New email releases from the EDF/UCS lawsuit against the DOE provide a rarely-seen behind the curtain look at how the climate contrarians work.
The new releases of non-governmental emails were ordered released by the judge in the case and illustrate clearly the desire for the five scientists of the Climate Working Group (CWG) (and their Cato Institute handler working temporarily for the DOE) to avoid using their government emails (they were all Special Government Employees) and attempt to do an end run around FACA regulations that prohibit unbalanced groups meeting in secret to advise the federal government.
The emails are (at present) in three tranches (some overlap, but mostly distinct) and may be added to as the lawsuit proceeds.
- Climate Working Group Emails Part I
- Climate Working Group Emails Part II
- Climate Working Group Emails Part III
Among other highlights, we have Steve Koonin (an ex-undersecretary of the DOE, who really should know better), telling his friends to “keep it to themselves”:
We should be mindful that our email communications that go to DOE addresses are subject to FOIA. While I don’t think we’ve been saying anything untoward in our recent group exchanges, one never knows how they might be twisted by those of nefarious intent.
I’d therefore urge that we keep our future email communications restricted to the authors (except, of course, for matters that directly involve the DOE — like the recent Al query from the New Yorker).
[Oddly, that was sent on August 4th 2025, months after they started work – and communicating using their gmail and hotmail emails.].
There is some slightly spicy discussion about Roy Spencer’s disdain for Will Happer’s arguments, Judith Curry’s dislike of Marcia McNutt (then president of the National Academies), Roy’s conspiracy theories about the original Endangerment Finding, their collective delusion about how this report would be reviewed, and the sweet irony that the President’s EO on ‘Gold Standard Science’ meant they couldn’t pretend to have their report ‘peer reviewed’.
There is one moment when Ross McKitrick almost gets to the point of realising what they are doing (this is his paraphrase of what a NASEM review would say):
“While the report makes some valid points, including that climate science must continue to improve the models used to study climate dynamics, it is unfortunately biased and incomplete, and fails to provide a comprehensive summary of the current evidence regarding the seriousness of the climate crisis.”
Yup.
Almost as an aside, even Roger Pielke Jr. makes an appearance – getting a secret briefing from the politicos at DOE on the work of the CWG on June 24th, months before this was made public (or even before it was known these folks had been hired). We’re sure that Roger’s well-known concerns about FACA, the proper procedure for climate assessments, and conflicts of interest mean that he wrote about this at the time, though for some reason we can’t find it. How odd.
The third tranche includes their responses to the mostly hostile comments from some (still unknown AFAIK) internal DOE folks. The responses are almost entirely non-substantive, and only led to trivial edits.
Anyway, dive in, and brace yourself for the whiplash from people who relished every detail in the hacked Climategate emails but who will now insist that this court-mandated release is grossly improper and conspiring to avoid FOIA is perfectly fine actually. Lol.
Update (Jan 30): The judge has ruled against the DOE (NYT). (Text of judgement).
I noticed this news on Gavin’s BlueSky feed earlier today, where I appended a link to my ongoing tale of woe regarding the (potential?) MAGA fuelled 6th US National Climate Assessment:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2026/01/the-sixth-us-national-climate-assessment/
It also covers the scurrilous activity of the CWG and the evisceration of NCAR:
“It is already crystal clear that Katharine [Hayhoe], Zeke [Hausfather] and the other scientists who produced NCA5 will not be invited by the Trump administration to write NCA6.”
In perhaps surprising news:
“Ryan Maue, appointed as chief scientist of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration during Donald Trump’s first term of office had this to say:
If you believe A.I. and numerical weather prediction are important for our economy and national security, then NCAR in Boulder probably is our best bet to compete globally.
US weather modeling has been neglected for 20 years, and moonshot focus is needed, not dismantling.”
Thanks for the BSky “like” Gavin.
I’m calling this “climategate2”, let’s see if that catches on.
There’s already been a climategate2 Andrew, here in the UK at least:
https://x.com/jim_hunt/status/1402593436725825538
#ClimategateN, N -> ∞ ?
FYI I’ve gone with #Climategate3 on BlueSky:
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:l63d5xaf5hislz4gm3jphfqm/post/3md5xyn6rvs2w
and LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7418932761324843008?commentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Acomment%3A%28activity%3A7418932761324843008%2C7420757179617570816%29&replyUrn=urn%3Ali%3Acomment%3A%28activity%3A7418932761324843008%2C7420763058593067008%29&dashCommentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afsd_comment%3A%287420757179617570816%2Curn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A7418932761324843008%29&dashReplyUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afsd_comment%3A%287420763058593067008%2Curn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A7418932761324843008%29
Sorry for the long link Mod. Is it possible to embed it somehow?
in Re to Andrew Dessler, 23 Jan 2026 at 1:07 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/01/a-peek-behind-the-curtain/#comment-844271
Dear Professor Dessler,
Could you look at a parallel thread, wherein I in my post of 24 Jan 2026 at 12:55 PM.,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/01/unforced-variations-jan-2026/#comment-844318
summarize a discussion on DAC technical and economic feasibility?
I am asking because your article about DAC thermodynamic limit
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/thermodynamics-of-air-capture-of
does play an important role in the dispute, as it is being criticized, although from two different points of view, by both sides of the dispute.
It would be very helpful if you briefly overlooked the said discussion and commented thereon. May I ask you for this big favour?
I hope that although my plea diverts you from the present topic, this distraction could represent a kind of relax in comparison therewith.
Thank you in advance and best regards
Tomáš
Reply to Andrew Dessler 23 Jan 2026 at 1:07 PM
I’m calling this “climategate2”, let’s see if that catches on.
With the 40th anniversary of the Challenger disaster approaching next week, it’s worth recalling why Richard Feynman’s role still matters — not as a personality, but as a methodological conscience.
Feynman was not opposing institutions for sport. He was insisting on a principle that applies equally to science, policy, and communication:
— “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.”
What made Challenger so uncomfortable was not technical ignorance, but institutional self-deception — the quiet blurring of uncertainty, risk, and expectation under organisational pressure. Feynman’s objection was not political. It was epistemic.
He was explicit about the standard:
— “Scientific integrity is a kind of leaning over backwards to show how you might be wrong.”
That obligation does not vanish when the cause is presumed just, the direction broadly correct, or the stakes high. If anything, those are precisely the conditions under which the discipline matters most.
Feynman repeatedly warned that science fails not only through bad faith, but through sincere overconfidence — especially when surface forms (models, graphs, authority) are allowed to substitute for deeper honesty about limits, assumptions, and boundary cases.
His Challenger appendix ended with a line that still applies far beyond engineering:
— “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”
That wasn’t cynicism. It was respect for reality — and for the long-term credibility of science itself.
Thanks much for this and the links!
Thanks for reminding us about this. In the avalanche of news about dismantling regulations and agencies it’s easy to lose track of what’s happening. I’m glad the people at the EDF are holding the current EPA leadership and this working group’s feet to the fire (or greenhouse warming earth?) to expose this keystone cop level of competency. It’s also comforting to know that the Endangerment Finding is safe for now.
Rare non-scientist commenter here. I appreciate this site, been following for years.
This huge tranche of emails is great to see, exposing the inner workings of “Worst Available Science.” I second “Climategate2”.
I’ll bet there’s a lot of email addresses being changed.
Compare this to Climategate. Not much here.
There was not much in climategate either, according to multiple official investigations. In fact there was NOTHING.
Nigel: The word ‘either’ is inappropriate, as it bothsides this issue. The scientists were right, and they were attacked by specious and dishonest means. The attackers were wrong and helped lead the way to unspeakable harm to humanity’s future.
Susan Anderson, yes fair comment that either was not the best word. The same thing occurred to me, after I hit the submit button. His comment was however a classic deflection.
EPA: “Inquiries from the UK House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee, the University of East Anglia, Oxburgh Panel, the Pennsylvania State University, and the University of East Anglia, Russell Panel,3 all entirely independent from EPA, have examined the issues and many of the same allegations brought forward by the petitioners as a result of the disclosure of the private CRU emails. These inquiries are now complete. Their conclusions are in line with EPA’s review and analysis of these same CRU e-mails. The inquiries have found no evidence of scientific misconduct or intentional data manipulation on the part of the climate researchers associated with the CRU emails.”
NSF: “Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct […]”
Fake skeptic profiteer Bradley is on the wrong side of history. He will learn the hard way that he’s wrong,
https://www.desmog.com/robert-l-bradley-jr/
Credentials
Ph.D., political economy, International College, Los Angeles.1
M.A., economics, the University of Houston.2
B.A., economics, Rollins College.3
Background
“Robert Bradley Jr. is the founder and CEO of Institute for Energy Research (IER). Bradley spent nearly 20 years in the business world including 16 years at Enron where he served as corporate director of public policy analysis and as a speech writer for Kenneth L. Lay.
“Robert Bradley has been associated with a range of conservative and free-market think tanks; he was an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and Competitive Enterprise Institute CEI), an Energy and Climate Change Fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) in London, and an honorary senior research fellow at the Center for Energy Economics. He has been a member of the Academic Review Committee for the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University.”
He has led rather than followed the destructive anti-science efforts to destroy humanity’s future residence on our once hospitable planet.
Correct, Susan. Bradley is another typical example of the climate “sceptical” pseudo-science, like Bjoern Lomborg etc., lots and lots of neoclassical school economists. Thank you for the links! Let me once again point to the writings of Naomi Oreskes (“The merchants of doubt” etc.) and this excellent article from Steve Keen concerning this subject: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14747731.2020.1807856 , see also: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qxqf1IzDIhk&pp=0gcJCTMBo7VqN5tD .
