally.
and
Deniers deny this, of course.
Climate scientists and John G are NOT Qualified to judge nor decide EPA Endangerment Findings nor GHG Regulations.
NOR ARE>
interactive from CarbonBrief based on direct input from scientists
complementary effort from a group led by Andrew Dessler
the DOE is being sued by EDF and UCS on procedural grounds
multiple threads on Bluesky, or on blogs that address more specific points – for instance, Zeke Hausfather
the National Academies are setting up a fast track assessment process
NOT EVEN
the “Climate Working Group” (CWG) of usual suspects (Christy, Curry, Koonin, McKitrick, Spencer, 2025) at DOE
THEY DO NOT EVEN TRY TO PROFFER A OPINION
But every other climate scientist, Gavin and RC are born know it alls — only climate science data counts — nothing else.
Have you considered publishing your views as the Critical Review authors do?
Steve Koonin scored a right and a left by limiting his self-citation in the DOE review to his Dallas-published 2020 book, Unsettled, in lieu of his peer reviewed journal publications.
You can elegantly avoid skeptical or unsympathetic peer review by recourse to the SIPPI Bulletin, Energy & Environment, The Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the European Physical Journal, Epoch Times andthe scores of quality pay-for-play scientific publishers that compete for new ideas from old AI’s with Tuck Carlson and The American Thinker ?
Th: every other climate scientist, Gavin and RC are born know it alls
BPL: You really resent people with more education than you. Sorry, but if you want to be taken as an authority on climate science, you need the requisite courses, and one or more papers based on research you’ve done. (Hint: “research” does not mean watching Youtube videos.)
The deniers held for the looogest time that the earth was NOT warming at all. I remember reading magazine articles decades ago that any idea of it warming was a complete lie.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
Mr T says it’s a Chinese hoax. Whatever.
Now they acknowledge that it is warning, but it’s anything other than our benching of 1,580 billion tonnes of FF into the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=percentage
Carbon seems to me the sticking point here. If it was any other gas that the industry puts out that causes global harm they’d claim that it has had nothing at all to do with anything bad because, well, that’s what their paid to say, right?
My suggestion (again fwiw): I know it’s all been said ad nauseum in bits and pieces here and there before but why not make one big argument about why climate scientists believe that carbon is the culprit? Graphs, pictures, arguments and names of those believing so?
The other side is already readying their defenses, marshaling their troops, complete with seeming contradictions and statements out of context (they love that). Ok, it’s coming. Welcome it. But then, as a society, can we finally agree to let the debate go?
Sun Tzu
Beyond employing the same cast of characters , the administration’s efforts to upgrade the Critical Review from a P-R potboilers to an advertising classic is hobbled by its similarity in both structure and substance to the last great effort of energy lobbyists to outflank reality, the truly egregious report of the self-styled Non Governmental Panel On Climate Change.
Both have Oil Patch , Tar Sand , Frakking & North Sea roots as deep as their scientific content is shallow, and share the same protocol of hasty writing and limited citation. While the 2012 NIPCC report amounted to more of a self parody than an attempt to realize a scientific revolution, there was a concerted effort to promote it globally by riding the coattails of academies abroad,
This did not pass un-noticed :
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2013/06/nipcc-in-china.html
“It is almost a user’s guide on how to lie with figures.” – Jennifer Marlon, director of data science at the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication
From AP News story out today:
“Scientists give harsh grades to Trump administration work aimed at undoing a key climate finding”
By Seth Borenstein and Michael Phillis
https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-epa-trump-science-endangerment-46e0519fac313ba635814b40ef638721
Gotta relish this little tidbit (one of several) from the story:
“When discussing sea ice, the Trump reports refer to the wrong part of the world. ‘Arctic sea ice extent has declined by about 5% since 1980,’ the Energy Department report said. But the report linked to a National Snow and Ice Data Center chart for the Southern Hemisphere, which means Antarctica. Antarctic sea ice has in fact declined about 5% in that time, but Arctic sea ice shrank by more than 40%.”
Our tax dollars at work by the DOE to bring forth this abortion of scientific practice under the guise of “a more thoughtful and science-based conversation.” Shame on “the five,” history can not be harsh enough in its judgement of how you decided to go about this and the result. And shame on Trump, who spits on science while claiming his administration “is producing Gold Standard Science research driven by verifiable data.”
David, thanks
I love all this, indeed. Realclimate group posts a link to the AMS “rebuttal” to the DOE statement. In the AMS document after all the handwaving about lack of depth and breadth, etc, etc, etc, it states under footnote number 1, “Point-by-point rebuttals of specific evidence and conclusions also have value but are beyond the scope of this document (and are available from and being prepared by other climate scientists”.
Ok, I’m going to go out on a branch here and assume that the “point by point rebuttals” are the “carbon brief interactive” and whatever Andrew Dessler is putting together.
