The Department of Energy’s A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate has unleashed a Category 5 tantrum across climate science’s more excitable precincts. No surprise there. What is new, and potentially consequential, is that the Blob—our affectionate term for the climate-industrial complex—has chosen to focus its fury on claims that their research was misused or twisted in the DOE’s report.
With all the smoke and thunder, WUWT is uniquely positioned to cut through the noise and offer readers a rare public service: an actual forensic examination of these accusations. This post will enumerate the claims of misuse—as aired by the alarmist press and aggrieved researchers—quote them directly, reference the actual DOE report and cited studies, and invite readers (especially those who agree to an honest, source-based evaluation) to judge whether the charges hold any water.
Let’s give sunlight a chance to disinfect this process.
The Complaint Parade: What Scientists (and the Blob) Claim Was “Misused”
The press coverage since the report’s release has been almost comically uniform: scientists, whose research was cited, claim it was misrepresented, cherry-picked, or taken out of context. Some go further, accusing the DOE of outright deception or anti-scientific intent. Here are the most prominent examples, as reported in the major climate advocacy outlets:
1. Ben Santer: “Fundamentally Misrepresents My Work”
Ben Santer, a fixture in U.S. climate science, is quoted in WIRED:
“Santer’s research is also cited in the DOE report; he, like other scientists who spoke to WIRED, say the report ‘fundamentally misrepresents’ his work.”
Unfortunately, neither Santer nor the journalists specify exactly how or where his work was misrepresented in the DOE report. The complaint is long on adjectives, short on details. Readers: If you can pinpoint the passages in both the DOE report and Santer’s original research and make an independent assessment, WUWT will gladly publish your findings.
2. Zeke Hausfather: “Cherry-Picked Data”
Zeke Hausfather, another frequent media commentator, gets more specific. He objects to the DOE’s use of a chart from his 2019 paper to argue that “climate models have ‘consistently overestimated observations’ of atmospheric CO₂.” Hausfather’s complaint:
“They appear to have discarded the whole paper as not fitting their narrative, and instead picked a single figure that was in the supplementary materials to cast doubt on models, when the whole paper actually confirmed how well they have performed in the years after they were published.”
Let’s be clear: the DOE report does cite his chart and notes that, when you look at the IPCC’s model projections versus observations, models run “hot” compared to reality. But it’s also true that the original paper by Hausfather and colleagues argues for the general accuracy of climate models. Readers: Is this a cherry-pick, or is the DOE highlighting an aspect the mainstream glosses over? The footnotes in the report cite both the chart and Hausfather’s text. We encourage readers to review both and weigh in.
3. Joy Ward: “CO₂ Plant Experiments Don’t Prove What DOE Claims”
Ward, a biologist whose CO₂ enrichment studies are used to bolster the DOE’s argument that rising CO₂ “promotes plant growth (global greening), thereby enhancing agricultural yields”, is quoted in WIRED:
“Our studies indicate that major disruptions in plant development such as flowering time can occur in direct response to rising CO₂, which were not mentioned in the report.”
She adds that her experiments were in “highly controlled growth conditions” and not indicative of net agricultural outcomes under climate change.
Again, readers can consult the DOE section on “CO₂ fertilization” (Chapters 2 and 9) and compare to Ward’s publications. Is the DOE overselling, or simply presenting a perspective excluded from mainstream summaries? The report openly discusses model uncertainties, meta-analyses, and caveats.
4. Josh Krissansen-Totton: “My Research on Ancient Oceans Is Irrelevant”
Krissansen-Totton, an assistant professor at the University of Washington, is incensed that his work on ocean pH “billions of years ago” is cited to suggest that today’s modest pH changes are not unprecedented:
“[My] work on ocean acidity billions of years ago has ‘no relevance’ to the impacts of human-driven ocean acidification today…”
The DOE report states:
“The recent decline in [ocean] pH is within the range of natural variability on millennial time scales… ocean biota appear to be resilient to natural long-term changes in ocean pH since marine organisms were exposed to wide ranges in pH.”
Is this an unfair inference, or does the literature genuinely support resilience and variability claims? Readers with the stomach for geochemistry, take a look at the sources and make the call.
5. Jeff Clements: “My Findings Downplayed, But Not Misquoted”
A rare note of honesty: Clements, a Canadian marine biologist, says the DOE accurately described his findings that acidification impacts on fish behavior have been exaggerated. He simply wants the DOE to make clear that his conclusion about “relatively unaffected” fish behavior doesn’t mean all ocean species are equally safe:
“I want to make it clear that our results should not be interpreted to mean ocean acidification (or climate change more generally) is not a problem…”
The DOE report, for its part, cites Clements’ meta-analyses and notes the one-sidedness and exaggeration of acidification impact claims in the literature, including the “decline effect” in publication trends.
6. Richard Seager: “Models Getting Tropical Pacific Wrong”
Seager, of Columbia, objects to the use of his work in two ways:
“I think acceptance has been growing that the models have been getting something wrong in the tropical Pacific… what this means for the future however is very much an area of intense research.”
He also claims a separate study on crop yields was “misrepresented.”
Once again, specifics are scarce. The DOE report’s criticism of model-observation discrepancies is heavily footnoted, with direct citations to the source literature on model errors. Readers: Please bring your microscope.
7. Michael Mann and Andrew Dessler: “Cherry-Picking and Contrarianism”
Michael Mann doesn’t mince words, calling the report:
“a deeply misleading antiscientific narrative, built on deceptive arguments, misrepresented datasets, and distortion of actual scientific understanding. Then they dressed it up with dubious graphics composed of selective, cherry-picked data.”
