Nice post, Zeke. The report is indeed full of errors so egregious that it's hard to believe that it's not misconduct. Your experience is just one example of what I think will be an avalanche in the coming weeks. E.g., here's another one: https://bsky.app/profile/andrewdessler.com/post/3lvegzzjue22p
It often seems that the scenarios previously in play for emissions are still in play in spite of evidence to the contrary: The US is no longer a part of the Paris Agreement and will not be involved in the next IPCC. Many other countries have backed away from pledges. I know in New Zealand, where I reside, the government has gotten rid of a dozen worthy initiatives that would cut GHGs. More generally, there are next to no action plans to meet the pledges that were made. The prospects for the future are now much bleaker.
Real Climate has a posting of where you can find all of the National Climate Assessments. The recent ones are still available at the NOAA library. In case they disappear from there, RealClimate has downloaded them and made them available locally.
It's bad enough when it's just simple lying, but too often it gets implemented politically by bad actors like Ken Cuccinelli as Virginia AG went after climate researchers via their universities, or when a state legislature or governor forbids references to climate change. Under Bush II, representatives of the oil industry were allowed to edit the official federal climate change report.
I posted something similar earlier, but Zeke’s latest post—and the DOE report—make this more urgent.
While correcting misrepresentations is important, we also need to shift the conversation toward what has gotten stronger in climate science. That’s exactly the case made in the recent commentary by Saleska et al. (2025, AGU Advances): the EPA’s Endangerment Finding is now politically endangered, even though the science behind it is stronger than ever. They argue that scientists were essential to establishing the finding in 2009, and we must now speak out again—not just reactively, but affirmatively.
One of the clearest areas of strength is paleoclimatology. As Jessica Tierney and colleagues show in both her 2023 Science paper and 2024 AGU Advances synthesis, we now know that today’s CO₂ levels (~420 ppm) are higher than at any point in at least 3 million years—and that the rate of increase is 10 to 100 times faster than any natural transition. These insights provide geological context: we are conducting an experiment with the Earth’s atmosphere that has no precedent in human or recent planetary history.
As Saleska et al. emphasize, we shouldn't let bad-faith actors dictate the agenda. Instead, we can point to the tightened constraints on climate sensitivity, the increasing confidence in extreme weather attribution, and the long-term context from deep time that all reinforce the case for urgent action. Paleoclimate doesn’t just inform—it grounds our understanding in the full sweep of Earth’s history.
Thank you, Zeke, for calling this out. I hope more of the scientific community follows your lead—not just to rebut cherry-picks, but to highlight how much stronger and more unshakable the science has become.
"[W]e now know that today’s CO₂ levels (~420 ppm) are higher than at any point in at least 3 million years—and that the rate of increase is 10 to 100 times faster than any natural transition."
----
Yes, but none of the increasing horrible weather events are happening to *me*!
Thanks for this and you're right about the NCA vanishing as the clearest sign this is all about political goals, not a credible science review. Matthew Burgess had it right in recent commnets sayind the best thing the admin could do - if actually interested in transparency and objectivity - is launch the next NCA. But of course that won't happen. And that takes us back to your robust conclusion that Koonin, Christy, Curry, McKitrick Spencer are playing along with a charade.
And their motivation is… what exactly? They hate their grand children? It seems obvious that we do not have a policy to manage co2 induced warming in an affordable way. Electric power and nuclear, but all other uses are irreplaceable today. Hence the motivation to cut corners. If we could replace FF there would be no debate and no polarization of experts.
"Yup, MANDATING W&S is short term profiteering..."
----
"Mandating"?
Ignorant Americans are worried wind and solar are being put in by eminent domain, when in fact farmers willingly lease their land to wind and solar farms (and local counties and townships enjoy the extra millage). Farmers love the stable income, and not having to sell the land to sprawl developers.
It's GAS AND OIL PIPELINES (and some oil well configurations) that are pushed through using EMINENT DOMAIN.
I split the climate challenge into cutting vulnerabilities and cutting emissions. The first can be cheap, although it isn't easy. The second is getting easier but you can't uninvent suburban sprawl etc so it takes time. I'd like to think that last line is true but doubt it.