I haven’t seen Andrew’s yet, but the carbon brief rebuttal lost me at #1: “Elevated concentrations of CO2 directly enhance plant growth, globally contributing to “greening” the planet and increasing agricultural productivity.” Carbon Brief called this “misleading”. Oh, really? That is a misleading statement? Certainly Dr. David Lobell, of Stanford could explain it better! Don’t hold your breath! Instead, Dr. Lobell states that the net effects of CO2 are more likely going to be negative than net positive (in the future, of course!). And then! the supporting scientific reference, of which there is exactly, (drum-roll) ONE reference!
I read it! Ainsworth, et al 2020. It states that basically CO2 has greened the planet and increased crop yields. We already know that Dr. Lobell! Glad to have it backed up scientifically! But–no mention of any “negative” effects of CO2 anywhere to be seen! (either now or in the future) Certainly Dr Lobell has other vast multitudes of studies showing net negative effects of CO2! Right?
So THIS is the “point by point rebuttals of specific evidence and conclusions” that AMS was talking about? If so, the entire climate science community is in trouble!! And I mean really, really big trouble!
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-stopped-getting-greener-20-years-ago/
Hi Barton,
Unfortunately, you used a science article and not the original peer-reviewed paper. I have reviewed the original. Indeed, it does state that global browning has increased since the 1980’s. However, this study is older (2019) and relied on a system (GIMMS3G) that was prone to sensor drift and spurious data. It has been superseded by a much more accurate system (MODIS) which has indeed revealed that global greening has increased, not decreased, and the conclusions of your reference are incorrect. Please see only a few of my newer references (more if you’d like!):
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9b87c3rc
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-01992-0
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024GEcoC..4902791C/abstract
This is probably why Dr. Lobell doesn’t dispute that the earth is greening, because the research supports it. My point is that the only reference Lobell refers to is a study that shows that zinc, iron, nitrogen, and protein are decreased marginally under increased CO2 scenarios. There is no evidence in the literature that these “deficiencies” are showing up in the real world. In fact, iron deficiency anemia prevalence is declining, as is protein malnutrition deaths. No trend in zinc deficiencies.
Please see just a few of my references:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10465717/
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/basis-for-changes-in-the-disease-burden-estimates-related-to-vitamin-a-and-zinc-deficiencies-in-the-2017-and-2019-global-burden-of-disease-studies
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37924634/
I must retain my original premise that the climate science community is in deep, deep trouble. Sorry.
Scott, What is misleading is the CR blanket statement that CO2 results in “greening”. The conclusions of Ainsworth et al. 2020. Some plants do show higher yields (particularly legumes), but only when other constraints are absent. No effect was seen on C4 plants. Even where there was increased yield, nutritional quality was reduced and enhanced yield was substantially less than predicted based on naive analyses.
As to the negative effects of CO2–increased temperature results in higher transpiration and water loss. If it also causes drought–as seems to be the case in much of the world–this can result in effects that swamp any benefit from CO2.
Probably the most optimistic finding of Ainsworth 2020 was that different strains responded differently, holding out the hope for adaptation.
Why do denialists always insist on reducing complex scientific phenomena to a single talking point?
Hi Ray,
I love the “denialist” accusation. Ad hominem verbiage is the first clue that you are losing the debate. But it is not unexpected. Please see my reply to Barton. None of the alleged nutrient deficiencies found in plants grown in higher CO2 conditions have been validated at the population level. In fact, we are living in the arguably the best time to live in earth’s long history. Why do you want to try to make it not so? And if so, what time and what CO2 level in earth’s past would you want to go back to? Are you absolutely sure that it will be a net positive by doing so?
PS. I’m not making the issue of CO2 on plant growth my single issue. It just happened to be item number one on Carbon Brief’s rebuttal by stating it was “misinformation” without actually having the data to back up their argument. Again, as I’ve said before, if this is all the climate science community has, then they are in big, big, trouble.
You claimed that Ainsworth 2020 supported your claims. I showed that it does not. Now you move the goalposts and make yet another Cornucopian claim.. And yes, the Critical Review claim is misleading and not supported by the very article they cited to support it. I am not interested in games of Whack-a-mole or score-through0-the-moving goalposts. I am interested in whether the so-called review is making an honest attempt to understand the science or whether it is merely yet another denialist PR job that would make Goebbels blush.
I will say that I do not know of a single biologist that supports your Panglossian interpretation of where we are today in terms of the health of the biosphere and of agriculture. And as I am a physicist and not a biologist, I will go with the consensus of the agricultural and biological scientists rather than some random foodtube on the Internet.
Your claim was that the critiques of the critical review were unfounded. I showed as with the critique, your preferred reference did not support your contentions. That is sufficient for me to get an idea of your credibility as well as that of the Fabricating Five.
Re: “Why do denialists always insist on reducing complex scientific phenomena to a single talking point?”
Because the denialist was trolling in bad faith. Hence why they misrepresented Dr. David Lobell’s response. Dr. Lobell’s response is here:
So Dr. Lobell pointed out that the CWG used an unreliable source that does not match what’s shown in Ainsworth & Long (2021) [ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.15375 ]. Dr. Lobell also noted that the CWG didn’t show whether the direct effect of increased CO2 was greater than the indirect harm from CO2-induced climate change. The denialist will just willfully disregard those negative effects.
