Made-in-American climate assessment challenges IPCC modelling, introducing alternative projections and recommendations that are shaping national conversations on environmental strategy and scientific credibility.
At the end of July, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) released a report on climate change that seemed surprisingly optimistic.
There’s good news and bad news. First, the bad news: We only have five years to live.
That’s according to U.S. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who, you may recall, warned in January 2019: “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.”
The good news is that AOC may have been exaggerating just a wee bit. And so has the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), according to the DOE’s Climate Working Group.
That’s my layman’s interpretation of what the 150-page DOE report says.
It mainly takes issue with climate models used by the IPCC. These models run too “hot” and, as a result, predict things like temperatures or extreme weather events that are not borne out by observation.
The report also notes that the IPCC appears to bury one positive consequence of more CO2 in the atmosphere: global “greening.”
They also question the assumptions that a warming planet necessarily has led to – or will lead to – increased extreme weather events.
Now, it should be noted that the report’s five authors are considered climate science heretics and contrarians, and their report has been dismissed and repudiated by 85 establishment scientists as “misleading or fundamentally incorrect.”
I would note that two of the group’s five authors — John Christy and Judith Curry — have both contributed to past IPCC assessments as lead or contributing authors. They’re not cranks – they are legit climate scientists who just happen to disagree with the “consensus” on some basic points.
The report was commissioned by U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright to provoke “a more thoughtful and science-based conversation about climate change and energy.”
“What I’ve found is that media coverage often distorts the science,” Wright says in a foreword to the report.
One such distortion is the repeated use of a worst-case scenario for warming (RCP8.5) that is considered so unlikely as to be “implausible,” but which produces better headlines and gets more grants than more probable, less scary scenarios for warming.
The five scientists and academics selected for the DOE’s climate working group are well-known for their climate science heterodoxy — Christy, Curry, Steven Koonin, Roy Spencer and Ross McKitrick (the sole Canadian on the team.)
Neither Wright nor the report’s authors deny the climate is changing. That would be hard to do. The earth has been warming ever since we came out of the last Ice Age.
The $122 trillion question is just how much the more recent heating has been the result of burning of fossil fuels. (It’s estimated that to hit net zero targets, we will need to spend US$3.5 trillion a year until 2050.)
“Climate change is real, and it deserves attention,” says Wright in the report. “But it is not the greatest threat facing humanity. That distinction belongs to global energy poverty.”
Pay attention, Canada. Like it or not, this is where America’s head is at right now. It is bumping climate action down the priority list and bumping up energy security and affordability, and if our own policies on environment and energy are too misaligned with America’s, we will continue to put our economy at a disadvantage.
Polling confirms there has been shift in attitude in just the last couple of years on climate and energy. On the hierarchy of fears, it appears climate change no longer tops the list.
Even Greta Thunberg took a sabbatical from climate activism to go fight the Israelites from a flotilla of diesel-burning boats in the Levant.
The climate catastrophism and alarmism that reached peak mania in 2019 may have led to both fatalism and fatigue. The DOE report goes some way to explaining where this fatigue and fatalism may be coming from.
Basically, it comes from environmentalists, politicians and the media taking worst-case scenarios from the IPCC and scaring the shit out of everyone with apocalyptic doomsaying.
Here are some highlights of the report, as I see it:
modeling used by the IPCC may be tuned too “hot,” resulting in predicted global temperature increases that are not borne out by observable temperature data;
IPCC assessments downplay the positive consequences of global “greening” resulting from increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere;
worst-case scenarios for warming used by the IPCC are wholly improbable; and
There is no evidence of long-term extreme weather events as a consequence of warming.
According to the DOE report, the models used by the IPCC for predicting climate sensitivity to CO2 predict temperature increases that are higher than actual observed temperature increases.
“The combination of overly sensitive models and implausible extreme scenarios for future emissions yields exaggerated projections of future warming,” the authors conclude.
When I reached McKitrick by phone, he explained what they mean by running too hot.
“There is a long-standing, almost universal pattern among the models, overstating the response to CO2 in the troposphere,” McKitrick told me. “Models warm too much. The models exhibit too much warming in response to rising CO2 and that also translates into too much surface warming.”
In more recent assessments, the IPCC has used a range of scenarios to predict how the planet might respond to increased GHGs. These scenarios – called Representative Concentration Pathways – range from RCP2.6 to RCP8.5.
RCP2.6 predicts global warming of below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures. RCP8.5 predicts temperature increases of 5 degrees between 1900 and 2100 — which might indeed produce some hellish consequences.
AOC and Thunberg would be right to worry about this kind of temperature increase, if it were remotely plausible, and if nothing were being done to address GHG emissions.
