The authors of the recent DOE report on Greenhouse Gases and the U.S. Climate made frequent reference to the "Science" of the IPCC and used it to pose a direct challenge to the Climate Catastrophist "Scientists." The DOE report came out on July 29 and Energy Sec'y Chris Wright set a deadline of Sept 2 for Public Comment. You would think that by now (Aug 23), the Catastrophist Camp would have used all its "Settled Science" and "Mountains of Supporting Data" to thoroughly refute the report and its authors once and for all in full Public view. Nope, instead they: (1) used the Media to issue a slew of ad hominem attacks and sundry insults and invective on Wright and the Report's authors; (2) used the Media (e.g., the AP's long-time activist, Seth Borenstein) to "fact check" all of the Report's citations and gather/publicize any critical comments; (3) most outrageously, went to Federal Court in Massachusetts to seek an injunction against the Report (!!); and now (4) hired new "Scientists" to ensure that the next time the IPCC makes an assessment, it'll be more favorable to the Catastrophist view. In short, they're doing everything EXCEPT what they were asked to do--i.e., make substantive scientific comments on the Report.
Will the Public finally see that the Catastrophists and their allies in the Media, Business and Gov't are prepetrating the Biggest Scientific Fraud of All Time?
It would be sad indeed, if Ms Otto succeeds in stacking the IPCC report with unscientific WWA propaganda.
Maybe an effort should be made to mobilize scientists to put more focus on the extreme weather and attribution. One could dream of a lot of scientific papers issued in the coming 2 years with the conclusion that there is no statistically discernible trend in storms, floods, etc., and hence that attibution to the gobal warming is not possible. If such a string of papers were on the table, it would be more difficult for Ms. Otto to ignore them and proceed exclusively with the WWA story...
I note in the media in my country (Switzerland), and also on French TV news, that the indoctrination operation is underway. At every opportunity, whether it be a heatwave, drought, forest fire, flood, landslide, mudslide or whatever, a ‘scientist’ is consulted to say that it is linked to human activities that will increase its frequency and severity and that we must stop emitting CO2 as quickly as possible and at all costs.
There is a pattern here that suggests widespread collusion. This is irrelevant to the climate but very worrying for human reason when exposed to a deliberately anxiety-inducing narrative that is repeated over and over again.
When will a Climate Gauleiter be imposed on us ‘for our own good’?
Is this the goal to overcome the alleged weaknesses of our democracies?
But ….We should not be that surprised with where the IPCC is heading as the IPCC and certainly its parent the UN has always put the political cart ahead of the scientific horse to sell the advocacy of a climate emergency to get funding and get their hands into the pockets of the gullible western nations.
It’s just going to become even more obvious and that is a good thing for us that want to see the truth exposed.
These EEA experts use a methodology that using a crude analogy tries to tell the price of pork by looking up the pigs ass! Its not scientific and has little to do with scientific systemic climate policy making.
I suggest that each nation in the west should look at the recent work done by the US DoE .. Its spot on at getting out of this frozen narrative mess so we can get back to real science discussion and better policy making...
This is the best unbiased article so far on the DoE climate report..
Finally, an Unbiased and Objective Climate Science Report | RealClearScience
You have been critical of WWA in many posts here at THB, using for instance the term alchemy to describe what they are doing. At their website they claim that their method is peer-reviewed, apparently as a way of claiming it is correct and robust. They provide several references to peer-reviewed papers, both on their method and on results of analysis using their method.
I have read a couple of their reports, and to my mind it seems they are torturing extreme event statistics to get some kind of result. The latest was a report looking at the recent summer warmth in Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden and Finland), which indeed was warm and from what I know unprecedented in the observational record. The method they use is to compare this event to extreme event statistics for a period of time where such an event was not observed. In both cases they look at 50-80 years of observations, and comment on events with a return period of 1000 years and more.
From my own statistical training what I took away from extreme event statistics was that you need to be very critical of your results the further out from your actual observational series you move. In other words, you should be very cautious about results on 1000 year events based on 50 years of observations. In the report I mention, WWA works all the way out to 65.000 year events....
This may be a lazy request, but could you point me to The Post you have made on their method and if this has been criticised in the peer reviewed literature?
The Alarmists need to wake up. Their audience is growing slimmer. Science is about seeking truth, not a political agenda. Roger, Thanks for the summary, Robert W. Street.