Further discussion elsewhere:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-838485
Keith Woollard said:
“I don’t see anywhere on this dataset the decline arc that you have nailed”
https://peako ilbarrel.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/791617-1.jpg
From this thread https://peako ilbarrel.com/us-may-oil-production-hits-new-high-again/#comment-791606
My co-author and I enjoyed this one, because there are many cornucopians such as yourself that believe in strange things.
We also nailed that the world-wide crude oil production peak was before 2020. So keep on believing in unicorns.
(sorry that I broke up the URL, but RealClimate does not like anyone discussing PO)
So yes Paul, you are just doing decline curve modelling on individual plays.
Keiyth Woollard said:
“So yes Paul, you are just doing decline curve modelling on individual plays.”
It’s a statistical convolution-based approach, estimating the time-series output based on total given resources, If you are saying it is “just doing” something, please give a citation to that source, because it appears that you are just bluffing in an attempt to marginalize the significance of our prediction. We published our innovative approach, not to be found anywhere else in the research literature,
Most people believe whatever TPTB say, especially in matters of oil production. So when Trump says we “just need” to drill, baby, drill to get new oil, about 1/2 the population knee-jerk believe that.
You said you were from Australia, so tell me what the crude oil reserves in Australia are? I know Oz has lots of coal reserves, but it’s mainly the brown dirty lignite coal that only desperate societies will use.
Paul,
I don’t care what arithmetic you use to do you decline curve modelling. The key is that you are JUST doing decline curve modelling. This methodology does not take into account new plays, frontier areas and new exploration methods. Take, for example,full waveform inversion. We have understood the maths behind this for a long time, but it is only realistically been feasible now with the very large compute ability. And we are finding the understanding it brings to the subsurface is far beyond what we ever though possible, even using 30 year old data. I am not going to predict numbers, but there is a very good chance we will find very significant fields in quite mature basins. Imagine how your decline curves would look if you suddenly had twice the initial reserves.
I don’t really know what Australia’s crude reserves have to do with anything, nor coal. Australia has never had major oil production, we were close to self sufficient until a decade or two back, but we are only small. We are a large LNG exporter. And coal????? yes we do have a lot of brown coal, but it isn’t exported, not even to neighbouring states. It’s mined, transported via conveyor belt and burnt in one small area of one small state. Australia is the second largest exporter of black coal – but so what.
And to save Thomas correcting you, no it does not include ethanol and biofuels. I’ve never really investigated, but I don’t believe liquefied and compressed coal is a significant volume.
And incidentally, that whole blue section of the cartoon image you sent to Thomas is a “new play” that would never have been in pre-2000 decline curve modelling
Keith Woollard lies when he says this about his Australia:
This is all BS that Keith spews. The numbers are all available. Australia is the number ONE exporter of coal in the world at 34.9%. Indonesia is #2 at 19%.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/544848/distribution-of-thermal-coal-exporting-countries-worldwide
Nothing else he says above is remotely based on fact, it’s all based on his cornucopian fantasies and promoting FUD. BTW, our book Mathematical Geoenergy has several chapters on inferring oil reserves based on statistical trends.
We all have to be careful about commenters form Australia when it comes to climate science skepticism. I recall years ago when I wrote a post called Climate Clowns, based on commenters at Judith Curry’s blog. Here it is, written in 2013:
http://tinyurl.com/ClimateClowns
As I prominently mention, so many of the commenters are Aussies. In retrospect, most of these commenters described were also insane, and the post describes the amount of sockpuppetry going on.
Plus Aussies have an advantage when it comes to commenting at un-moderated USA blogs — they can flood comments during their working day, while everyone else is sleeping. Curry never figured that one out, and so her blog turned into a wasteland of slop, which it continues to be.
I wouldn’t doubt that the Australian coal industry and the native Larrikin streak has kept the Aussies motivated to continue to generate the FUD over the years.
Keith is correct, Paul, in the nearby all ad hominem attack on persons and not the concept, is wrong.
“Australia does not export its brown coal because it has a high moisture content, making it uneconomical for long-distance transport and export markets. Instead, Australia’s brown coal is used solely for domestic power generation in the regions where it is mined, particularly in Victoria. Australia’s coal exports consist of black coal (thermal and metallurgical coal) which is a higher quality, drier coal suitable for power stations and steel mills.”
Keith Woollard lied again:
Yet, it’s the largest exporter of coal, which means it exports a greater variety of coal grades, particularly lower grades. It couldn’t be #1 without overtaking the erstwhile top producer.