Andrew Dessler echoes the complaint that the authors are “widely recognized contrarians who don’t represent the mainstream scientific consensus” and that “cherry-picking” is rampant—without ever detailing a single concrete example from the text.
What Do These Accusations Have in Common?
- Vagueness: Most complaints are light on specifics. Only a handful (Hausfather, Ward, Krissansen-Totton, Clements) offer any details, and even those are open to interpretation.
- Context Wars: Much of the outrage hinges on whether the DOE report failed to recite every caveat or to frame findings in the most alarming way. This is a demand for narrative control, not evidence of actual “misuse.”
- Definitional Games: Accusations of “misrepresentation” often mean “I don’t like the implication,” not that the quote or citation is inaccurate.
How Readers Can Help
WUWT readers have the perfect opportunity to do what the Blob won’t: read the sources and compare. If you want to participate:
- Select one of the above claims.
- Read the relevant section in the DOE report and compare to the original scientific paper or its abstract.
- Evaluate whether the report misquoted, mischaracterized, or “cherry-picked.”
- Post your findings in the comments, with quotes or page references.
We’ll highlight the best contributions in a future post. WUWT can lead the way in fact-checking the fact-checkers.
Final Word: Sunlight or Slogan?
The Blob’s “misuse” narrative is just that: a narrative. It’s not supported by much in the way of evidence, and it smacks of a defensive reflex against any challenge to climate orthodoxy. If the DOE report is guilty of scientific malpractice, it should be easy to demonstrate—with specifics. The fact that critics rarely do so tells its own story.
Let’s have a real debate, with real facts, in real context. Read, compare, and decide for yourself. If the DOE report “twisted” the science, it will be obvious to any fair-minded reader. If not, perhaps it’s time the Blob found a new talking point.
References
All quotes and specifics above are sourced directly from:
- DOE Report: A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate
- WIRED: Scientists Say New Government Climate Report Twists Their Work
- Inside Climate News: Climate Scientists Look to Fight Back Against DOE’s ‘Antiscientific,’ ‘Deceptive’ Climate Report
- NOTUS: ‘A Serious Misuse of My Research’: Climate Scientists Say New Trump Energy Report Botches Their Work
Let’s see if the Blob is ready for a real audit—or just another round of hashtag activism.
Maudlin models of mendacity clog the maintstream media minds with muddled houses of mirrors.
“muddled manor of mirrors”?
Better yet:
Maudlin models of mendacity by misanthropic Marxist Malthusians mar mainstream media minds with muddled manors of mirrors.
A beautiful big alliteration 😉
Amazingly alluring alliteration?
What I am seeing is people frantically testifying to their goodness. Justification through faith, public statements of faith. Whether what they testify to faith in is nonsense or not, who cares? Being seen to be one of the elect, having the mark of Grace, that’s what counts here.
Crude summary of Calvinism:
The number of the elect is very smallIts predestined whether we are among themWe are saved through faith and not worksThe medium of our salvation is Grace which isfreely givendoes not depend on our meritsinclines without necessitatingis always efficaciousThere are Marks of Grace, visible to our contemporaries, the chief of which is evidence of our faith and which include worldly success.
Yes, its a religion, and one which echoes, in different clothes, previous ones, and one in particular.
nice alliteration- I’d love to hear President Trump say that 🙂
I heard Brandon responded, “I have nothing to do with my son’s business! “
Except taking 10% off the top. !
Or Spiro Agnew?
They have more complaints than you can shake a stick at.
Facts and data are not with them. Fiddle factors at the ready…
DOE
I know next to nothing about the US system, but it does seem better than ours – going forward
“My Research on Ancient Oceans Is Irrelevant”
Sounds like Josh just Nuked his own research relevance. Perhaps every paper with Josh as an Et.Al. should be removed from the theater.
In the end, however you try to spin it and divert from it, the important point is that you cannot run a modern economy on intermittent power sources, you especially cannot do that while doubling power demand from heat pumps and EVs, and if the only people embarking on the crazed attempt to do all this are the English speaking countries…. its not going to have any effect anyway, even if by some miracle you could do it.
To me this is the single most important part of the whole debate. If you don’t have affordable, reliable energy (especially electricity, as our societies are constructed now), your economy and civilization will collapse, sooner or later, and lot of people will die. Period. End of story.
This morning,I saw on the BBC website an article about how heat waves affect people’s brains. Seriously. The opening paragraphs tell the sad story of a child with a neurological condition which causes seizures, specifically at higher temperatures. Maybe affordable power and air conditioning would help this child, but no, it is huge problem for whole world to fix.
How much higher does the temperature have to be to cause a seizure? How high do they think the Earth’s temperature will rise? I doubt if 1/10 of a degree F every 10 years will make much of a difference.
Sadly the article does not mention any specific temperature, only “heatwaves”, which I interpret to be elevated temperatures compared to averages for any given area. The authors did note that the problem is not that common in hot countries so it seems to be a problem in temperate places that have heatwaves occasionally. Also, this particular child had a specific neurological condition. Don’t know if it is congenital or if it developed due to high temperatures. Lots left unsaid in the article. But the authors and the mom blame climate change, of course.
Move the kid out of the city.. that will reduce the temperature the child has to experience far more than any real global temperature change.
Oh, and buy a good air-conditioner.
The only possible way around that would be to Eliminate the Global Economy and only be dependent on what can be made Locally.
