{"id":411226,"date":"2025-11-01T17:54:24","date_gmt":"2025-11-01T16:54:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=411226"},"modified":"2025-11-01T17:56:15","modified_gmt":"2025-11-01T16:56:15","slug":"hiding-the-endangerment-findings-systemic-biases-politicos-failed-attack-on-does-climate-science-report-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=411226","title":{"rendered":"Hiding the Endangerment Finding\u2019s Systemic Biases \u2013 Politico\u2019s Failed Attack on DOE\u2019s Climate Science Report-Part 2"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"A
The Dust Bowl<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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

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

Marlo Lewis, Ph.D., Senior Fellow in Energy and Environmental Policy, Competitive Enterprise Institute<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Part 2: Allegations and responses<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Politico<\/em> reporters claim the DOE report \u201ccherry-picks mainstream research and omits context,\u201d \u201crelies on outdated studies,\u201d \u201ccites analyses that were not peer reviewed,\u201d and \u201crevives debunked arguments.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reporters cite three examples of alleged cherry picking. First, as described by the reporters, the DOE authors claim that during the past 100 years, \u201cthe U.S. saw its most intense heat in the 1930s\u2014and that maximum temperatures have never been that hot again.\u201d The reporters do not dispute the veracity of that statement. However, they consider it cherry picking because average temperatures across the US and globally have been \u201cclearly rising\u201d since the 1950s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the DOE authors do not hide or dispute that fact. Indeed, they quote the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report on that very point:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

AR6: It is virtually certain that hot extremes (including heatwaves) have become more frequent and more intense across most land regions since the 1950s, while cold extremes (including cold waves) have become less frequent and less severe (SPM, A3.1).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The DOE report also quotes a relevant passage from the USGCRP\u2019s Fourth National Climate Assessment:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

NCA4: Since the mid-1960s, there has been only a very slight increase in the warmest daily temperature of the year (amidst large interannual variability). Heat waves (6-day periods with a maximum temperature above the 90th percentile for 1961\u20131990) increased in frequency until the mid-1930s, became considerably less common through the mid-1960s, and increased in frequency again thereafter. As with warm daily temperatures, heat wave magnitude reached a maximum in the 1930s (NCA4, Vol. 1, p. 191<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

So, heat waves and maximum temperatures in recent decades are increasing, but both reached higher levels in the 1930s. Summarizing the entire instrumental record of US heat waves and daily maximum temperatures is not cherry picking. Nor is it cherry picking to point out which decade set the most US records for extreme heat events.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Politico<\/em> reporters suggest the 1930s warming is climatologically irrelevant because \u201cmost scientists say it was a statistical outlier that skewed heat trends for decades afterward.\u201d But assessing climate extremes means looking at outliers. It is ludicrous to chop past episodes of extreme heat out of the record and then depict today\u2019s heatwaves as unprecedented. Whatever caused the heatwaves of the 1920s and 1930s, it obviously wasn\u2019t postwar greenhouse gases. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another alleged cherry pick is the importance the DOE report places on the slow decadal warming rate in the US Corn Belt. The Politico<\/em> reporters cry foul because \u201coutside\u201d of this \u201cwarming hole,\u201d the nation is experiencing \u201cincreases in extreme summer heat.\u201d But the DOE authors do not suggest the Corn Belt is typical of all regions or has more reliable temperature data than other regions. The Politico<\/em> reporters claim the DOE report \u201comits context,\u201d but that\u2019s what they do here. The context is a discussion of how well climate models reproduce the warming of recent decades.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The DOE report shows that, for a critically important climatic region in the US, 36 climate models used in AR6 hindcast significantly more warming than observed, with 30 models projecting two to eight times more warming than occurred during 1973-2022.<\/p>\n\n\n

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

The DOE report contains other examples of model failure. It is only common sense to doubt the validity of climate models that cannot \u201cpredict\u201d what has already occurred.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The third alleged cherry pick is the DOE authors\u2019 selection \u201cof which model simulations and which observations they show.\u201d But as explained in Part 1, the DOE authors focus on model simulations of tropospheric temperatures because those data are out of sample and therefore suitable for scientific model testing. The DOE authors\u2019 choice of simulations and observations is sound experimental design, not cherry picking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As for omitted context, the Politico<\/em> reporters fault the DOE report for quoting one sentence in AR6 about hurricane intensity but not the next sentence. That omission is \u201cclearly designed to mislead,\u201d they contend. Not so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s the AR6 sentence quoted by the DOE report:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

There is low confidence in most reported long-term (multi-decadal to centennial) trends in tropical cyclone frequency- or intensity-based metrics due to changes in the best track data.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Here is the next AR6 sentence, which the DOE report allegedly hides:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

This should not be interpreted as implying that no physical (real) trends exist, but rather as indicating that either the quality or the temporal length of the data is not adequate to provide robust trend detection statements, particularly in the presence of multi-decadal variability.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