The “so what” response is telling — someone desperately trying to marginalize the impact that Australia has on global coal CO2 emissions. It’s a country with a low population density, so they can maintain a higher standard of living from the excess coal that they will never use.
in Re to Paul Pukite, 2 Sep 2025 at 5:43 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-838718
and 2 Sep 2025 at 10:27 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-838758
Dear Mr. Pukite,
Being alerted by Dan Hughes,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-838735
and in possession of a knowledge that in eighties of the 20th century, Czechoslovakia burned the prevailing part of its almost 100 million tons brown coal annual production in power plants located nearby to the respective open-cast mines, while part of its about 25 million tons black coal annual production was exported (partly as coke),
I decided to check if your accusations (that Mr. Woollard is lying) have any substance. The results of my two Perplexity searches are attached for your convenience below.
It appears that Mr. Woollard was correct. I think that you owe him an honest apology.
Best regards
Tomáš Kalisz
—————
Q1:
Can you find data about amounts of Australia coal exports, ideally for last 10 years? It would be also helpful if the data included also the share of various coal quality grades (e.g., black coal, brown coal, lignite) on the respective sum.
A1:
Australia’s coal exports over the last 10 years have been significant, with a dominant share in the global coal export market. The exported coal mainly comprises black coal (bituminous coal) used both for thermal power generation and metallurgical purposes, while brown coal (lignite) is predominantly used domestically.
Key points and data about Australia’s coal exports and quality grades over recent years:
• Australia ranks as the second largest coal exporter globally, with around 26% of the world’s coal exports, exporting approximately 389 Mt out of a total 1,213 Mt global exports in 2016.
• The major export share consists of black coal, which splits into two primary types: thermal coal (used for power generation) and metallurgical coal (coking coal, for steelmaking).
• In 2021-2022, about 55% of Australia’s coal exports were thermal coal while the remainder was metallurgical coal.
• Black coal exports were valued at about $63.9 billion in 2019, with total coal export earnings reaching $112 billion in the 2021-22 financial year.
• Brown coal is mined mainly in Victoria and South Australia for domestic power generation and has negligible export value.
• Export destinations include countries in Asia such as Japan, India, Korea, Taiwan, and the European Union.
• Specific export tonnages in 2018 roughly were: 178.8 Mt coking coal, 207.7 Mt steaming coal (thermal black coal), totaling 386.5 Mt coal exports.
• Australia’s coal export volumes have shown some fluctuations with a peak projected in thermal coal exports around 2024-2025, followed by a potential decline due to global market changes.
• Quality-wise, Australian thermal coal generally has higher rank, energy content, and lower impurities compared to competing coals, offering environmental and efficiency benefits in combustion.
This information shows a clear predominance of black coal (both thermal and metallurgical) in Australia’s coal export portfolio, with brown coal being mostly used domestically. The value and tonnage of exports have risen significantly in the past decade, with detailed data available for specific years and coal grades.
Sources:[1][2][3][4][5][6]
⁂
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_Australia
2. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1120570/australia-export-value-of-coal/
3. https://ieefa.org/resources/australian-coal-exports-face-numerous-downside-risks-new-projections-show
4. https://minerals.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Best-in-Class-Australian-Export-Thermal-Coal-2021.pdf
5. https://www.ga.gov.au/aecr2024/coal
6. https://crawford.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/2025-03/1811_0.pdf
7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629625001288
8. https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/exports-of-coal-coke-briquettes
9. https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/australia/coal-production
10. https://www.ga.gov.au/digital-publication/aecr2023/coal
Q2:
How did black coal versus brown coal export shares change year to year?
A2.
The export shares of black coal versus brown coal in Australia have shown a strong dominance by black coal with brown coal exports remaining negligible or near zero throughout recent years. Here’s a year-to-year understanding based on available data:
• Black coal accounts for around 90% of Australia’s coal energy production exports. This includes both thermal (power generation) coal and metallurgical (steel production) coal.
• Brown coal (lignite) is primarily used domestically in Victoria’s power stations and has minimal export volume and income, essentially close to zero export income.
• Over the last decade, the export volume of black coal has gradually increased, with notable export income growth. For example, black coal export earnings were $39.2 billion in 2020-21 and sharply rose to $113.8 billion in 2021-22.
• Brown coal export income has remained at $0 billion, as brown coal is not exported but used locally.
• The overall coal export volume is dominated almost entirely by black coal, with thermal and metallurgical coal combined making up nearly 100% of the export market.
• Yearly production data show black coal production around 457 PJ in 2022, with brown coal about 416 PJ mostly consumed domestically.
• Export restrictions or market demand changes, such as those seen in 2021-22 due to Chinese bans on Australian coal imports, affected black coal exports but not brown coal exports since brown coal is not part of exports.
Thus, black coal’s share in export markets has remained dominant and stable near 100%, while brown coal export share is essentially zero year-to-year in Australia.
