Climate Pant-Wetters Don Their Diapers

The US Department of Energy’s July 2025 report, A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate, is a gift to those of us on the sceptical side of the climate change agenda. Published last week, the report authored by climate scientists including John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer, presents a sceptical reappraisal of mainstream climate science and policy.

The key conclusions of the report – extracted with the help of ChatGPT – include the following:

1. CO₂ and the Environment

• CO₂ is not a classical pollutant: Unlike other regulated pollutants, CO₂ is non-toxic at current levels and promotes plant growth.
• “Global greening” is attributed largely to rising CO₂, improving photosynthesis and agricultural yields.
• Ocean pH is decreasing but remains alkaline; the term “acidification” is considered misleading. Coral reef health, particularly the Great Barrier Reef, is reportedly improving despite lower pH.

2. Climate Sensitivity and Models

• The climate’s sensitivity to CO₂ is claimed to be lower in empirical studies than in climate models.
• Climate models allegedly overstate past warming and exaggerate future risks due to:

1. High model sensitivity
2. Use of implausible emission scenarios (e.g., RCP8.5)
3. Urban heat island (UHI) effects contaminating surface temperature records

3. Extreme Weather Trends

• No clear long-term increase in U.S. hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, or wildfires is found.
• Temperature extremes in the U.S. are becoming less frequent and less intense in many regions.

4. Sea Level Rise

• Global sea level has risen by around 8 inches since 1900, but no acceleration is detected in U.S. tide gauge data after accounting for land subsidence.
• Future projections are considered uncertain and possibly overstated.

5. Climate Attribution

• Attribution of climate change and extreme events to human activities is seen as highly uncertain, due to:

1. Natural variability
2. Model limitations
3. Questionable assumptions in attribution techniques

6. Economic and Policy Implications

• The Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) is criticised as being overly sensitive to assumptions and not a reliable policy guide.
• Aggressive emissions mitigation in the U.S. is predicted to have minimal global climate impact, with benefits appearing only after long delays.
• Overregulation is viewed as potentially more harmful than climate change itself, especially for the global poor who need access to reliable energy.

Damp patches expected

The climate change catastrophists have, naturally, come over all whingey because, as ten of them have claimed, their work is taken out of context, misused and inaccurately presented. I rather suspect, while some of that may be true, they are more concerned with being associated with the report in any way. Being considered to support a less dramatic interpretation of climate change, they see their university tenure, fawning admiration at global summits and invitations to all the right dinner parties dissolving in front of them.

Among the claims of being misquoted and misused, the climate catastrophe sleuths also point to incorrect and incomplete citations and broken links to some citations. It certainly seems that the report may require some careful editing and correction. But the report is out for consultation.

As explained by a Department of Energy spokesman: “This report was reviewed internally by a group of DOE scientific researchers and policy experts from the Office of Science and National Labs. DOE is now opening the report to wider peer review from the scientific community and general public via the public comment period.”

Nevertheless, the global whingers state: “This is not how science is supposed to work. This is not the sort of process where scientists write the report that gets vetted and peer-reviewed…” But, in fact, that is precisely the process that the Department of Energy is following.

The detractors can have their say and, perhaps, they should have exercised more decorum and made their comments privately and within the consultation procedure, rather than going public. They clearly want to inflict maximum damage to the report. Perhaps because the essential arguments contained in the report cannot be refuted.

This report, however imperfect, represents an overdue correction to the overheated rhetoric of climate change orthodoxy. If its critics wish to challenge its findings, they are welcome to do so, through the very peer-review process they now decry. After all, if the science is as settled as they insist, they should have no trouble proving it.

Roger Watson is a retired academic, editor and writer. He is a columnist with Unity News Network and writes regularly for a range of conservative journals including The Salisbury Review and The European Conservative. He has travelled and worked extensively in the Far East and the Middle East. He lives in Kingston upon Hull, UK.

If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee or sharing this piece with your friends – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!

Please follow and like us: