A Red Team Climate Report
"To correct course, we need open, respectful, and informed debate"
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has released a new assessment of climate science written by five scientists who have long-argued that climate science assessments have overlooked key issues.
The report — A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate — was released yesterday accompanying the Trump Administration’s announcement that it was reconsidering the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 “endangerment finding” on greenhouse gases.
While the authors do not use this terminology, I’m calling this report a “red team” report because it explicitly seeks to challenge aspects of climate science and policy in order to motivate debate and discussion. One of the report’s authors, Steve Koonin, has long argued for a “red team” approach for improving climate science assessments.
I certainly agree with Koonin that legitimate views and voices have been excluded from major climate assessments, as leaders in the community have sought to present a tidy story, convenient for climate politics. However, rather than having dueling assessments, I would much prefer that scientific assessments be run as big tents, with the full diversity of views included, highlight not just areas of consensus, but also areas of uncertainty, disagreement, and ignorance. Climate science has seen far too much gatekeeping.
In the coming weeks I’ll provide several opportunities here at THB to discuss and debate the report — All are welcome, and substantive disagreement is encouraged.
DOE Secretary Chris Wright commissioned the report and characterizes it in the report’s foreword as follows:
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. Hydrocarbon-based fuels, the argument goes, must be rapidly abandoned or else we risk planetary ruin.
That view demands scrutiny. That’s why I commissioned this report: to encourage a more thoughtful and science-based conversation about climate change and energy. With my technical background, I’ve reviewed reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. government’s assessments, and the academic literature. I’ve also engaged with many climate scientists, including the authors of this report.
What I’ve found is that media coverage often distorts the science. Many people walk away with a view of climate change that is exaggerated or incomplete. To provide clarity and balance, I asked a diverse team of independent experts to critically review the current state of climate science, with a focus on how it relates to the United States.
I didn’t select these authors because we always agree—far from it. In fact, they may not always agree with each other. But I chose them for their rigor, honesty, and willingness to elevate the debate. I exerted no control over their conclusions. What you’ll read are their words, drawn from the best available data and scientific assessments.
Wright explains his view of climate change:
Climate change is real, and it deserves attention. But it is not the greatest threat facing humanity. That distinction belongs to global energy poverty. As someone who values data, I know that improving the human condition depends on expanding access to reliable, affordable energy. Climate change is a challenge—not a catastrophe.
Today, I see on social media many climate scientists who often appear in the media responding to the report with name calling. We won’t do that here at THB and the comments will be tightly moderated.
One of the report’s authors, Judith Curry, has a very interesting blog post on the report. Curry explains that the DOE and the author team (the “Climate Working Group” or CWG) is interested in comments and critique:
DOE welcomes public comments on this report and is setting up a website for comments. The CWG expects to expend considerable time responding to the comments. We’ve already seen a pretty broad range of comments from the DOE scientists; it will be interesting to see what the what the public comments look like
Speaking from the perspective of individuals who have commented on the IPCC and NCA reports only to see our comments ignored, we plan to take a different approach. Rather than primarily seeking to defend our Report, we regard the open comments as an opportunity for dialogue, learning, and clarification of areas of disagreement. We expect to spend considerable time and effort in responding to the comments.
When you read the report you’ll see that my peer-reviewed work with colleagues is widely cited, and you’ll also see multiple references to THB.
The full report can be found here and I look forward to engaging with THB readers in the comments. Also, let me know any requests for future posts on the substance of the report.
Before you jump into the DOE report, please click that “❤️ Like”. More likes mean that THB rises in the Substack algorithm and gets in front of more readers. Thanks!
Comments invited!
If you are looking for a fantastic speaker (that’s me!) at your event, be in touch.
Please consider a THB subscription at whatever level makes sense for you. The Honest Broker is made possible by its paid subscribers.
I've followed the Climate Change topic for quite a while, and I've noticed a trend:
IPCC Assessment Reports are generally fairly modest in claims, although perhaps giving too much credence to papers with catastrophic implications - I'm not in a position to evaluate the validity of papers cited, nor to know much about papers not cited.
IPCC Summaries for Policymakers have taken a much more alarmist position than the Working Group reports - highlighting only negative conclusions while eliminating any references to uncertainties. This tendency seems much less pronounced in recent reports than in the pre-2010 reports.
IPCC press releases concentrate on alarmist pronouncements, often untethered to the Assessment Reports in any way, and claiming that "scientists" say that certain actions, mainly Net Zero by some impossible date, "must" be taken.
Environmental organizations and climate change journalists extrapolate from the press releases to make ridiculous claims, finding some "expert" or merely advocate to support the claim. One of my favorite examples was in the New York Times in 1995, now behind the Times' paywall but accessible through the Wayback Machine. (https://web.archive.org/web/20091210071320/https://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/18/world/scientists-say-earth-s-warming-could-set-off-wide-disruptions.html) This was written as the Second Assessment Report was being drafted. Among the predictions cited:
A foot and a half of sea level rise by 2100 that would make many river deltas and the cities on them uninhabitable, attributed to "the scientists." In the same paragraph, "some experts" predict that most beaches on the east cost of the US would be "gone" within 25 years. I presume that "some experts" were a different group than "the scientists", but there's no identification for them.
Over time, it seems that the Assessment Reports have been more measured, and the Summaries for Policymakers have gotten closer to the Assessment Reports. However, the press releases have lost none of their stridency, and the climate journalism stories have changed not at all.
I agree with Roger's assessment that a broader, more encompassing assessment by more diverse scientists with more acknowledgement of uncertainties would be the best solution. I'm not sure the current institutions (IPCC, universities, etc) are capable of such an approach. In the absence of such an approach, the new DOE report is likely to be attacked as a hack job by hack scientists who have already been outcast from the climate science field, in pursuit of an anti-environmental agenda driven by fossil fuel companies. I doubt it can change any minds. Unfortunately.
I've only had a quick look. Some good and important info, however, as you note, a "red team' versus a 'blue team' now. This is not likely to move anyone's opinion. Also, too much dispelling myths and defensive language. This was also extremely rushed. I'll need to do a more thorough reading later. I would have preferred some better balance and fuller range of scientists involved.
Disclaimer - I have served on 2 PhD Committees with Judy Curry and she is one of the smartest climate scientists. I went to grad school in the early 80s with Roy Spencer and know John Christy - I gave them the MSU satellite data they used for their temperature work in the early 90s. So I've worked with 3 of the authors for over 30 years.