Well-Done Objective Report on Climate from DOE

A United States Dept of Energy (DOE) climate assessment report rejects CO2 as a pollutant: CO2 does not affect local air quality and has no human toxicological implications at ambient levels. ⁽¹⁾

Media coverage often distorts the science

Secretary of Energy Chris Wright commissioned the report with these important introductory words: “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. Media coverage often distorts the science. Many people walk away with a view of climate change that is exaggerated or incomplete.”

He adds: “Climate change is real, and it deserves attention. But it is not the greatest threat facing humanity. That distinction belongs to global energy poverty. Improving the human condition depends on expanding access to reliable, affordable energy. Climate change is a challenge—not a catastrophe. But misguided policies based on fear rather than facts could truly endanger human well-being.”

Much of the information in this present article is taken directly from the report. Some references from other reports are also included.

The report reviews scientific certainties and uncertainties in how anthropogenic carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions have affected, or will affect, the Nation’s climate, extreme weather events, and selected metrics of societal well-being. Those emissions are increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere through a complex and variable carbon cycle, where some portion of the additional CO2 persists in the atmosphere for centuries.

Carbon Dioxide

Ambient outdoor air today contains about 430 ppm CO2, increasing about 2 ppm per year. The Permissible Exposure Limit is 5,000 ppm over 8 hours (OSHA). There is reported evidence of diminished performance on some cognitive tasks among workers in office cubicles when exposed to CO2 levels above 1,000-1,500 ppm. These levels are far larger than any plausible ambient outdoor value through the end of the 22^nd century.

Over the past 60+ years there have been thousands of studies on the response of plants to rising CO2 levels. The overwhelming theme is that plants benefit from extra CO2.

The IPCC has only minimally discussed global greening and CO2 fertilization of agricultural crops.

Elevated concentrations of CO2 directly, enhance plant growth, globally contribute to ‘greening’ the planet and increasing agricultural productivity. They also make the oceans less alkaline (lower the pH). CO2 is possibly detrimental to coral reefs, although the recent rebound of the Great Barrier Reef suggests otherwise.

Another new study succinctly unsettles the prevailing paradigm with surgeon-like precision. In under 20 pages the authors deliver a cogent critique of the CO2-driven climate presumption. Not only does CO2 have no discernible effect on climate, but any alleged anthropogenic role within the hypothetical greenhouse effect is not detectable either. ⁽²⁾

A few of the key points include:

• CO2 only contributes about 4-5% of the greenhouse effect, whereas water-vapor and clouds contribute 95%.
• Of that 4-5% greenhouse effect contribution from CO2, just 4% of that can be attributed to human activities (i.e., fossil fuel emissions). Thus, about 96% of the 4% contribution from CO2 can be attributed to natural processes. ⁽²⁾

The CO2 endangerment finding is not based on science

The observed increase of the atmospheric CO2 (from 300 to 430 ppm), has not altered the atmospheric radiative effect or greenhouse effect in any discernible way. ⁽³⁾

Data reveals CO2 residence time is 3-7 years, 90% of human emissions since 1750 have thus already been removed, precluding a human-CO2 driven climate. But the UN IPCC uses model assumptions to claim CO2 residence time is over 100 years. ⁽⁴⁾

Prominent physicists Richard Lindzen and William Happer said this to the National Academies of Sciences: “The CO2 endangerment finding is not based on science. Carbon dioxide and other gases and fossil fuel will have a trivial effect on temperature.”

Ocean Acidification

Ocean life is complex and much of it evolved when the oceans were acidic relative to the present. The ancestors of modern coral first appeared about 245 million years ago. CO2 levels for more than 200 million years afterward were many times higher than they are today. Much of the public discussion of the effects of ocean ‘acidification’ on marine biota has been one-sided and exaggerated.

Sun

The IPCC has downplayed the role of the sun in climate change but there are plausible solar irradiance reconstructions that imply it contributed to recent warming.

Models

The world’s several dozen global climate models offer little guidance on how much the climate responds to elevated CO2, with the average surface warming under a doubling of the CO2 concentration ranging from 1.8C to 5.7C. Data-driven methods yield a lower and narrower range. Global climate models generally run ’hot’ in their description of the climate of the past few decades—too much warming at the surface and too much amplification of warming in the lower—and mid-troposphere. The combination of overly sensitive models and implausible extreme scenarios for future emissions yields exaggerated projections of future warming.

Not only do models diverge in their projections for the future, they are also unable to accurately replicate the recent past. Awareness of these shortcomings is essential if was are to effectively use such tools for making public policy decisions. ⁽⁵⁾

There is growing recognition that climate models are not fit for the purpose of determining the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of the climate to increasing CO2. The IPCC has turned to data-driven approaches including historical data and paleoclimate reconstruction, but their reliability is diminished by data inadequacies.

Climate models also produce too much recent stratospheric cooling, invalid hemispheric albedos, too much snow loss, and too much warming in the Cron Belt. The IPCC has acknowledged some of these issues but not all.