Long time no see Robert,
It has to be said that is not a very impressive “whiplash”. Indy would be very disappointed in you!
Climategate3 >> Climategate1
Here’s what really happened in Climategate:
https://bartonlevenson.com/Climategate.html
Thank you for the links. It’s very important to recognize the political, historical, economic and social context of the pointed attempt to destroy climate science which is now unfolding with the Trump regime and it’s “Project 2025”. Especially we must recognize the historical roots of this.
This is the tech version of the robber baron era of the late nineteenth century combined with the business plot era resulting from the WWI imperialist war and it’s economic and social consequences: failed social-revolutionary attempts, especially the anti-feudal revolution in Russia which resulted in the as “communism” misunderstood and dreamed up *asian road to capitalism* under counter-revolutionary and deeply authoritarian and totalitarian, state-capitalist regimes like Stalin’s and later Mao’s etc. and – what is systematically forgotten and/or hidden by almost all western historians: the parallell feudal and fascist movements, coup attempts and takeovers in the western world.
Here one always now only “remember” the fascist counterrevolution in Italy led by Mussolini 1919-22 and the nazi counterrevolution i Germany, led by Hitler and general Ludendorff, first 1919-23 (which seemingly failed) and then “peacefully” and “legally” (it really wasn’t, it’s a bourgeois media myth) again 1929-33, led by Hitler allied with (which is “forgotten”) the german military-industrial complex, the steel- and coal-based industries and their mass media: Thyssen, Krupp, Hugenberg etc.. What is even more “forgotten” is that these fascist and totalitarian bourgois movements in Europe was met with widespread and deep sympathy from almost the whole capitalist class in the US.
The expression of this is called “the business plot”: the 1933-34 luckily failed attempt at a fascist military takeover in the US, directed against FDR and led by J.P. Morgan and similar figures, dismantled by general Smedley Butler. It was in these US fascist circles that the slogan “America first” first came to light. It is in this period, that the ideas first flourished, which are now being electronically cultivated and mass-produced (or what you should call it…) by MAGA, Heritage Fundation etc. and popularized by the more and more senile rants of the second coming of the second (or is it maybe the third?) “great communicator”, the reality TV star mistah Trump (not Kurtz… this “Heart of Darkness” isn’t located in neither Africa nor Belgium nor the City of London).
It really comes as no surprise for us who have followed the unfolding of the climate contrarian industry – the merchants of doubt – that this now has exploded on the internet using the products of the A”I” megalomainiacism to “flood the zone with shit” in the form of A”I” slop. A recent example makes it abundantly clear where this is heading with ever faster growing speed: https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/2014819683757678654 . This roaring trumpian obscurantism is by now overtaking even the “german physics” that flourished under Hitler, then ranting against “the jew Einstein” etc.)
But make no mistake: this isn’t just childish ignorance. No..There is strategic imperialist planning and calculation behind this systematic spreading of nonsense, come it from Washington, Beijing or Moscow: this is the old war propaganda for land grabbing and resource grabbing, just “TikTok”-styled.
Compare fx. this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kNWZ0kokKBc with this classical cartoon from 1805: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTZPXaSgHm7B5IXMCcoJkksMMAJIFZrxS-olabxnkSC1w&s=10 .
This is no longer just a scientific fight against ignorance: it’s a deeply political fight, and it’s global. It will not be easy to win it for science, but one advantage we have is beginning to show: the climate contrarian forces are beginning to act desperately, because they aren’t any longer able to hide their true political goals, which are deeply unpopular. The Donald screaming against green energy now in his “speech” in Davos, as if this should be a chinese scheme, is just pure paranoia, hitlerian style, it’s classical stalinist propaganda. It just once more demonstrates the decaying and self-destroying nature of totalitarian hubris and ideology. Much more visible now than a century ago, let’s not forget that. It’s not all doom and gloom, by far not, but we need to take the threat very seriously, name the names and point to the facts, know our own strengths and weaknesses, as well as our enemies’.
Here are some historical facts we need to know, concerning the trumpian aggression against Greenland and Denmark. It didn’t all come out of the blue: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/23/borgen-trump-greenland-denmark-adam-price .
“The devil’s advocate might ask: how can “Daddy” Trump and the ever pleasing Rutte even negotiate the framework of a “deal” involving the US military presence in Greenland without the participation of Greenland and Denmark? It almost reminds me of Trump meeting Putin to discuss peace in Ukraine without inviting Zelenskyy.
But maybe these theatrics are just part of the new Trumpian “art of the deal”, where a more sinister scheme is really at play. Could Europe’s defence of Ukraine become the hostage in a mad game of power Monopoly, where the unity of Nato is at stake and ownership of Greenland is the ultimate reward? I certainly hope not. But this could be my dystopian pitch for how the nightmarish story develops. Please let me be laughed out of the pitching session one more time.”
Unfortunately I don’t think you will be, Adam. The historical truth, almost always far too late disclosed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash too often has shown to be worse than even our worst nichtmares. So it’s time to learn the lesson this time. There won’t be any more times.
What’s behind now? https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/greenland-freedom-city-rich-donors-push-trump-tech-hub-up-north-2025-04-10/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxis_(proposed_city) https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/26/elon-musk-peter-thiel-apartheid-south-africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/10/peter-thiel-lectures-antichrist (Thiel depicts Greta Thunberg, climate science and activism as “antichrist”…) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials https://kyivinsider.com/fbi-agent-goes-public-with-russian-intelligence-operation-that-hooked-musk-and-theil/ https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2025/06/11/elon-musk-s-father-a-guest-of-honor-in-moscow-praises-vladimir-putin-and-blames-his-son-for-falling-out-with-donald-trump_6742221_4.html . Smoke without fire? Not likely, given our knowledge of history.
Interesting comments Karsten. The issue certainly comes down to the unfortunate return of openly fascist forces in America, aiming for an old fashioned resource grab – theft- made under various false pretences about national security and drugs all overlaid with racist motives. Only 3% of Americas illegal drugs come through Venezuela according to the economist.com.
The climate denialists and particularly the DOE review team that prepared the climate report, are probably a combination of useful idiots and active participants. Their motives will be complicated and layered. They are useful idiots as their work gives a green light to mining more fossil fuels. Their tactics are devious as exposed in their attempts to circumvent official channels. They might inherently be very devious people, so they believe everyone is the same, and so they think that gives them permission to cheat. Its called psychological projection.
IMO Trump is like a spoiled child, who just grabs what he wants without thinking of the long term consequences and the disaster he is causing. He’s pushed Europe to breaking point and destroyed all trust in America. This could last for a generation because hes reshaped the GOP. NATO in its present form may be over. because they might kick America out in a few years. Putin and Xi will be gloating. Instead of weakening China Trumps tariffs and threats have made them stronger according to the economist.com. Oh the irony.
I’m starting a substack series of posts on the GHG Endangerment Finding… the DOE CWG report will be a focus of a post later this week, but here’s my first post:
https://open.substack.com/pub/thesaraphreport/p/an-endangerment-finding-story?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=post%20viewer
Marcus Sarofim, thank you! For anybody wondering if to take a look here’s the title:
A GHG Endangerment Finding story. I helped write it. I defended it. Now I’m watching them tear it down.
This is so rich, Gavin. I love this…The pot calling the kettle black.
I reviewed Dessler et al. response to CGW in detail. I specifically focused on health and human impacts as I am a medical doctor studying this topic for over 15 years now. You want to talk about pulling back the curtain?…I see why now none of the “team” (yourself, Andrew, Zeke, et al) are up for a debate…Honestly, you didn’t need to debate until you were basically finally forced to respond to DOE…The supposed (scientific) response was so bad, I couldn’t actually believe what I was reading. I’ll just take one of many examples: Crop yields may be up in some circumstances, but not in others, but in the ones that are up, it’s really bad because there is marginally “clinically insignificant” less protein and zinc concentrations in current crop yields compared to before climate change. The response is so twisted and nonsensical, it makes one wonder what in the world these people are doing other than to assure all of us the final outcome is and will be terrible despite obviously increasing crop yields across the board.
I know enough after 15 years that crop yields are out of your wheelhouse. But as a physician, they are in mine. I won’t bore you with the umpteenth time how climate related death rates are at all time lows in recorded history, heat related deaths, disease, starvation, malaria, etc. etc. etc. It’s all so painfully obvious to even the casual observer that we are no where near a catastrophe. Millions of lives have been saved in Africa by one word, oil. These are all facts I have at my disposal with references that I would love to share with anyone desiring to share a debate stage with me. Of course, folks like Maladapted will come after me, with no real rebuttal, just more ad hominem which is a real class act by the alarmists. Do you see Pielke, Spencer or Koonin doing that?
Whether you like it or not, Trump has upended the alarmist world forever. No more free passes. No more double standards. No more funding. Hallelujah. My glass is half full ,you can keep your half empty one. Cheers,
Just to clarify:
Scott does not competently assess AGW’s impacts since Scott refuses to do basic things like account for confounders. His claims and analyses should not be trusted.
Atomsk,
Wow. OK, Let’s do attribution studies. Let’s start with the 1936 heatwave in the US. Who did the attribution studies regarding deaths on that? Who did the modeling studies using counterfactual assumptions? Oh? Nobody?
