From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

They shoot, they miss, we score.  David Wojick reports on the laughable failure of alarmists in his CFACT article Attack on DOE Climate Report is a comedy of criticism.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The DOE science report saying the impact of CO2 on climate is exaggerated was quickly followed by a massive alarmist report. The alarmist report claimed to refute the DOE report, and the press dutifully reported it doing that.

On close inspection, I find this claim to be not even close to true. In fact, it looks laughable. Mind you, this is a preliminary finding, as the two reports together run about 600 pages. I just took what is arguably the key DOE chapter and compared the two reports on that.

This is the chapter on CO2 sensitivity, which is how much warming will occur (in theory) if the atmospheric concentration doubled. It is a convenient metric that is widely used to assess the potential adverse impact, if any, of increasing CO2.

I first looked at the DOE report, then at the alarmist report, anxious to see how they claimed to falsify the DOE version. What I found instead was that they did not disagree with a single thing the DOE report said. No falsification, no refutation, not even a simple disagreement. Nothing! I could not stop laughing.

On reflection, this is not surprising, because what the DOE report says is simple and well known. They point out that:

♦ the range of sensitivity estimates is getting bigger, not smaller;
♦ some of the models have gotten so hot that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)  no longer accepts their results; that
♦ observation-based estimates are a lot lower than the model estimates; and that
♦ sensitivity could be lower than the IPCC suggests.

There is lots of criticism in the alarmist report to be sure, but it is all editorial, not scientific. Basically, the alarmists wish the DOE report said something else — which is no surprise. They say the report “misrepresents” the science (because it is not alarmist), even though everything it says is true.

They list six specific criticisms. These six are scientifically irrelevant, but some are actually wrong. For example, they say the DOE report ignores that there are multiple lines of evidence, when in fact the chapter begins with a discussion of that very fact.

More deeply, they say the report ignores Transient Sensitivity (decades) in favor of Equilibrium Sensitivity (centuries). This is astoundingly wrong, because the chapter finishes with a section making the point that Transient Sensitivity is both better and much lower than Equilibrium Sensitivity. It is a primary point of the chapter.

In both cases, “ignores” is their word, not mine, and clearly wrong. Conversely, they also attribute claims to the DOE report that are not made. Assuming things not stated is a common tendency among those who disagree.

The alarmist report is grandly titled “Climate Experts’ Review of the DOE Climate Working Group Report” and is available here

The DOE report – “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate” – to be found here. 

The alarmist site proudly lists some of the ridiculous press coverage it received. For example:

“85 climate scientists refute Trump administration report downplaying climate change” (The Hill)

“‘Not scientifically credible’: Scientists repudiate Trump administration climate report” (LA Times)

“Climate scientists file a public, point-by-point rebuttal of Trump admin report casting doubt on climate change” (CNN)

This is alarmist nonsense personified, a perfect example of why
the EPA Endangerment Finding should be revoked. It’s all hype.

See Also:

DOE Climate Team: Twelve Keys in Assessing Climate Change