The report notes that RCP8.5 came to be referred to as the no-policy baseline, or “business-as-usual” scenario. That’s the scenario in which nothing is done to try to reduce emissions.
But things are being done to reduce emissions. Efforts are being made the world over to adopt electric cars, phase out coal power, install wind and solar power, and capture and store CO2. So this worst-case scenario is probably not useful.
“The problem is, it’s routinely used in a lot of academic articles as what they call the business as usual outcome,” McKitrick said. “And most of the climate impact stories you see in the press are based on studies running RCP8.5. So you get these lurid outcomes of total devastation.
“It’s not just the IPCC. That’s a problem with the literature as a whole. Authors want to have the big, frightening splashy result, and then their article will get written up in the press.”
In 2020, Zeke Hausfather and Glen Peters wrote in Nature that the overuse of RCP8.5 as a business scenario “has resulted in a large number of misleading studies and media reporting.”
They characterized RCP8.5 as “implausible.”
“We must all …stop presenting the worst-case scenarios as the most likely one,” Hausfather and Peters wrote. “Overstating the likelihood of extreme climate impacts can make mitigation seem harder than it actually is.”
In other words, everyone reporting on climate change needs to tone things down a little. You’re scaring the children.
The DOE report criticizes the IPCC for downplaying one positive result of increased CO2 in the atmosphere — global greening.
It notes that “CO2 fertilization” had driven an increase in observed global photosynthesis by 30% since 1900, “versus 17% predicted by plant models.”
“The IPCC has minimally discussed global greening,” the authors note, but it is omitted in IPCC summary documents. These summary documents are the only ones that non-scientists (like journalists and politicians) tend to read, so it’s a bit of a buried story.
“This is a very important topic because rising CO2 levels have contributed to a massive greening of the planet,” McKitrick said. “On the agricultural front, there’s evidence that it has contributed substantially to crop productivity. And it also makes plants more tolerant to heat.
“There’s nothing controversial about those statements. They’re well established. But it’s never been pointed out in IPCC summaries.”
As for extreme weather events, modelling suggests that a warming planet should result in increased frequency and severity of things like hurricanes, droughts, and floods.
The report concludes that observational data suggests no long-term trend with respect to extreme weather events:
“Most extreme weather events in the U.S. do not show long-term trends,” the report states. “Claims of increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts are not supported by U.S. historical data.”
Generally, the DOE report posits a “lukewarmer” position on climate change – i.e. that the earth is warming, but that this may be more the result of natural causes, like solar activity, and less likely the result of CO2.
If this position is correct, it means the world will have spent trillions already on an energy transition that wasn’t necessary.
If this theory is wrong, then that investment in decarbonization and the energy transition is basically an insurance policy.
Nelson Bennett’s column appears weekly at Resource Works News. Contact him at [email protected].
Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.
Rebuking a female presenter for correcting an ideological script that says men can get pregnant isn’t ‘neutrality,’ by any stretch.
Imagine a society in which the state broadcaster demanded that the female hosts eliminate the word “women” in favor of “people” and rebuked them if their facial expressions betrayed any hit of protest on air.
Welcome to the United Kingdom in 2025. According to the BBC: “Martine Croxall broke rules over ‘pregnant people’ facial expression, BBC says.”
Martine Croxall, a BBC presenter, was introducing an interview about “research on groups most at risk during UK heatwaves,” and the teleprompter script she was reading live on BBC News Channel contained the phrase “pregnant people.”
Croxall visibly raised her eyebrows, and corrected in real-time: “Malcolm Mistry, who was involved in the research, says that the aged, pregnant people … women … and those with pre-existing health conditions need to take precautions.”
When Dr. Mistry, a professor, came on for the interview, she too referred to “pregnant women” rather than “pregnant people.”
Because a female presenter clearly objected to “women” being erased in favor of “people” for the ideological purpose of buttressing gender ideology, the BBC has now upheld “20 impartiality complaints” against Croxall. According to the BBC: “BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) said it considered her facial expression as she said this gave the ‘strong impression of expressing a personal view on a controversial matter.’”
In other words, as a woman, Croxall obviously objected to the implication that men can get pregnant. Croxall has a son and has thus been pregnant herself. But in our current clown world, the Executive Complaints Unit “said it considered Croxall’s facial expression laid it open to the interpretation that it ‘indicated a particular viewpoint in the controversies currently surrounding trans identity.’”
Indeed. That “particular viewpoint” would be that only women can get pregnant.
The totalitarian trans activists desperately trying to force society to play along with their delusions with force or coercion were behind the complaints, with the ECU reporting that Croxall’s facial expressions were “variously interpreted by complainants as showing disgust, ridicule, contempt, or exasperation.” In other words: Say your lines the way we gave them to you and look like you believe them, bigot.
