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

[longview]

This is an interesting report from the DOE.
A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate

Figure 3.1.1 shows that the anthropogenic forcing component was negligible before about 1900 and
has increased steadily since, rising to almost 3 W/m2 today. However, this is still only about 1 percent of
the unperturbed radiation flows, making it a challenge to isolate the effects of anthropogenic forcing; state-
of-the-art satellite estimates of global radiative energy flows are only accurate to a few W/m2.

Widespread use of RCP8.5 as a no-policy baseline has created a bias towards alarm in the climate
impacts literature. The extent of this problem was confirmed in a literature analysis by Pielke Jr. and Ritchie
(2020). They found that some 16,800 scientific papers published between 2010 and 2020 used the RCP8.5
scenario, with about 4,500 of the articles linking RCP8.5 to the concept of “business-as-usual”. Their
analysis showed how RCP8.5 was misused not only by individual researchers, but also by influential
science agencies like the IPCC and the U.S. National Climate Assessment (USNCA), which has directly
led to misleading coverage in prominent media outlets.

I am still reading, but it is a different look at how our climate is changing.

 

[Loulit01]

On page x of this study the five members of the writing team are listed. They are:

John Christy,Ph.D. Judith Curry,Ph.D. Steven Koonin,Ph.D. Ross McKitrick,Ph.D. and Roy Spencer,Ph.D

John Raymond Christy for the first successful development of a satellite temperature record, and for his rejection of mainstream climate science.

Judith A. Curry Curry has become known for hosting a blog which is part of the climate change denial blogosphere.

Steven Koonin, Ph.D.He later became known as a skeptic on climate change, publishing the book Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters, which was widely condemned for promoting climate denial

Ross McKitrick has authored works about environmental economics and ones denying the scientific consensus on climate change,

Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Regarding climate change, Spencer is a "lukewarmer", with the view that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused some warming, but that influence is small compared to natural variations in global average cloud cover.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Five out five members of the writing team are climate change deniers to at least a moderate extent and some reject it 100%.

This is a heavily biased study.
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one here who understands how to research.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

On page x of this study the five members of the writing team are listed. They are:

John Christy,Ph.D. Judith Curry,Ph.D. Steven Koonin,Ph.D. Ross McKitrick,Ph.D. and Roy Spencer,Ph.D

John Raymond Christy for the first successful development of a satellite temperature record, and for his rejection of mainstream climate science.

Judith A. Curry Curry has become known for hosting a blog which is part of the climate change denial blogosphere.

Steven Koonin, Ph.D.He later became known as a skeptic on climate change, publishing the book Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters, which was widely condemned for promoting climate denial

Ross McKitrick has authored works about environmental economics and ones denying the scientific consensus on climate change,

Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Regarding climate change, Spencer is a "lukewarmer", with the view that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused some warming, but that influence is small compared to natural variations in global average cloud cover.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Five out five members of the writing team are climate change deniers to at least a moderate extent and some reject it 100%.

This is a heavily biased study.
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one here who understands how to research.

Good news. They won’t get fired by Trump.

 

[longview]

On page x of this study the five members of the writing team are listed. They are:

John Christy,Ph.D. Judith Curry,Ph.D. Steven Koonin,Ph.D. Ross McKitrick,Ph.D. and Roy Spencer,Ph.D

John Raymond Christy for the first successful development of a satellite temperature record, and for his rejection of mainstream climate science.

Judith A. Curry Curry has become known for hosting a blog which is part of the climate change denial blogosphere.

Steven Koonin, Ph.D.He later became known as a skeptic on climate change, publishing the book Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters, which was widely condemned for promoting climate denial

Ross McKitrick has authored works about environmental economics and ones denying the scientific consensus on climate change,

Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Regarding climate change, Spencer is a "lukewarmer", with the view that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused some warming, but that influence is small compared to natural variations in global average cloud cover.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Five out five members of the writing team are climate change deniers to at least a moderate extent and some reject it 100%.

This is a heavily biased study.
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one here who understands how to research.

So who do you propose should be on the red team?
Science is not about everybody agreeing, it is about challenging hypothesis with observed data.

 

[Loulit01]

So who do you propose should be on the red team?
Science is not about everybody agreeing, it is about challenging hypothesis with observed data.

I refer you to my comment about being the only one who knows how to research. What good is a study written by five people who all have the same viewpoint about what they're studying?

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

It's simple folks. No use arguing with climate change deniers. None. If you want to argue with them you will get the same results as you get with the pro-gun crowd or the anti-abortion crowd.

But just for fun......... we already know that the consensus from the scientific community AROUND THE WORLD are sounding the alarm about climate change, so pretending it isn't all that serious is just................ pretending.

