Home/BlogThe comment portal at the Federal Register is now open for comments relating to our DOE report. If you think we weren’t alarmist enough, post your comment and explain why. If you think we were too alarmist, post your comment and explain why. I believe the comment period is open for 30 days.
Well, I get this message:
We’re sorry, an error has occurred
The feature you are attempting to access is currently unavailable.
Same here.
Well I get the link.
Thanks for the link. Comment submitted to Federal Register.
I just went to the portal and posted my two comments from the previous thread.
I tried to read the Federal Register cooments. The link is “unavailable”.
Not for me. I get the link.
When it comes to government sites, I have had issues access outside of the Country and/or not using a particular browser. I tried the link and it works for me using Firefox from Georgia USA.
My bad, I can’t see comments early. Says… The feature you are attempting to access is currently unavailable.
For your consideration:
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/how-the-doe-and-epa-used-and-misused
And
https://www.eenews.net/articles/doe-reframes-climate-consensus-as-a-debate/
https://bsky.app/profile/richardtol.bsky.social/post/3lvbowurbe222
https://www.wired.com/story/scientists-say-new-government-climate-report-twists-their-work/
https://richardtol.substack.com/p/is-climate-change-dangerous
https://www.science.org/content/article/contrarian-climate-assessment-u-s-government-draws-swift-pushback
From a RB post by a friend.
List of scientists who so far say the report cites but misrepresents their work. No doubt there will be more, I’ll update this as required. Please add any you find as a comment.
. “The DoE published a scientific report in support of the EPA’s legal argument. I am cited 3 times, incorrectly all three times. I am not the only one, as reported by Science and Wired.”
(I also liked this quote ‘If President Obama had asked me to write his Endangerment Finding I would have given him two words: “well duh”.)
. The report cites his paper on climate model performance, which fundamentally found they perform well, but cherry-picks a single, fairly irrelevant figure from the SI.
“They 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,”
Hausfather says this is representative of the authors approach : “cherry-pick data points that suit their narrative”. He has previously said the EPA’s interpretation of his work got it “completely backwards” which seems relevant.
. Internationally recognized evolutionary plant biologist. The report cites her work in the section promoting CO2-induced ‘greening’. However she claims the authors neglected that the work was conducted under “highly controlled growth conditions” and the report omits other confounding factors,
“With rising CO2 in natural ecosystems, plants may experience higher heat loads, extreme weather events such as droughts and floods, and reduced pollinators—which can have severe net negative effects on plant growth and crop yields,” she says. “Furthermore, our studies indicate that major disruptions in plant development such as flowering time can occur in direct response to rising CO2, which were not mentioned in the report.”
“” ‑ Assistant Professor, Department of Earth and Space Sciences & Astrobiology Program at UW (Seattle). The report cites his work to support its claim that ‘“the recent decline in [ocean] pH is within the range of natural variability on millennial time scales’. But Josh points out ‘“The much more gradual changes in ocean pH we observe on geologic timescales were typically not accompanied by the rapid changes in carbonate saturation that human CO2 emissions are causing, and so the former are not useful analogs for assessing the impact of ocean acidification on the modern marine biosphere”
, a climate scientist at Rutgers University, claims the report misrepresents his sea level research by cherry-picking a single tide gauge.
Kristie Ebi and Micahael Allen have both posted on BlueSky to say they have also been misrepresented, without so far giving details. Professor Richard Tol amusingly also claims ‘They even got Ross McKitrick’s research wrong.’
I’d love that to be true.
Quote : “The much more gradual changes in ocean pH we observe on geologic timescales were typically not accompanied by the rapid changes in carbonate saturation that human CO2 emissions are causing.”
The proxies used in those researches simply don’t have the required bandwidth to say that.
I get the page to post comments.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/01/2025-14519/notice-of-availability-a-critical-review-of-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-on-the-us-climate
But not the page to view comments. Given the very short address, I think it may be a bad link. I tried with 2 different browsers:
https://www.regulations.gov/service-down
We’re sorry, an error has occurred
The feature you are attempting to access is currently unavailabl
Link in the post woks for me.
The link to view comments is now updated to this:
https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOE-HQ-2025-0207-0001/comment
But in then crashes and goes here. I think “service-down” is the explanation:
https://www.regulations.gov/service-down
Goes to here for me. https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOE-HQ-2025-0207-0001/comment
I wonder if the radical environmental NGO’s have launched a DNS attack on the government websites? When the Endangerment Finding is rescinded, their charitable fund donations will rapidly decline and they all will go bust.
” I wonder if the radical environmental NGO’s have launched a DNS attack on the government websites? ”
And I wouldn’t be surprised if you were paranoid.
My comment will be on sea level rise. Melting glaciers, ok. but back radiation? I don’t see it.
I have yet to see a calculation on evaporation vs radiative forcing using first principles, so I made one on X since that is right in my wheelhouse of what I do at work. This isn’t new science. If you doubled CO2, radiative forcing would increase 3 W/m², back radiation imparted on the sea surface would increase to 5 W/m². SST would only need to increase 0.2°C so that the combined emission from the SS and evaporative increase would balance the increase in downwelling. To arrive at this, I assumed a characteristic length and average wind velocity and fixed relative humidity. Most of this heat gets rejected during ENSO cycles as the ocean turns over. There would be little change in the bulk temperature.
” Melting glaciers, ok. but back radiation? ”
Why to speak about the minuscule back radiation?
Why not to speak about rising sea temperatures instead, which not only
– are the main cause of glacier melting (ice melts from the bottom and not at the surface)
but also
– contribute to rising sea levels because warmer oceans need more volume than colder ones?
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/fig10-ncar-nh-sh-rmsat-1948-2024.gif
Thermal expansion from warmer oceans causes seal level increase. That is trivial. CO2 doubling can’t cause the oceans to warm. My calculation shows that CO2 doubling would only contribute to a 0.2°C increase in SST. The bulk temperature of the ocean would increase much less than that as most of the Sea Surface turns over every 5 to 7 years.
sam shicks
” My calculation shows… ”
YOUR calculation?
What exactly are your scientific / technical skills?
A “Red Team” / “Blue Team” exercise has aleady occurred. It led to APS statement on climate change .
Climate Change Statement Review Workshop transcript of proceedings https://share.google/pR3HcPHm53dyRB8f9