The ECU was also concerned that those who, you know, disagree with the idea that men can get pregnant were also pleased by Croxall’s act of defiance, and that she received “congratulatory messages” on social media (including one from J.K. Rowling), which “together with the critical views expressed in the complaints to the BBC and elsewhere, tended to confirm the impression of her having expressed a personal view was widely shared across the spectrum of opinion on the issue.”
Clearly the BBC—which is desperately been trying to regain its reputation—is attempting to wave the fig leaf of “neutrality” in order to reestablish its previous bona fides. But rebuking a female presenter for correcting an ideological script and making a facial expression that appeared to indicate opposition to the idea that men can get pregnant isn’t “neutrality,” by any stretch.
Just a decade ago, no media outlet would have considered implementing gender ideology into their coverage as fact. Now presenters are expected to use fundamentally propagandistic language that frontloads the premises of activists while keeping a straight face as if both transgender ideology and observable biological reality are two perspectives deserving of equal respect and consideration.
Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National Post, National Review, First Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton Spectator, Reformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.
As the number of suspected narcotic transport boats destroyed by the U.S. military grows, so does the number of naval vessels in the Caribbean.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced on social media Thursday evening that U.S. forces carried out their 17th strike on alleged drug boats, killing three “male narco-terrorists” in the targeted operation.
President Donald Trump has made it clear that his administration’s intent to target narco-terrorists in the region to help curb the flow of drugs into the country.
Last month, it was announced that the newest and largest U.S. Navy Aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald Ford, and its strike group would be transiting to the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility in the Caribbean.
Ahead of the Ford’s arrival, several naval ships are already in the region, including the USS Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group, according to the U.S. Naval Institute—the Iwo Jima, a Wasp-class amphibious ship, among the larger classes of ships in the Navy.
The Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group deployed in August, carrying over 4,500 sailors and Marines, according to the Department of War. The group includes the Iwo Jima, USS Fort Lauderdale, USS San Antonio, and the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit.
As of early this week, the USNI reported that, in addition to the group, three Navy guided-missile destroyers are operating in the Caribbean, including the USS Jason Dunham, USS Gravely, and USS Stockdale. In addition, USNI reported the USS Lake Erie (CG-70) and the USS Wichita (LCS-13) are operating in the Caribbean.
The buildup of navy ships in the region points to the administration’s commitment to prioritizing targeting narco-terrorists. Still, it could also signal the U.S. focusing on potential adversarial threats in Latin America.
Hegseth told The Center Square last month at an event in the White House that the Department of War is keeping its eyes on adversaries in the region after TCS asked the secretary and the president if they had plans to expand U.S. Naval operations in Puerto Rico, specifically Roosevelt Roads, a Navy base closed in 2004.
“We’re familiar with the location that you’re referring to, and we will make sure that we’re properly placed in order to deal with the contingency we’re dealing with there, and also any ways in which other countries would attempt to be involved also, so we can walk and chew gum. We’re definitely keeping our eyes on near peer adversaries at the same time,” Hegseth told TCS.
The secretary’s response cemented the administration’s “America first” policy, which is beginning to shift focus to its “own backyard.”
“But we think sending a message on these cartels, these narco-terrorists, is an important, important inside our hemisphere, which for far too long other presidents, as the president pointed out, they’ve ignored our own backyard and allowed other countries to increase their influence here, which only threatens the American people. We’re changing that,” Hegseth concluded.
The naval buildup in the region could highlight concerns in recent years that Venezuela, under the dictatorship of socialist Nicolas Maduro, has aligned the country with American adversaries, such as Russia, China and Iran.
In 2022, Venezuela hosted military drills with countries including Russia, China and Iran.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies warns that Latin America is ripe for U.S. adversarial influences.
“While Western observers have focused their attention on joint connivances of Russia and Iran in Eastern Europe, Eurasia, and the Middle East, where Russo-Iranian military-security operations directly affect U.S. and European interests, the Western Hemisphere is not isolated from the two countries’ quests for global influence. In fact, in many ways it is an essential piece of the puzzle. First, both Iran and Russia perceive Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) as a fertile ground for exploiting popular resentment vis-à-vis the United States and the ‘collective West,’ which they – rather successfully – harness to advance their view of a multipolar world,” according to CSIS.
The group cites sanctions from the West, which are growing in large part due to Russia’s ongoing offensive in Ukraine.
“Second, LAC partners could prove instrumental in offsetting the impacts of Western sanctions against Moscow and Tehran by mitigating their diplomatic and economic isolation. Finally, certain LAC countries could also serve as less scrutinized partners for further developing Russo-Iranian warfare capabilities or cooperation, sheltering mercenaries or militias – such as Hezbollah – and acting as vectors for ‘horizontal escalation’ of conflicts in which Russia and Iran are currently involved,” the group added.
