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.
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.
The partisan political squabbling can be compared to the hogs at the trough. A trough filled with corruption and collusion. A trough filled by the perpetrators of the greatest hoax against mankind's very existance on this planet.
Reading more graphs and charts only bring to light the perpetrators are still winning. I have argued and written that climate change is diemetrically opposite to 'greed' capitalism that we face today. The decline of the middle class is a dumbing down of the population. Greed capitalism doesn't need a well educated middle class. It has automation AI and manufacturing sourcing in third world countries. But, that is not the argument.
Who is taking all this material, these reports from countless meetings and putting the information in a way the very common person would understand and react to?
I have given many talks on climate change. To the dumbfounded who believe it can never happen here. Until it does, a tornado where tornados are never seen, or a rainfall that floods basements, the ever increasing heat in the summer time even the change of seasons or the invasion invasive species. This has to be translated into words the average person understands. There has to be a way of jumping over the politicians feeding at the trough. The hoax perpetrated on mankind regarding climate change has to become as transparent as the Epstein report will be to Trump.
I apologize for the ramble but over 2 decades involved in environmental issues, to the average person this is gobbeldygook. To the educated, the debate and the conclusion are essential. It is the linguistic challenges of the message.
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.
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.
Thank you, Mr. Revkin, for abandoning false balance.
Chris: "And their motivation is… what exactly? They hate their grand children?"
I'm glad you asked. Three of the five authors of the DOE report harbor a conspicuous religious motivation. Christy, McKitrick and Spencer are all prominently associated with the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, an explicitly free-market-conservative Evangelical Christian* organization. McKitrick and Spencer have actually signed** the Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming (https://cornwallalliance.org/evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming), which literally denies that global warming is either anthropogenic or dangerous:
"We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history...
"We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming..."
IOW, evidence be damned: God won't allow anthropogenic global warming! IMHO, one could hardly ask for a more forthright repudiation of science's most fundamental principles, in favor of a comforting ancient myth*.
Christy, though not a signer of the Evangelical Declaration, is Spencer's known co-religionist and a frequent "consultant" for the Cornwall Alliance (our bloggy friend Russell Seitz has drolly dubbed it the "Cornball Alliance"), where he seems to spend his time defending himself against public criticism (https://www.google.com/search?q="Cornwall+Alliance"+"Christy").
I know less about Curry's or Koonin's religion, but from each of their histories, there is cause to suspect political ideology, cultural identity, spite, etc. I, for one, don't need to know "exactly" what their motives are. This is *not* an *argumentum ad hominem,* because it's all within the domain of politics, not science! We know the source of their recent report, and can follow the money. With a rich history of the for-profit disinformation industry to draw on (https://open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu/articles/4-169/v2), one comes to see the DOE report as a work of partisan propaganda by our current kakistocracy on behalf of fossil carbon producers and investors, intended to obstruct US and global decarbonization for as long as possible.
Does that answer your question? Thanks for asking!
* In case you're wondering, I don't consider Evangelical faith a scientific handicap for all who profess it. Disregarding Spencer's outraged blog posts, I have only to cite Katharine Hayhoe as a counter-example.
I read your links. Only Spencer is noted. What is your game? Shilling for W&S? What are your incentives?
You write “one comes to see the DOE report as a work of partisan propaganda by our current kakistocracy on behalf of fossil carbon producers and investors, intended to obstruct US and global decarbonization for as long as possible.”
US decarbonization is on permanent hold in case you missed the news. The remaining countries are organizing against this suicide pact. I guess you must be one of those cultural neo marxists that believes in the slow blood letting of an economy because Gaia
Apparently you didn't read my link to the signatory page, on the Wayback Machine, since it disappeared from the CASC website years ago. McKitrick is on there as well.
Never mind. How do you get from "The Tragedy of the Commons" to "cultural neo marxists"? Is "collective" some kind of trigger word for you? I'd be surprised if you're still paying attention, but "for the lurkers" ;^), I'm taking the trouble to reply without consulting generative AI:
First, any Economics major knows the "free" market has always socialized every transaction cost it can get away with. Free of collective intervention, that is: externalities aren't "free" for those who do pay for them. Who do you think is paying the costs of climate change caused by fossil carbon emissions right now? Does it include, at a minimum, 10% (13.5) of the people who died in last month's flash floods in TX? That's the extra amount of water global warming put in the rain clouds that delivered them, you know, compared to what they would have without global warming.