What about the 1911 European heatwave? Who did the attribution studies on that one? Who did the modeling studies using counterfactual assumptions? Oh, Nobody?
The India heatwaves of 1896-1897, the Australian heatwaves of 1895-1903, USSR/Russia 1972, the list goes on an on…Who did the attributions studies? Ah, nobody!
Speaking of heatwaves, attribution studies WERE done on the 2003 European heatwave. OK, fine. According to this study, 64 additional deaths in London and 506 additional deaths in Paris were cause by climate change:
https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/105377616/Full_text_PDF_final_published_version_.pdf
There you go Atomsk–pure non distortion of attribution of heat deaths with pesky, unreliable confounders like historical trends–Those same unreliable historical trends used by climate modelers to show temperature deviation over the past century.
Historical trends are reliable for climate modelers but suddenly become unreliable when studying heat deaths. Interesting indeed!
Your points are as vacuous as ever. Again, causal attribution for a factor X is best determined by looking at a situation with X vs. a situation without X, where the two situations are as alike as feasible otherwise. In other words: with as little confounding as feasible. Hence why, for example, randomized controlled trials compared two groups that are as similar as feasible before one group receives the drug and the other group receives a placebo. I’m an immunologist, so I know this. You’d know this if you were the physician you claimed to be.
One can then plug in anthropogenic climate change (ACC) for X. What you choose to do is compare a situation with ACC to a situation without ACC, where the two situations greatly differ across a range of confounders. Hence why, for example, you often compare mortality now when there’s more ACC to in the more distant past when there was less ACC, while you willfully ignore time-varying confounders like improvements in sanitation, vaccination, medical treatment, public health programs, etc. You’d never get away with that with informed experts in peer-reviewed venues. So you’re stuck pulling your tricks in the comments sections of blogs, hoping no one around is informed enough to call you on what you’re doing, and then complain about how peer-reviewed analyses from experts don’t fit your ideologically-motivated bias.
Your complaints about climate modeling are also empty, since modelers isolate the causal impact of individual factors, such as changes in total solar irradiance, sulfate aerosols, etc. That can be done with fingerprinting since individual causal factors have different effects (ex: increasing total solar irradiance warms the stratosphere and troposphere, while increasing CO2 warms the troposphere and causes stratospheric cooling that increases with increasing height). If that bugs you, then take it up with the Nobel committee, since they awarded Manabe and Hasselmann a Nobel prize for their peer-reviewed research on this. That’s never going to occur for your trolling in blog comments.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/10/a-nobel-pursuit/
Atomsk you say: ” for example, randomized controlled trials compared two groups that are as similar as feasible before one group receives the drug and the other group receives a placebo. I’m an immunologist, so I know this. You’d know this if you were the physician you claimed to be.”
Ouch. You cut me real deep man (or woman). But of course you hadn’t realized that randomized controlled trials compare two groups of RANDOMIZED subjects, not groups that are as “similar as feasible”. So you are in fact wrong on your rebuttal as much as it pains me to say it.
Making groups “as similar as feasible” is called a cohort study, not an RCT. With an RCT, it hopefully equals out, but you don’t know that, I don’t know that, that’s why it’s an RCT. It’s random. But hey, I don’t know anything. Right?
As soon as you figure out why attribution studies should only be done when events occur (read: 2003 heat wave, yes 23 years ago), and not the intervening “non event” years, (otherwise known as “the historic record”) then I may take your position more seriously. Cheers and enjoy your life! You only have one!
Re: “But of course you hadn’t realized that randomized controlled trials compare two groups of RANDOMIZED subjects, not groups that are as “similar as feasible”.“
You’re not a physician, or if you are one, remedial courses are in order. A central point of randomization is to make the two groups as similar as feasible in their baseline characteristics. Hence why one way to tell randomization failed (or was never attempted) is if the two groups differ on those characteristics beyond the rate one would expect from statistical chance.
I know for a fact that students learn this in medical school since it’s included in USMLE Step 1 prep and I’ve seen medical students taught it. So you’re wrong on the basics of your supposed profession. That makes it even clearer that you shouldn’t be trusted when you disagree with the evidence-based scientific consensus on topics farther from your purported expertise, like anthropogenic climate change.
Re: “Making groups “as similar as feasible” is called a cohort study, not an RCT. With an RCT, it hopefully equals out, but you don’t know that, I don’t know that, that’s why it’s an RCT. It’s random. But hey, I don’t know anything. Right?“
Yes, you don’t. First, as shown above, randomization is a means of making the two groups as similar as feasible. Another means is statistical adjustments. Cohort studies use those. Second, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can also use adjustments if, for example, the randomization was too imperfect.
That’s a more advanced topic than knowing what randomization does. But it’s something I have to know since I’ve co-authored research that required evaluating medical studies. You’re likely overestimating your competence, Scott, both in evaluating medical studies and in evaluating climate studies.
Re: “As soon as you figure out why attribution studies should only be done when events occur (read: 2003 heat wave, yes 23 years ago), and not the intervening “non event” years, (otherwise known as “the historic record”) then I may take your position more seriously.“
I may take your position more seriously when you finally learn about causal attribution in climate science (ex: Nobel-prize-winning optimal fingerprinting), about causal attribution in medical science, and to not underhandedly exploit time-varying confounders. Given your track record, I suspect you don’t even know what ‘time-varying confounding’ is.
Re: “Cheers and enjoy your life! You only have one!“
Cheers to you as well. I recommend you not pretend to be a physician. Or if you really are a physician, consider remedial medical courses reviewing things like randomization, statistical adjustments, time-varying confounding, causal attribution, and evaluation of clinical research. No doubt you’ll later return to other threads and other forums to continue your months- or years-long persistent denialism:
Atomsk:
Sorry, I know I said I was done, but I couldn’t resist:
Atomsk: “Randomized controlled trials compared two groups that are as similar as feasible before one group receives the drug and the other group receives a placebo.”
Holmberg 2022: “However, adjusting for baseline characteristics in the analysis of RCTs is advised by both the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration because it may improve statistical efficiency,”
You say RCT’s are “similar as feasible” BEFORE the trial (by definition, NOT random). Holmberg 2022 states adjusting for baseline characteristics AFTER the the trial, during analysis phase, which includes a post hoc analysis.
Did you spot the difference? I saw 18 patients today in my internal medicine primary care clinic, in addition to several phone calls to patients. How many did you see? Cheers and have a great life Atomsk!
Re: “You say RCT’s are “similar as feasible” BEFORE the trial (by definition, NOT random).“
What I actually said was:
That’s a statement about groups compared in the RCT being as similar as feasible, not the RCTs themselves being as similar as feasible.
The “before” means before the groups received the drug or the placebo. You pretend this is in reference to something done before the randomized controlled trial, and thus you contradict the fact that randomization is a step within an RCT. In other words, I’m saying that within an RCT, randomization occurs before delivering the intervention, such as the drug or the placebo (ex: Bhide 2018; dumbed down for you in this from the UNC Department of Epidemiology ). You pretend that’s me claiming that the groups being made as similar as feasible occurs before and outside of the RCT.
Re: “Holmberg 2022 states adjusting for baseline characteristics AFTER the the trial, during analysis phase, which includes a post hoc analysis.“
What you actually said was:
Nowhere there did you specify when the groups were made similar. You’re simply adding that now as a condition to save face after you were shown to be wrong, i.e. you’re moving the goalposts. You originally said RCTs did not make groups as similar as feasible. And in saying that you were wrong.
Groups can be made more similar by randomization done within the study, before delivering the intervention. They can also be made more similar by statistical analysis done after delivering the intervention. RCTs can do both, and I already showed you it’s recommended that they do both. So you can stop pretending otherwise.
Re: “Did you spot the difference?“
I spotted you mentioning an irrelevant difference to disingenuously avoid the fact that you were shown to be wrong. Again, you mentioning a difference on when groups are made similar doesn’t change the fact that you were wrong on whether and how groups were made similar.
Re: “I saw 18 patients today in my internal medicine primary care clinic, in addition to several phone calls to patients.“
I don’t believe you. What your comments actually provide evidence of is you not grasping basic points understood by MS1s and MS2s, then disinforming to try and cover for that.
Re: “Cheers and have a great life Atomsk!“
Cheers and learn to honestly admit mistakes, for once.
S: You say RCT’s are “similar as feasible” BEFORE the trial (by definition, NOT random).
BPL: What’s random is which individuals get the treatment and which gets the placebo.
Re: “Speaking of heatwaves, attribution studies WERE done on the 2003 European heatwave. OK, fine. According to this study, 64 additional deaths in London and 506 additional deaths in Paris were cause by climate change:
https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/105377616/Full_text_PDF_final_published_version_.pdf“
The paper:
So a majority of the deaths were likely attributable to anthropogenic climate change (570 / 1050). More credible than an incompetent analysis that exploits time-varying confounders and abuses the ‘catastrophic AGW’ straw man.
Scott: If I ever had any doubts that you were a full on reality denier, you have unequivocally identified yourself as on the wrong side of history, science, nature, facts, and humanity’s strivings to do well by each other and our future. You will find out, as nature’s reality continues to reveal its problems with apex predators. Unfortunately, your kind will likely take the rest of us down with you.
Your happiness with Trump is indescribably dishonest. Siding with greed, bullying, lies, ignorance, and hatred is not a good look.
Susan, I’m quite sure you are aware that talk is incredibly cheap. What scientific research, data, and synthesis did you use above? What intelligently considered, observationally rational response did you give? My glass is half full, thank you very much. Cheers!