Your Nature commentary has gotten a lot of attention. Good for you. It'd be great if every once in a while you'd acknowledge Justin Ritchie, whose pathbreaking work on scenarios is what you were summarizing. Ritchie's work tells us that indeed 7.0 (and maybe 6.0 scenarios) are moving from implausible to impossible (SSP3-7.0 is already impossible, full stop). The intense personal comments, name calling, and accusations of "scientific misconduct" and malign motives are really unfortunate. Last point -- the CWG largely overlaps with IPCC AR6 (they cite it >100 times) with some small nuanced differences. Why not take the win and then just debate the nuance?
Zeke, deserve credit for calling out the SSP 8.5 as being implausible. But the fact that it was called a business as usual, (and still is by many that you include as voices of the NCA assessment), shows that the consensus is biased. We saw that same consensus believe that Russia helped Trump win the 2016 election. Some still believe that in the face of overwhelming evidence of organized deceit. This underscores that consensus is not science. You are the Bill Maher of climate, willing to call out the most kooky views, but there is still an inherent bias of those who are soldiers for a cause.
It is both infuriating and dismaying to watch how this administration doggedly pursues its anti-science agenda using pseudo-scientific products of cherry picked data, omissions, fringe experts, out of context quotes and so forth.
It's great to see a much more considered and factual take on the situation rather than the biased views of a tiny clutch of climate contrarians. However, I was dismayed by the continued use of the misleading (and incorrect) characterisation of so-called renewable energy as "clean energy." That term implies that such infrastructure has no environmental impact, whether or not it needs fossil fuel energy to construct (it does). Please avoid use of the term, especially if your justification is "everyone knows what I mean." I expect better from scientists when writing a scientific article.
"However, I was dismayed by the continued use of the misleading (and incorrect) characterisation of so-called renewable energy as 'clean energy.'"
----
Let's get this straight: More than 7 billion tons of coal are *extracted* and *combusted* annually. This entails mountaintop removal and other forms of land stripping.
Global oil & condensate production in 2024 was over 37 billion barrels, ~6% was used to produce plastic (of which ~9% is recycled) and the rest was combusted. Furthermore, the refinery process uses a very large amount of electricity (e.g., mostly coal power in the Houston area), followed by delivery by pipelines and final delivery by diesel tanker trucks of these SINGLE USE PRODUCTS.
Please describe how the reusable and predominantly non-toxic materials used by PV, wind and grid battery storage compare to the extract-and-combust mechanisms that we know today.
This "don't call it clean" crap is worse than pointless pedantry.
"[T]his is a strategy common in the →legal field← where the goal is to make a case for one point of view, but more foreign in the science where the search for the truth (wherever it may lie) is the driving motivation."
----
When the physical theory is on your side, pound the model.
When the measurements are on your side, pound the data.
When neither the model nor the data are on your side, pound the table.
Saving fossil fuels from global warming, one Presidentially decreed government agency intervention at a time, yay. Bringing 8.5 back by using the unexpected but still quite limited successes at slowing emissions growth (not yet a cessation of growth) to deny 8.5 is possible - and avoiding mention how serious the less than 8.5 scenarios are.
I'd like to think it isn't possible, that what the rest of the world does will prevent that worst and that the US of the present is an aberration and will turn to low emissions energy after all, but I see corrupt governance, mismanagement and conflict as amplifying climate change feedbacks.
Relax, Zeke. You shouldn't have anything to worry about. I am thrilled to finally see a real debate going on. It's about time...This is a chance to finally show the world the truth about the science behind the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.....
What is the Trump regime’s goal? Artificially increased profits and increased share prices? Killing American residents and citizens by playing Russian roulette with dirty air and environmental emission standards? Merely mucking around with as many regulations as possible because Trump and his MAGA/GOP political captives and their donor/supporters believe they can do that with impunity?
Nice post, Zeke. The report is indeed full of errors so egregious that it's hard to believe that it's not misconduct. Your experience is just one example of what I think will be an avalanche in the coming weeks. E.g., here's another one: https://bsky.app/profile/andrewdessler.com/post/3lvegzzjue22p
It often seems that the scenarios previously in play for emissions are still in play in spite of evidence to the contrary: The US is no longer a part of the Paris Agreement and will not be involved in the next IPCC. Many other countries have backed away from pledges. I know in New Zealand, where I reside, the government has gotten rid of a dozen worthy initiatives that would cut GHGs. More generally, there are next to no action plans to meet the pledges that were made. The prospects for the future are now much bleaker.
