As we’ve mentioned, Andrew Dessler and Robert Kopp have been coordinating a scientific peer review of the DOW ‘CWG’ Critique of Climate Science. It is now out.
The comments are available here, and there is a press release that gives a summary. It has been picked up by some the media already: NY Times, The Guardian, CNN, Axios etc.
This effort brought in 85 scientists (13 times as many as the CWG report – a clear example of Brandolini’s Law!) who cover a much broader range of expertise that the DOE report. One of the quotes from the scientists (not US-based interestingly) is a good summary:
This 2025 DOE report does not evaluate the extensive available evidence in good faith.
One person who commented on the chapter 6 on Extreme events and Tropical Cyclones is Kerry Emanuel, and he has expanded his comments into a post here. (Note if any of the other scientists involved would like to do similarly, just drop us a line).
Note that comments on the EPA proposed ruling are due September 22, 2025.
Andrew is on Mastodon here @[email protected] those interested
Quote from blue intro:
Over the 16 years since the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 Endangerment Finding, the evidence for human-caused climate change and the dangers it poses to public health and welfare has continued to grow stronger.
Yet fail they to offer any Policy proscription at all. They fail to define any increase of “danger” post-2009.
If the evidence for human-caused climate change and the dangers it poses to public health and welfare is “stronger” since 2009 then where is the climate scientists’ quantifying a recommendation to strengthen the Regulations or to Ban all Co2/GHG vehicle engine emissions outright?
[Response: You posted two comments, one criticising Emanuel for not talking about energy use in a piece focused on science, and stating that climate scientists shouldn’t be in charge of policy, and then this one, faulting climate scientists for not making policy prescriptions (which you don’t want them to do anyway). Somewhat confused stance there… – gavin]
B: Not at all. Two comments addressing two different comments and aspects. Only your misinterpretation is confused.
Both fail to give any reasons or justification for not rescinding the Endangerment Finding on Motor vehicles. Your climate modelling, commentary, and theory are all irrelevant to that question.
And please do not misrepresent my comment.
“No matter the opinion of Kerry Emanuel, the IPCC or modelling climate scientists they have no Authority to dictate Public Policy or to control the debate.”
Self-evident to the point of being redundant. And correct. I did not say you have no right to make a policy suggestion. I point out you have none to offer in 453 pages or in 4 Real Climate article posts on the topic.
[Response: Yawn. Then why complain that a critique of the science doesn’t offer policy suggestions? Note too that the Endangerment Finding on CO2 is not specific to ‘Motor Vehicles’ – you are confusing the EF with the Proposed Rules (that are downstream of the EF). And again, since this is just another one of your sock-puppet accounts, we are done. – gavin]
Bernhard’s tone and lack of internal consistency seem quite similar to the recently banished trolls. And it seems the rest of us will have to keep on with “troll spotting” as a hobby.
[Response: Indeed. Also from a previously used IP. – gavin]
in Re to John Pollack and gavin, 2 Sep 2025 at 9:52 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/09/climate-scientists-response-to-doe-report/#comment-838756
Sirs,
Many thanks for this information.
In view thereof, I propose that posts published under nicks “Roger”, see e.g. 4 Aug 2025 at 8:07 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/the-endangerment-of-the-endangerment-finding/#comment-836987
and 4 Aug 2025 at 8:06 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/are-direct-water-vapor-emissions-endangering-anyone/#comment-836986 ,
or “GilbertD”, see e.g. 4 Aug 2025 at 8:04 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/the-endangerment-of-the-endangerment-finding/#comment-836983 ,
could be perhaps worth of a check as well.
They attempted to copy a text of another author and paste it into a different context of another thread under their nicks. They managed to deceive a few other readers successfully, until this malpractice had been exposed by the original authors.
As the initial success (at least with respect to confusion caused) was high, I think there may be a strong temptation to try such attacks again, with a better preparation / under more careful camouflage. That is why I think it could be helpful if we knew that also this deceptive technique has been already tested by the recently exposed saboteur.
Best regards
Tomáš
Why ,in the name of the Disinterested Spirit of New England, can’t RC respond to the Forever Trumpers Red Team by rounding up a jury of twelve true-blue DOE National Laboratory Republicans to deconstruct it?
Dear Russell,
I am aware that you love sarcasm, however, without a proper knowledge of the respective context, I am often quite uncertain with respect to the right meaning of your message.
Your formulation “true-blue Republicans” made me somewhat suspicious. I have a feeling that the Republican colour is traditionally red, isn’t it?