According to the Politico<\/em> reporters, omitting the second sentence is misleading because it \u201cspecifically warns against making assumptions that no link exists between rising temperatures and stronger storms.\u201d  Two responses are in order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, the quoted sentence does not imply there is no link between rising temperatures and stronger storms, and the omitted sentence\u2019s caution that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence<\/em> adds nothing to the substantive discussion of why trend detection is not \u201crobust.\u201d Such admonitory verbiage is gratuitous except perhaps as political cover to mollify the climate thought police.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, the very next sentence<\/em> of the DOE report quotes the following sentence from AR6: \u201cIt is likely that the global proportion of major (Category 3\u20135) tropical cyclone occurrence has increased over the last four decades \u2026\u201d Thus, the DOE report does not hide anything or mislead anyone. It quotes AR6\u2019s conclusion that a hurricane strength-warming link is \u201clikely.\u201d The Politico<\/em> reporters do not quote or mention that statement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus, it is the Politico <\/em>reporters who omit context by quoting only one of two consecutive sentences. They commit the very journalistic malpractice they falsely ascribe to the DOE authors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Politico<\/em> reporters additionally fault the DOE report for not addressing evidence that hurricanes are becoming more destructive by \u201cdropping more rain.\u201d That is a \u201cdead giveaway,\u201d MIT hurricane scientist Kerry Emanuel told them. Allow me to offer another conjecture of equal plausibility. Short data records and substantial natural variability continue to impede robust detection of the \u201cincreasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones\u201d two decades after Emanuel published his seminal paper<\/a> on the topic. The recent emphasis on rainfall from slow-moving hurricanes is a \u201cdead giveaway\u201d some scientists need a new rationale for climate alarm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Litigation<\/a> alleging procedural violations unrelated to the substance of the report resulted in DOE dissolving the five-person team of authors. Had the authors been allowed to finalize their draft report based on the numerous substantive comments DOE received, they would likely have addressed the hurricane-water issue more fully, as the Competitive Enterprise Institute\u2019s comments<\/a> advised them to do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Politico<\/em> reporters claim the DOE report \u201camplifies supposed conflicts among climate scientists\u2014even when there isn\u2019t any.\u201d They continue: \u201cFor example, it is not true there is \u2018substantial debate\u2019 within climate science over whether the sun could be a primary driver of global warming.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the DOE report does not say the sun \u201ccould be a primary driver.\u201d It more modestly states that the \u201cimpact of solar variations on the climate is uncertain and subject to substantial debate.\u201d That is a reasonable conclusion from Connolly et al. (2021)<\/a>, a study cited in the DOE report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Politico<\/em> reporters describe the study as a \u201c[Willie] Soon paper,\u201d and claim the DOE authors cite it \u201cto suggest it\u2019s the sun, not the burning of fossil fuels, that has contributed to the global temperature rise.\u201d That is sloppy reporting. The study\u2019s lead author is Ronan Connolly, who is joined by Soon and 21 other co-authors. The study does not purport to assess the sun\u2019s contribution to \u201cglobal temperature rise\u201d but its influence on \u201cNorthern Hemisphere temperature trends.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study examines 16 different estimates in the peer-reviewed literature of changes in total solar irradiance (TSI) going back to at least 1850 and reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperature trends using five largely independent estimation methods. Connelly et al. conclude: \u201cFor all five Northern Hemisphere temperature series, different TSI estimates suggest everything from no role for the Sun in recent decades (implying that recent global warming is mostly human caused) to most of the recent global warming being due to changes in solar activity (that is, that recent global warming is mostly natural).\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I challenge any fair-minded person to read the paper and conclude that a potentially significant solar contribution to Northern Hemisphere temperature trends has been \u201cdebunked\u201d or that no \u201csubstantial debate\u201d exists about the sun\u2019s influence on those trends.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In any case, the DOE report does not \u201csuggest that it\u2019s the sun, not the burning of fossil fuels, that has contributed to the global temperature rise.\u201d Moreover, although the so-called Soon paper reports evidence that the sun has a large role in global warming, it also reports evidence that the sun has no role. The Politico<\/em> reporters hide half of the study\u2019s conclusion. Not fair or balanced!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As for the DOE report citing analyses that \u201cwere not peer reviewed,\u201d that is misleading. The DOE report presents analyses of temperatures and precipitation using official US government datasets and peer-reviewed methods. In many cases, the authors updated analyses of results published a few years ago to avoid any accusation of relying on outdated findings. Where they presented updates of previous analyses, they also referred to the underlying peer-reviewed papers and published the new data<\/a>. Furthermore, the entire report went through anonymous peer review by DOE technical staff. The Politico<\/em> reporters\u2019 insinuation of research impropriety is baseless.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Politico<\/em> reporters also raise the specter of \u201chidden connections\u201d between certain DOE authors and \u201cconservative groups that oppose government efforts to address climate change,\u201d including groups that have received fossil fuel industry funding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Newsflash: The validity of a study does not depend on the researchers\u2019 \u201cconnections.\u201d Regardless, the affiliations of Ross McKitrick, Roy Spencer, and Steve Koonin with certain conservative think tanks are not hidden; they are open and avowed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reporters acknowledge the authors\u2019 \u201cacademic and government experience\u201d but provide almost no specifics. They do not mention Koonin\u2019s position as Under Secretary for Science in the Obama administration Department of Energy, John Christy\u2019s work as a Lead Author of the 3rd IPCC Assessment Report (2001), Ross McKitrick\u2019s work as an expert reviewer for the last three IPCC Assessment Reports (Working Groups I and II), Roy Spencer\u2019s work as a NASA Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, or Judith Curry\u2019s service on several top-tier advisory panels such as the National Research Council\u2019s Space Studies Board and Climate Research Council. Why are those \u201cconnections\u201d considered less relevant than an association with a conservative think tank?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, we come to the Politico<\/em> reporters\u2019 contention that the DOE report is \u201covertly political\u201d rather than a bona fide \u201cscientific exercise.\u201d They ascribe that view to Massachusetts federal judge<\/a> William Young. However, the judge does not use those phrases, and when the reporters do quote him, they take his words out of context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Collage<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Judge Young finds that the report\u2019s final paragraph is \u201carranged\u201d to provide \u201cadvice or recommendations for a renewed approach to climate policy.\u201d The Politico <\/em>reporters claim that means the DOE report is a \u201cpolitical plan.\u201d But the judge is addressing an issue of administrative law, not of scientific integrity. His point is simply that the final paragraph\u2019s \u201cadvice or recommendations\u201d make the DOE authors an \u201cadvisory committee\u201d and, thus, subject to the procedural requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More recently, Politico<\/em> reporter Scott Waldman touts<\/a> \u201cthe revelation\u201d that four of the DOE authors have a history of challenging the Endangerment Finding. That means the report is \u201ccolored by\u201d the authors\u2019 \u201cpast views,\u201d which, according to him, is \u201cfurther proof\u201d the report is \u201clittle more than a political document.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No, not even close. The Endangerment Finding expressly relies on \u201cmainstream\u201d climate science. So, it is a logical necessity for any scientist who finds serious flaws in such science to be critical of the Endangerment Finding as well. Only scientists who have produced substantial bodies of work critical of mainstream climate science could produce the wide-ranging literature reviews assembled in the DOE report. It is hardly news\u2014much less a revelation\u2014that four of the DOE authors had taken issue with the Endangerment Finding before they started working on the report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, in Waldman\u2019s view, contrarian scientists who have the courage to publish their research and speak candidly on the record are, by that very fact, unfit to produce a climate science report at the invitation of a cabinet secretary.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