Sources:[1][2][3][4][5]
⁂
1. https://www.ga.gov.au/aecr2024/coal
2. https://thecoalhub.com/report-presentation/australian-coal-production-rebounds-as-exports-surge-amid-global-demand
3. https://www.ga.gov.au/digital-publication/aecr2023/coal
4. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/publications/towards-a-just-transition-from-coal-in-australia/
5. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1120570/australia-export-value-of-coal/
6. https://whitehavencoal.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/coal-hard-facts-minerals-council-australia.pdf
7. https://minerals.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Best-in-Class-Australian-Export-Thermal-Coal-2021.pdf
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_Australia
9. https://www.pimsgroup.com.au/news/coal-mining-in-australia
So desperate to do a gotcha! I won’t apologize to anyone. Recall that Keith Woollard said:
Australia is number one in value of total coal exports and more importantly number one in exports of embedded CO2 emissions derived from coal. I mentioned *reserves* before Keith started his gotcha tirade, and it’s well known that coal reserves follows the energy pyramid of Lignite > Bituminous > Anthracite in volume. But in energy density, it’s the reverse. So Australia decides to export the higher quality first, but has plenty of lignite and sub-bituminous coal in reserve when things start to become desperate.
Australia is a big continent and can do plenty of damage to the atmospheric CO2 ratchet when all is said and done. The situation is that aussie Keith is privately ashamed of this fact and that’s why he started on his gotcha tirade. Invoke lame inane arguments to try to hide this reality..
Paul Pukite (@whut) (at 3 Sep 2025 at 5:35 PM): – “Australia is number one in value of total coal exports and more importantly number one in exports of embedded CO2 emissions derived from coal.”
Evidence/data suggest something different.
Per the Energy Institute’s Statistical Review of World Energy 2025, on page 49:
https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review
Per the Australian Government Office of Chief Economist’s Resources and Energy Quarterly, June 2025, from page 33, in year-2024:
* Australia exported 153 million tonnes of metallurgical coal;
* Australia was the world’s number one metallurgical coal exporter;
* Australia exported over 95% of metallurgical coal produced.
From page 34:
Top-5 exporters of metallurgical coal:
* Australia (46% global share)
* Mongolia (14%)
* USA, Russian Federation (12% each);
* Canada (9%).
Top-5 importers of metallurgical coal:
* China (32% global share);
* India (20%);
* Japan (12%);
* South Korea (11%);
* EU28 (10%).
From page 41, in year-2024:
* Australia was the world’s number two thermal coal exporter;
* Australia’s biggest thermal coal export markets are China & Japan;
* Australia exported about 80% of thermal coal produced.
From page 42:
Top-5 exporters of thermal coal:
* Indonesia (48% global share);
* Australia (19%);
* Russia (14%);
* South Africa (6%);
* Colombia (4%).
Top-5 importers of thermal coal:
* China (32% global share);
* India (16%);
* Japan 11%):
* South Korea (8%);
* Taiwan (5%).
Figure 5.3 shows global exports for years-2020-23, 2024 estimate, 2026-27 forecast:
* Indonesia 500+ million tonnes;
* Australia circa 200 million tonnes;
* Russia circa 180-120 million tonnes;
* South Africa circa 75 million tonnes;
* Colombia circa 50 million tonnes;
* USA under 50 million tonnes.
https://www.industry.gov.au/publications/resources-and-energy-quarterly-june-2025
Paul Pukite (@whut) (at 3 Sep 2025 at 5:35 PM): – “So Australia decides to export the higher quality first, but has plenty of lignite and sub-bituminous coal in reserve when things start to become desperate.”
Indeed, as at 2022, Australia had:
Black coal Economic Demonstrated Resources (EDR) at 1,871,757 PJ
Brown coal Economic Demonstrated Resources (EDR) at 730,660 PJ
https://www.ga.gov.au/aecr2024/coal#:~:text=Production-,Production,coal%20imports%20(Figure%204.5).
Paul Pukite (@whut) (at 3 Sep 2025 at 5:35 PM): – “Australia is a big continent and can do plenty of damage to the atmospheric CO2 ratchet when all is said and done.”
I agree. Australia’s contribution to global CO₂ emissions is significantly amplified by its fossil fuel exports, with these exports responsible for approximately 4.5% of global fossil CO₂ emissions, and around 80% of that total coming from the exported coal and fossil methane gas itself. This means the emissions burned overseas from Australian fossil fuel exports are nearly three times larger than Australia’s domestic emissions, making its overall global fossil fuel carbon footprint far greater than its national one.
https://climateanalytics.org/publications/australias-global-fossil-fuel-carbon-footprint
Burning more fossil fuels is ‘civilisation suicide’! I’d suggest Australia is a significant contributor to facilitating civilisation collapse well before the end of this century.
I was going to ignore all this rubbish Paul, but you keep going on and adding more.
When you first mentioned Australia I just thought it was odd, we were talking about people predicting the future, in particular global oil. So to mention Australia seemed irrelevant as I had already dismissed your simplistic modelling as it was spatially restricted. But then you mention coal in Australia – even odder. Your next comment made your intentions obvious. You are clearly a countryist, you hate Australians, and apparently dislike the world being an oblate spheroid as it gives us the advantage of being on a different time zone to you.
The reason I add the “so what” is because it is absolutely irrelevant to any preceding discussion.
