|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
At the end of July, the US Department of Energy released a draft report evaluating existing peer-reviewed literature on the impacts of greenhouse gases.
It eviscerates the climate alarmists’ narrative about CO2, extreme weather events and rising sea levels. It also points out the data limitations, climate model deficiencies and overstated scenarios and trends used to create “exaggerated projections of future warming.”
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
On 29 July, the US Department of Energy (“DoE”) released a draft report titled ‘A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate’. The report evaluates existing peer-reviewed literature and government data on climate impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and provides a critical assessment of the conventional narrative on climate change.
It was developed by the 2025 Climate Working Group, a group of five independent scientists assembled by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, with expertise in physical science, economics, climate science and academic research. The reports’ authors are John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick and Roy Spencer.
Key findings include the conclusion that CO2-induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and that aggressive mitigation strategies may be misdirected or potentially more harmful than beneficial. It also finds that US policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate, with any effects emerging only after long delays.
It asserts that claims of increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts are not supported by US historical data. And acknowledges that elevated CO2 concentrations enhance plant growth and contribute to global greening, while also noting the reduction in ocean alkalinity.
Anthony Watts has described the report as a “landmark challenge to the status quo” and a “systematic rebuke of accepted climate “wisdom.” It’s worth reading Watts’ article in full (read HERE).
Watts also noted some of the reactions to the report from climate alarmists. For example, RealClimate started a thread calling the report an “attempt to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding for greenhouse gas emissions.” One commentator responded, “[It] is an ACT OF WAR against the human species by the fossil fuel industry.”
The DoE is currently accepting public comments on the draft report, with a deadline of 2 September 2025. In the press release inviting public comment, Wright said, “The rise of human flourishing over the past two centuries is a story worth celebrating. Yet we are told – relentlessly – that the very energy systems that enabled this progress now pose an existential threat.”
“Climate change is real, and it deserves attention. But it is not the greatest threat facing humanity. As someone who values data, I know that improving the human condition depends on expanding access to reliable, affordable energy,” he added.
The next section of this article is the overview of the report, as published on the notice that the report is open for public comment.
Further reading:
- Climate, US Department of Energy, 29 July 2025
- US Dept Of Energy Climate Report Eviscerates The Climate Changed Extreme Weather Narrative, Jamie Jessop, 31 July 2025
Overview of the Climate Working Group Report
The report reviews scientific certainties and uncertainties in how anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions have affected, or will affect, the Nation’s climate, extreme weather events, and selected metrics of societal well-being. Those emissions are increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere through a complex and variable carbon cycle, where some portion of the additional CO2 persists in the atmosphere for centuries.
Elevated concentrations of CO2 directly enhance plant growth, globally contributing to “greening” the planet and increasing agricultural productivity. They also make the oceans less alkaline (lower the pH). That is possibly detrimental to coral reefs, although the recent rebound of the Great Barrier Reef suggests otherwise.
Carbon dioxide also acts as a greenhouse gas, exerting a warming influence on climate and weather. Climate change projections require scenarios of future emissions. There is evidence that scenarios widely-used in the impacts literature have overstated observed and likely future emission trends.
The world’s several dozen global climate models offer little guidance on how much the climate responds to elevated CO2, with the average surface warming under a doubling of the CO2 concentration ranging from 1.8 °C to 5.7 °C. Data-driven methods yield a lower and narrower range. Global climate models generally run “hot” in their description of the climate of the past few decades. The combination of overly sensitive models and implausible extreme scenarios for future emissions yields exaggerated projections of future warming.
Most extreme weather events in the US do not show long-term trends. Claims of increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts are not supported by US historical data. Additionally, forest management practices are often overlooked in assessing changes in wildfire activity. Global sea level has risen approximately 8 inches since 1900, but there are significant regional variations driven primarily by local land subsidence; US tide gauge measurements in aggregate show no obvious acceleration in sea level rise beyond the historical average rate.
Attribution of climate change or extreme weather events to human CO2 emissions is challenged by natural climate variability, data limitations, and inherent model deficiencies. Moreover, solar activity’s contribution to the late 20th century warming might be underestimated.
Both models and experience suggest that CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and excessively aggressive mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial. Social Cost of Carbon estimates, which attempt to quantify the economic damage of CO2 emissions, are highly sensitive to their underlying assumptions and so provide limited independent information.
US policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate and any effects will emerge only with long delays.
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: UK News, US News, World News
This is very interesting. I also believe that CO2 levels are not a factor in weather extremes. However, I do believe the government, including the DoE, has an interest in manipulating the weather and can, in fact, do it. The Chinese admit to doing it and their manipulations have been touted. It is also looks like a bid for more nuclear power investments. As a retiree from a National Weapons Lab, I have seen what our government is capable of. I know from experience that those who do computer modeling have an interest in satisfying those who fund them. Re-evaluating the CO2 hoax is quite a bold move on the part of the DoE. They have rarely done anything to actually benefit people or the environment however. It will be interesting to see the faux environmental groups like Sierra Club scramble to make money on the new narrative.
They mention wanting energy to be available… but I don’t trust these people one bit. They want that energy for their AI and the giant data centers they are building so AI can track and trace everything we do for the rest of our lives. We will NOT be privy to this energy. We will be paying a fortune for it and will be experiencing brown outs and blackouts to insure that AI has as much energy as it needs to keep us in the new tyrannical technocracy that’s being ushered in by the savior: Trump https://www.investors.com/research/industry-snapshot/data-centers-taking-over-trump-big-tech-make-this-state-the-ai-hub/
Eco Terrorists are prepared to unleash a proliferation of ticks on the general population because one side effect of a bite happens to induce an allergy to red meat, notably beef, pork and lamb…
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/eco-loons-suggest-proliferating-plague-ticks-prevent-people-eating-meat