Presumably the authors of the recent CWG report are aware of this situation as well as DOE secretary Chris Wright? If not surely they need to be made aware. Hopefully they might be ablemto exert some influence on them?
A sad day, indeed. Taking one step away from sober, science-based analysis of any climate event. Enter a stronger alarmistic approach to such events, although it will probably be shrouded in wordings fit to give the impression of rigorous, scientific methodology.
Please submit comments on the attribution section of the recently released DOE Climate Working Group Report of July 2025. Fill the record with your perspective and the potential consequences that proliferation of EEA and death of D&A will likely skew the engineer’s standard of care potentially grossly skewing allocation of limited financial, natural and human resources.
Over time, what do you think the financial cost to society is from insurance companies using bad data promoted by EEA enthusiasts? It is to insurance companies’ advantage to charge more based on this data even when they know the risk of loss is lower than suggested by IPCC type data. Sure, in a perfect world, competition would force insurance companies to price based on actual losses, but insurance companies are regulated and not operating in a true “market”.
I get a sickly feeling when I see the Climate agenda backed by raw political power, as it has been from the beginning, as anyone who could read between the lines of the Climategate emails should have come to understand. I gets a bit sicklier when I see scientists throwing numbers and papers at one another, as if it were all just a debate among good scientists and less good ones. It's about changing the world and the way we live. It's got a good dose of climate imperialism built in, in case anyone wonders if anything ever really changes.
We live in the high Rockies, and have to look hard to see if anything has changed at all. Other than perceptions (it snowed every Christmas till seven years ago) nothing has changed, not here, not in Pakistan. But the beat goes on day in and out, made up news, disasters, distorted realities. Nothing has changed. Look out your window if you don't believe me.
The authors of the recent DOE report on Greenhouse Gases and the U.S. Climate made frequent reference to the "Science" of the IPCC and used it to pose a direct challenge to the Climate Catastrophist "Scientists." The DOE report came out on July 29 and Energy Sec'y Chris Wright set a deadline of Sept 2 for Public Comment. You would think that by now (Aug 23), the Catastrophist Camp would have used all its "Settled Science" and "Mountains of Supporting Data" to thoroughly refute the report and its authors once and for all in full Public view. Nope, instead they: (1) used the Media to issue a slew of ad hominem attacks and sundry insults and invective on Wright and the Report's authors; (2) used the Media (e.g., the AP's long-time activist, Seth Borenstein) to "fact check" all of the Report's citations and gather/publicize any critical comments; (3) most outrageously, went to Federal Court in Massachusetts to seek an injunction against the Report (!!); and now (4) hired new "Scientists" to ensure that the next time the IPCC makes an assessment, it'll be more favorable to the Catastrophist view. In short, they're doing everything EXCEPT what they were asked to do--i.e., make substantive scientific comments on the Report.
Will the Public finally see that the Catastrophists and their allies in the Media, Business and Gov't are prepetrating the Biggest Scientific Fraud of All Time?
It would be sad indeed, if Ms Otto succeeds in stacking the IPCC report with unscientific WWA propaganda.
Maybe an effort should be made to mobilize scientists to put more focus on the extreme weather and attribution. One could dream of a lot of scientific papers issued in the coming 2 years with the conclusion that there is no statistically discernible trend in storms, floods, etc., and hence that attibution to the gobal warming is not possible. If such a string of papers were on the table, it would be more difficult for Ms. Otto to ignore them and proceed exclusively with the WWA story...
It's a real scandal!
I note in the media in my country (Switzerland), and also on French TV news, that the indoctrination operation is underway. At every opportunity, whether it be a heatwave, drought, forest fire, flood, landslide, mudslide or whatever, a ‘scientist’ is consulted to say that it is linked to human activities that will increase its frequency and severity and that we must stop emitting CO2 as quickly as possible and at all costs.
There is a pattern here that suggests widespread collusion. This is irrelevant to the climate but very worrying for human reason when exposed to a deliberately anxiety-inducing narrative that is repeated over and over again.
When will a Climate Gauleiter be imposed on us ‘for our own good’?
Is this the goal to overcome the alleged weaknesses of our democracies?
Always good work here…
But ….We should not be that surprised with where the IPCC is heading as the IPCC and certainly its parent the UN has always put the political cart ahead of the scientific horse to sell the advocacy of a climate emergency to get funding and get their hands into the pockets of the gullible western nations.
It’s just going to become even more obvious and that is a good thing for us that want to see the truth exposed.
