{"id":392383,"date":"2025-08-02T12:48:05","date_gmt":"2025-08-02T10:48:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=392383"},"modified":"2025-08-02T12:48:29","modified_gmt":"2025-08-02T10:48:29","slug":"misuse-misquote-or-just-misunderstood-readers-wanted-for-the-blobs-latest-climate-panic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=392383","title":{"rendered":"Misuse, Misquote, or Just Misunderstood? Readers Wanted for the Blob\u2019s Latest Climate Panic"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Charles Rotter<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The Department of Energy\u2019s A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate<\/strong> has unleashed a Category 5 tantrum across climate science\u2019s more excitable precincts. No surprise there. What is new, and potentially consequential, is that the Blob\u2014our affectionate term for the climate-industrial complex\u2014has chosen to focus its fury on claims that their research was misused or twisted in the DOE\u2019s report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/strong>\u2014as aired by the alarmist press and aggrieved researchers\u2014quote 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s give sunlight a chance to disinfect this process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Complaint Parade: What Scientists (and the Blob) Claim Was \u201cMisused\u201d<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The press coverage since the report\u2019s 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:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Ben Santer: \u201cFundamentally Misrepresents My Work\u201d<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Ben Santer, a fixture in U.S. climate science, is quoted in WIRED<\/em>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cSanter\u2019s research is also cited in the DOE report; he, like other scientists who spoke to WIRED, say the report \u2018fundamentally misrepresents\u2019 his work.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s original research and make an independent assessment, WUWT will gladly publish your findings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Zeke Hausfather: \u201cCherry-Picked Data\u201d<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Zeke Hausfather, another frequent media commentator, gets more specific. He objects to the DOE\u2019s use of a chart from his 2019 paper to argue that \u201cclimate models have \u2018consistently overestimated observations\u2019 of atmospheric CO\u2082.\u201d Hausfather\u2019s complaint:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThey 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.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s be clear: the DOE report does cite his chart and notes that, when you look at the IPCC\u2019s model projections versus observations, models run \u201chot\u201d compared to reality. But it\u2019s 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\u2019s text. We encourage readers to review both and weigh in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. Joy Ward: \u201cCO\u2082 Plant Experiments Don\u2019t Prove What DOE Claims\u201d<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Ward, a biologist whose CO\u2082 enrichment studies are used to bolster the DOE\u2019s argument that rising CO\u2082 \u201cpromotes plant growth (global greening), thereby enhancing agricultural yields\u201d, is quoted in WIRED<\/em>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cOur studies indicate that major disruptions in plant development such as flowering time can occur in direct response to rising CO\u2082, which were not mentioned in the report.\u201d
She adds that her experiments were in \u201chighly controlled growth conditions\u201d and not indicative of net agricultural outcomes under climate change.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Again, readers can consult the DOE section on \u201cCO\u2082 fertilization\u201d (Chapters 2 and 9) and compare to Ward\u2019s publications. Is the DOE overselling, or simply presenting a perspective excluded from mainstream summaries? The report openly discusses model uncertainties, meta-analyses, and caveats.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. Josh Krissansen-Totton: \u201cMy Research on Ancient Oceans Is Irrelevant\u201d<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Krissansen-Totton, an assistant professor at the University of Washington, is incensed that his work on ocean pH \u201cbillions of years ago\u201d is cited to suggest that today\u2019s modest pH changes are not unprecedented:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201c[My] work on ocean acidity billions of years ago has \u2018no relevance\u2019 to the impacts of human-driven ocean acidification today\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The DOE report states:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe recent decline in [ocean] pH is within the range of natural variability on millennial time scales\u2026 ocean biota appear to be resilient to natural long-term changes in ocean pH since marine organisms were exposed to wide ranges in pH.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5. Jeff Clements: \u201cMy Findings Downplayed, But Not Misquoted\u201d<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201crelatively unaffected\u201d fish behavior doesn\u2019t mean all ocean species are equally safe:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cI 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\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The DOE report, for its part, cites Clements\u2019 meta-analyses and notes the one-sidedness and exaggeration of acidification impact claims in the literature, including the \u201cdecline effect\u201d in publication trends.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

6. Richard Seager: \u201cModels Getting Tropical Pacific Wrong\u201d<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Seager, of Columbia, objects to the use of his work in two ways:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cI think acceptance has been growing that the models have been getting something wrong in the tropical Pacific\u2026 what this means for the future however is very much an area of intense research.\u201d
He also claims a separate study on crop yields was \u201cmisrepresented.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Once again, specifics are scarce. The DOE report\u2019s criticism of model-observation discrepancies is heavily footnoted, with direct citations to the source literature on model errors. Readers: Please bring your microscope.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

7. Michael Mann and Andrew Dessler: \u201cCherry-Picking and Contrarianism\u201d<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Michael Mann doesn\u2019t mince words, calling the report:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201ca 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.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Andrew Dessler echoes the complaint that the authors are \u201cwidely recognized contrarians who don\u2019t represent the mainstream scientific consensus\u201d and that \u201ccherry-picking\u201d is rampant\u2014without ever detailing a single concrete example from the text.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Do These Accusations Have in Common?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n