SO I looked at the source the OP is referencing................

United States Department of Energy
Seriously, referencing the Dept of Energy for non-biased and scientific based analysis of climate change? Is this even for real? I mean, talk about gullible.

• Under the current administration, Energy.gov has shifted from a historically science-driven resource to a government platform promoting ideologically aligned climate skepticism. Despite its status as an official government website, this political repurposing of climate data and misuse of scientific sources warrants a Right Bias and Mixed Factual rating.

• Failed Fact Checks​

  • While no prior fact checks flagged the DOE itself for misinformation, this July 2025 climate report has drawn direct and credible rebukes from numerous scientists whose work was cited. According to AFP, this is the third time in 2025 that the Trump administration has misrepresented scientific research in official reports. These repeated incidents raise serious questions about editorial integrity and scientific accuracy.
• https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/u-s-department-of-energy-bias-and-credibility/

I am constantly amused at how accurate the Doobie Brothers were when they wrote:
But what a fool believes he sees
No wise man has the power to reason away

 

[Loulit01]

It's simple folks. No use arguing with climate change deniers. None. If you want to argue with them you will get the same results as you get with the pro-gun crowd or the anti-abortion crowd.

But just for fun......... we already know that the consensus from the scientific community AROUND THE WORLD are sounding the alarm about climate change, so pretending it isn't all that serious is just................ pretending.

SO I looked at the source the OP is referencing................

United States Department of Energy
Seriously, referencing the Dept of Energy for non-biased and scientific based analysis of climate change? Is this even for real? I mean, talk about gullible.

• Under the current administration, Energy.gov has shifted from a historically science-driven resource to a government platform promoting ideologically aligned climate skepticism. Despite its status as an official government website, this political repurposing of climate data and misuse of scientific sources warrants a Right Bias and Mixed Factual rating.

• Failed Fact Checks​

  • While no prior fact checks flagged the DOE itself for misinformation, this July 2025 climate report has drawn direct and credible rebukes from numerous scientists whose work was cited. According to AFP, this is the third time in 2025 that the Trump administration has misrepresented scientific research in official reports. These repeated incidents raise serious questions about editorial integrity and scientific accuracy.
• https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/u-s-department-of-energy-bias-and-credibility/

I am constantly amused at how accurate the Doobie Brothers were when they wrote:
But what a fool believes he sees
No wise man has the power to reason away

Thank you.

 

[longview]

It's simple folks. No use arguing with climate change deniers. None. If you want to argue with them you will get the same results as you get with the pro-gun crowd or the anti-abortion crowd.

But just for fun......... we already know that the consensus from the scientific community AROUND THE WORLD are sounding the alarm about climate change, so pretending it isn't all that serious is just................ pretending.

SO I looked at the source the OP is referencing................

United States Department of Energy
Seriously, referencing the Dept of Energy for non-biased and scientific based analysis of climate change? Is this even for real? I mean, talk about gullible.

• Under the current administration, Energy.gov has shifted from a historically science-driven resource to a government platform promoting ideologically aligned climate skepticism. Despite its status as an official government website, this political repurposing of climate data and misuse of scientific sources warrants a Right Bias and Mixed Factual rating.

• Failed Fact Checks​

  • While no prior fact checks flagged the DOE itself for misinformation, this July 2025 climate report has drawn direct and credible rebukes from numerous scientists whose work was cited. According to AFP, this is the third time in 2025 that the Trump administration has misrepresented scientific research in official reports. These repeated incidents raise serious questions about editorial integrity and scientific accuracy.
• https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/u-s-department-of-energy-bias-and-credibility/

I am constantly amused at how accurate the Doobie Brothers were when they wrote:
But what a fool believes he sees
No wise man has the power to reason away

So please point out any errors in the report?
BTW the consensus is that A: the climate has warmed over the last century,
and B: That Human activity is causing warming.
But don't believe me, here are the words from the cartoonist himself.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

Note that they did not say how much of the observed warming was from Human activity, or if the warming would be catastrophic.
All of the authors of this study, actually are part of the scientific consensus.

 

[longview]

I refer you to my comment about being the only one who knows how to research. What good is a study written by five people who all have the same viewpoint about what they're studying?

The same could be said about the IPCC reports!
What viewpoint do you think the authors share?

 

[dmpi]

very good link. For those who don't want to dive head-first into a scientific rabbit hole, read pages viii and ix for a overview and summary of the report.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

Note that they did not say how much of the observed warming was from Human activity

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm......................................
97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Not to mention you had to dive far down and way back to find SOMETHING you could point to................