Back to a combination Hunter/Gatherer or Hunter/Agrarian and end all Global Trade. Then you truly will have Haves and Have Nots
If you don’t have affordable, reliable energy…
You have exactly what we’ve got – the most expensive energy in the world – and the inevitable de-industrialisation.
There is some good news,however.
A recent survey by the British Standards Institute of 1000 business executives found 71% said the Government cannot expand the economy at the same time as trying for net zero and 50% said the objective of net zero was unrealistic.
Only 36% of businesses said they had set targets to achieve net zero this year compared to 58% last year.
(UK i newspaper 23 July 2025.)
The corollary is that to hungry, freezing people, trees are not to be hugged, but burned, and the nearest endangered species is supper. Only prosperous people have the luxury of “environmental awareness”.
I’ve made this point on several posts but it is worth repeating again.
According to the Energy Institute’s latest ‘Statistical Review of World Energy’
Coal reached a global record level of demand of 165 EJ in 2024 and was 83% centred on the Asia Pacific region, with 67% of that demand coming from China.
The Asia Pacific region saw 68% of global energy demand increase in 2024 to reach 47% of total global energy demand.
The Asia Pacific region demand reached 52% of global electricity demand in 2024. In contrast North America and Europe were responsible for 30% of demand.
Coal dominates China’s electricity sector providing 58% of its electricity in 2024
India’s coal demand now equals that of the CIS, (9 former member countries of the Soviet Union including Russia), North America and Europe combined
Global energy demand and the use of coal in these regions and countries is only going in one direction and that is up.
Michel,
I agree with you. However, we are addressing the total inadequacy of the solution. But, is there actually a problem?
“He simply wants the DOE to make clear that his conclusion about “relatively unaffected” fish behavior doesn’t mean all ocean species are equally safe”
It ain’t a safe world- it never was and never will be- for any species including humans. Get used to it.
Perhaps some of the unsafe ocean species are unsafe due to offshort WTGs?
Sounds like a good description of consensus climate “science”
“a deeply misleading antiscientific narrative, built on deceptive arguments, misrepresented datasets, and distortion of actual scientific understanding. Then they dressed it up with dubious graphics composed of selective, cherry-picked data.”
Yes, perfect projection!
Well, Mann should know – a perfect example of it takes one to know one.
Except that would be admitting that this review is a deeply misleading… – which I don’t admit. I think they did a very legitimate job.
Or his own work in MBH98.
Yes. Remove the stripbark pines, and there’s nothing.
Sounds like Psychological Projection
Typical for The Mann
Duboius graphics composed of selective, cherry picked data(sets)…
has Hockey Stick Graph written ALL over it
“Accuse your enemy of what you are doing as you are doing it to create confusion.”
Attribution for this “quote” is nebulous, but it is a well-established tactic of nefarious propagandists.
Sounds like Russian leaders accusing Ukraine of being terrorists and worse.
And vice versa. That knife cuts both ways. Not to mention the US global involvement. That’s a finger-pointing exercise in futility.
“Most complaints are light on specifics.”
These dudes are scientists- or so they claim- if so, there’s no reason they can’t be specific- and I’m surprised that they haven’t even tried given the importance of the topic, most likely because they can’t.
At least they can’t claim the distinction of having graduated with the help of GROK AI though the same can’t be said of their et.al. research staff
“CO₂ Plant Experiments Don’t Prove What DOE Claims
”Experiments showing that CO2 can retain warmth do not prove that CO2 warms the planet’s climate.
the Blob – remember that scifi film from ages ago (1958)? In my theater, about a third of the seats had a buzzer installed under the seat- so when the blob started crawling up someone’s leg- the buzzer would go off
the Blob is a great name for the climatistas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blob
They did the same thing for “The Tingler” with Vincent Price
Oh, right- that’s probably what I was thinking of it. It was a few years ago. 🙂
The intensity of the flak tells you that you’re over the target.
Bombs away.
There’s a problem with this analogy.
A couple days ago AlanJ was taking a lot of flak for the stupid things he was saying. Was he also “over the target”?
Protesting being called out. Not a good look.
Some background specifics about point five. Clement’s semi honest statement that ‘ocean acidification’ “relatively unaffected fish”—BUT “does not mean all ocean species are equally safe” is disingenuous for two reasons.
Everybody should have a copy of Rud’s ebook ‘Blowing Smoke.’
Don’t have time or know Clements work, but fish papers are becoming overwhelming on the subject including where low pH is often associated with high productivity. This may help explain some of this hysteria you recognized. Nothing new about hypercapnia, pH measurements in the modern era have been mostly taken during the daytime when pH is lowest (Emery and Stevenson, 1957, below). With important exceptions we have done a poor job doing night research.
Allmon, E. and A. Esbaugh. 2017. Carbon dioxide induced plasticity of branchial acid-base pathways in an estuarine teleost. Sci. Rept. 7:45680
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep45680
First line of abstract. “Anthropogenic CO2 is expected to drive ocean pCO2 above 1,000 μatm by 2100 – inducing respiratory acidosis in fish that must be corrected through branchial ion transport.” Last line. “ These results indicate that red drum can quickly compensate to environmentally relevant acid-base disturbances using baseline cellular machinery, yet are capable of plasticity in response to extreme acid-base challenges.” Conclusion–“ Evidence of plasticity was only observed at extreme CO2 levels, while environmentally relevant concentrations and those associated with climate change do not result in plasticity and can be completely compensated within 2 h.”
