Home/BlogA Note to Journalists: Please take few minutes to read some of this so that maybe you can skip asking me for an interview.
Around 3 p.m. ET today, 29 July 2025, a Department of Energy report entitled “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate” will be made available here. This is the report providing the scientific basis for today’s announced decision by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to reconsider the 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding.
The report has 5 authors: John Christy, Judith Curry, Steve Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and myself.
We were asked by DOE Secretary Wright a few months ago to produce this report. As the first few pages of the report will explain, we had no pressure to come to any conclusions; we asked for complete autonomy.
Also, we had no knowledge through the whole process of what the decision-makers at the EPA were going to do regarding energy policy. We suspected the Endangerment Finding would be the topic of greatest interest, but we also knew that the EPA’s strategy for rescinding that could take a mostly legal approach, with little need for science arguments… for now.
Even today, I have no idea how much recent court rulings vs. updated (and less biased) science figured into the EPA’s decision.
Why a DOE Report to Support an EPA Decision?
My understanding is that the Trump Administration and all of its Executive Branch agencies have been very busy on myriad issues. Only one of the executive-level appointees in the Administration had the background knowledge and interest to invest in making this science report happen: Energy Secretary Chris Wright. I suspect (this is my reading between the lines) that it was agreed between the White House, EPA, and DOE that Sec. Wright would take the lead on the science document.
Chris called me at home and asked me if I would participate, and he asked who I would recommend for other authors of the report. He had been following my research for many years. He also had on his list of potential contributors the others who now appear on the report with me.
During preparation of the report we decided to avoid any engagement with the press on what we were doing. It would have only been a distraction, and we had little time to accomplish what the Obama Administration spent years and millions of dollars to produce as the original Technical Support Document (TSD) for the 2009 Endangerment Finding.
Our report has 141 pages, 350 references (most if not all peer-reviewed), 6.6% of which were studies we authored or co-authored. The report could not address every claim made in the 2009 Endangerment Finding’s Technical Support Document. Instead, we focused on some of the central claims, the science underpinning them, and especially on the National Climate Assessments, especially NCA4 and NCA5 (the latest), which are relied upon by the U.S. Congress to assist in the making of laws and apportioning research funds.
One thing I learned through this process is how prolific and smart a researcher Ross McKitrick (U. of Guelph, Ontario) is. He was indispensable to our effort. But everyone brought their own experiences and opinions to the process, and we often had disagreements… but none that could not be quickly resolved.
Another thing I learned was just how poorly the science of climate change has been communicated to the public. For example, if you follow Roger Pielke, Jr’s research you will know that most of what the public has been told about climate change and severe weather has been a lie — and Roger still considers human climate change to be an issue worth addressing. It’s just not a “crisis”, and nothing we see in severe weather has been tied to human greenhouse gas emissions.
And that’s not a skeptical talking point, it’s according to the IPCC (!)
I’ve followed you and people like Roger Pielke for years, at least twenty to be more accurate. You and I both graduated from UW Madison and probably had or knew some of the same professors. But I was not in meteorology, but geology. I then went on to graduate work at the Colorado School of Mines. I always liked the term “Earth History” as opposed to Geology as it more clearly indicates what a geologist does. In all my studies and travels, from the beginning, human-caused climate change, or as they called it early on, “global warming”, never made sense. It has been one of my major pet peeves for decades.
So now, this governmental retraction of CO2 as a major cause of catastrophic climate change is very gratifying to see. So for me at least, thank you very much for your contribution.
And off the immediate subject, my most sincere condolences to the recent passing of your wife.
Glad to see some real science about climate change
It appears that the 5 authors were selected because they are all noted climate skeptics, who represent an outlier viewpoint among Climate Scientists.
How can this be expected to fairly and accurately represent the range of viewpoints in Climate Science better than for example the National Academy of Sciences or the National Climate Assessments (NCA)?
“The NCA is a major product[5] of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) which coordinates a team of experts and receives input from a Federal Advisory Committee. NCA research is integrated and summarized in the mandatory ongoing National Climate Assessment Reports. The reports are “extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.[6] For the Third National Climate Assessment, released in 2014, USGCRP coordinated hundreds of experts and received advice from a sixty-member Federal Advisory Committee. The Fourth NCA (NCA4) was released in two volumes, in October 2017 and in November 2018.”