Yep, the fully QA'd temperature record shows that the world is about 1.4°C warmer than it was at its low point around 1900. The simple relation between air temperature and precipitable water, and the heat-trapping property of CO2 in air, have both been known since the mid-19th century. If it's all a hoax, it must have been launched before then, by unnamed conspirators with superhuman foresight but mysterious goals, and sustained by generations of trained, mutually disciplined, cynical pseudoskeptics, all beavering away crafting false evidence along multiple lines through today. That's a joke, BTW, not how it actually happened. No quote mining, please!
Next, US decarbonization is not on permanent hold. At worst, it awaits the next swing of the popular sovereignty pendulum. Our current King Stork was empowered by 1.5% of the popular vote. The previous POTUS won by three times that margin, and signed the IRA of 2022. For some time, somehow we've been falling within a few percent either way. And the mid-terms are only a year away.
Meanwhile, the wildfires, heat waves, hurricanes, and flash floods keep getting closer to home for all Americans. I, for one, am right now under an extreme heat warning until Tuesday night! Thankfully I have air conditioning. Many of my neighbors do not. This is what global warming means for them: a cost they've hitherto avoided, of installing and paying the utility bills for residential cooling. In the worst case, someone may die of heat stroke, who wouldn't if not for the warming to date. And the rest are wondering how much hotter it's going to get.
Lastly: "Slow blood letting of an economy because Gaia"? LOL! yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman! Science be damned. How do you sleep at night with a crowd of cultural neo marxists under your bed?
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.
"We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming..."
What’s not to like?
Your smear of Curry and Koonin without evidence is particularly Mal and not very Adapted
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?
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.
"Clean" means no impact. If it has impact it isn't clean. This isn't pedantry, it's dismay at a lie being constantly put forward so that people eventually think that renewable infrastructure is clean. It isn't. I'm not saying that it isn't cleanER than fossil fuels, I'm saying it isn't clean. Why use incorrect terminology? The reason is to portray renewables as THE SOLUTION.
I'll give you another one: A pediatrician that has spent his career treating asthmatic children thinks that solar arrays and wind turbines are clean energy.
He can think what he likes but calling that energy infrastructure "clean" is plain wrong. If you think it's right, what word should be used to indicate that something is free from dirt or impurities?
"what word should be used to indicate that something is free from dirt or impurities?"
----
So is "clean" governance free from dirt or impurities?
Is a "clean" poker game free from dirt or impurities?
Is a "clean" election free from dirt or impurities?
AFAICT, nothing outside of a wafer fab facility is free from dirt or impurities (and probably not inside of one, either), so we should stop using the word altogether.
...and is anything really "free"?*
----
"'Clean' means no impact."
----
And anybody who's seen what chlorine bleach can do wouldn't consider it "no impact" either, no matter how "clean" it makes things.
I tell you what, find something you would permit the use of "clean" for, and I'll bring my electron microscope to check it. Nothing in the universe meets your personal standard of cleanliness.
______________
*This episode of "3am Dorm Hallway Discussions" brought to you by Filthy Electrons and Dirty Thoughts, because is anything ever clean?
Clean, as in clean energy, is meant to indicate that there is no adverse environmental impact from it. Why else would anyone promote it? Just because it's cleaner than fossil fuel energy (though I've seen some dispute even that)? The term is used not just for the likes of you and I, but for the whole populace. I wonder what proportion of them would see "clean energy" and think "that's what we need, to stop the deterioration of the environment."
Listen, it's two extra characters. Cleaner (implicitly comparing it to the dominant energy source) is easy to use. Why don't people like Zeke use it? Is it because the term is seen so much from cleaner energy advocates that it seems reasonable to use it? Who knows? But it's the wrong term.