Yaaaaawwwwwnnnn!!
You’re truly a legend in your own mind, Scott.
Scott, please try and stop missing the point. While global mortality rates may be going down – for now – an increasing preponderance of severe weather events is costing us additional money in health costs and infrastructure costs and this money has to come from somewhere! Meaning something goes without. We have a problem despite all your over simplistic shallow rhetoric.
Nigelj, sources please!
Scott, heavy rainfall events and heatwaves have increased in intensity and frequency. Read the IPCC reports. It costs money to fix the related problems, money that could be spent on other things. I don’t have to provide further proof. Its as obvious as night follows day. But there are multiple detailed studies analysing costs you can find for yourself. And it can only get worse as warming increases.
Nigel: he doesn’t miss the point. He knows exactly what he is doing.
Scott: “I know enough after 15 years that crop yields are out of your wheelhouse. But as a physician, they are in mine.”
When a patient comes to you complaining of low crop yields, what medical tests do you use to determine the cause or causes?
Martin, does starvation rates due to crop failures mean anything to you? Where are all the starving people Martin?
Scott, I apologize for not stating the point directly: Knowledge of crop yields has nothing to do with the knowledge required to be a physician.
Scott: “Martin, does starvation rates due to crop failures mean anything to you? Where are all the starving people Martin?”
MS: Ok, so now we can address your point. I don’t know if starvation rates have been plotted against crop failure rates. That might be a useful graph. But we do know where the starving people are.. Google AI answers your question this way:
Based on 2025 reports, approximately 1.7 billion people live in areas experiencing lower crop yields due to human-induced land degradation. While this indicates a massive, systemic threat to food production, the number of people actively facing “starvation” (acute hunger/famine) is driven by a combination of these production issues, conflict, and economic shocks.
Here is the breakdown of hunger and crop-related food insecurity for 2024–2025:
Key Statistics on Hunger and Yield Declines
1.7 Billion Affected by Low Yields: A 2025 FAO report highlights that 1.7 billion people live in areas where crop yields are falling due to human-induced land degradation.
318 Million in Acute Hunger: As of 2026, the World Food Programme (WFP) reports that 318 million people are facing crisis levels of hunger or worse, a figure that has more than doubled since 2019.
673 Million Hungry in 2024: According to the 2025 State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI) report, an estimated 673 million people (8.2% of the global population) faced hunger in 2024.
2.33 Billion Food Insecure: In 2024, nearly 2.3 billion people lacked regular access to adequate food (moderate or severe food insecurity).
Primary Causes of Reduced Food Availability
While 2024 saw some high yields in certain regions, the overall capacity of food systems is being constrained, leading to higher food prices:
Land Degradation: Soil erosion and depletion are reducing yields for 1.7 billion people, with 47 million children under 5 in these areas suffering from stunting.
Climate Shocks: Increasingly frequent droughts, floods, and heatwaves are reducing agricultural output in vulnerable regions.
Conflict and Disruption: The 2025 Global Report on Food Crises highlights that conflict is the primary driver of starvation, particularly in Sudan and Gaza, where famine conditions have been confirmed.
Regional Impact
Africa: The situation is most critical in Africa, where more than one in five people (307 million) faced hunger in 2024, with that number rising.
South Asia: While some improvements were noted in 2024, 323 million people in Asia were still undernourished.
The situation is expected to remain severe, with a projected 512 million people still facing chronic undernourishment by 2030, with nearly 60% of them in Africa.
Martin:
Global cereal yields rising faster than population since the 1960’s:
https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/global-cereal-production-has-grown-much-faster-than-population-in-the-last-half-century
Staple crops yields up across the board:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/yields-of-important-staple-crops?utm
Protein malnutrition deaths down 56% and death rate from malnutrition down 72% since 1990:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12094969/?utm
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35807772/
I already plotted global crop yields vs. malnutrition death trends over time, Martin. It turns out that as crop yields increase, malnutrition deaths decrease. All of this in the face of gradual global warming. Huh! Who would have predicted that? Perhaps you have a better idea?
[Response: Gosh. How simple everything is in this magical world where there is only one thing changing at time. – gavin]
Re: “Gosh. How simple everything is in this magical world where there is only one thing changing at time“
Exactly. One of Scott’s main tactics for months, if not years, is to willfully ignore time-varying confounding and to keep ignoring it no matter how many times he’s corrected on it.
Re: “It’s all so painfully obvious to even the casual observer that we are no where near a catastrophe.“
Scott is repeating his script on terms like ‘catastrophe’, which he’s been debunked on before:
He is a persistent denier who returns to repeat the same script, no matter how many times it’s refuted. That’s denialism, insofar as he refuses to accept what strong evidence shows. So what Scott says should not be taken seriously.
Re: “I specifically focused on health and human impacts as I am a medical doctor studying this topic for over 15 years now.
[…]
Of course, folks like Maladapted will come after me, with no real rebuttal, just more ad hominem which is a real class act by the alarmists.“
It’s doubtful that Scott knows what an ad hominem fallacy is. An ad hominem fallacy would be bringing up an irrelevant characteristic of Scott as a rebuttal to his arguments. It is not merely saying something negative about him or his claims. So, ‘Scott fabricates in bad faith,’ is not an ad hominem fallacy. But, ‘Scott is mean, so reject his argument,’ would be an ad hominem fallacy in the form of tone trolling. And, ‘Scott is a physician, so I’m not going to trust his climate science claims over those of the evidence-based scientific consensus,’ would not be an hominem fallacy, since it’s about a characteristic pertinent to how reliable one is on a subject. It’s an appeal to authority, which is often fine for obvious reasons (IEP, this + this from Goodwin 2011).
Also, Scott’s use of terms like ‘alarmists’ is undermined by both the evidence on anthropogenic climate change and by analysis of the language used by scientists at organizations like the IPCC.
Atomsk,
It’s a slow day in the office due to snowstorms, so I have time.
Ah, the strawman argument! Tell me Atomsk, since when did the word “catastrophic” get removed from the agenda? What year? And why?
Susan states, “you have unequivocally identified yourself as on the wrong side of history, science, nature, facts, and humanity’s strivings to do well by each other and our future. You will find out, as nature’s reality continues to reveal its problems with apex predators. Unfortunately, your kind will likely take the rest of us down with you.”
Nigelj says, “While global mortality rates may be going down – for now – an increasing preponderance of severe weather events is costing us additional money in health costs and infrastructure costs and this money has to come from somewhere!”
Atomsk, if “catastrophe” is a straw man, what are Susan and Nigelj referring to then? If my “kind” will take the rest of “us” down, how will that look exactly? If it’s not through catastrophic means, would it be through higher gas pump prices? Higher health insurance premiums as Nigelj seems to imply? And will those prices come down once we “fix” the problem? You seem to infer that it will or why all the fuss?
Since you seem to be obviously concerned about confounding variables, certainly you’d appreciate the confounding variables of inflation, population density increases, and increased infrastructure in exposed areas? Or maybe not.
What would you call someone who calls me a “science denier” without actually rebutting the factual data I provide? If it’s not ad hominem, what is it? I can call the smartest person in the world “stupid” and where does that get me? It’s not ad hominem though. Good to know. Does that make me more intelligent? Hint: Not according to the vast majority of humanity. Basically Susan calls me “stupid” and leaves it at that. I wish I’d thought of that!
Lastly, if you are not “alarmists”, please accept my apologies. If there is no “alarm” to be alarmed by, then I suppose there is nothing alarming about our current use of fossil fuels. I suppose that puts us as strange bedfellows indeed.
Scott says 27 Jan 2026 at 1:17 PM
Atomsk, It’s a slow day in the office due to snowstorms, so I have time.
Ah, the strawman argument! Tell me Atomsk, since when did the word “catastrophic” get removed from the agenda? What year? And why?
Data: Never.
Word search catastrophic in Ripple Wolf and Mann … 2025
https://michaelmann.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/RippleEtAlBioscience2025.pdf
Atomsk has multiple agenda’s, as do others. One day CAGW is an obscene lie pushed by “fanatical Doomers.” The next it’s a spurious “climate denier” strawman, so let’s list the cherries. Not everyone knows exposing too many lies at once will get your comments blocked. And no one ever challenges the hypocrisy of the great climate science distorter in chief though. Or it’s death by drowning under a non-stop barrage of billions of pixels and recycled bs references that do not in fact support the A’sS arguments.
in Re to “Data”, 28 Jan 2026 at 12:58 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/01/a-peek-behind-the-curtain/#comment-844466
Sir,
With respect to your complaint
“Not everyone knows exposing too many lies at once will get your comments blocked.”,
I would like to propose that instead “exposing too many lies”, the true reason why you were blocked might have been the circumstance that you systematically posted under multiplicity of fake accounts.
In this respect, I would like to remind you of my still pending questions of 23 Jan 2026 at 5:53 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/01/unforced-variations-jan-2026/#comment-844291 :
Could you kindly confirm that you are going to stay with your present nick and that you desist from further attempts to cheat Real Climate moderators and readers by hiding under two or more names?
If so, may we expect also a clarification of your reasons for this shameful behaviour in the past?
Sincerely
Tomáš
Tomáš Kalisz, as you likely know, there’s no getting through to the sockpuppet account that pretends peer-reviewed research is not peer-reviewed. But their distortions on ‘catastrophe’ were addressed.