Esbaugh, A.J. 2018. Physiological implications of ocean acidification for marine fish: Emerging patterns and new insights. J. Comp. Physiol. B. 188:1–13. doi: 10.1007/s00360-017-1105-6. Open Access and with many references and newer citations
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28547292/
Other reviews in Marine Biology Special Issue, 160(8): 2013, and Special Issue of Oceanography 28(2) 2015
Emery, K. O. and R. E. Stevenson. 1957. Estuaries and Lagoons., I. Physical and chemical characteristics. pp. 673-693. In, J. W. Hedgpeth (Ed.) Treatise on Marine Ecology and Paleoecology. I. Ecology. Mem. Geol. Soc. Amer. 67.
And of course we could cherry-pick where critters require black, anoxic mud.
Schreiber, A., et al., 1996. Icy heritage: Ecological evolution of the postglacial Baltic Sea reflected in the allozymes of a living fossil, the priapulid Halicryptus spinulosus. Mar. Biol. 125:671–685. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00349249
I have witnessed several bays in Pacific islands where CO2 is literally bubbling out of the sea bed. The pH must be way lower than anything predicted by any dubious models. Being bays, the water was way warmer too.
All the fish, and all the corals relying on those wish, were perfectly healthy. Strange, that…
My son thought the Wired article proved the authors were untrustworthy and this report is political propaganda for a failed point of view. My response:
This is poorly researched and written. I’d bet the author concocted the disparaging remarks attributed to Hausfather and Santer to provoke readers but attacking authors instead of their work is rookie error or planned diversion. If you take time to look at the complaints made about works cited you soon see they are unfounded. Accepting someones data to underscore your point doesn’t mean you accept or reject their conclusion. Your point might have nothing to do with their conclusions or their papers emphasis. This author states several times that the report authors are fringe and often debunked etc but gives no reference or even subject that she thinks they got wrong. Science progresses as hypothesis are questioned. Disagreeing with “The Consensus” is not a fault. Failing to pursue alternate explanations is one of Finman’s boogymen.
Richard P. Feynman
I comment on the Hausfather Blake paper. He claims the paper confirms how well they – the models – have performed. The paper does nothing of the kind. It is a good illustration of Von Neumann’s scathing observation that you can fit any model to any data set if you fiddle with enough free parameters. You can fit any climate model, however flawed, with data given enough fudge parameters. I have argued several years ago on this blog – https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/01/the-climate-model-muddle/ – that the practice is tantamount to abandoning the presumption of understanding the physics involved. No doubt Von Neumann was of that view.
Curve fitting to data from non-linear, coupled processes simply can’t predict the future.
His name, Horse Feathers fits him perfectly.
Show one model that shows no warming from 1980-1997, and from 2001-2015.
Model should also show the 1998, 2015/16 El Nino, and the 2023/24 El Nino.
If a model cannot model and predict El Ninos events.. they are JUNK. !
I see that Mann and Dessler are using the time-honored tactics, straight from the Climate Liar’s handbook, of the Logical Fallacies of Ad Hominem and Argument from Consensus. Pathetic.
Tut, tut. There is no link in the article to Mann’s response. None of the three given include it. It is here: https://www.eenews.net/articles/doe-reframes-climate-consensus-as-a-debate/.
At least it isn’t ALL IN CAPITALS!
But it’s no real surprise that E&ENews is practically frothing with rage. All the views that they did their best to suppress are now free to be expressed.
Ah, schadenfreude.
Whew. Clicked the link scared that it was EE News, an engineering paper printed! and mailed! in the mid nineties. That there were engineers who bought (still buy?) into the consensus has always bugged me. It’s disconcerting to see people who I suppose are smarter than me complement the emperor’s new invisible clothes. It might be part of achieving higher educational success – to get to the advanced topics you have to assume enough basic topics are true. The world is too big to trust nobody’s work and personally verify all of it. They must say “not my domain” and move on.
Memory lane for electrical engineers – it was actually “EE Times”. The best articles were written by Bob Pease who passed away 2011 in a car accident.
Bob’s articles appeared in “Electronic Design” not EE Times. ED still puts out a print edition, though the online edition is more timely. The introduction of the World Wide Web led to a steep decline in electronics related publications (which includes computers).
Thanks em
Regarding E&E News, Wikipedia says ” It was acquired by Politico in December 2020.” Could this be an indication of his scientific worth?
A 1989 article by Mann and others was in Molecular Physics.
Reframed as a debate. Oh the horror.
“a deeply misleading antiscientific narrative, built on deceptive arguments, misrepresented datasets, and distortion of actual scientific understanding. Then they dressed it up with dubious graphics composed of selective, cherry-picked data.”
Sounds EXACTLY like Mann’s entire body of work. Also – a LOT like projection……….
Strange, it seems obvious to everybody who reads it but the man himself. I wonder if he curates agreeable coworkers.
Re point 2:
The Christy et al article Fig. 3.2.1. shows various model-projected CO2 concentrations and comes from a much-cited GRL paper: Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections [Hausfather et al, 2019 (here on H-2019)]
The stated purpose of H-2019 was to ‘… analyze [model] projections of global mean surface temperature (GMST) change, one of the most visible climate model outputs, from several generations of past models.’
Fig. S.4 of the H-2019 supplementary materials (Fig. 3.2.1. in Christy et al) indeed confirms that “… most of the historical climate model projections overestimated future CO2 concentrations…”
However, that is not what their paper was investigating, which, as clearly stated in their introduction, was to analyze “projections of GMST change.. from several generations of past models”.
With regard to that, H-2019 found (my emphasis):
Christy et al make no reference to the overall findings of H-2019, despite referencing a single and, insofar as the subject matter H-2019 was addressing, barely relevant chart.