Never mind the legal challenges in the USSC, that should have rescinded the agency’s previous abuses of Congress’s abdication of rulemaking authority. It’s sad that we’re still seeing Executive actions like we’d seen among dictatorships, but at least the agency is undoing what should have never been done in the first place.
Congress is late to take its Constitutional role back from the Office of the President and its unelected bureaucrats. If the people desire such sweeping changes found in EPA’s previous sweeping actions, then they can demand those changes through Congress and avoid the machinations of unelected bureaucrats.
And you, of course, have read the whole report? My guess is not.
Typical ad hominem attack. Attack the authors and not the content. Right.
I am sure you would rather have the proven liars of the IPCC. Btw, they are not climate skeptics, they are climate realists. Learn some basic chemistry physics and geology.
How is it an ‘ad-hominem attack’ to state what the authors would likely agree to, that they are noted climate skeptics?
As I stated, normally (ideally) these assessments of science for policy makers are done by a large number of scientists who represent a cross section of opinion.
Nate, you are rejecting the concept “an outlier viewpoint”, yet accepting “a large number of scientists who represent a cross section of opinion”. That ain’t science!
You need to address any violations of science in the paper, rather than just clinging to your false beliefs.
First off, the section 6.8 on wildfires is highly misleading. One has to look very carefully at figure 6.8.3 to notice that the area burned in the US has increased significantly in the 2000s.
The post 2000 era shows a large increase relative to the 1960s thru the 1990s.
This result is downplayed in the text, and then it falsely states “the area burned did increase but only until about 2007”.
Your “increased significantly in the 2000s” refers to “area burned”, not “number of fires”. In fact the number of fires slightly decreased. It’s also possible the area burned is related to fire suppression efforts. Both the number of fires and area burned have significantly decreased since the 1930s-1950s.
So your issue is more related to interpretation of the data, than to hard science.
Now if you were to claim that CO2 actually caused forests to burn more rapidly, that would definitely not be science. Most people would know that CO2 does not support combustion. But few people know facts like radiative fluxes can NOT be simply added, or claiming Earth is 33K warmer than an imaginary sphere means NOTHING.
Quibbling over the data is allowed, but perverting science is NOT allowed. That’s why this hoax needs to be squashed ASAP.
Yep, area burned is most important. It reflects that a fire, once started, grows quickly out of control because of excessive dryness, which is a climate-driven effect.
That might explain why the burn areas were much larger 80-90 years ago.
Their is scant agreement on climatic effects on wild fires since there seems to be a cyclic nature to wild fires, as least to forests and particularly to single species forests whose life cycles are simultaneous, creating along with forest floor trash, the conditions for forest fires like occurred in Yellowstone and the Black Dragon Fire in China and Russian Siberia. The one truth I’ve concluded is that we can only ascertain that climate has changed looking back.
I haven’t read the whole thing, so will refrain from judgement, but Zeldin’s intro suggesting the authors weren’t selected because, “we always agree” is just plain insulting.
Second, in the section 5 on comparing modeling to observations, is misleading.
For one thing the observations in Figure 5.2 end in 2021 during a La Nina. The data from 2023-2025 is readily available, and shows a rather large increase of 0.3 C relative to the prior period, which would overlap very well with the medium ECS modeling.
Leaving out this data makes the model/observation discrepancy appear larger than it is.
2023–2025 are clear outliers. No one honest would use those years in a model comparison!
Oh stop. I’m simply saying use ALL of the data. How can that be wrong?
“I’m simply saying use ALL of the data.”
No.
You said:
“The data from 2023-2025 is readily available, and shows a rather large increase of 0.3 C relative to the prior period, which would overlap very well with the medium ECS modeling.”
Yep, so it is misleading readers to not include those overlap years.
The years 2005-2014 were dominated by La Nina. These are included.
But these years are more than just an El Nino overlap.
Remember, the satellite anomalies began spiking in the summer 23, but that was a lagged response to record high SSTs in early spring 23, while we were still in a La Nina.