Real Climate has a posting of where you can find all of the National Climate Assessments. The recent ones are still available at the NOAA library. In case they disappear from there, RealClimate has downloaded them and made them available locally.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/national-climate-assessment-links/
Thanks for the detailed description. It's very sad to see this descend into partisan political squabbling.
I think it's worse than mere "partisan political squabbling", which implies two sides throwing mud at each other, and is more a case of simple lying.
Point taken. Dishonest misrepresentation in support of partisan political squabbling.
It's bad enough when it's just simple lying, but too often it gets implemented politically by bad actors like Ken Cuccinelli as Virginia AG went after climate researchers via their universities, or when a state legislature or governor forbids references to climate change. Under Bush II, representatives of the oil industry were allowed to edit the official federal climate change report.
Under Trump, we see this in spades.
I posted something similar earlier, but Zeke’s latest post—and the DOE report—make this more urgent.
While correcting misrepresentations is important, we also need to shift the conversation toward what has gotten stronger in climate science. That’s exactly the case made in the recent commentary by Saleska et al. (2025, AGU Advances): the EPA’s Endangerment Finding is now politically endangered, even though the science behind it is stronger than ever. They argue that scientists were essential to establishing the finding in 2009, and we must now speak out again—not just reactively, but affirmatively.
One of the clearest areas of strength is paleoclimatology. As Jessica Tierney and colleagues show in both her 2023 Science paper and 2024 AGU Advances synthesis, we now know that today’s CO₂ levels (~420 ppm) are higher than at any point in at least 3 million years—and that the rate of increase is 10 to 100 times faster than any natural transition. These insights provide geological context: we are conducting an experiment with the Earth’s atmosphere that has no precedent in human or recent planetary history.
As Saleska et al. emphasize, we shouldn't let bad-faith actors dictate the agenda. Instead, we can point to the tightened constraints on climate sensitivity, the increasing confidence in extreme weather attribution, and the long-term context from deep time that all reinforce the case for urgent action. Paleoclimate doesn’t just inform—it grounds our understanding in the full sweep of Earth’s history.
Thank you, Zeke, for calling this out. I hope more of the scientific community follows your lead—not just to rebut cherry-picks, but to highlight how much stronger and more unshakable the science has become.
"[W]e now know that today’s CO₂ levels (~420 ppm) are higher than at any point in at least 3 million years—and that the rate of increase is 10 to 100 times faster than any natural transition."
----
Yes, but none of the increasing horrible weather events are happening to *me*!
Thanks for this and you're right about the NCA vanishing as the clearest sign this is all about political goals, not a credible science review. Matthew Burgess had it right in recent commnets sayind the best thing the admin could do - if actually interested in transparency and objectivity - is launch the next NCA. But of course that won't happen. And that takes us back to your robust conclusion that Koonin, Christy, Curry, McKitrick Spencer are playing along with a charade.
And their motivation is… what exactly? They hate their grand children? It seems obvious that we do not have a policy to manage co2 induced warming in an affordable way. Electric power and nuclear, but all other uses are irreplaceable today. Hence the motivation to cut corners. If we could replace FF there would be no debate and no polarization of experts.
Short term profit and damn everyone else.
Yup, mandating W&S is short term profiteering that immiserates the poor. There is nothing to replace FF (except nuclear for electric).
Do me a favor and pls translate AR’s reposte in terms i can understand. Cryptic to the point of disingenuous…
"Yup, MANDATING W&S is short term profiteering..."
----
"Mandating"?
Ignorant Americans are worried wind and solar are being put in by eminent domain, when in fact farmers willingly lease their land to wind and solar farms (and local counties and townships enjoy the extra millage). Farmers love the stable income, and not having to sell the land to sprawl developers.
It's GAS AND OIL PIPELINES (and some oil well configurations) that are pushed through using EMINENT DOMAIN.
I split the climate challenge into cutting vulnerabilities and cutting emissions. The first can be cheap, although it isn't easy. The second is getting easier but you can't uninvent suburban sprawl etc so it takes time. I'd like to think that last line is true but doubt it.
Your Nature commentary has gotten a lot of attention. Good for you. It'd be great if every once in a while you'd acknowledge Justin Ritchie, whose pathbreaking work on scenarios is what you were summarizing. Ritchie's work tells us that indeed 7.0 (and maybe 6.0 scenarios) are moving from implausible to impossible (SSP3-7.0 is already impossible, full stop). The intense personal comments, name calling, and accusations of "scientific misconduct" and malign motives are really unfortunate. Last point -- the CWG largely overlaps with IPCC AR6 (they cite it >100 times) with some small nuanced differences. Why not take the win and then just debate the nuance?