So perhaps Hausfather might be forgiven for thinking that Christy et al discarded the conclusions of H-2019 in favour of a single figure in the supplementary materials; because that seems to be exactly what they have done.
Hausfather’s plot used in the report is in a section discussing poor quality projections of CO2 emissions or atmospheric increases. That section is not discussing accuracy of models. The authors did nor “cherry pick” this and discard the conclusions. Hausfather’s conclusions in that paper had nothing to do with the point of discussion.
Agreed, and it had no bearing on the paper’s findings regarding model skill at projecting GMSTs.
But one must wonder (as I presume Hausfather and co do) why the major and clear conclusions of his paper weren’t included in the overall assessment, while this one, obscure part of it was?
Christy et al were obviously aware of Hausfather et al, (2019), yet they chose to use only that one, supplementary part of it concerning CO2. They did not reference it, for instance, in Part 5.2, which discusses climate model validity of surface warming.
Why not?
It’s okay for Hausfather to get mad for how his research was used.
Whether he’s mad, or whether the new writers used his research for some argument he disagrees with, does not make the new writers incorrect.
I think Rotter summarizes the reactions correctly as complaints rather than counterarguments. Other people I know might categorize Hausfather et al as “butt hurt”.
Hausfather hardly disagrees with the information they used, since they lifted it directly from his paper!
His point, I imagine, is that, since Christy and co knew about this paper (it has been cited in over 120 other studies), why didn’t they mention its clear results in the section of their report that deals with the validity of the modelling of global surface temperatures (5.2) – which was the main subject of the Hausfather paper?
If I refer to research in one paper about squid sex while writing another paper about the viscosity of sea water, am I obligated to report how the baby squids are doing?
If you’re writing a report about anything and you know there to be a multi-cited, peer reviewed scientific paper detailing every aspect of what it is you are writing about, would you ignore it completely?
They used the H2019 paper for a supplementary chart when discussing CO2 concentrations, even though H2019 was about the efficacy of global surface temperature models.
When they came to report on the efficacy global surface temperature models, they ignored H2019 completely, even though they were aware of its existence and conclusions. That’s a glaring omission that would have been flagged by peer review.
But they didn’t subject it to peer review, of course.
Christy knows just how bad and unrealistic climate models are.
Chimp5 was bad.. Chimp6 is even worse
That’s not surface data or modelling, it’s based on a ludicrous 4-year average and the last observations on the chart were 7 years ago. Apart from that ….
Zeke is a con-man from the start, and you are one of the most gullible climopsychotics there is.
The model mean does not even remotely follow real atmospheric temperatures.
Show one model that shows no warming from 1980-1997, and from 2001-2015.
Model should also show the 1998, 2015/16 El Nino, and the 2023/24 El Nino.
If a model cannot model and predict El Ninos events, the main origin of atmospheric warming…. they are JUNK. !
Comparing JUNK models to JUNK, intentionally adjusted, surface data is totally meaningless.
Show me a model that showed the cooling in Adelaide from 1857 to 1999. I got the chart from the late John Daly’s website: “Still Waiting For Greenhouse” available at: http://www.john-daly.com. There are hundreds of charts from weather stations located around the world that showed no warming up to 2002. There are 21 charts for Oz.
PS: If you click on the chart, it will expand and become clear. Click on the “X” in the circle to return to comment text.
GRL awaits your peer-reviewed rebuttal to Hausfather et al, 2019 (but not anxiously).
Rebuttals are unnecessary when the initial paper is already failed.
The government-funded climate career driven, science, truth and ethics-challenged Mikey Mann said:
“The DOE team have shown no interest whatsoever in intellectually honest scientific discourse.
Instead, they have served as loyal soldiers in the ongoing war on science being waged by polluters, petrostates, and plutocrats, and the politicians — which includes the current administration and its enablers in Congress — who do their bidding.”
I hope he was wearing a bib when he spewed all that emotionalist garbage.
The question we can’t answer is
assuming the sciency works helped establish the researcher’s careers
Would the researchers have had the same reaction BEFORE they took the money?
It matters to me because
IF these days represent a correction of the strange climate catastrophie narrative
Does the field correct itself by producing honest research
-or-
Do the hangers-on flock to the next source of funding and career building?
Michael Mann doesn’t mince words, calling the report:
I have not found one example of any of these accusations in the report. I look forward to Mr. Mann’s comments in the public comment portion of this report process. I do hope the comments will mot be summarily dismissed as so many were during the endangerment finding comment period. I submitted several and each was labeled “Irrelevant”
Grok
The U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) released a report on July 29, 2025, titled A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate, which has been widely criticized for misrepresenting the work of climate scientist Ben Santer and others. The report, developed by a five-member “2025 Climate Working Group” handpicked by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, aimed to challenge the mainstream climate science narrative and provide justification for revoking the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2009 endangerment finding, which established that greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare, thereby enabling federal climate regulations. Below are detailed points on how the DoE report misrepresented Santer’s work, based on available information:
“Just the facts, ma’am.” I don’t see any in this comment.
Ugh. F’n AI.
“the DoE report underwent only an internal review by a small group of DoE scientists and administrators, which Santer and others argued was insufficient for a document intended to influence public policy.”
The irony: how can only one AI assume it is correct? Does it seek consensus with other AIs?
See my Response below to AlanJ showing Santer’s deception.