Published 15 May 2013
examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011
Meanwhile...............
July 7, 2025

What is the Current Consensus on Climate Change? — HOME

More to the point of this post, what is the current scientific consensus on climate change? I’m not going to depend on the version provided by Elbeyi, Jensen et al, as they seem rather biased. However, NASA has compiled over a dozen consensus statements, which are remarkably similar to each other. H

www.exploringtheproblemspace.com

 

[Loulit01]

The same could be said about the IPCC reports!
What viewpoint do you think the authors share?

1.rejection of mainstream climate science.
2. climate change denial blogosphere.
3.was widely condemned for promoting climate denial
4..denying the scientific consensus on climate change,
5.with the view that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused some warming, but that influence is small compared to natural variations in global average cloud cover.

All five writers had their minds made up before the study. They were chosen for this reason. How did you miss that in my post?

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

very good link. For those who don't want to dive head-first into a scientific rabbit hole, read pages viii and ix for a overview and summary of the report.

OH LORD!!
Published 15 May 2013
examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011

Meanwhile...............
July 7, 2025

What is the Current Consensus on Climate Change? — HOME​

More to the point of this post, what is the current scientific consensus on climate change? I’m not going to depend on the version provided by Elbeyi, Jensen et al, as they seem rather biased. However, NASA has compiled over a dozen consensus statements, which are remarkably similar to each other. H

www.exploringtheproblemspace.com

AI Overview


The overwhelming scientific consensus, including recent 2025 reports, is that climate change is happening and primarily caused by human activities. This consensus is based on a vast body of evidence, including rising global temperatures, melting glaciers and ice sheets, and extreme weather events. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) projects a high (70%) chance that the average global warming for 2025-2029 will exceed 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.


United States Department of Energy
Seriously, referencing the Dept of Energy for non-biased and scientific based analysis of climate change? Is this even for real? I mean, talk about gullible.

• Under the current administration, Energy.gov has shifted from a historically science-driven resource to a government platform promoting ideologically aligned climate skepticism. Despite its status as an official government website, this political repurposing of climate data and misuse of scientific sources warrants a Right Bias and Mixed Factual rating.
• • While no prior fact checks flagged the DOE itself for misinformation, this July 2025 climate report has drawn direct and credible rebukes from numerous scientists whose work was cited. According to AFP, this is the third time in 2025 that the Trump administration has misrepresented scientific research in official reports. These repeated incidents raise serious questions about editorial integrity and scientific accuracy.
• https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/u-s-department-of-energy-bias-and-credibility/

I am constantly amused at how accurate the Doobie Brothers were when they wrote:
But what a fool believes he sees
No wise man has the power to reason away

 

[longview]

97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm......................................
97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Not to mention you had to dive far down and way back to find SOMETHING you could point to................

Published 15 May 2013
examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011
Meanwhile...............
July 7, 2025

What is the Current Consensus on Climate Change? — HOME

More to the point of this post, what is the current scientific consensus on climate change? I’m not going to depend on the version provided by Elbeyi, Jensen et al, as they seem rather biased. However, NASA has compiled over a dozen consensus statements, which are remarkably similar to each other. H

www.exploringtheproblemspace.com

Let's break down Cook's methodology a bit.

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

They selected 11,944 abstracts that contained the strings ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’.
of that 11,944, they picked 4,252 abstracts that expressed a position in the abstract.
Of those 4,252, abstracts, 97.1% agreed that humans are causing global warming, so 4,129 abstracts of the
original 11,944, (~35%) of the total abstracts selected), agreed that Humans are causing global warming.
But what does "humans are causing global warming" mean?
Is 100% of the observed warming since 1900 caused from Human activity, or is the number 5%.
Perhaps the date that Human caused warming began is 1978, and 100% of the post 1978 warming is from Human activity?
Also unstated, is which Human activity are they speaking of?
We know that land use change can certainty impact the climate, as well as air pollution (SMOG).
The problem with the concept of AGW, is that when you start to peel away the layers, there are more questions than answers.
Do added greenhouse gases actually cause warming, the authors of the study seem to think so?

 

[longview]

1.rejection of mainstream climate science.
2. climate change denial blogosphere.
3.was widely condemned for promoting climate denial
4..denying the scientific consensus on climate change,
5.with the view that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused some warming, but that influence is small compared to natural variations in global average cloud cover.

All five writers had their minds made up before the study. They were chosen for this reason. How did you miss that in my post?

1:Many of the authors studies have been cited in the IPCC reports, how is that a rejection.
2: None have denied that Human activity can change the climate!
3:Some of them were condemned for finding different results, that does not make their findings wrong!
4: They are part of the scientific consensus
5:Mainstream climate science cannot even agree on which simulation best represents the future, ECS or TCR,
and the difference between the two are vast.