Prior to it's use in this context, what did you think the meaning of the word "clean" was? Is the surface of a work surface"clean" after using bleach? Is it reasonable to use the phrase "clean work surface?" Yes. Is bleach clean? No but it can make other things clean. I haven't heard the term applied to poker games and elections, so can't comment. I think I've heard the term "clean governance" but am not sure, and it's definitely rare. "Clean energy" is commonly and frequently used. It's the wrong term.
Talk to dictionary professionals: They know that people adapt language and shorthand to express themselves, and rules change over the decades.
Thomas Jefferson used "it's" as a neutral possessive, but that's considered improper usage these days. Universities have dropped the use of the words "alumna" and "alumnae" in favor of using "alumnus" and "alumni" for all of their graduates.
"Clean energy" as a phrase is understood as departure from the filthy use of fossil fuels, and I'll give you a choice between holding your face to a tailpipe of a running ICE vehicle and holding it to the back of my Leaf to make the point.
----
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
I guess it’s falling on deaf ears but that was the implicit intention, I suppose, of the overuse of the phrase. Your challenge is, of course, ridiculous since there is a lot more to powering a vehicle that what drives the wheels.
Whatever your expectations of a "scientific article", Tony, I for one do know what he means. Educated readers will allow some linguistic flexibility for the sake of brevity, even in a peer-reviewed report for publication in a scientific venue of record. Other readers may find this blog over their heads, and blame it on the author. Would replacing "clean" with "cleaner" satisfy you? If not, you might consider filing a butthurt report (https://cdn-ceo-ca.s3.amazonaws.com/1ho4n9f-Hurt-Feelings-Report.pdf).
Yes, replacing "clean" with "cleaner" would be fine. It is correct. I disagree about allowing linguistic flexibility. The correct term is easily available and has no downside. The continued use of the incorrect term can eventually lead to a belief that renewables will allow us to continue our way of life without adverse impact on the environment. Even the term "renewables" is incorrect but that battle seems to have been lost.
Non-renewable infrastructure for harvesting renewable energy is not clean.
"[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.
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.
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.
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?
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.....
This is very informative and helpful. One thing that I am not sure I fully understand is the basis of your reaffirmation of the statement from the 2020 article in Nature, that "The need to limit warming to 1.5C, as made clear in the IPCC’s 2018 special report, does not depend on having a 5C counterpoint."
Specifically, is it your view that there is a "need" to limit warming to 1.5C, which I don't recall the 2018 IPCC special report actually said, although it identified the likely significant increase in adverse impacts at higher levels of warming? I ask in part because Jesse Jenkins, whose thinking on climate change policy I also highly respect, recently framed this "need" quite differently in a recent conversation with Ezra Klein at the Times. He said:
"The idea that there’s some safe zone and some dangerous zone, and there’s a threshold between the two, is just not scientifically true. The I.P.C.C. has never said that. There’s no consensus in the scientific documents that frame it that way.
What they’ve said is that every degree involves increasing risk. That’s true — and so we have a sense of urgency. We want to make as much progress as possible, as rapidly as possible. That’s what the science says.
The “as possible” part — that’s what politics and technology and society have to determine. There’s no science that says what that is. That’s all of us trying to hash this out and muddle through as best we can."
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.
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.
The partisan political squabbling can be compared to the hogs at the trough. A trough filled with corruption and collusion. A trough filled by the perpetrators of the greatest hoax against mankind's very existance on this planet.
Reading more graphs and charts only bring to light the perpetrators are still winning. I have argued and written that climate change is diemetrically opposite to 'greed' capitalism that we face today. The decline of the middle class is a dumbing down of the population. Greed capitalism doesn't need a well educated middle class. It has automation AI and manufacturing sourcing in third world countries. But, that is not the argument.
Who is taking all this material, these reports from countless meetings and putting the information in a way the very common person would understand and react to?
I have given many talks on climate change. To the dumbfounded who believe it can never happen here. Until it does, a tornado where tornados are never seen, or a rainfall that floods basements, the ever increasing heat in the summer time even the change of seasons or the invasion invasive species. This has to be translated into words the average person understands. There has to be a way of jumping over the politicians feeding at the trough. The hoax perpetrated on mankind regarding climate change has to become as transparent as the Epstein report will be to Trump.