So Grok states consensus is science.
sorry but these are political, self serving, money grubbing, emotion driven “scientists” … no amount of logic, facts or rational arguments will change their alarmist shouts … its a waste of time to try and see if their complaints have merit … the will make the SAME complaints about any rebuttals … they aren’t acting like scientists, stop treating them like they are …
Jeff Clements distinguishes himself by not providing a quote that made him sound corrupt, plus communicated genuine concern for the subject he worked on. As a USA person it makes me think… Greenland has some nice stuff under the glaciers but if we’re gonna invade somewhere lets get Canada. We could use some calm-spoken socialists that know how hunting rifles work. Then other minor details like connecting highways and getting big hydro projects to smelt aluminum cans…
Grok: Do you support the global warming thesis?
I don’t “support” or “oppose” any scientific thesis as a matter of belief—my role is to analyze evidence and reasoning. The global warming thesis, specifically the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis, posits that human activities, primarily greenhouse gas emissions, are the dominant driver of observed global temperature increases since the mid-20th century. Here’s a concise breakdown based on available data and scientific consensus:
The data and physics—CO2’s infrared absorption, radiative forcing (~2.1 W/m² from human emissions), and energy imbalance—provide a robust mechanistic basis for the thesis. Claims denying human dominance typically lack empirical support or misinterpret data. That said, I’m open to analyzing any specific counterclaim or dataset you want to explore—just point me to it. What’s your angle on this?
McKitrick explained what’s wrong with climate “fingerprinting” here in the May 24 That Was The Week That Was
“The optimal fingerprinting methodology of Allen and Tett (Clim Dyn 15: 419–434) was criticized by McKitrick (Clim Dyn 58:405-411 2022) who argued that it fails to yield unbiased and consistent coefficient estimates, and the associated residual consistency test (RCT) is uninformative regarding the regression model validity. Chen et al. (Clim Dyn 62:1439-1446 2023) concurred on key points but showed that consistency could be established under certain conditions. I argue herein that they are sufficiently restrictive as to reaffirm the practical invalidity of the Allen and Tett method. Chen et al. also derived an asymptotic distribution of the RCT. Their result implies the critical values used up to now may be incorrect. I propose an alternative fingerprinting method based on the Instrumental Variables procedure with consistent standard errors and I demonstrate its potential in an [ap]plication to 20th – 25[21st? ] century temperature data. I find the modeled anthropogenic signal is detected but needs to be scaled down by 35 to 60%, whereas the modeled natural signal needs to be scaled up 2- to 4- fold, to reconcile optimally with observations.”
McKitrick’s findings are interesting. If these results are verified and validated, then using the limited dataset the estimates by the IPCC and its collaborators for human cause are far too high and the estimates for natural variability are far too low. It is important to recognize that the dataset used by the IPCC modelers does not include severe cooling periods such as those found with D-O Events, not to mention Ice Ages with major glaciation. For the introduction and the paper to be published see links under Challenging the Orthodoxy
A consistent Metod for Climate Fingerprinting By Ross McKitrick, His Blog, May 19, 2025 https://www.rossmckitrick.com/index.html Link to paper: Consistent Climate Fingerprinting By Ross McKitrick,
To be published in Climate Dynamics, Manuscript date March 27, 2025 https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/consistent.fingerprinting.cd.acceptedve rsion.pdf
Artificial minds can parrot the party line with the best of them. The bias is as plain as a pikestaff. “…exploit these uncertainties to sow doubt.” Chuckle. The whole purpose of science is to recognize uncertainty and to doubt.
As for “peer review rigor”, that animal is as elusive as the push-me-pull-you. The very fact that the “peers” of these crying researchers systematically seek to discredit and silence critics, and the compliant AI, like the climate models they produce, are designed to find what they are sent to find, demands that the scrutiny applied be doubled, and the policies they espouse be placed on hold.
The data and physics are far from robust, and understanding is incomplete. Claims insisting on human dominance ignore the uncertainties and summarily dismiss contrary evidence and historical precedent. Attribution relies on cherry-picking start points and assuming facts not in evidence.
Not to get bogged down in nitpicking the details like those cited above, I suggest the focus be upon the twelve themes presented in the report. My synopsis with chapter summaries and some salient explanations and exhibits:
https://rclutz.com/2025/07/31/doe-climate-team-twelve-keys-in-assessing-climate-change/
1 Ben Santer: “Fundamentally Misrepresents My Work”
The report cites three of Santer’s studies:
Santer et al. (2008): Tropical Tropospheric Trends The DOE report references this study in its discussion of vertical temperature profiles (Figure 5.6 and surrounding text), claiming that “very little observed warming aloft in the tropics” implies a failure of the modeled “hot spot” signal, and that the “amplification rate” is exaggerated by models. While the 2008 Santer paper indeed acknowledged discrepancies between modeled and observed tropical tropospheric trends, its main conclusion was that when structural uncertainties in satellite datasets and natural variability are accounted for, the apparent model–observation discrepancy in the tropical troposphere is not statistically significant. The DOE report omits this and instead cites the study as confirmation of systematic model failure, a direct contradiction of the authors’ actual findings.
Santer et al. (2017): Continued Tropospheric Warming The 2017 paper is grouped with studies used to support the claim that CMIP5/CMIP6 models “overestimate warming” in the mid- and upper-troposphere. Again, this mischaracterizes the paper. Santer et al. (2017) was focused on evaluating the statistical significance of recent warming in the troposphere and argued that human influence is detectable despite uncertainties in observations. It explicitly pushed back on arguments (including from Christy and McKitrick) that claimed no significant tropospheric warming or model failure. The DOE report treats it as evidence supporting those arguments.