I am not aware of any previous instance in the temperature record where SSTs reached super El Ni-no level highs during a La Ni-na, even factoring in the long term warming trend. Historically, global SST record peaks have always coincided with El Ni-no development or maturity.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=world2
The record high SST anomaly from 2016 was broken on March 14th.
Moreover, the spike did not begin to cool off until Jan 25, long after the El Ni-no ended in July 24.
I do not endorse the HT volcanic explanation. I am convinced that the cause was an abrupt reduction in planetary albedo. Exactly what triggered that reduction remains unknown.
I think it is totally reasonable not to include these anomalous years in comparisons with models. The recent spike is unprecedented in timing and magnitude and still unexplained, so lumping it in with “normal overlap” years is not an apples to apples comparison.
In fairness, the figure seems to be taken from a paper published in 2023 so it used all available data at the time it was published.
On the other hand, there are much better model/measurement comparison papers available.
In general, that’s the issue with these sorts of efforts from mitigation skeptics. That is, it isn’t so much that what they say is wrong, it’s that it’s selective. Alternately, the issue isn’t what they tell you, it’s what they don’t tell you.
Except for the chapter on sea level rise acceleration which is just an embarrassing mess.
“it’s that it’s selective.”
Indeed so.
Red,
“I think it is totally reasonable not to include these anomalous years in comparisons with models.”
Totally disagree. These are the observations. No indication of a measurement error.
In normal experimental science, it is not OK to leave data out, unless you know of a specific systematic error.
Not the case here. Many measurements by different sources confirm the observations are real.
For all we know, there was a mechanism suppressing the GW in prior years.
In fact, cooling aerosol pollution mainly from East Asia had been
Red,
“I think it is totally reasonable not to include these anomalous years in comparisons with models.”
Totally disagree. These are the observations. No indication of a measurement error.
In normal experimental science, it is not OK to leave data out, unless you know of a specific systematic error.
Not the case here. Many measurements by different sources confirm the observations are real.
For all we know, there was a mechanism suppressing the GW in prior years.
In fact, cooling aerosol pollution mainly from East Asia had been on the rise in early 2000s, but recently has been reduced.
Not claiming these measurements are wrong. My whole point is that the spike is very real and extremely unusual.
Including 2023-2025 as if they were just more data points muddies the water because we still don’t know what they portend. Is they temporary outliers? A sign of acceleration? A tipping point?
Aerosol masking is not a comparable analogy. The cooling influence of aerosols seems well understood.
Nate,
Reduced aerosol emissions still wouldn’t explain an abrupt global SST spike that smashed records while ENSO was still negative.
1) Climate models are unable to explain the sudden change that occurred in 2023.
2) To invalidate a model, you only need to prove it behaved incorrectly over one climate period (30 years or more).
“Including 2023-2025 as if they were just more data points muddies the water because we still don’t know what they portend.”
They are just more data points. You cannot select data based on a value judgement as you suggest.
“1) Climate models are unable to explain the sudden change that occurred in 2023.”
Climate models are modeling the long term trend, not the short term variation. For example they cannot predict El Nino or La Nina.
It fairly and accurately reflects the science because these are ALL accredited experts in the climate science field, literally some of the top names – who have a history of following the SCIENCE -not predetermined highly biased activist agendas.
The majority of Americans are tired of listening to the politicized, prejudged agendas – they have educated themselves – and seen how MANY times the alleged “consensus” has been outright wrong.
They want real, honest, science – not agenda based clap trap.
The relationship between CO2 and climate change can be easily understood by examining the evidence: Is there a causative relationship between the two?
The evidence over time shows the two are strongly UNCORRELATED!
Lack of correlation means causation is impossible. Yes, it really is that simple.
The media is reacting. I know that some people like to express opinions or make jokes, but this is true. I can report that Bill Weir at CNN says the report is just like claiming that gravity does not exist anymore. We don’t need railings on stairs because people cannot fall down anymore. Absolutely true. I saw it myself.
Suddenly healthy skepticism is no longer the Rodney Dangerfield of science…
Now if we can just get political science to make the same advance.
If only you were as concerned when climate skeptics are kept off of EPA or DOE reports, then you might achieve some level of objectivity.