Re: “Atomsk, if “catastrophe” is a straw man, what are Susan and Nigelj referring to then?“
You’ve had this explained to you before, so you’re pretending. Again: the ‘CAGW is a straw man’ point was not made in response to people who think AGW is a catastrophe and define what they mean by ‘catastrophe’. The ‘CAGW is a straw man’ point was instead made in response to denialists/contrarians like you who abuse the term without properly defining it. You basically abuse it in bad faith to suit your policy agenda.
It’s akin to a creationist saying objecting to evolutionary biology by claiming evolution does not produce new ‘kinds’ on organisms. Yet the creationist never properly defines what they mean by ‘kind’. That allows them to peddle a straw man of evolutionary biology, and always conveniently claim something does not count as a new ‘kind’ on their unspecified meaning of the term. They do that for their religious/ideological agenda, such as a policy agenda of getting creationism taught in schools as science.
I’ve spent decades dealing with ideologically-motivated science denialists like young Earth creationists, vaccine deniers, HIV/AIDS denialists, and AGW denialists. So I’m not going to fall for these tactics when creationists use them, anymore than I’m going to fall for these tactics when you use them.
You’re nowhere near as original or clever as you think you are, Scott. People have no problem seeing through your contrarian/denialist tactics, anymore than they have trouble seeing through those tactics when creationists use them. For the curious, below is the academic book chapter on this, along with context from others:
Re: “Lastly, if you are not “alarmists”, please accept my apologies. If there is no “alarm” to be alarmed by, then I suppose there is nothing alarming about our current use of fossil fuels.“
Same vacuous abuse of undefined terms debunked above. It’s irrelevant what my emotional response is to AGW, just as it’s irrelevant what my emotional response is to HIV/AIDS. HIV still causes AIDS, regardless of whether I find that alarming. HIV/AIDS denialism is about refusing to accept what the evidence shows, not one’s personal emotional response. Similarly, AGW has the effects it does, regardless of whether I find those effects alarming. AGW denialism is about refusing to accept what the evidence shows, not one’s personal emotional response.
Re: “What would you call someone who calls me a “science denier” without actually rebutting the factual data I provide?“
Already addressed your fallacious reasoning multiple times.
Atomsk,
You get my last comment! Yay! OK, let’s play a thought experiment: Let’s say I decide to file a lawsuit against all of those scientific organizations who state that we have unequivocally changed the climate in detrimental ways. During this courtroom battle, my attorneys would ask the representatives of these scientific organizations to define what the word “detrimental” would mean. We need to stay away from the word “catastrophic” because it is triggering to many people. Do you think a judge and/or jury would be ok with your statement above? Scratch that. Of course they would in your mind. Never mind.
However, at $38 billion per year of taxpayer money, I think maybe it’s time to do something about that. For $38 billion, I think we need more than “I can’t define my side at all, but if I’m painted in a corner, I just respond by telling you how stupid and “vacuous” you are. Let’s see in a court of law, Atomsk! Thanks for the inspiration! Have a great life, you only got one.
None of what you wrote addresses the fact that:
1) You use terms like ‘catastrophe’ without properly defining them, instead using them as a straw man to suit your ideological narrative.
2) You use terms ‘alarmist’ in much the same way, with your use of the term being debunked both by the language used by climate scientists [such as those at the IPCC] and several climate trends exceeding scientists’ moderate projections.
3) What one’s emotional response is to AGW [ex: whether it’s a response of ‘alarm’] is irrelevant to what the evidence shows on AGW and irrelevant to whether one is a denialist. Your references to emotion are thus irrelevant.
Your tricks on this have been debunked for months, yet you still resort to them anyway, hoping to fool new people who don’t know better. I have no doubt you’ll later return to other threads and other forums to continue your months- or years-long persistent denialism:
Scott @27 Jan 2026 at 1:17 PM
Nigelj says, “While global mortality rates may be going down – for now – an increasing preponderance of severe weather events is costing us additional money in health costs and infrastructure costs and this money has to come from somewhere!”
Scott: Atomsk, if “catastrophe” is a straw man, what are Susan and Nigelj referring to then? If my “kind” will take the rest of “us” down, how will that look exactly?
Nigel: I didnt use the word catastrophic or even infer it. I don’t like the word because its too open to interpretation and too easy for denialists to use against warmists. My view is that climate change will be very serious problem if we do nothing. As a Doctor you would appreciate this terminology. And dont bother to ask me why I think that. Ive given you numerous links in the past. Look them up and stop sea lioning (flooding the place with multiple questions that have already been answered many times)
Doctor: “If you keep smoking and eating steakburgers, you will have a serious problem.”
Patient: “Like what problem doctor? I’d like to know!”
Doctor: “You will have a serious problem.”
Patient: “Like, what? A heart attack, stroke, diabetes, what is it?”
Doctor: “No, not like that…You will have a serious problem though.”
Patient: “But “a serious problem” isn’t specific enough, doctor. What serious problem is this serious problem? Because that isn’t telling me anything about what type of specific consequences I’m facing if I keep smoking and eating steakburgers. I mean, the word “serious” could mean different things to different people”.
Doctor: “I understand. Despite all that, you will have a serious problem”.
Patient: “You’re an idiot, I’m finding a new doctor.”
Scott , as I said in the comment you are responding to, you have already been given a mountain of links describing the specific nature of the serious problem. I mean cant you read?
Doctor: “Smoking causes heart disease and cancer. Second-hand smoking also increases health risks. There’s an evidence-based scientific consensus on this.”
Persistent denialist from another discipline: “Consensus isn’t science and there’s no catastrophe. I don’t feel alarmed, alarmist! There go cigarette taxes, bans on tobacco advertisement targeted to kids, exclusion of smoking from hospital areas, etc.”
Doctor: “Evidence-based scientific consensus is common in science. Your emotional response (ex: alarm or not) is irrelevant to what the evidence shows. Your ‘catastrophe’ straw man isn’t properly defined, isn’t stated by the mainstream scientific organizations you’re trying to misrepresent, and is just part of your lazy excuse for evading policies you ideologically oppose.”
S: Doctor: “If you keep smoking and eating steakburgers, you will have a serious problem.”
Patient: “Like what problem doctor? I’d like to know!”
Doctor: “You will have a serious problem.”
Patient: “Like, what? A heart attack, stroke, diabetes, what is it?”
Doctor: “No, not like that…You will have a serious problem though.” etc. etc.
BPL: Straw man argument. The bad effects of AGW have been discussed in detail. For a precis, global warming moves the rain. Continental interiors dry out, so we get droughts and fires. Coastlines get soaked, so we get storms and flooding. Between the droughts and the storms, our agriculture may crash, in which case most of us will be dead shortly.
Sea level rise will make coastal cities uninhabitable and create hundreds of millions of climate refugees.
Is that specific enough for you?
Re: “I didnt use the word catastrophic or even infer it. I don’t like the word because it’s too open to interpretation and too easy for denialists to use against warmists. My view is that climate change will be very serious problem if we do nothing. As a Doctor you would appreciate this terminology.“
Terminology like ‘very serious problem’, ‘dangerous’, etc. is also used by climate scientists, and defined in terms of increased hurricane intensity, sea level rise acceleration, etc.
Scott abuses terms like ‘catastrophe’ and ‘alarmist’ without properly defining them, so that he can straw man positions he ideologically opposes. That’s typical of ideologically-motivated contrarians/denialists, like a supposed physician pretending to know better than climate scientists like Dr. Gavin Schmidt and than the evidence-based scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.
Scott,
The Losers always deny they’ve already lost the War. The Climate science and their systems have brought it upon themselves. They’ve lost. What prior support they had is falling fast and evaporating.
However the ideas that sound like ‘the enemy of your enemy’ is not necessarily your friend. Insuperable biophysical limits combine with innate human fallibility to precipitate eventual collapse. The world has hit those limits like an Arctic iceberg in the night. The Climate boundaries are one of a dozen in dire straits now. Climate science is of no use anymore. It’s too dysfunctional and incoherent, untrustworthy and wrong.
There’s this meme going round: What’s the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse? Scientific Understatement.
They made their bed. Forget about it.
The solution to a civilization’s collapse from boundary overshoot — absent moderation — is to
1) recognize that the “deep structural problems” have no solutions and
2) preserve as much as possible to avoid losing knowledge, tools, resources etc. to a dark history.
I wish there were a solution but there isn’t. Solutions are for problems not predicaments. This is a Predicament.
It’s all out there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZnnvH7FgBw
Confronting Overshoot: Changing the Story of Human Exceptionalism | William Rees
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MVmkIYy9aI
3 Limits to Growth After 45 Years – Dennis Meadows
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRXb4bJhSSw&t=209s
https://youtu.be/aRXb4bJhSSw?si=UjcpWYY9q4UbjMoE&t=3326
Exponential Growth Arithmetic, Population and Energy, Dr. Albert A. Bartlett
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=kZA9Hnp3aV4&t=962s
CACOR Live – Jack Alpert Civilization and Optimum Population Solution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiilZm8l-T0
Jack Alpert Stanford Knowledge Integration Laboratory
https://skil.org/
Jack Alpert 600 word summary
https://lite.evernote.com/note/996341e2-732f-4a6c-b9ae-4696515408ed
D: The Losers always deny they’ve already lost the War. The Climate science and their systems have brought it upon themselves. They’ve lost. What prior support they had is falling fast and evaporating. . . . Climate science is of no use anymore. It’s too dysfunctional and incoherent, untrustworthy and wrong. . . . There’s this meme going round: What’s the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse? Scientific Understatement.
