Reforming the National Climate Assessment: A Call for Sanity Over Alarmism

The U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA) has long been touted as a cornerstone of the federal government’s climate agenda, a hefty tome meant to guide policy and inform the public about the perils of a warming world. But according to Patrick Brown, a climate scientist at the Breakthrough Institute, the NCA is less a beacon of scientific rigor and more a megaphone for partisan alarmism. In a recent article for The Breakthrough Journal (Spring 2024, No. 20), Brown lays out five practical recommendations to overhaul the NCA, aiming to make it a tool for genuine understanding rather than a cudgel for political mobilization. For our readers, his critique hits familiar notes—exposing the biases and hype baked into the climate establishment’s flagship report—while offering a path toward something more credible.

Brown’s starting point is a simple truth: the NCA, as it stands, is a one-sided affair. Released every few years under the auspices of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, it’s a document that reflects the priorities of whoever’s in power—lately, that’s been Democrats with a taste for apocalyptic rhetoric. But with a new administration on the horizon and a growing chorus of skeptics questioning the climate orthodoxy, Brown’s ideas couldn’t come at a better time. Here’s a rundown of his five fixes, and why they matter to anyone tired of being fed a steady diet of climate doom.

1. Include Exposure and Vulnerability, Not Just Physical Hazards

The NCA loves to spotlight “climate hazards”—floods, heatwaves, wildfires—as if they’re solely the spawn of rising CO2 levels. Brown calls this out as myopic. A real assessment of risk doesn’t just tally up weather events; it factors in exposure (how many people or assets are in harm’s way) and vulnerability (how well they can cope). Think about it: a hurricane hitting a sparsely populated coast in 1900 isn’t the same as one slamming into Miami today. Population growth, urban sprawl, and shoddy infrastructure often drive disaster costs far more than a few degrees of warming. By ignoring these, the NCA inflates climate’s role and dodges the messy reality of human decisions.

For skeptics, this is a no-brainer—stop blaming the atmosphere for bad zoning laws.

2. Analyze Total Risk, Not Just “Additional” Risk from Climate Change

Here’s where the NCA’s tunnel vision gets absurd. It fixates on the “additional” risk tacked on by climate change, as if the baseline risk from nature’s tantrums doesn’t matter. Brown gives an example: if heat-related deaths are dropping overall (thanks to air conditioning and better healthcare), but climate change nudges them up slightly, the NCA screams about the uptick while burying the bigger story of progress. This cherry-picking fuels the narrative that every problem is a climate problem, even when the data says otherwise. Readers here know the game—hype the delta, hide the trend. Brown wants the NCA to show the full picture: total risk, not just the climate boogeyman.

3. Address Publication Bias Head-On

The NCA leans heavily on peer-reviewed studies, which sounds great until you realize the academic machine churns out papers skewed toward dramatic findings. Brown points to “publication bias”—the tendency for journals to favor studies showing big, scary climate impacts over those finding little or nothing. A paper saying “warming might not hurt corn yields” doesn’t get the same love as one predicting famines. This distorts the NCA’s conclusions, making climate change look like a relentless juggernaut. Brown’s fix? Force the NCA to wrestle with this bias explicitly—maybe even seek out the ignored studies. For those of us who’ve long suspected the science is cooked to fit the narrative, this is a welcome jab at the ivory tower.

4. Focus on Description, Not Mobilization

The NCA isn’t shy about its agenda—it’s less a report and more a call to arms, dripping with urgency to “act now” on emissions. Brown argues this activist slant undermines its credibility. Science should describe what is, not preach what we ought to do. When the NCA doubles as a policy cheerleader, it alienates half the country—especially those who see climate action as a Trojan horse for bigger government or economic upheaval. Brown wants it to stick to facts: what’s happening, how certain are we, and what’s the range of outcomes? No rallying cries, no guilt trips. It’s a refreshing nod to objectivity in a debate drowning in propaganda.

5. Establish a “Red Team” Review Process

Perhaps Brown’s boldest idea is a “red team” review—a formal challenge to the NCA’s conclusions by an independent group of experts. Think of it as a scientific audit, poking holes in assumptions and testing the robustness of claims. The climate establishment hates this concept (remember the backlash to Scott Pruitt’s EPA proposal?), but it’s hard to argue against if you value transparency. A red team could expose weak spots—like overhyped models or dodgy attribution—and force the NCA to justify itself. For skeptics, this is the holy grail: a chance to break the echo chamber and let dissenting voices breathe.

Why It Matters

Brown’s reforms aren’t about doubting climate change, as he’s a believer, perhaps a lukewarmer, but about making the NCA a document both sides can trust. Right now, it’s a partisan football—kicked around by progressives when they’re in charge, ignored or dismantled by conservatives when the pendulum swings. With Trump back in the White House and Doge eyeing the budget axe, the NCA’s future is shaky. Brown’s vision might save it from irrelevance or deletion by grounding it in reality over ideology.

This critique aligns with what we’ve said for years: the climate narrative is oversold, oversimplified, and over politicized. Brown’s not tossing the NCA out—he’s trying to salvage it from its own excesses. Whether the climate elite will listen is another story. They’ve got a lot invested in the doom train—careers, grants, moral superiority. But if the NCA keeps peddling half-truths, it’ll only deepen the divide between the alarmists and the rest of us who just want straight answers.

Check out Brown’s full piece at The Breakthrough Institute here. It’s a rare case of a climate insider calling out his own side’s nonsense.