What a comprehensive and well documented report. My reaction is not political but based on my life of 74 years as a polymer chemist (U of Manchester), quality control and quality assurance, fine chemicals pharmaceuticals, taste tester of Canadian Whisky (nice lol) infra-red spectroscopist, SEM-Xray spec, Data Analyst supply chain, then retired to thoughts on 4th state of water .. poly H(OH-H)^nOH … a weak ionic polymer that links to strong ions in cells; creates plastic “film around strong ionic gases such as CO2 you can see the stable version as mist over water or in tree tops.early morning photons thicken the polymer layer ( U of Guelph, prof Pollack).
This comment was to Nate.
I would expect plenty of comments but the statement:
“..you will know that most of what the public has been told about climate change and severe weather has been a lie..”
does not sound like a sober, considered, factual assessment.
Maybe an independent editor would have been useful.
More to come.
The public has been “misled” then? What else can explain the fact that what the media says is opposite to what IPCC AR6, Figure 12.12 shows regarding severe weather? Someone is lying. You don’t have to be drunk (non-sober) to figure that out. -Roy
I’m happy to see this! Before going any further, we need to realize this would not have happened without Trump.
I read much of it, skipping only the areas I have little knowledge or interest in. But I noticed that both “ocean acidification” and “sea level rise”, were sufficiently debunked in the paper. It was an impressive effort, and will be close to the “final nail in the coffin”. (For some of the Left, the hoax will probably never end!)
But my interest was in section 4: CLIMATE SENSITIVITY TO CO2 FORCING. It is known from First Principles of physics that there is no such thing as “CO2 FORCING”. That was where the hoax started. But the general public does not understand the science of “radiative physics” and “thermodynamics”. So the paper effectively debunked such nonsense just based on the IPCC’s own claims — showing the fallacy of ECS and TCR.
I hope the paper gets a lot of attention.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/DOE_Critical_Review_of_Impacts_of_GHG_Emissions_on_the_US_Climate_July_2025.pdf
“But the general public does not understand the science of “radiative physics” and “thermodynamics”.
Not again. Mr Egg-on-face, who has been shown to have based his silly arguments on a misinterpretation of the WDL, has the gall to accuse others of ignorance.
What a laugh.
My newest stalker shows up again. And as usual, he brings his false accusations and insults.
If only he could link to where I got physics wrong.
But he can’t….
Here, basic radiative physics for dummies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjM73TlVkTo&t=87s
Child, if you can’t link to where I got the WDL wrong, then you’re just an incompetent brat.
If you ever grow up, you will learn not to make false accusations.
Studenth,
You might retitle it as Radiative Propaganda for Leftists.
I have a problem with the first paragraph of the Executive Summary. Some portion (human emissions) persists in the atmosphere for centuries. Show your evidence.
At 141 pages, the report is far too long for the general public.
Most of the 2009 endangerment finding attack on CO2 was already eliminated by the Big Beautiful Bill. What we really needed now is a few page article on why CO2 is not a pollutant. Something the general public could understand.
I generally agree with what I’ve read but there is no diversity of opinions. The effect of CO2 emissions on the climate in 100 years is unknown. A diversity of opinions is important.
Carbon dioxide makes the earth warmer and makes plants grow better. That’s all anyone needs to know.
I started reading the report at the link below.
151 pages in PDF form.
https://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/DOE_Critical_Review_of_Impacts_of_GHG_Emissions_on_the_US_Climate_July_2025.pdf
The executive summary made sense, so I didn’t bother reading the other 150 pages.
Dr Spencer.
The report’s assertion in Section 2.1.4 that “The IPCC has only minimally discussed global greening and CO2 fertilization of agricultural crops” is not valid.
The IPCC AR6 reports document substantial discussion and provide a comprehensive and structured treatment of both global greening and CO2 fertilization in agricultural as well as natural ecosystems. These topics are not minimally discussed, but rather explored in detail, with recognition of uncertainties, interactions, and regional variability.
I’ll save the details for direct comments to the DOE.
Rgrds.
“But the general public does not understand the science of “radiative physics” and “thermodynamics”.
Not again. Mr Egg-on-face, who has been shown to have based his silly arguments on a misinterpretation of the WDL, has the gall to accuse others of ignorance.
