DOE Climate Report: A Critical Review

CaptUSA

Member
Joined
May 17, 2011
Messages
18,922
You're gonna want to read this...


https://www.energy.gov/topics/climate

A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate
https://www.energy.gov/sites/defaul...mpacts_of_GHG_Emissions_on_the_US_Climate.pdf

Background​

On July 29, 2025, the Department of Energy (DOE) published a report entitled A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate, evaluating existing peer-reviewed literature and government data on climate impacts of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions and providing a critical assessment of the conventional narrative on climate change.

Among the key findings, the report concludes that carbon dioxide (CO2) -induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and that aggressive mitigation strategies could be more harmful than beneficial. Additionally, the report finds that U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate and any effects will emerge only with long delays.

The report was developed by the 2025 Climate Working Group, a group of five independent scientists assembled by Energy Secretary Chris Wright with diverse expertise in physical science, economics, climate science and academic research.

Summary​

This report:

  • Reviews scientific certainties and uncertainties in how anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other GHGs have affected, or will affect, the Nation’s climate, extreme weather events, and metrics of societal well-being.
  • Assesses the near-term impacts of elevated concentrations of CO2, including enhanced plant growth and reduced ocean alkalinity.
  • Evaluates data and projections regarding long-term impacts of elevated concentrations of CO2, including estimates of future warming.
  • Finds that claims of increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts are not supported by U.S. historical data.
  • Asserts that CO2-induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and that aggressive mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial.
  • Finds that U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate and any effects will emerge only with long delays.

Finally, some sanity.
 
Finally, some sanity.

Klaus Schwab: “Rebuilding Trust in Government” [“Efficiency”]

So, what if Democrats were in control [Prez/Congress/Senate] and the Energy.GOV said the opposite, and the democrats said “finally, some sanity.”?

And no, I didn’t read it.
 
Why?

Shouldn’t Markets sort that out, and not .Gov “reports”?
That's one of the findings of the report. It's a compelling refutation of the IPCC alarmism.

I'm still reading, but it's like the "Great Barrington Declaration" for climate.
 
That's one of the findings of the report. It's a compelling refutation of the IPCC alarmism.

I'm still reading, but it's like the "Great Barrington Declaration" for climate.

I prefer to keep promoting Free Markets, and not give credibility to .Gov anything.

But, YMMV, because for the time being it suits “your side” ————-> for now and until the next administration, when “trust in government” has already been [even more] established.
 
Klaus Schwab: “Rebuilding Trust in Government” 👍
??

This report is very anti-government action

12.3 Concluding thoughts
This report supports a more nuanced and evidence-based approach for informing climate policy that explicitly acknowledges uncertainties. The risks and benefits of a climate changing under both natural and human influences must be weighed against the costs, efficacy, and collateral impacts of any “climate action”, considering the nation’s need for reliable and affordable energy with minimal local pollution. Beyond continuing precise, un-interrupted observations of the global climate system, it will be important to make realistic assumptions about future emissions, re-evaluate climate models to address biases and uncertainties, and clearly acknowledge the limitations of extreme event attribution studies. An approach that acknowledges both the potential risks and benefits of CO2, rather than relying on flawed models and extreme scenarios, is essential for informed and effective decision-making.
You've lost the plot, my friend.
 
You've lost the plot, my friend.

... you don't think government is capable of trying to regain trust by saying, oh, we're screwing the pooch on this one so we're going to voluntarily give up our power over this one specific thing..?
 
... you don't think government is capable of trying to regain trust by saying, oh, we're screwing the pooch on this one so we're going to voluntarily give up our power over this one specific thing..?
I think you two have been damaged beyond repair.

Because a study that we've been wanting for decades now was commissioned by a DOE Secretary it must immediately be trashed, regardless of the content?!

I know you don't like Trump or this administration, but you're behaving like morons. This isn't about re-establishing "trust in government", it's about shutting down the climate alarmists that have been using this artificial fear to steal your wealth and liberty!

By your metrics, anything positive will be negative. Your ability to think has been broken.
 
I think you two have been damaged beyond repair.

Because a study that we've been wanting for decades now was commissioned by a DOE Secretary it must immediately be trashed, regardless of the content?!

I know you don't like Trump or this administration, but you're behaving like morons. This isn't about re-establishing "trust in government", it's about shutting down the climate alarmists that have been using this artificial fear to steal your wealth and liberty!

By your metrics, anything positive will be negative. Your ability to think has been broken.

“behaving like morons” “ability to think has been broken”

We have been right more than wrong.

Let’s see the agency totally eliminated, without renaming, streamlining, “made more efficient” or other. Then I’ll be happy to admit whatever :up:

Otherwise…
 
I know you don't like Trump or this administration, but you're behaving like morons.

Why hasn't Trump gotten to the bottom of why that stand-down order was issued in Butler? That government sniper could have saved Corey's life.

You call us damaged morons, but the conspiracy theorists are batting a thousand these days. Well, except dannno...

687c1feea081d.webp


I'm absolutely not arguing that this government study is wrong, or that it's a bad thing. I've just been trained by the federal government to look every gift horse in the mouth. What's the harm in asking why the government, which is well known for getting any answer it wants out of academia, is suddenly telling the truth about this particular thing? Afraid if we make waves the government will retract it?

This is the level of trust some of us have in government. Even when it does the right thing we want to know why. Were they brined to leave this industry alone? Is there another bird they're trying to kill with this stone? If more people had our attitude, fewer people would have myocarditis and turbo cancer.

Mr. Always Civil says I'm acting like a moron for not trusting a government. Especially this government. Seems to me looking for excuses to trust these crooks and murderers is the moronic action. Especially when an ulterior motive is found, and someone gets more mad at the person who told the truth than at the very government that can't be trusted. That's some Stockholm Syndrome shit, right there.
 
Last edited:
I prefer to keep promoting Free Markets, and not give credibility to .Gov anything.

But, YMMV, because for the time being it suits “your side” ————-> for now and until the next administration, when “trust in government” has already been [even more] established.
You prefer to oppose any progress in the right direction to enable your real side to never lose ground.
 
You prefer to oppose any progress in the right direction to enable your real side to never lose ground.

You prefer to help the people in power divide and conquer because you suck the cocks of power and hate libertarians for having principles.
 
I'm absolutely not arguing that this government study is wrong, or that it's a bad thing.
Then just stop. Stop with all the diversions and distractions. This thread is about the climate study. You have a million other threads to talk about those other things.

This is a win. And it's a win that will result in rolling back of at least some of the climate madness in the US. Take the win.
 
Then just stop. Stop with all the diversions and distractions. This thread is about the climate study. You have a million other threads to talk about those other things.

This is a win. And it's a win that will result in rolling back of at least some of the climate madness in the US. Take the win.
But his goals are diversion, distraction, division, and obstruction.
 
Back
Top