I apologize for the ramble but over 2 decades involved in environmental issues, to the average person this is gobbeldygook. To the educated, the debate and the conclusion are essential. It is the linguistic challenges of the message.
Sorry, I couldn't finish reading your comment because my favorite influencer on TikTok just released a new makeup tutorial.
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/
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.
Thank you, Mr. Revkin, for abandoning false balance.
Chris: "And their motivation is… what exactly? They hate their grand children?"
I'm glad you asked. Three of the five authors of the DOE report harbor a conspicuous religious motivation. Christy, McKitrick and Spencer are all prominently associated with the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, an explicitly free-market-conservative Evangelical Christian* organization. McKitrick and Spencer have actually signed** the Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming (https://cornwallalliance.org/evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming), which literally denies that global warming is either anthropogenic or dangerous:
"We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history...
"We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming..."
IOW, evidence be damned: God won't allow anthropogenic global warming! IMHO, one could hardly ask for a more forthright repudiation of science's most fundamental principles, in favor of a comforting ancient myth*.
Christy, though not a signer of the Evangelical Declaration, is Spencer's known co-religionist and a frequent "consultant" for the Cornwall Alliance (our bloggy friend Russell Seitz has drolly dubbed it the "Cornball Alliance"), where he seems to spend his time defending himself against public criticism (https://www.google.com/search?q="Cornwall+Alliance"+"Christy").
I know less about Curry's or Koonin's religion, but from each of their histories, there is cause to suspect political ideology, cultural identity, spite, etc. I, for one, don't need to know "exactly" what their motives are. This is *not* an *argumentum ad hominem,* because it's all within the domain of politics, not science! We know the source of their recent report, and can follow the money. With a rich history of the for-profit disinformation industry to draw on (https://open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu/articles/4-169/v2), one comes to see the DOE report as a work of partisan propaganda by our current kakistocracy on behalf of fossil carbon producers and investors, intended to obstruct US and global decarbonization for as long as possible.
Does that answer your question? Thanks for asking!
* In case you're wondering, I don't consider Evangelical faith a scientific handicap for all who profess it. Disregarding Spencer's outraged blog posts, I have only to cite Katharine Hayhoe as a counter-example.
** The original signatory list can only be found on the Wayback Machine (https://web.archive.org/web/20140327224451/http://www.cornwallalliance.org/blog/item/prominent-signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming).
I read your links. Only Spencer is noted. What is your game? Shilling for W&S? What are your incentives?
You write “one comes to see the DOE report as a work of partisan propaganda by our current kakistocracy on behalf of fossil carbon producers and investors, intended to obstruct US and global decarbonization for as long as possible.”
US decarbonization is on permanent hold in case you missed the news. The remaining countries are organizing against this suicide pact. I guess you must be one of those cultural neo marxists that believes in the slow blood letting of an economy because Gaia
Apparently you didn't read my link to the signatory page, on the Wayback Machine, since it disappeared from the CASC website years ago. McKitrick is on there as well.
Never mind. How do you get from "The Tragedy of the Commons" to "cultural neo marxists"? Is "collective" some kind of trigger word for you? I'd be surprised if you're still paying attention, but "for the lurkers" ;^), I'm taking the trouble to reply without consulting generative AI:
First, any Economics major knows the "free" market has always socialized every transaction cost it can get away with. Free of collective intervention, that is: externalities aren't "free" for those who do pay for them. Who do you think is paying the costs of climate change caused by fossil carbon emissions right now? Does it include, at a minimum, 10% (13.5) of the people who died in last month's flash floods in TX? That's the extra amount of water global warming put in the rain clouds that delivered them, you know, compared to what they would have without global warming.
Yep, the fully QA'd temperature record shows that the world is about 1.4°C warmer than it was at its low point around 1900. The simple relation between air temperature and precipitable water, and the heat-trapping property of CO2 in air, have both been known since the mid-19th century. If it's all a hoax, it must have been launched before then, by unnamed conspirators with superhuman foresight but mysterious goals, and sustained by generations of trained, mutually disciplined, cynical pseudoskeptics, all beavering away crafting false evidence along multiple lines through today. That's a joke, BTW, not how it actually happened. No quote mining, please!
