{"id":402599,"date":"2025-09-16T17:45:41","date_gmt":"2025-09-16T15:45:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=402599"},"modified":"2025-09-16T17:45:43","modified_gmt":"2025-09-16T15:45:43","slug":"attack-on-doe-climate-report-is-a-comedy-of-criticism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=402599","title":{"rendered":"Attack on DOE Climate Report is a comedy of criticism"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"Artwork<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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

From Science Matters<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Ron Clutz<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

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

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.<\/strong><\/a>  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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.<\/strong> I just took what is arguably the key DOE chapter and compared the two reports on that.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

\"Infographic<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

I first looked at the DOE report, then at the alarmist report<\/strong>, 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.<\/strong> No falsification, no refutation, not even a simple disagreement. Nothing! I could not stop laughing.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On reflection, this is not surprising<\/strong>, because what the DOE report says is simple and well known. <\/strong>They point out that:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2666 the\u00a0range of sensitivity estimates is getting bigger<\/strong>, not smaller;<\/em>
\u2666 some of the\u00a0models<\/strong>\u00a0have gotten so hot that the IPCC<\/strong>\u00a0(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) \u00a0no longer accepts their results;<\/strong>\u00a0that<\/em>
\u2666 observation-based estimates are a lot lower<\/strong>\u00a0than the model estimates; and that<\/em>
\u2666 sen<\/span>sitivity could be lower<\/strong>\u00a0than the IPCC suggests.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A
Figure 8: Warming in the tropical troposphere according to the CMIP6 models. Trends 1979\u20132014 (except the rightmost model, which is to 2007), for 20\u00b0N\u201320\u00b0S, 300\u2013200 hPa.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

There is lots of criticism in the alarmist report to be sure, but it is all editorial, not scientific. Basically, the\u00a0alarmists wish the DOE report said something else<\/strong>\u00a0\u2014 which is no surprise. They say the report \u201cmisrepresents\u201d the science (because it is not alarmist), even though\u00a0everything it says is true.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

They list six specific criticisms.<\/strong> These six are scientifically irrelevant, but some are actually wrong<\/strong>. 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.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

In both cases, \u201cignores\u201d is their word, not mine, and clearly wrong. Conversely, they also attribute claims to the DOE report that are not made.<\/strong> Assuming things not stated is a common tendency among those who disagree.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The alarmist report<\/strong> is grandly titled \u201cClimate Experts\u2019 Review of the DOE Climate Working Group Report\u201d and is available here<\/strong><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The DOE report<\/strong> \u2013 \u201cA Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate\u201d \u2013 to be found here<\/strong><\/a>. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The alarmist site proudly lists some of the ridiculous press coverage it received<\/strong>. For example:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c85 climate scientists refute Trump administration report downplaying climate change\u201d (The Hill)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c\u2018Not scientifically credible\u2019: Scientists repudiate Trump administration climate report\u201d (LA Times)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cClimate scientists file a public, point-by-point rebuttal of Trump admin report casting doubt on climate change\u201d (CNN)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is alarmist nonsense personified, a perfect example of why
the EPA Endangerment Finding should be revoked. It\u2019s all hype.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

See Also:<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\"Graph<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n
DOE Climate Team: Twelve Keys in Assessing Climate Change<\/a><\/blockquote>