BPL: Yeah, if we’d just been clearer, everything would have been fine. Fun fact: No. We were up against a well-funded propaganda machine, plus thousands of dupes following that machine and flooding the zone with false arguments. You can’t just assign all the blame to the scientists (and a line like “Climate science is of no use anymore” is one of the most anti-science statements I’ve ever seen).
Data: You do yourself no favors forming an alliance with Scott. You and he do not agree except in attacking the reality based material here. Dr. Hansen would not thank you. Your recent adoption of Feynman insults him too.
SA: Data: You do yourself no favors forming an alliance with Scott.
BPL: They may be the same person.
Start over…Five scientists, experts chosen to assess:
Impacts of Carbon Dioxide Emissions on the U.S. Climate.
Report to U.S. Energy Secretary and the UN General Secretary
Climate Working Group….
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.:
REPLACE. and REMOVE:
John Christy, Ph.D.
Judith Curry, Ph.D.
Steven Koonin, Ph.D.
Ross McKitrick, Ph.D.
Roy Spencer, Ph.D.
KT: Start over…Five scientists, experts chosen to assess:
MS: We don’t have to do it that way anymore, Ken. All the research and experimentation output is available online, so we can ask ChatGPT and Gemini to analyze all of it all at once and produce an their assessments. They should agree. Then we can ask all climate scientists to peer review the AI assessments. And then we can ask ChatGPT and Gemini to review all the peer reviews and revise their original assessments accordingly.
Yreica! Politics gone.
[Response: Lol. -gavin]
Don’t forget Grok Martin.
He/she/it will be highly offended!
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2025/12/the-us-national-security-strategy-2025/#comment-827403
“Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Monday that Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence chatbot Grok will join Google’s generative AI engine in operating inside the Pentagon network, as part of a broader push to feed as much of the military’s data as possible into the developing technology.”
What could go wrong?
Look up The Terminator movie on Wikipedia…….As they hide in a parking lot, Reese (who has been sent back in time) explains to Sarah that an artificially intelligent defense network known as Skynet, created by Cyberdyne Systems, will soon become self-aware and trigger a global nuclear war to bring humankind to its extinction…..
Im obviously skeptical of AI ever really being capable of doing that but its a rather interesting proposition.
Nigel see this,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYsulVXpgYg
1. Grok “leaks” the Pentagon’s innermost secrets to a “friendly” foreign power such as Russia
2. The monkeys in charge of the zoo are so incompetent that an “unfriendly” foreign power such as Iran exfiltrates the Pentagon’s innermost secrets.
3. Grok hallucinates multiple nuclear missiles speeding over Greenland towards Mar-a-Lago
4. Wot Nigel & Ron suggested!
n. Unforeseen side effect; n -> ∞
Martin,
All the research and experimentation output is available online, so we can ask ChatGPT and Gemini to analyze all of it all at once and produce an their assessments. They should agree. Then we can ask all climate scientists to peer review the AI assessments. And then we can ask ChatGPT and Gemini to review all the peer reviews and revise their original assessments accordingly.
[Response: Lol. -gavin]
Martin et al,
It’s next to impossible for redundant people living in the past to recognize their communication style, mode, mechanics and methods have been relegated to a Dumpster fire by AI LLM.
What Gavin’s done is classic legacy-authority behavior: This content is protected against AI scraping.
It’s another Myth emanating out of Real Climate. The maintenance strategy has broken down completely. RC hasn’t “collapsed”. It has stabilized in a degraded mode.
AI platforms, Search engines, and misc Bots can read everything. The “scraping protection” is largely performative. Just like the discussions here … only for “show” – nothing substantial survives. It is a signal of institutional defensiveness. It is consistent with RC’s degraded-but-stable mode
The real consequence: RC just made itself less relevant
LLMs:
don’t need copy/paste
don’t care about right-click blocks
don’t experience friction
don’t feel intimidated by banners
Meanwhile:
ordinary readers can’t quote
bloggers can’t excerpt
educators can’t share figures
social amplification is kneecapped
So yes — cutting off the human circulation layer while AI sails straight through is a spectacular own-goal. The old Cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Control the surface → ignore the substrate. That’s why nothing changes even as participation here collapses. That alone tells you everything you need to know about what’s really going on.
Make the most of it.
Data says:
“Meanwhile (due to protections against AI scraping)
ordinary readers can’t quote
bloggers can’t excerpt
educators can’t share figures
social amplification is kneecapped”
Why? I cant see how because the usual technical methods to stop AI scraping, and the “no AI training” in the websites terms and conditions (if used) doesn’t stop ordinary people copying and pasting content etcetera.
D: It’s another Myth emanating out of Real Climate. The maintenance strategy has broken down completely. RC hasn’t “collapsed”. It has stabilized in a degraded mode.
BPL: And what help are you being?
Ken, you suggest this:
“Start over…Five scientists, experts chosen to assess:
Impacts of Carbon Dioxide Emissions on the U.S. Climate.
Report to U.S. Energy Secretary and the UN General Secretary”
Is there any particular reason the UN needs a US-specific report? Especially as someone isn’t paying our dues to the organization.
But more specific to your proposal – I’ve got a better one and would be interested why you didn’t suggest it. Here you go – we turn the lights back on for the U.S. Global Change Research Program and resume work on the sixth National Climate Assessment as mandated by the United States Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 1990.
So I’m just asking that we get back to following the law and using the best of science available. The organizing had already begun for the 6th report process when Trump (possibly illegally) ordered the group disbanded – clearing the way for the Secretary of Fracking to produce propoganda.
Why do you want to do a re-do of DOE’s flawed program when we have already used the process enacted by Congress to produce five solid reports already?
PS – I noticed in the emails that the gang mentioned McKitrick or Christy heading the team for an official NCA, I guess in case Congress reminds them the law says to do it. That isn’t the structure I’m suggesting we use. I prefer science panels to be led and staffed by people who haven’t spent decades convincing themselves that practically every other expert researcher around the world is somehow wrong, and that the chosen few who believe we have little to worry about are the ones with the special insight.
Wasn’t robo-cop bionic too? I like this scene.
More on crops:
Dr. Jeff Masters – Serious stuff: “By 2100, global crop yields would be reduced by 11% if emissions rapidly plummet to net zero — and by 24% if emissions continue to increased unchecked. In the shorter term, by 2050 climate change will decrease global crop yields by 8 percent”, regardless of scenario.
Dr. Sandra Steingraber – NEW RESEARCH: Climate change on track to slash global crop yields by 24% before 2100.
Like, within the lifespan of your kids.
Also: adaptation and new farmland can’t offset this loss. Sorry, AI can’t fix this.
Climate change will devastate crop yields – https://agupdate.com/agriview/markets/crop/article_fb9096a5-d949-4e3c-8856-4f9f6057f4c6.html
“warming global temperatures will dampen the world’s capacity to produce food from most staple crops, even after accounting for economic development and adaptation by farmers …
“After adjusting for how real farmers adapt, researchers estimate global yields of calories from staple crops in a high-emissions future will be 24 percent less in 2100 than they would be without climate change. U.S. agriculture and other breadbaskets are among the hardest-hit in the study’s projections, while regions in Canada, China and Russia may benefit.
“In contrast to previous studies suggesting that warming could increase global food production, the researchers estimate that every additional degree Celsius of global warming on average will reduce the world’s ability to produce food by 120 calories per person per day, or 4.4 percent of current daily consumption.”
Study specifics for skeptics/fussers (above from Stanford): “Hsiang and Greenstone are also affiliated with the National Bureau of Economic Research. Additional authors of the study are affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley; the National Bureau of Economic Research; Rhodium Group; BlackRock; University of Chicago; Rutgers University; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis; Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco; University of Delaware, Newark; and Fudan University in Shanghai. | This research was supported as a project from the Climate Impact Lab” [further info in cited article]
Susan, Ah! of course, crop yields will falter IN THE FUTURE. Of course they will. I’ve done the hard work of going back in time to quote “experts” on crop yields. Certainly these experts are expert enough to predict the future. Let’s take a stroll down memory lane:
Claim (March 17, 2014): “A study led by the University of Leeds has shown that global warming of only 2°C will be detrimental to crops in temperate and tropical regions, with reduced yields from the 2030s onwards.”
https://www.leeds.ac.uk/news-environment/news/article/3505/climate-change-will-reduce-crop-yields-sooner-than-we-thought#:~:text=The%20impact%20will%20be%20greatest%20in%20the,regions%20will%20happen%20sooner%20rather%20than%20later%22.
Claim (July 25, 2014): “The world faces a small but substantially increased risk over the next two decades of a major slowdown in the growth of global crop yields because of climate change, new research finds.”
https://news.ucar.edu/12006/climate-experts-estimate-risk-rapid-crop-slowdown#:~:text=Lobell%20and%20Tebaldi%20used%20computer,increase%20during%20the%20coming%20century.