My two cents on scenarios in the CWG: https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/emissions-scenarios-cwg-fact-check
Your views on that are much welcome.
Are you *really* a member of the Heritage Foundation?
Nope, are you?
Never.
I do own a chain of meth labs.
Me too! Small world 😎
Roger Pielke--always a class act. May others learn from his professionalism, honesty, and scientific rigor, all while avoiding personal attacks.
Zeke, deserve credit for calling out the SSP 8.5 as being implausible. But the fact that it was called a business as usual, (and still is by many that you include as voices of the NCA assessment), shows that the consensus is biased. We saw that same consensus believe that Russia helped Trump win the 2016 election. Some still believe that in the face of overwhelming evidence of organized deceit. This underscores that consensus is not science. You are the Bill Maher of climate, willing to call out the most kooky views, but there is still an inherent bias of those who are soldiers for a cause.
Isn't the term "business as usual" defunct in the era of Chinese PV, battery and EV expansion?
It is both infuriating and dismaying to watch how this administration doggedly pursues its anti-science agenda using pseudo-scientific products of cherry picked data, omissions, fringe experts, out of context quotes and so forth.
It's great to see a much more considered and factual take on the situation rather than the biased views of a tiny clutch of climate contrarians. However, I was dismayed by the continued use of the misleading (and incorrect) characterisation of so-called renewable energy as "clean energy." That term implies that such infrastructure has no environmental impact, whether or not it needs fossil fuel energy to construct (it does). Please avoid use of the term, especially if your justification is "everyone knows what I mean." I expect better from scientists when writing a scientific article.
"However, I was dismayed by the continued use of the misleading (and incorrect) characterisation of so-called renewable energy as 'clean energy.'"
----
Let's get this straight: More than 7 billion tons of coal are *extracted* and *combusted* annually. This entails mountaintop removal and other forms of land stripping.
Global oil & condensate production in 2024 was over 37 billion barrels, ~6% was used to produce plastic (of which ~9% is recycled) and the rest was combusted. Furthermore, the refinery process uses a very large amount of electricity (e.g., mostly coal power in the Houston area), followed by delivery by pipelines and final delivery by diesel tanker trucks of these SINGLE USE PRODUCTS.
Please describe how the reusable and predominantly non-toxic materials used by PV, wind and grid battery storage compare to the extract-and-combust mechanisms that we know today.
This "don't call it clean" crap is worse than pointless pedantry.
"[T]his is a strategy common in the →legal field← where the goal is to make a case for one point of view, but more foreign in the science where the search for the truth (wherever it may lie) is the driving motivation."
----
When the physical theory is on your side, pound the model.
When the measurements are on your side, pound the data.
When neither the model nor the data are on your side, pound the table.
Corruption affects all human's activity. Thank to fascists.
Saving fossil fuels from global warming, one Presidentially decreed government agency intervention at a time, yay. Bringing 8.5 back by using the unexpected but still quite limited successes at slowing emissions growth (not yet a cessation of growth) to deny 8.5 is possible - and avoiding mention how serious the less than 8.5 scenarios are.
I'd like to think it isn't possible, that what the rest of the world does will prevent that worst and that the US of the present is an aberration and will turn to low emissions energy after all, but I see corrupt governance, mismanagement and conflict as amplifying climate change feedbacks.
Relax, Zeke. You shouldn't have anything to worry about. I am thrilled to finally see a real debate going on. It's about time...This is a chance to finally show the world the truth about the science behind the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.....
What is the Trump regime’s goal? Artificially increased profits and increased share prices? Killing American residents and citizens by playing Russian roulette with dirty air and environmental emission standards? Merely mucking around with as many regulations as possible because Trump and his MAGA/GOP political captives and their donor/supporters believe they can do that with impunity?
Short term profit and damn everyone else.
Yup. Short term share price increases and profit taking.
I am curious,
Are you enough of a scientist to consider that the whole GHE model is fundamentally
flawed, given that it's based on a cold Earth?
As Corpernicus demonstrated, all the epicycles you can add, and it's still not quite right.