Next, US decarbonization is not on permanent hold. At worst, it awaits the next swing of the popular sovereignty pendulum. Our current King Stork was empowered by 1.5% of the popular vote. The previous POTUS won by three times that margin, and signed the IRA of 2022. For some time, somehow we've been falling within a few percent either way. And the mid-terms are only a year away.
Meanwhile, the wildfires, heat waves, hurricanes, and flash floods keep getting closer to home for all Americans. I, for one, am right now under an extreme heat warning until Tuesday night! Thankfully I have air conditioning. Many of my neighbors do not. This is what global warming means for them: a cost they've hitherto avoided, of installing and paying the utility bills for residential cooling. In the worst case, someone may die of heat stroke, who wouldn't if not for the warming to date. And the rest are wondering how much hotter it's going to get.
Further, W&S is a "suicide pact"? That would be laughed off in multiple countries (https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-solar-wind-power-fossil-fuels-6aca4846e594ea8405f91edda39a03ad). It's you and our preposterous POTUS against the world! Meanwhile, the US economy merely rides free (https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/green-subsidy-race-may-be-what-world-needs-2023-02-06) on the collective decarbonization efforts of other nations, at least until the next Democratic POTUS.
Lastly: "Slow blood letting of an economy because Gaia"? LOL! yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman! Science be damned. How do you sleep at night with a crowd of cultural neo marxists under your bed?
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.
You quote
"We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming..."
What’s not to like?
Your smear of Curry and Koonin without evidence is particularly Mal and not very Adapted
"Your smear of Curry and Koonin without evidence..."
Oh, I've got plenty of evidence. I don't need convincing! I'm not doing your homework for you, but try RealClimate.org (https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/the-endangerment-of-the-endangerment-finding/) and links therein.
"particularly Mal and not very Adapted"
Congratulations. Want a cookie?
[Edit: Now you can have the last word -MA]
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.
Roger Pielke--always a class act. May others learn from his professionalism, honesty, and scientific rigor, all while avoiding personal attacks.
Are you *really* a member of the Heritage Foundation?
Nope, are you?
Me too! Small world 😎
Never.
I do own a chain of meth labs.
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.
"Clean" means no impact. If it has impact it isn't clean. This isn't pedantry, it's dismay at a lie being constantly put forward so that people eventually think that renewable infrastructure is clean. It isn't. I'm not saying that it isn't cleanER than fossil fuels, I'm saying it isn't clean. Why use incorrect terminology? The reason is to portray renewables as THE SOLUTION.
You've chosen this rare and narrow perspective.
I'll give you another one: A pediatrician that has spent his career treating asthmatic children thinks that solar arrays and wind turbines are clean energy.
He can think what he likes but calling that energy infrastructure "clean" is plain wrong. If you think it's right, what word should be used to indicate that something is free from dirt or impurities?
----
"what word should be used to indicate that something is free from dirt or impurities?"
----
So is "clean" governance free from dirt or impurities?
Is a "clean" poker game free from dirt or impurities?
Is a "clean" election free from dirt or impurities?
AFAICT, nothing outside of a wafer fab facility is free from dirt or impurities (and probably not inside of one, either), so we should stop using the word altogether.
...and is anything really "free"?*
----
"'Clean' means no impact."
----
And anybody who's seen what chlorine bleach can do wouldn't consider it "no impact" either, no matter how "clean" it makes things.
I tell you what, find something you would permit the use of "clean" for, and I'll bring my electron microscope to check it. Nothing in the universe meets your personal standard of cleanliness.
______________
*This episode of "3am Dorm Hallway Discussions" brought to you by Filthy Electrons and Dirty Thoughts, because is anything ever clean?
Clean, as in clean energy, is meant to indicate that there is no adverse environmental impact from it. Why else would anyone promote it? Just because it's cleaner than fossil fuel energy (though I've seen some dispute even that)? The term is used not just for the likes of you and I, but for the whole populace. I wonder what proportion of them would see "clean energy" and think "that's what we need, to stop the deterioration of the environment."