Santer et al. (2023): Stratospheric Fingerprints This paper is cited in the DOE discussion of stratospheric temperature trends, where the report asserts: “Stratospheric warming since 2000… is not apparently consistent with the anthropogenic fingerprint. This is a gross misreading of the 2023 paper, which documents an exceptional stratospheric cooling signal consistent with climate model projections and identifies a clear human “fingerprint” on atmospheric temperature structure, actually reinforcing, not undermining, the anthropogenic attribution of warming. The DOE report inverts this conclusion to suggest the pattern contradicts climate model expectations, which is flatly inaccurate.
Conclusion Santer is correct in stating that the DOE report “fundamentally misrepresents” his work. Across all three cited papers, the report selectively quotes findings, strips them of their stated caveats and statistical interpretations, and repeatedly casts them as evidence of model failure or lack of anthropogenic signal when in fact the original papers either find support for model projections or explicitly argue against the interpretations the DOE report promotes. This constitutes scientific malpractice.
Santer et al. (2017) was focused on evaluating the statistical significance of recent warming in the troposphere and argued that human influence is detectable despite uncertainties in observations. So Santer is ‘uncertain’ about observations (all empirical evidence I assume), but confident with evaluating. Got it
Your assumption is wrong. Santer et al. (2017) didn’t express general uncertainty about all observations, they quantified known structural uncertainties in satellite datasets used to estimate tropospheric temperature trends. The strength of the 2017 study lies precisely in its statistical treatment of those uncertainties. Santer et al. showed that even after accounting for observational noise and dataset differences, there remains a detectable human influence on tropospheric warming. They didn’t ignore uncertainty, they incorporated it into the analysis and still found that the signal of human-caused warming was statistically robust. This is fundamental to most scientific analysis: showing that your conclusions are robust against the bounds of quantified uncertainty.
Is that the same Ben Santer who wrote that he was ‘tempted to beat the crap out of [the late] Patrick Michaels’ after the latter pointed out that Santer had blatantly cherry-picked his data for his garbage ‘fingerprinting’ study?
Seems fitting, doesn’t it, that creatures of the Left and their useful idiots always appeal to violence when their methods are exposed?
Are you making an ad hominem attack to distract from the blatant misrepresentation of Santer’s work in the DOE report?
No , he is saying what Ben Santer actually did..
Misrepresenting junk science like that comes from Santer… now, that is funny. !!
Here’s an example of Santer’s work originating the AGW claim:
Santer et al. did not omit data deceptively. They used a well-justified subset of the radiosonde record, acknowledged its limitations, and produced a robust fingerprinting analysis that withstood scrutiny and was confirmed by later work. The accusations from Daly, Michaels, and others were examined, addressed, and refuted in the scientific literature.
Your comment is also not germane to the current discussion of whether the DOE report misrepresents Santer’s papers that it cites. It seems to be a feeble attempt at character assassination to distract from the actual issue. Please stay on topic with relevant, substantive replies.
If everyone learned of the late John Daly’s website “Still Waiting For Greenhouse” all this nonsense about greenhouse gases, global warming, and climate change would vanish overnight. Shown in the chart for Death Valley, my favorite very remote site.
How do inform the members of the CWG about John Daly’s website?
A good background on the Santer maneuver in 1996 is provided by Andy May in his 2022 post here at WUWT
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/27/atmospheric-fingerprint/
The draft of Chapter 8 that was agreed to by the chapter authors, including Nicholls, Karoly and Santer, in July 1995, did not claim the atmospheric fingerprint showed humans were contributing to global warming. It said that, to date, the warming was within the range of normal climate variability, so a human influence could not be detected. Later that same year, in November, the conclusions of Chapter 8, were changed at the insistence of politicians and without the permission of the scientists that had written the chapter. This is the backdrop behind Nicholls’ statement above and many other protests of the changes to the chapter by scientists (May, 2020c, pp. 230-238).
A government, probably the U.S. government, insisted that Chapter 8 explicitly say that humans caused climate change. The leader of the SAR effort, John Houghton, insisted that the IPCC procedures were followed, and that the governments, that is the politicians, had the final say, not the scientists (Houghton, 1996). The IPCC reports are scientific, or they are political, they cannot be both. The scientists had already agreed that they could not be sure humans controlled the climate, because they did not know how large natural variability was. The politicians insisted this be changed, and it was. This incident, more than any other in the history of the IPCC, destroyed their reputation as an independent and unbiased reporter of the state of climate science. First, the atmospheric fingerprint was not evidence of human influence, then it was. It deserves a close look.
Better background: https://www.pne.people.si.umich.edu/PDF/ecofables.pdf
Of course it is all irrelevant – the subject of discussion is not Ben Santer’s role in the IPCC SAR, but whether his work was misrepresented by the authors of the DOE report, which is unquestionably was. I’ll take your unwillingness to address this as a concession.
The report states “This discrepancy has been the source of much controversy, with some arguing that even if there is very little observed warming aloft in the tropics, a “hotspot” still exists in the sense that the warming aloft is greater than at the surface (Santer et al. 2008).”
How does this quote misrepresent Santer 2008? It acknowledges his point and sets in the context of their discussion.
The report marginalizes the central conclusion of Santer et al. (2008) by relegating it to a qualified aside in a supposed ongoing “controversy.” But this wasn’t a speculative or ambiguous result. Santer et al. rigorously demonstrated that, once observational uncertainties and internal variability were properly accounted for, there was no statistically significant discrepancy between modeled and observed tropical tropospheric warming. The report’s framing distorts that finding and downplays its evidentiary weight.