What a laugh.
My newest stalker repeats his comment above. The poor child doesn’t yet know how to place his comments.
Kids these days….
Whatever you say omelette head.
Keep proving me right, child.
I can take it.
Bill Weir at CNN is still at it. Today he said “it hurts people’s lungs.” In his defense, it was not clear if he was referring to CO2, or other possible types of actual pollution that can be associated with fossil fuel burning. For example, carbon monoxide, CO, is very toxic and various oxides of sulfur and nitrogen are harmful.
The important question remains. Is CO2 a pollutant that EPA should regulate? I say no.
I dedided to do some research:
https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/our-mission-and-what-we-do
The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment.
EPA works to ensure that:
Americans have clean air, land and water;
National efforts to reduce environmental risks are based on the best available scientific information;
Federal laws protecting human health and the environment are administered and enforced fairly, effectively and as Congress intended;
Environmental stewardship is integral to U.S. policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international trade, and these factors are similarly considered in establishing environmental policy;
All parts of society–communities, individuals, businesses, and state, local and Tribal governments–have access to accurate information sufficient to effectively participate in managing human health and environmental risks;
Contaminated lands and toxic sites are cleaned up by potentially responsible parties and revitalized; and
Chemicals in the marketplace are reviewed for safety.
What does that mean? What are the chemical properties of CO2? I looked as several legally required SDS publications from a variety of CO2 suppliers. In the toxic section they all said “no information”, or “Not applicable”. So I had to dig deeper:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
280 ppm Pre-industrial levels
421 ppm Current (May 2022) levels
~1121 ppm ASHRAE recommendation for indoor air[60]
5,000 ppm USA 8h exposure limit[54]
10,000 ppm Cognitive impairment, Canada’s long term exposure limit[45]
10,000-20,000 ppm Drowsiness[48]
20,000-50,000 ppm Headaches, sleepiness; poor concentration, loss of attention, slight nausea also possible
The most common source of high CO2 is from human respiration in confined spaces. The ASHRAE recommendation above is for human comfort, not health.
“The important question remains. Is CO2 a pollutant that EPA should regulate? I say no.”
The SCOTUS said yes they can under the Clean Air Act.
The EPA’s Proposal to revoke the Endangerment Finding is located here: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-07/nprm-12712-01-oar-vehicle-rule-reg-preamble-2025-0729.pdf
The document is 302 pages long and makes only cursory reference to the Spencer et al. DOE Climate Working Group Report, which is curious for a proposal ostensibly grounded in scientific reconsideration. Instead, the emphasis lies almost entirely on legal arguments concerning the scope of EPA authority to regulate CO2.
This is more evidence that the EPA is stipulating to the incontrovertibility of the scientific basis of the Endangerment Finding and is instead retreating to a narrower statutory claim, that it lacks authority to regulate fossil fuels production.
All this to say that the EPA will try to short-circuit the process by attacking the weakest link in the chain: legal jurisdiction.
Early reactions from several scientists cited in the DOE report suggest that the Public Comment sections of the final ruling will be very “educational.”
This seems wrong to me.
{5.7 Hemispheric symmetry of the planetary albedo
…
An intriguing property of the Earth’s albedo is that, on average, the Northern Hemisphere (NH) and Southern Hemisphere (SH) have had nearly the same albedo, at least throughout the fifty-year satellite record (Stephens et al., 2015). This symmetry is surprising, because the SH has much more ocean than land. Since ocean is less reflective than land, the NH should have higher albedo. Clouds (which are highly reflective) are more common in the NH and so compensate the surface albedo imbalances of the two hemispheres.}
Is “are more common in the NH” a typo and should refer to the SH?
Book: ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’
Book: ‘Human Caused Global Warming, the Biggest Deception in History’
https://www.technocracy.news/dr-tim-ball-on-climate-lies-wrapped-in-deception-smothered-with-delusion/
https://www.technocracy.news/tim-ball-the-evidence-proves-that-co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOEFQDcT_lM
Tim died Sept 24th 2022
Everything Reminds Me of Tim is now in the Kindle store!
https://www.amazon.com/Everything-Reminds-Me-Tim-Biography-ebook/dp/B0D9TWV4