Is it possible that finding twelve Republican DOE National Laboratory experts may be, in fact, a quite difficult task? Or have you rather meant that there will hardly be twelve DOE National Laboratory experts courageous enough to form a “blue” team, determined to oppose the “red team” formed by President’s nominees?
Best regards
Tomáš
Of course, you will need a miracle for any aspect of reality to gain traction in this Trumpian review process of the DOE’s Climate Working Group report ‘A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate’.
I see all comment received will be “considered” with the DOE “also intend(ing) to summarize all comments received by topic.” And the purpose is not to allow any revision of their fairy-tale but, bless their budgets, they tell us that the “information received may be used to assist DOE in planning the scope of future research efforts and may be shared with other Federal agencies.”
So the CWG report should be seen as a greatly monumental work already chiselled into stone. The choice of stone is likely not the hardest to chisel. The CWG report was commissioned by a shale gas guy who back in 2019 reportedly “drank fracking fluid to demonstrate that it was not dangerous.” But never fear, he suggests he also has a thirst for knowledge as he says he is well versed in the subject of CO2 emissions.
And I see Jon Christy and Roy Spencer (so 40% of the CWG) are already hard at work, respectively examining Heat Waves and UHI. It seems Roy is well on the way to dismissing the +0.28ºC/decade of US (and Huntsville) AGW as being 60% due to UHI with the nastiest warm extremes not even statistically significant. It’s so reassuring.
Mind, his initial finding refers only to Washington DC but Roy eagerly tells us “I’ll bet most people would not have expected these results if they have been watching the local D.C. TV stations’ weather and news coverage.”
Here’s a thought – What result was Roy expecting?
“Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?” replace Catilina with any of the people who are wasting the time we do not have with anti-science detritus.
Thank you Gavin for posting all the details on the real experts’ response and to all the 85 real experts who reviewed the detritus. It must be exhausting to have to do this, time and time again, so we should be even more grateful for their hard and essential work.
Is there any research being done to explain why we are in this time of utter obscurantism? Why are people educated and working at elite academic institutions part of it? What is deeply wrong with higher education in America?
I suggest a careful reading of this.
https://www.britannica.com/place/Germany/The-Third-Reich-1933-45
To repay in a small way the scientists who put this together, I am posting some links that gives some basics of a how regulations are made and how lawsuits are used to challenge them to put their scientific work in the political/legal context. Administrative law is the area of law that deals with government agencies and regulations. It is important for public welfare and quality-of-life issues but lacks the high profile of other practice areas.
Two cheat sheets on rulemaking
https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IIB014-Rulemaking.pdf
https://www.regulations.gov/learn
A longer, plain-English description
https://uploads.federalregister.gov/uploads/2013/09/The-Rulemaking-Process.pdf
Since the proposed repealing will be challenged in the courts, some basics about how that works
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10558
The role now for climate scientists is to focus on how best to challenge the white house view of climate as perceived by MAGAland.ie it is a legal battle as evidence based facts hold no sway with the Whitehouse. Find the most competent legal brain who has sympathy for the future of the planet while not disrespecting the powerful needs of the fossil fuel lobby.
Here in the UK, we watch with disbelief at the continuing pressure imposed by the president and his ill informed staff.
Dr Raymond Oliver PhD, DEng, FREng, FIChemE
FYI, folks at NSIDC put together a response about the (very limited) info on sea ice and ice sheets in the DOE report: https://nsidc.org/news-analyses/news-stories/critical-importance-comprehensive-science-based-epa-and-doe-climate-reports.
Walt Meier
Senior Research Scientist
National Snow and Ice Data Center
CIRES, University of Colorado at Boulder
Here’s the exact wording from the Federal Register, 74 FR 66496, Dec. 15, 2009 (EPA Endangerment Finding):
“The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆) — in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. This endangerment finding applies to emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines.”
Key points:
The Finding explicitly covers mobile sources only. DOH!
It does not automatically apply to stationary sources, industrial emissions, or non-vehicular CO₂.
It forms the legal basis for subsequent EPA regulations of light- and heavy-duty vehicles and their engines.
IPSOFACTO
wrong Again
cite:
74 FR 66496, “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,” EPA, Dec. 15, 2009.
You better block this too then Gavin.
Is there a pdf version of the submitted comment that could please be added?
Below is the Unions of Concerned Scientists comment dated 09/02/2025 submitted regarding the DOE CR:
.
https://ucs-documents.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/global-warming/comments-doe-climate-working-group-report.pdf