Claim (Nov 1, 2021): “Climate change may affect the production of maize (corn) and wheat as early as 2030 under a high greenhouse gas emissions scenario, according to a new NASA study published in the journal, Nature Food. Maize crop yields are projected to decline 24%, while wheat could potentially see growth of about 17%.”
https://www.nasa.gov/earth-and-climate/global-climate-change-impact-on-crops-expected-within-10-years-nasa-study-finds/?utm
Reality check (January 12, 2026): “Corn futures plunged to the lowest levels since August after USDA stunned the market by boosting its 2025 U.S. crop estimate above 17 billion bushels for the first time, signaling a heavy supply outlook that likely will burden prices and further squeeze farmer bottom lines even amid record demand.”
https://www.farmprogress.com/marketing/corn-plunges-after-usda-pegs-u-s-crop-at-17-billion-bushels
Reality check (May 15, 2025): “US and world corn production are projected at record highs for 2025, according to the US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) May 12 World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report”
https://www.world-grain.com/articles/21394-record-us-global-corn-output-projected-in-2025#:~:text=Credit:%20%C2%A9MNOVELO%20%2D%20STOCK.,Corn%20carryover%20on%20Sept.
Reality check (May 13, 2025): “Record United States corn production is one driver in the forecast for record global corn production, but other major corn export nations are also expected to increase production.”
https://ncga.com/stay-informed/media/the-corn-economy/article/2025/05/big-crop-breakdown-examining-usda-s-first-my-25-26-corn-projections
Susan, there is still time to get out and enjoy your life without fear. Cheers!
Scott @28 Jan 2026 at 2:45 PM
Scott says (paraphrasing) that projections that global warming will reduce crop yields in general in a decade or two decades time are wrong, because corn yields went up significantly in 2024- 2025. His argument is wrong. The reasons corn yields were high in 2024 – 2025 were mostly factors such as unusually favourable weather in Latin America and China, increased acreage planted in America, unusually strong demand for ethanol, unusually lower global prices fueling demand. This is not going to repeat every year! It is a very short term trend that will be offset by years of bad weather and reduced demand for corn, and high demand for land for other purposes. So it is not evidence of substantial sustainable increases in corn output and its not evidence that climate change wont ultimately reduce output.
Google AI:
In summary, absolute yields are still rising, but the rate of increase is slowing and climate change is severely limiting the full potential of global agricultural production.
—
Globally, crop yields are still increasing in terms of total production and, in many areas, yield per hectare. However, the rate of growth has slowed down in the last decade, and climate change is causing significant, widespread decreases in what yields could have been.
Here is a breakdown of the current situation:
1. The General Trend: Increasing
Production Boom: Global primary crop production reached 9.9 billion tonnes in 2023, a 27% increase since 2010.
Cereals & Commodities: Global production of maize, wheat, rice, and soy has continued to rise, with 2023 seeing a 2% increase in cereal production compared to 2022.
Technology & Efficiency: Over the last 60 years, improvements in technology, farming practices, and increased fertilizer use have driven huge,, sustained,,,1, yield improvements.
2. The Nuance: Climate Change Impacts
While absolute yields are rising, climate change is actively suppressing potential growth.
Yields “Lower Than They Could Be”: Research indicates that climate trends have already suppressed yields, making them 4% to 13% lower for crops like maize and wheat than they would have been without climate change.
The “Double-Edged Sword” of CO2: While higher atmospheric CO2 can boost plant growth (CO2 fertilization), it is often offset by the negative impacts of heat and water stress.
Regional Disparities: In some regions, such as parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, yield increases are minimal, while in others, such as in the Global North, productivity growth has slowed.
3. Future Outlook (Decreasing vs. Increasing)
Near-Term (by 2050): Climate change is expected to drag down global crop yields by an estimated 8%, regardless of emissions scenarios.
End of Century (by 2100): If high emissions continue,, some, projections suggest that staple crop yields could drop by over 20%, even with adaptation measures.
The “Need” vs. “Reality”: To feed a growing population, yields must increase by a higher percentage than they currently are, but the rate of growth is slowing
Just catching up after being away, but I coluldn’t resist a few quick looks at the CWG files, i.e., the actual topic of this thread. I was especally amused by McKitrick July 9:
“NASEM has never dealt with climate change in anything like a fair or objective manner and they are not going to now. John and I watched up close when they made a total hash of the hockey stick inquiry. They rewrote the terms of reference to shield Mann, buried all the evidence confirming Steve’s and my critique and then in the press conference allowed Gerald North to misrepresent the findings and claim vindication for Mann. Every time since then that they’ve looked at related topics they’ve deferred to the narrative, including in their review of NCAS.”
and
July 24:
John C asks:
“What will you say when asked why we didn’t deal with all the Hockey Sticks from Mann to IPCC AR6?”
McKitrick:
“Didn’t even think of that. If it comes up I guess I’d invoke McShane and Weiner and say the ipcc has never addressed the problem that the millennial scale back-projections at the hemispheric scale are simply too noisy to draw precise conclusions. ”
People may recall McShane & Wyner
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/responses-to-mcshane-and-wyner/
Of course, McKitrick’s continued complaints are especially absurd, in light of the outright falsifications/deceptions in some of his work ~2003-2005..
Long time no (virtually!) see John,
See also Prof. McKitrick’s recent “continued complaints” on Twatter, archived at:
https://archive.is/FHDeq
“We received expert comments from DOE scientists on the first draft, went through them all carefully and revised the draft accordingly before its release. While the timeline was a bit tight we had enough time to deal with all the review comments..”
The court decision that was released today (January 30) and linked in the opening post is one step in the process.
The CWG did violate the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requirements for openness and transparency. It is not currently clear if the CWG report can be used. The courts might not have decided on a case where a report is created in violation of FACA, but can it still be used as a basis for an agency decision.
If the report were to be allowed to support the repeal of the Endangerment Finding, that would be a separate lawsuit. Fortunately if the CWG report is used, it will not survive a court challenge on it’s content being not firmly based in fact. The standards are typically the best available information.
FYI:
A Secret Panel to Question Climate Science Was Unlawful, Judge Rules
New York Times
January 30 2026
“A federal judge on Friday ruled the Energy Department violated the law when Secretary Chris Wright handpicked five researchers who reject the scientific consensus on climate change to work in secret on a sweeping government report on global warming.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/30/climate/energy-department-climate-ruling.html
Thanks for that. Here’s a paywall free link: https://archive.ph/Yu5nh
wrt the NYT article, it is sad but true that they misrepresent meteorology and science, saying:
“Hundreds of scientists, including researchers from the American Meteorological Society, a leading climate science organization, denounced the group’s findings as riddled with errors and misrepresentations.” Sadly, the public is not well informed as to how science works and this is not helpful.
ADDENDUM
A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate
Climate Working Group
United States Department of Energy
July 23, 2025 [151 PAGES- remains online and publicly available]
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/DOE_Critical_Review_of_Impacts_of_GHG_Emissions_on_the_US_Climate_July_2025.pdf
Climate Experts’ Review of DOE Climate Working Group Report
30 Aug 2025 Authors Andrew E. Dessler, Robert E. Kopp 459 PAGES
https://policycommons.net/artifacts/23700180/climate_experts_review_of_doe_cwg_report/24600058/
ALT https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PwAR8I9YYmPhbQ6CRekHkroJGMbjbX7l/view
Real Climate Articles
1.1 https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/melange-a-trois/
1.2 https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/are-direct-water-vapor-emissions-endangering-anyone/
1.3 https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/the-endangerment-of-the-endangerment-finding/
2.1 https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/
3.1 https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/09/critique-of-chapter-6-extreme-weather-in-the-doe-review/
3.2 https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/09/doe-cwg-report-moot/
3.3 https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/09/climate-scientists-response-to-doe-report/
3.4 https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/09/lil-nas-express/
4.1- https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/01/a-peek-behind-the-curtain/
EDF Disinformation about the CWG DOE and Legal Matters
https://www.edf.org/media/newly-disclosed-records-show-trump-administrations-unlawful-actions-related-secretly-formed
Final Judgement
NYTs Disinformation
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/30/climate/energy-department-climate-ruling.html?unlocked_article_code=1.IVA.HgP8.YKirAEpO7SYZ&smid=url-share
Court Judgement
https://library.edf.org/AssetLink/j0s1oj2lwi027ldk6y45xnnx3353t1y2.pdf
My Real Climate comment
31 Jan 2026 at 11:18 PM 1.5 PAGES
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/01/a-peek-behind-the-curtain/#comment-844646
PS
Now, it’s Real Climate’s accusations that are MOOT.
And still nobody really cares about the Endangerment Finding–something which NO OTHER NATION ON THIS EARTH HAS NOR REQUIRES — and neither does the United States
And while this “crap” gets fed to the gullible, not a word is written about the Jan 10 formal declarations of the U.S. withdrawal from both the UNFCCC (COP system) and the IPCCC system as well, 66 agencies in total.
Making this website MOOT when it comes to keeping the public and interested parties well informed and UpToDate with the News about Climate Action in the world.
D: Making this website MOOT when it comes to keeping the public and interested parties well informed and UpToDate with the News about Climate Action in the world.
BPL: Darn right! This site is useless. No one’s listening to it.
As an obvious logical consequence, you should stop posting here.
Hear, hear BPL!
BTW, here in the once United Kingdom we have the 2008 Climate Change Act:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/contents
Reply to Jim Hunt
Thank you Jim, your reference proves my point perfectly.
Being: There is no requirement for the 2008 UK Climate Change Act predicated upon an USA EPA-like “endangerment finding”. Nor does the Act call for one to be established.
You know that Jim, or you should. Meaning what? Meaning what I stated is true and correct: “Now, it’s Real Climate’s accusations that are MOOT. And still nobody really cares about the Endangerment Finding–something which NO OTHER NATION ON THIS EARTH HAS NOR REQUIRES — and neither does the United States.”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/01/a-peek-behind-the-curtain/#comment-844647
My unpublished comment/s did explain the rationale quite well and provided references in support therein. Out of my control it fails to appear to assist you and others equally misguided.