But you just keep on saying stupid things. Read this sentence back to yourself and try and work out how you could even have typed it ….
“Yet, it’s the largest exporter of coal, which means it exports a greater variety of coal grades”
If that’s your level of logic there is no point discussing anything further
You have had a number of people point out your obvious errors, I know Tomáš’ is likely just an AI summary, but mostly it is close to the truth. I don’t expect you to admit you were wrong, but just stop talking about coal, and Australia.
in Re to Paul Pukite, 3 Sep 2025 at 5:35 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-838825
Dear Paul,
You are right that Mr. Woollard incorrectly assigned Australia as the second largest coal exporter, while it actually is the first one.
On the other hand, you asserted that Australia exports lot of brown coal:
“Yet, it’s the largest exporter of coal, which means it exports a greater variety of coal grades, particularly lower grades.”
That is, in the light of publicly available information, incorrect as well.
When I checked your assertion regarding geological reserves, my searches revealed that as regards mass, the amount of low-grade reserves in Australia is roughly equal to black coal reserves. You are right that as regards available energy, Australian black coal reserves strongly prevail over low-grade coal.
Nevertheless, it appears that worldwide, black coal geological reserves may prevail over lower-grade coal even in their tonnage.
Therefore, it appears that your assertion
“..it’s well known that coal reserves follows the energy pyramid of Lignite > Bituminous > Anthracite in volume”
may be false, too.
Please note in this respect that if you call Mr. Woollard “liar” because he erroneously put Australia on the second place in the world coal export ranking, others could rightly say the same about you, due to very comparable mistakes and inaccuracies on your side.
Below, I attach the results of my additional Perplexity search for your convenience.
Best regards
Tomáš
—
Q1:
Show continental percentages of low‑rank versus high‑rank coal
A1:
Here is a summary of continental percentages of low-rank versus high-rank coal based on global distributions and coal production characteristics:
Definitions:
• Low-rank coal includes lignite and sub-bituminous coal. These coals have lower carbon content (approx. 25% to 45%) and lower energy density.
• High-rank coal includes bituminous and anthracite coals, with higher carbon content (45% to 97%) and higher energy density.
Continental Breakdown (approximate percentages):
Continent Low-Rank Coal (%) High-Rank Coal (%) Remarks
North America ~44% (mostly sub-bituminous and lignite) ~56% (mostly bituminous and anthracite) USA produces about 44% sub-bituminous coal, significant bituminous too.
Europe High share (~50-60%) Lower (~40-50%) Large brown coal (lignite) deposits in Germany, Poland, Greece.
Australia ~50% lignite + sub-bituminous ~50% bituminous (black coal) Large lignite basins in Victoria, black coal in Queensland, NSW.
Asia Variable, overall lower share Higher share in hard coals China and India dominate with older high-rank coals; SE Asia more low-rank.
Russia ~60% low-rank ~40% high-rank Large subbituminous and lignite reserves.
Africa Lower (~20-30%) Higher (~70-80%) Predominantly high-rank coal, especially South Africa.
Key Points:
• North America’s coal production includes a large share of low-rank coals mostly from western states.
• Europe and Australia stand out for substantial low-rank coal shares due to extensive lignite deposits.
• Asia and Africa generally have dominantly high-rank coals, though Asia has growing low-rank coal mining regions.
• Russia has very large low-rank coal reserves, contributing to its majority low-rank share.
This pattern aligns with geological histories of coal formation and present economic utilization of coal types by region.
Sources:[1][2][3][4]
⁂
1. https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/Coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/coal
2. https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-are-types-coal
3. http://www.undergroundcoal.com.au/outburst/rank.aspx
4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/materials-science/low-rank-coal
5. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.0c02569
6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166516213001912
—
Q2:
Filter continental shares to commercial vs. geological reserves
A2.
Commercial coal reserves refer to quantities of coal that are economically recoverable with current technologies and market conditions, while geological coal reserves include the total known quantity of coal in the ground regardless of economic feasibility.
Applying this distinction to continental shares of low-rank versus high-rank coal:
• Geological reserves represent the full in-ground volumes including subeconomic coal seams — typically this shows higher volumes of low-rank coal (lignite, subbituminous) across all continents because such coals tend to occur in large, widespread deposits that are not always commercially viable.
• Commercial reserves filter these geological amounts by recoverability and economic factors, usually resulting in a relative decrease in low-rank coal share, since lower energy content and handling challenges reduce economic viability.
Continental Share Differences by Reserve Type (Approximate summary):
Continent Geological Low-Rank Coal Share Commercial Low-Rank Coal Share Explanation
Europe High (~55-65%) Moderately high (~40-50%) Large lignite resources, but some subeconomic deposits
Australia High (~50%) Moderate (~40-50%) Large brown coal geology, commercial limited by exportability
North America High (~45-55%) Moderate (~30-40%) Western lignite basins include subeconomic volumes
Asia Medium (~30-40%) Lower (~20-30%) Economic viability more focused on hard coal
Russia Very High (~60-70%) Medium (~40-50%) Large vast geological low-rank deposits, partial economic extraction
Africa Low (~20-30%) Low (~15-25%) Mostly higher rank coal reserves, fewer low-rank geological deposits
Explanation
• Geological coal stocks measure total in-ground quantities without economic filters, thus low-rank coal shares are larger here across continents.