That argument backfires. Every mainstream scientist the Politico<\/em> team cites to trash the DOE report has spoken or written in support of mainstream climate science, the Endangerment Finding, or the ensuing GHG regulations, which means they too are \u201ccolored by past views.\u201d Indeed, so is Waldman himself, who has made something of a career of bashing contrarian scientists and decrying climate policy rollbacks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By his logic, all scientists and journalists who have taken a position on the Endangerment Finding\u2014whether for or against\u2014are politically tainted and unfit to write or review climate science reports for the US government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Politico<\/em> team denies the need for a critical review of mainstream climate science because, quoting IPCC coordinating author Camille Parmesan, the claim that dissenting views are silenced is \u201cat best preposterous and arrogant and at worst a deliberate ruse to undermine decades of rigorous science.\u201d  Sorry, that does not pass the laugh test.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mainstream climate science is a multi-billion-dollar enterprise and almost wholly government-funded. Perceptions of a \u201cclimate crisis\u201d are critical to the care and feeding of climate-focused agency budgets, climate-themed agency careers, and the self-transformation<\/a> of environmental regulators into industrial policy czars. Consequently, agencies have a massive organizational interest in funding climate research that advances the crisis narrative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Similarly, because university climate research programs heavily depend on federal funding, faculty chairs preferentially hire and promote researchers who toe the party line. Those same researchers supply most of the editors and peer reviewers of academic journals, who decide which papers to publish and which to reject. As the late climate scientist Patrick Michaels observed<\/a>, reviewers whose careers depend on federal largesse need no external direction or backroom coordination to reject a study suggesting that \u201cclimate change is a bit overblown\u201d or that \u201cwe can\u2019t do much about it anyway.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And let\u2019s not forget the elephant in the room. Most of the nation\u2019s climate research is conducted at prestige universities where political groupthink and viewpoint intolerance continually imperil freedom of speech and thought.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2019, Nature Communications<\/em> published a study<\/a> that says the quiet part out loud. The study advises researchers with \u201cscientific authority\u201d not to try refuting skeptics, as that would leave \u201cthe counterproductive impression that there is something substantial in contrarian arguments to be debated.\u201d The article links to a list of 386 contrarians<\/a>, so that \u201cprofessional journalists and editors\u201d can know whom not to interview or publish.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But such reflections are in a sense overkill. The Politico<\/em> reporters are refuted by their own behavior. For what, pray tell, are they doing if not propagating the falsehood that the DOE authors have no arguments worth debating? And how is disqualifying a contrarian report because of its authors\u2019 \u201cpast views\u201d not an attempt to silence their voices in the public square?<\/p>\n\n\n\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t