Listen, it's two extra characters. Cleaner (implicitly comparing it to the dominant energy source) is easy to use. Why don't people like Zeke use it? Is it because the term is seen so much from cleaner energy advocates that it seems reasonable to use it? Who knows? But it's the wrong term.
Prior to it's use in this context, what did you think the meaning of the word "clean" was? Is the surface of a work surface"clean" after using bleach? Is it reasonable to use the phrase "clean work surface?" Yes. Is bleach clean? No but it can make other things clean. I haven't heard the term applied to poker games and elections, so can't comment. I think I've heard the term "clean governance" but am not sure, and it's definitely rare. "Clean energy" is commonly and frequently used. It's the wrong term.
Yep. Unless supplied with numbers to compare, it's transparent obstructionism. Even if unintentional, it's false equivalence, and at best innumeracy.
"Clean" is not a comparative term. If Zeke means "cleaner" then he should use that term, not the incorrect term.
Talk to dictionary professionals: They know that people adapt language and shorthand to express themselves, and rules change over the decades.
Thomas Jefferson used "it's" as a neutral possessive, but that's considered improper usage these days. Universities have dropped the use of the words "alumna" and "alumnae" in favor of using "alumnus" and "alumni" for all of their graduates.
"Clean energy" as a phrase is understood as departure from the filthy use of fossil fuels, and I'll give you a choice between holding your face to a tailpipe of a running ICE vehicle and holding it to the back of my Leaf to make the point.
----
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
—James D. Nicoll
I guess it’s falling on deaf ears but that was the implicit intention, I suppose, of the overuse of the phrase. Your challenge is, of course, ridiculous since there is a lot more to powering a vehicle that what drives the wheels.
Of course the challenge was ridiculous.
You have to go easy on me: I'm part of the generation that grew up breathing leaded gas fumes.
You're not the owner of our language, Tony.
Hmm. Useful rejoinder.
Whatever your expectations of a "scientific article", Tony, I for one do know what he means. Educated readers will allow some linguistic flexibility for the sake of brevity, even in a peer-reviewed report for publication in a scientific venue of record. Other readers may find this blog over their heads, and blame it on the author. Would replacing "clean" with "cleaner" satisfy you? If not, you might consider filing a butthurt report (https://cdn-ceo-ca.s3.amazonaws.com/1ho4n9f-Hurt-Feelings-Report.pdf).
Yes, replacing "clean" with "cleaner" would be fine. It is correct. I disagree about allowing linguistic flexibility. The correct term is easily available and has no downside. The continued use of the incorrect term can eventually lead to a belief that renewables will allow us to continue our way of life without adverse impact on the environment. Even the term "renewables" is incorrect but that battle seems to have been lost.
Non-renewable infrastructure for harvesting renewable energy is not clean.
"[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.
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.
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.
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.
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.....
This is very informative and helpful. One thing that I am not sure I fully understand is the basis of your reaffirmation of the statement from the 2020 article in Nature, that "The need to limit warming to 1.5C, as made clear in the IPCC’s 2018 special report, does not depend on having a 5C counterpoint."
Specifically, is it your view that there is a "need" to limit warming to 1.5C, which I don't recall the 2018 IPCC special report actually said, although it identified the likely significant increase in adverse impacts at higher levels of warming? I ask in part because Jesse Jenkins, whose thinking on climate change policy I also highly respect, recently framed this "need" quite differently in a recent conversation with Ezra Klein at the Times. He said:
"The idea that there’s some safe zone and some dangerous zone, and there’s a threshold between the two, is just not scientifically true. The I.P.C.C. has never said that. There’s no consensus in the scientific documents that frame it that way.
What they’ve said is that every degree involves increasing risk. That’s true — and so we have a sense of urgency. We want to make as much progress as possible, as rapidly as possible. That’s what the science says.
The “as possible” part — that’s what politics and technology and society have to determine. There’s no science that says what that is. That’s all of us trying to hash this out and muddle through as best we can."