• Commercial reserves represent economically extractable coal, reducing lower value low-rank coal shares somewhat as economic constraints limit recoverability and market worth.
• The filters include mining costs, coal quality parameters, infrastructure availability, and market demand that reduces economically recoverable low-rank coal vs. its geological presence.
This commercial versus geological distinction is crucial when interpreting reserve statistics to understand actual extractable coal versus total geological occurrences.
Sources: Analysis based on resource classification concepts and continental coal geology[1][2]
⁂
1. https://explorer.aapg.org/story/articleid/63435/the-true-potential-of-oil-and-gas-exploration-a-commercial-view
2. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.3c03088
3. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2002/07/17/02-17879/prospecting-for-minerals-other-than-oil-gas-and-sulphur-on-the-outer-continental-shelf
4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169555X23001496
5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S036054421000513X
6. https://research.utwente.nl/files/472085315/3-s2.0-B9780443132209000421-main.pdf
7. https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/16/2165/2024/
8. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005GB002515
9. https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1370/pdf/circ1370.pdf
10. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/rge.12323
I don’t hate Australia, but I don’t like climate change deniers from Australia.
The fact is that Australia has been ranked last among 60 countries on climate change policy in the annual Climate Change Performance Index report. That happened in 2019, when it received a 0.0 rating — https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/cause-for-great-concern-australia-ranked-last-in-global-assessment-on-climate-action/u16zv62lr
Australia ranks 1st in exports of equivalent CO2 emissions from its dirty coal extraction. And as Keith Woollard stated ” yes we do have a lot of brown coal”
That explains why they don’t have a good ranking –they prefer to make money. Keith Woollard comments here because he is an apologist for the Australian coal industry.
Tomáš Kalisz (at 5 Sep 2025 at 4:13 PM): – “You are right that Mr. Woollard incorrectly assigned Australia as the second largest coal exporter, while it actually is the first one.”
Incorrect. In year-2024, Australia was the world’s second largest coal (i.e. metallurgical + thermal) exporter.
Australia was the world’s number one metallurgical coal exporter in year-2024;
Australia was the world’s number two thermal coal exporter in year-2024
See my earlier comment at:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-838875
Per the Energy Institute’s Statistical Review of World Energy 2025, on page 49, Coal Inter-area movements 2024 (Exajoules):
#1 Indonesia: _ _ _ _ _ _ 10.72
#2 Australia: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 9.07
#3 Russian Federation: _ 4.81
#4 USA: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2.64
#5 Mongolia: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2.27
https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review
“Australia is the world’s third-largest exporter of CO2 in fossil fuels, report finds”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-08-19/australia-co2-exports-third-highest-worldwide/11420654
As it turns out, recently Australia has been exporting more LNG so that it often is #1 or #2 exporter of CO2 when LNG exports spike. See this: “Australia overtakes Qatar as world’s largest gas exporter”
https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/australia-worlds-largest-gas-exporter/
The substance of this disagreement seems similar to one I had as a student in the early 1970s with a petroleum geology major. I was very concerned with the statements of some environmentalists at the time that we only had something like 30 years of proven oil reserves left. He scoffed, and said that more reserves would be uncovered as soon as the oil price rose. He was certainly correct in that. I was more correct that there would be a major economic disruption (that came to be known as the energy crisis).
In the present context, I would expect a lot more oil reserves to appear as the price rises. But the price will rise only if the demand for oil is sufficiently inelastic that electric vehicles don’t replace a lot of oil consumption at higher oil prices. There wasn’t a viable electric option in the 1970s like the one being developed currently.
I agree with Geoff that enough new oil could appear to facilitate the further wrecking of the planet. U.S. fracking technology has barely been applied in the rest of the world, and there are several large petroleum suppliers whose output is somewhat suppressed right now.
I don’t care to speculate on the time frame of our demise. We are one tough species, but we are very ill-behaved as well.
Pollack said:
There was a viable electric transportation option in the 1920’s in Los Angeles. But then the oil industry and GM took it for a ride and spawned the sprawling freeway mess that exists now.
See the story of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Electric
Imagine if as much effort was put into perfecting that technology as went into combustion engines.
There was also the clever use of potential (gravitational) energy via some of the lines going up the San Gabriel mountains around Pasadena. The funicular/cable railway had two counter-balanced cars attached to the same cable. As one car goes down, its weight helps pull the other car up. This drastically reduced the energy needed to operate the system. It also featured regenerative braking so on the trip down, the motor controlling the funicular cable would act as a generator, converting the gravitational potential energy of the descending car back into electrical energy. See the story of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Lowe_Railway
We are seeing all these ideas reconstituted in one way or another
To Paul Pukite:
Yes, these alternative ideas to petroleum-based transportation have been around a long time, and one can imagine an alternative history when they were implemented a lot sooner.