36
The report states: “Several studies since AR5 have continued to demonstrate an inconsistency between simulated and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere, with models simulating more warming than observations (Mitchell et al., 2013, 2020; Santer et al., 2017a, b; McKitrick and Christy, 2018;
Po-Chedley et al., 2021”
This is an accurate statement and in no way misrepresents Santer”s paper. Santer acknowledged the inconsistency and tried to explain it. Not addressing his conclusion is not misrepresenting.
It is inaccurate because it is misrepresentation via inaccurate framing and by omission. While Santer et al. (2017) did acknowledge that observed tropical tropospheric warming trends were lower than model averages, the entire purpose of the study was to rigorously test whether that difference was statistically significant and whether it undermined detection of human influence. It concluded that it did not. Santer et al. emphasized that the discrepancy was well within the range of uncertainty due to natural variability and observational limitations, and that a discernible anthropogenic signal remained detectable.
The DOE report strips that conclusion from its context and instead presents Santer et al. as part of a body of work demonstrating model failure, placing it alongside papers like McKitrick and Christy (2018), which explicitly argue that models are invalid, actively reframing a rebuttal of their position as supporting evidence. To cite a study only for a discrepancy it directly explains and resolves, while ignoring the resolution, is misrepresentation.
LOL, you are burning both ends of the candle here.
You are being ridiculous.
Hmmm. Basically you’re suggesting the following:
I use information used in someone’s paper. That information demonstrates argument X.
The paper itself uses that information, and lots of other information, to demonstrate argument Y.
Because I reference something in this paper, I am obliged to to display argument Y as well as my argument X.
I disagree.
A paper describes observation Y. Observation Y has been used to make argument X. The paper then carefully demonstrates that observation Y does not support argument X.
If I then say, “this paper describes observation Y and thus supports argument X,” I am fundamentally mischaracterizing the paper.
The report states: “Santer et al. (2023) use updated data to show that a cooling trend has not re-emerged in the lower stratosphere.”
So is your (Alan J) contention that the updated data in the Santer paper demonstrates new cooling in the stratosphere? Or are you just saying the fact that it doesn’t isn’t important to the fingerprint analysis?
The paper is titled, “Exceptional stratospheric contribution to human fingerprints on atmospheric temperature.” To suggest that this paper strengthens the case for the absence of a human fingerprint in stratospheric temperature trends is deeply misleading. My contention is not that the updated data show “new” cooling. It’s that the DOE report misrepresents the basic conclusion of the fingerprint analysis. The key point of Santer et al. (2023) is that even with the reduced rate of lower stratospheric cooling, the full-latitude, full-altitude fingerprint of anthropogenic influence in the stratosphere remains robust and detectable. The DOE report quotes an isolated trend update to imply the fingerprint has weakened or disappeared, while ignoring the paper’s clear conclusion that it remains intact and has, in fact, strengthened. The DOE report is again using dishonest framing by taking papers that weaken the fundamental thesis it is trying to advance and implying that they offer evidentiary support of their position.
There is no hot-spot. That is a fabrication using twisted anti-science.
And as AlanJ constantly confirms, there is no evidence of any CO2 warming in the last 45 years of UAH atmospheric data.
It is known that ALL climate models are CRAP , built on a “this-is-not-Earth” atmosphere.
2 Zeke Hausfather: “Cherry-Picked Data”
The misuse here is blatant. The author’s have cherry-picked a supplementary figure and have presented it in isolation to support a conclusion directly contradicted by the paper’s main findings. Selectively extracting and reframing a fragment of a study to support a conclusion that directly contradicts the authors’ own interpretation without engaging the broader analysis or consulting the original authors is intellectually dishonest and flouts norms of academic integrity and is a serious ethical breach. You do not even deny this yourself, you merely ask “do we really care that they’ve misrepresented the work?”
Clive Best revealed Hausfather’s manipulations to make models look good compared to observations.
In summary, Zeke Hausfather writing for Carbon Brief 1) used a clever choice of baseline, 2) of RCP for blended models and 3) by using a 12 month running average, was able to show an almost perfect agreement between data and models. His plot is 100% correct. However exactly the same data plotted with a different baseline and using annual values (exactly like those in the models), instead of 12 monthly running averages shows instead that the models are still lying consistently above the data. I know which one I think best represents reality.
Clive’s post on Zeke’s Wonder Plot is here:
https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=8808
My synopsis:
https://rclutz.com/2019/01/26/climate-models-covered-up/
The cited blog posts are about a data visual prepared for the Carbon Brief website, not about Hausfather’s published work cited by the DOE report. The DOE report is also not arguing that Hausfather’s methodology is incorrect or flawed, they are (falsely) implying that Hausfather’s work substantiates the position they are forwarding, when it directly contradicts it. That is the misrepresentation at question, and your comment here does nothing to address or defend it. This is a weak deflection and attempt to distract from the blatant scientific misconduct exhibited by the DOE authors.
“is intellectually dishonest and flouts norms of academic integrity”
A great description of Zeke.. well done. 🙂
models are junk science built on junk science
Show one model that shows no warming from 1980-1997, and from 2001-2015.
Model should also show the 1998, 2015/16 El Nino, and the 2023/24 El Nino.
If a model cannot model and predict El Ninos events, the main origin of atmospheric warming…. they are JUNK. !
Comparing JUNK models to JUNK surface data is totally un-scientific.
(from my comment above, which I believe is a good description of most if not all of your arguments here)
Hmmm. Basically you’re suggesting the following:
I use information used in someone’s paper. That information demonstrates argument X.
The paper itself uses that information, and lots of other information, to demonstrate argument Y.
Because I reference something in this paper, I am obliged to to display argument Y as well as my argument X.
I disagree.