 

[Loulit01]

1:Many of the authors studies have been cited in the IPCC reports, how is that a rejection.

2: None have denied that Human activity can change the climate!
3:Some of them were condemned for finding different results, that does not make their findings wrong!
4: They are part of the scientific consensus
5:Mainstream climate science cannot even agree on which simulation best represents the future, ECS or TCR,
and the difference between the two are vast.

Sources?

 

[longview]

Sources?

A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate
Read the report, they do not say that Human caused climate change is not real!
John Christy
Christy was a lead author of a section of the 2001 report by the IPCC

 

[Loulit01]

A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate
Read the report, they do not say that Human caused climate change is not real!
John Christy
Christy was a lead author of a section of the 2001 report by the IPCC

Okay.

 

[Helix]

This administration is anti-science. Enjoy reading their comics if you want.

 

[longview]

This administration is anti-science. Enjoy reading their comics if you want.

There is nothing anti science in the report.

 

[Helix]

There is nothing anti science in the report.

If that were true, this thread wouldn't exist.

 

[longview]

If that were true, this thread wouldn't exist.

The thread exists because I found the report interesting, and posted it.
Consider that if the report contained incorrect data, the errors would have been pointed out.
What I find surprising, is how many people will refuse to even read a report that may contain
information that questions their pre established beliefs.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate
Read the report, they do not say that Human caused climate change is not real!
John Christy
Christy was a lead author of a section of the 2001 report by the IPCC

OMG, seriously? AGAIN referencing Dept of Energy?? Are YOU kidding?

• https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/u-s-department-of-energy-bias-and-credibility/

I already debunked that site in my comments above and you are going back to them?

Alabama’s State Climatologist John Christy is considered an outsider, if not a pariah, among most climate researchers. His critics say his work has been plagued by errors and many of his conclusions dismissed.

Christy reached his conclusions based on research he performed with another UAH professor, Roy Spencer, that used satellites to, in effect, measure the temperature of a portion of Earth’s atmosphere. In the early 1990s, when the research was first published, it seemed to show the planet was not warming like mainstream climate science said it was.

However, other researchers reviewed the results and found what they said were significant problems with its methodology, as well as the data it produced. In 1997 and 1998, shortly after Christy and Spencer published their findings, two different teams of researchers showed the orbit of satellites used to measure the temperature were inconsistent, thereby skewing results.

Other studies found similar issues, including one in 2004 that published evidence that Christy and Spencer’s measurements of what they believed to be the lower atmosphere were being contaminated by the cooler upper atmosphere. The team also found many of the same problems with inconsistent orbits in Christy’s and Spencer’s research.

In the eyes of mainstream climate science, Christy’s and Spencer’s work has not aged well.

“They’re arguments are s***,” said Andrew Dessler, a Texas A&M professor and director of the Texas Center for Climate Studies, who is a frequent critic of the UAH team’s research.

According to Dessler, Christy’s and Spencer’s arguments have not swayed the scientific community. Dessler referred to a survey, touted by both NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

“Virtually 100% of the community agrees with the conclusions – the earth is warming. Humans are largely to blame for that,” Dessler said.

These days, Dessler said, Christy’s perspective on climate change seems less about science.

“It seems to be much more an argument that’s designed to generate soundbites that politicians can use,” Dessler said.

John Christy may be the country’s best known climate change skeptic

Alabama’s State Climatologist John Christy is no stranger to controversy and doesn’t shy away from the spotlight. His critics say his work has been plagued by errors and many of his conclusions…

wbhm.org

FOR THE LAST TIME:

But what a fool believes he sees
No wise man has the power to reason away

 

[longview]

OMG, seriously? AGAIN referencing Dept of Energy?? Are YOU kidding?

• https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/u-s-department-of-energy-bias-and-credibility/

I already debunked that site in my comments above and you are going back to them?

John Christy may be the country’s best known climate change skeptic

Alabama’s State Climatologist John Christy is no stranger to controversy and doesn’t shy away from the spotlight. His critics say his work has been plagued by errors and many of his conclusions…

wbhm.org

FOR THE LAST TIME:

But what a fool believes he sees
No wise man has the power to reason away

How do you think comments debunk something. The report stands on it's own merit.
The people who have criticized the report have not done so based on erroneous data.
Also the report acknowledges that Human activity can change the climate.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

How do you think comments debunk something. The report stands on it's own merit.
The people who have criticized the report have not done so based on erroneous data.
Also the report acknowledges that Human activity can change the climate.

*Yawn*
You want to keep this up until everyone here ABSOLUTELY agrees with your point of view, then keep it up, the Earth is round, not flat, so there is no point in arguing with someone who believes otherwise.