That didn’t change the actual situation in the 1970s, when we were almost totally dependent on it for transport, and there was no ready alternative. When supplies ran short, there was a major economic disruption.
This time around, I am skeptical of curve-fitting exercises that suggest our supplies will be exhausted in the relatively near future. It seems to me that there is enough oil left to do great environmental harm for quite a while. I am considering that production is deliberately being suppressed by the U.S. for countries such as Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, and internally suppressed by OPEC. That’s without modern fracking technology being applied, or new finds such as off the coast of Guyana.
Mr. Pukite, it appears to me that World Oil Production was higher in 2024 than in 2020. Perhaps my eyesight is failing, but there seems to have been a slight increase.
You are believing the wrong accountants. The term “oil” now includes liquids beyond that of crude oil, such as various liquified or compressed coal and natural gas products, and all the ethanol and biodiesel sources.
This chart shows conventional and unconventional crude oil. Coventional crude oil is obviously on the decline while unconventional (shale and tar sands sources) can’t make up the drop.
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/7053/scHYJ2.jpg
Thomas Fuller: – “…it appears to me that World Oil Production was higher in 2024 than in 2020.”
What are you looking at, Thomas Fuller? References/links please?
US petroleum geologist Art Berman wrote in Oct 2024:
https://www.artberman.com/blog/this-is-how-oil-ends/
Global crude oil + condensate production peaked at 84.5 Mbarrels/day in Nov 2018. It has been less since then. Crude oil is essential for refining into diesel fuels. Diesel is the lifeblood of the global economy.
https://crudeoilpeak.info/wp-content/uploads/Incremental-crude-2004-Oct2024.jpg
As Paul Pukite said:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-838695
Here’s a similar graph for the period 1973 to Dec 2021 including components for Canada tar sands & US tight (shale) oil:
https://crudeoilpeak.info/wp-content/uploads/World-crude-production-to-Dec-2021.jpg
Mr. Miell, it is my understanding that production is levelling off (but still ahead of 2020) because of a softening of demand. Petrostates and oil companies have lots of reserves but see no need to pump it out of the ground if they can’t sell it. Storage isn’t free. AFAICT, proven reserves have also been climbing.
Thomas Fuller: – “Petrostates and oil companies have lots of reserves but see no need to pump it out of the ground if they can’t sell it.”
Per US petroleum geologist Art Berman: “there are nearly 2 trillion barrels of proven oil reserves worldwide, with about the same amount in technically recoverable conventional crude resources.”
https://www.artberman.com/wp-content/uploads/1.8-trillion-barrels-tb-of-proven-oil-reserves-2.1-tb-conventional-oil-resources-globally–1024×746.jpg
At current consumption rates, that’s 60 years of oil remaining still in the ground at current oil prices. Together with a similar amount of gas reserves and centuries of coal reserves, that’s more than enough to facilitate ‘civilisation collapse’ well before the end of this century.
The escalating existential threat of “climate ruin” and the consequent economic challenges arising from it, including the Great Simplification, pose more immediate threats.
Earth System status: Where are we now?
• For all intents and purposes, +1.5 °C GMST anomaly is here and now: https://parisagreementtemperatureindex.com/climate-milestone-counts/
• The world is warming at a rate of ~0.4 °C/decade: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-6079807/v1
• Daily atmospheric CO₂ concentrations have exceeded 430 ppm at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory: https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2
• Planet Earth’s albedo is at a record low; EEI is high
https://web-cdn.bsky.app/profile/climatecasino.net/post/3lupsp45ris2c
https://web-cdn.bsky.app/profile/climatecasino.net/post/3lupt7eja6k27
• Global mean sea level rise is approaching 6 mm/year:
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/news/282/nasa-analysis-shows-unexpected-amount-of-sea-level-rise-in-2024
• The rate of sea level rise is accelerating in an exponential-like manner:
https://youtu.be/8jpPXcqNXpE?t=110
In less than 50 years planet Earth could be largely unlivable.
https://globaia.org/habitability
Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math. Three simple numbers that add up to global catastrophe – and that make clear who the real enemy is – https://archive.ph/3q9Xv [from 2012]
-The First Number: 2° Celsius
-The Second Number: 565 Gigatons
-The Third Number: 2,795 Gigatons
Since Dr. Emanuel is our distinguished guest leader elsewhere, this as well: “Any number much above one degree involves a gamble,” writes Kerry Emanuel of MIT, a leading authority on hurricanes, “and the odds become less and less favorable as the temperature goes up.”
The problem is not new. The facts are real. It doesn’t matter which of the toxic consequences we insist on ignoring, they spell our ever more destructive reality. The longer we make excuses, lie, bully, and consume, stuck on our screens and pretending the dangers are not growing, the worse it is getting.
We have an obligation to do what we can to make things less bad. Neither luckwarmerism nor doomism is an excuse to ignore the problem.