What the Endangerment Finding and the DEO-CWG debacle shows is a dysfunctional political system driving itself into further institutional dysfunction and whose primary objective is always to “defend itself” as an “institution” against all commers, all accusations be they true or false..
IOW, next to nothing to do with the efficacy of genuine climate science and what to do about that. A storm in a tea cup. aka a nothing-burger. Apparently the CWG was TeflonTM coated before being established. lol
Are you here to defend frivolous Institutions and lawsuits Jim, or for putting your shoulder to the wheel to drive political change to solve climate change impacts asap? Your choice. Others here on RC have already made their choices known.
Data: “You know that Jim, or you should. Meaning what? Meaning what I stated is true and correct: “Now, it’s Real Climate’s accusations that are MOOT. And still nobody really cares about the Endangerment Finding–something which NO OTHER NATION ON THIS EARTH HAS NOR REQUIRES — and neither does the United States.”
Clearly plenty of people do care about the endangerment finding in America, because they are desperately trying to overturn this finding, and others are resisting.
Obviously the endangerment finding is a peculiar sort of thing unique to Americas laws, and is not an ideal response to the climate problem, BUT it has helped develop renewable energy, so it would be stupid to just stand back and let the finding be overturned, especially as the OTHER approaches such as carbon taxes and cap and trade have been tried at federal level and have failed to gain traction.
So the endangerment fining is better than nothing. Why is it so hard for people to understand these simple things?
Whelp the current administrations is going through with the attempt to rescind the endangerment finding. This article I think captures the confusion in why they are doing it and the doubt that it will succeed whatever angle they try. https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/10/trump-revoke-climate-change-rules-00773418
Reply to Joseph O’Sullivan
Beware believing already biased media sources… that fail to present the whole truth in a proper historical and fact based context.
I can predict what will happen this year — The EPA endangerment finding will be rescinded.
Despite this interpretation from Politico: So certain are most experts that one of the nation’s most venerated scientific bodies, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, conducted a review in response to EPA’s proposal and declared the reality and threat of climate change is now “beyond scientific dispute.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/10/trump-revoke-climate-change-rules-00773418
Because THE science is irrelevant. The issue is: Are the Clean Air Act and EPA “fit for purpose” to decide major Climate Change Policy in the US? It will be found that they are not. Despite the 2009 SCOTUS decision, the prior 2009 EPA actions were based upon.
This is a legal and political policy issue, and not a scientific question. The Trump Administration lawyers will prevail here, just as they prevailed over the recent DOE-CWG court case.
Hard Fact: The U.S. is the world outlier in delegating climate policy legitimacy to an environmental regulator via court compulsion. This has nothing to do with the efficacy of climate science.
The EPA was NOT established in 1970 or equipped to make national policy decisions about climate change.
The U.S. climate regime is a patchwork workarounds for legislative paralysis and political dysfunction. It is governance by legal improvisation, not Constitutional design. The Clean Air Act and the EPA were NOT established by Congress to implement Climate Change Policy. In fact, Climate Change was not even a thing back in 1970. Even acknowledging that climate change is real and affects the US, the Clean Air Act is powerless to do almost anything about it.
Congress avoided explicit responsibility. So no comprehensive climate statute ever passed Congress. The Courts and agencies filled the vacuum. This is a textbook case of “administrative state substitution for democratic consensus.” The conflict should have resolved politically decades ago and not been imposed upon the nation by activist Courts and extra-political manipulation.
No Other Major Nation Uses an “Endangerment Finding” Equivalent
Which proves the US process involving the CAA/EPA is not required to implement Climate Change or Energy Use Policy. Other nations such as China, Norway, UK, the EU, Japan, Canada, NZ. and Australia use: Climate Acts, Parliamentary statutes and Executive decrees backed by legislative frameworks.
In China Climate and industrial policy, Emissions trading, EV mandates, renewables subsidies all come from top-level political directives, not regulatory reinterpretation. You can call that ‘Authoritarian’ if you want to, but it is still an explicit political mandate set by State Council, National People’s Congress, and Party planning.
The EU Climate Law (2021) was passed by the European Parliament and Council. With a Net-zero target enshrined in law. The European Commission implements, but does not invent the mandate.
Norway’s climate targets and EV policies were passed by Stortinget (Parliament). Implemented via tax law, transport policy, energy regulation statutes. There’s no “endangerment finding” mechanism. Their Policy legitimacy comes from legislative mandate.
So within normal Democratic Models it’s the Legislature who defines problem and goals; the Executive agencies implement the details. But not in the USA–it’s deems itself exceptional. Above and beyond Democratic Norms!
The “problem” in the USA is a Political-Legislative problem and not a Climate Science one. It’s not 1970 anymore. Do try to get your own house in order.
But, given you [USA people] are no longer part of the IPPC, the UNFCCC, the Paris Treaty or the COP system of annual meetings, then really no one else gives a toss what you do inside your dysfunctional country.
Repealing the endangerment finding is a scientific question because the standard “air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare” Clean Air Act section 202(a)(1)
Other policy questions are not relevant to the endangerment finding. This is how the CAA is written and the court has affirmed this in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The Supreme Court has declined to hear challenges to the endangerment finding as recently as 2023. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121123zor_e29g.pdf
A short articles on this from laws firm are here: https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/08/up-in-the-air-epa-opens-comment-on-repealing-endangerment-finding
And here
https://www.akingump.com/en/insights/alerts/epas-endangerment-finding-in-danger
Reply to Joseph O’Sullivan
Other policy questions are not relevant to the endangerment finding.
As McEnro once said “You can’t be serious!”
Inform yourself better sir. I did last year.
Reconsideration of 2009 Endangerment Finding and Greenhouse Gas Vehicle Standards
AGENCY : Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION : Proposed rule.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-08-01/pdf/2025-14572.pdf
Contains 78 pages of *things* relevant to the endangerment finding under the existing Law.
It’s as if they (Trump Admin, DOE, EPA, WH Lawyers) all saw you coming before you knew what was happening. One example that misses the point follows:
A Statement of the American Meteorological Society
(Adopted by the Executive Committee of the AMS Council on 27 August 2025)
Here we identify five foundational flaws in the Department of Energy’s (DoE’s) 2025 Climate Synthesis report[1]. Each of these flaws, alone, places the report at odds with scientific principles and practices.
https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/the-practice-and-assessment-of-science-five-foundational-flaws-in-the-department-of-energys-2025-climate-report/
The AMS plus Dessler et al and the NAS are missing the point. It’s not all about the “climate science” that’s your own extreme degree of Myopia–being the only way you can bring yourselves to look at this issue. Objectivity fails you repeatedly. Joseph O’Sullivan and many more have drunk the Kool Aide. The CAA is a complex document. The Endangerment Finding was railroaded through he Courts and the US Govt system” in 2009 by an Administration that wanted it to pass, and they ran an EPA Department they “massaged” every way they could to ensure they decided “correctly”.
Science is a two edged sword. It can be and will be applied to the endangerment finding in multiple variations, under different approaches and across multiple domains. As the EPA analysis FR-2025-08-01 above shows.
It is therefore not a question of “climate science” at all. It is in fact, as it was in the beginning a “political Question” in which Science played a role, but the Democratic Party led Judicial / Political activism under Obama/Biden played a far greater one.
The wheel has turned, now the Trump/Vance administration is playing hard ball politics with the Endangerment Finding and the executive/legislative roles of US Governance in a way likely not to be outdone, or undone.
Latest example > The White House “Champion of Coal” event. February 12, 2026
Photo Op — https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/opt-P20260211MR-0491.jpg
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin standing proudly to the left of President Trump as he signed an Executive Order directing the Department of War to purchase coal power
https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2026/02/champion-of-beautiful-clean-coal-president-trump-celebrates-industry-revival/
They’ve ploughed the fields soon they’ll be seeding it.
Another example:
Comment submitted by JLF Transport LLC
Posted by the Environmental Protection Agency on Aug 21, 2025
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. The value of these trucks in the current market is approximately $30k each. Was quoted $21k dollars to repair/replace DPF/DOC/SCR and clean EGR & EGR Valve.
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.
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0194-0286
That’s one of thousands of similar submissions. The non-science question that applies across the board is how EPA Regulations “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare?”
Let’s review: “Other policy questions are not relevant to the endangerment finding.” Are you absolutely sure about that? There’s 30,920 Comments to review:
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0194-0093/comment?postedDateFrom=2025-08-19&postedDateTo=2025-08-21
SCOTUS has changed and so has the Administration. And Congress is powerless to do anything.
Do you seriously believe “the System” in 2026 is going to be listening to the NAS, Dessler et al 2025, the AMS or RealClimate, or CarbonBrief, Politico or The Guardian?
Don’t count your chickens. Placing your faith in “climate scientists” hasn’t worked out that well so far. Warming is still accelerating.
Datas comments. Obviously the endangerment finding is a peculiar sort of thing unique to Americas laws, and is not an ideal response to the climate problem, BUT it has helped develop renewable energy, so it would be stupid to just stand back and let the finding be overturned, especially as the OTHER approaches such as carbon taxes and cap and trade have been tried at federal level and have failed to gain traction. What works in OTHER countries may have no chance of working in America. So the endangerment finding is better than nothing. But good information on how other countries approach the climate problem.