These EEA experts use a methodology that using a crude analogy tries to tell the price of pork by looking up the pigs ass! Its not scientific and has little to do with scientific systemic climate policy making.
I suggest that each nation in the west should look at the recent work done by the US DoE .. Its spot on at getting out of this frozen narrative mess so we can get back to real science discussion and better policy making...
This is the best unbiased article so far on the DoE climate report..
Finally, an Unbiased and Objective Climate Science Report | RealClearScience
https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2025/08/16/finally_an_unbiased_and_objective_climate_science_report_1129196.html
(1) New Climate Report from the US DOE - by Nigel Southway
https://nigelsouthway.substack.com/p/new-climate-report-from-the-us-doe
Roger, keep up the good fight but this is terrible news
You have been critical of WWA in many posts here at THB, using for instance the term alchemy to describe what they are doing. At their website they claim that their method is peer-reviewed, apparently as a way of claiming it is correct and robust. They provide several references to peer-reviewed papers, both on their method and on results of analysis using their method.
I have read a couple of their reports, and to my mind it seems they are torturing extreme event statistics to get some kind of result. The latest was a report looking at the recent summer warmth in Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden and Finland), which indeed was warm and from what I know unprecedented in the observational record. The method they use is to compare this event to extreme event statistics for a period of time where such an event was not observed. In both cases they look at 50-80 years of observations, and comment on events with a return period of 1000 years and more.
From my own statistical training what I took away from extreme event statistics was that you need to be very critical of your results the further out from your actual observational series you move. In other words, you should be very cautious about results on 1000 year events based on 50 years of observations. In the report I mention, WWA works all the way out to 65.000 year events....
This may be a lazy request, but could you point me to The Post you have made on their method and if this has been criticised in the peer reviewed literature?
Sure
Here is a detailed critique of the WWA use of observations
https://open.substack.com/pub/rogerpielkejr/p/behind-the-curtain
The critique of the model component is still to come, and it is also fairly straightforward
Also the notion of “peer reviewed methods” is nonsensical
Linear regression is also a “peer reviewed method” but that doesn’t mean that every analysis that employs it is peer reviewed by extension!
The Alarmists need to wake up. Their audience is growing slimmer. Science is about seeking truth, not a political agenda. Roger, Thanks for the summary, Robert W. Street.
Presumably the authors of the recent CWG report are aware of this situation as well as DOE secretary Chris Wright? If not surely they need to be made aware. Hopefully they might be ablemto exert some influence on them?
A sad day, indeed. Taking one step away from sober, science-based analysis of any climate event. Enter a stronger alarmistic approach to such events, although it will probably be shrouded in wordings fit to give the impression of rigorous, scientific methodology.
Please submit comments on the attribution section of the recently released DOE Climate Working Group Report of July 2025. Fill the record with your perspective and the potential consequences that proliferation of EEA and death of D&A will likely skew the engineer’s standard of care potentially grossly skewing allocation of limited financial, natural and human resources.
Thanks for the warning!
Over time, what do you think the financial cost to society is from insurance companies using bad data promoted by EEA enthusiasts? It is to insurance companies’ advantage to charge more based on this data even when they know the risk of loss is lower than suggested by IPCC type data. Sure, in a perfect world, competition would force insurance companies to price based on actual losses, but insurance companies are regulated and not operating in a true “market”.
Perhaps it is time to conclude that the consensus gate keepers left "science" behind a long, long time ago.
Well, as unpopular as this may be here, there seems to be president in power who is willing to do more than just talk.
Time to crack the whip ($$$$) on the UN and force this process back on the rails.
Or toss them in the ocean.
They are not letting go.
Attribution science
The finest in decision- based evidence-making
I get a sickly feeling when I see the Climate agenda backed by raw political power, as it has been from the beginning, as anyone who could read between the lines of the Climategate emails should have come to understand. I gets a bit sicklier when I see scientists throwing numbers and papers at one another, as if it were all just a debate among good scientists and less good ones. It's about changing the world and the way we live. It's got a good dose of climate imperialism built in, in case anyone wonders if anything ever really changes.
We live in the high Rockies, and have to look hard to see if anything has changed at all. Other than perceptions (it snowed every Christmas till seven years ago) nothing has changed, not here, not in Pakistan. But the beat goes on day in and out, made up news, disasters, distorted realities. Nothing has changed. Look out your window if you don't believe me.