Of great concern is the fact that, after several decades of climate modeling enterprise involving approximately three dozen models operated by research centers around the world, the range of future warming they produce in response to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 extends over a factor of three. This range of disagreement among models has not decreased for decades.

Extreme Weather

Most extreme weather events in the US do not show long-term trends. Claims of increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts are not supported by US historical data. Additionally, forest management practices are often overlooked in assessing changes in wildfire activity

Trends in losses from extreme weather and climate events are dominated by population increases and economic growth. Technological advances such as improved weather forecasting and early warning systems have substantially reduced losses from extreme weather events. Better building codes, flood defenses, and disaster response mechanisms have lowered economic losses relative to GDP. The US economy’s expansion has diluted the relative impact of disaster costs, as seen in the comparison of historical and modern GDP percentages. Heat-related mortality risk has dropped substantially due to adaptive measures including the adoption of air conditioning, which relies on the availability of affordable energy. US mortality risks even under extreme warming scenarios are not projected to increase if people are able to undertake adaptive responses.

The media widely asserts that extreme weather of all types is getting worse due to global emissions and climate change, yet the DOE report points to numerous expert assessments from the IPCC which prove that most extreme weather events in the US do not show long-term trends and that claims of increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts are not supported by US historical data. (5)

Sea Level

Since 1900, global average sea level has risen about 8 inches. Sea level change along the US coasts is highly variable, associated with local variations in processes that contribute to sinking and also with ocean circulation patterns. The largest sea level increases along US coasts are Galveston, New Orleans and the Chesapeake Bay regions—each of these locations is associated with substantial local land sinking (subsidence) unrelated to climate change.

In Canada and Alaska (and also northern Washington), sea level is decreasing, owing to uplift from glacial rebound. Most of the Pacific coast tide gauges show low rates of sea level rise, while the largest rates are on the Gulf coast (Louisiana and Texas) and in the mid-Atlantic states (Chesapeake Bay region).

Problems in the San Francisco Bay area, including threats to the airport, are caused primarily by soil compaction in landfill zones that were formerly wetlands, not by slow creep of global sea level rise.

Climate Change and US Agriculture

There has been abundant evidence going back decades that rising CO2 levels benefit plants, including agricultural crops, and that CO2 induced warming will be a net benefit to US agriculture. The increase in ambient CO2 has also boosted productivity of all major US crop types. There is reason to conclude that on balance climate change has been and will continue to be neutral or beneficial for most US agriculture.

Summary

Among other things, the report presents evidence supporting the view that:

1. Long-term warming has been weaker than expected, 
2. It’s not even known how much of that warming is due to human greenhouse gas emissions, 
3. There are good reasons to believe the warming and increasing effects of CO2 effects on agriculture have so far been more beneficial than harmful to humanity, 
4. There have been no long-term changes in severe weather events that can be tied to human green gas emissions,  
5. The few dozen climate models now being used to inform policymakers regarding energy policy are not fit for purpose. 

Those models, even after decades of improvement, still produce up to a factor of 3 disagreement between those with the least warming and with the most warming (and all produce more summertime warming in the critically important US Corn Belt than has been observed). How can models that are advertised to be based upon physical principles cause such a wide range or responses to increasing CO2? (6)

Recent warming is likely mostly due to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. But is this necessarily a bad thing? Cold weather kills far more people than hot weather. Increasing CO2 is causing global greening and contributing to increased agricultural yields.

Virtually everyone on Earth endures huge changes in weather throughout the year, with as much as 130 F swings in temperature. Can we really not adapt to 2 or 3 degrees more in the yearly average?

Today, global warming is big business. According to Grok, since 1990 the US Government has spent $120-$160 billion on climate change. ⁽⁶⁾

German energy expert Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt has weighed in, suggesting its findings could be a crucial wake up call for Europe, especially Germany, to rethink its current climate policies. ⁽⁷⁾

For Vahrenholt, the implications for Europe are clear. He sees the continent’s expensive climate policies as leading to de-industrialization and job losses. He is particularly critical of Germany’s decisions to exit nuclear energy and phase out internal combustion engines, labeling them as major pollution blunders. He views the US report as a catalyst for Europe to reconsider its path.

For too long, the American people have been fed an unrealistic narrative that climate change is an existential threat that only drastic reductions in fossil fuel use will solve. Secretary Wright has finally got it right, and it’s about time that the US supports unbiased and objective climate science. ⁽⁵⁾

References

1. “A critical review of impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the US climate,” Climate Working Group, United States Department of Energy, July 23, 2025, energy.gov
2. Demetris Koutsoyiannis and George Tsakalias, Unsettling the settled: simple musings on the complex climatic system,” frontiersin,org, August 11, 2025
3. Kenneth Richard, “New study thoroughly disassembles the CO2-driven climate assumption in one fell scoop,” climate-science.press, August 15, 2025
4. Kenneth Richard, climatedepot.com, August 22, 2025
5. Tim Gallaudet, “Finally, an unbiased and objective science report,” realclearscience.com, August 16, 2025
6. Roy Spencer, “Some thoughts on our DOE report regarding CO2 impacts on the US climate,” wattsupwiththat.com, July 27, 2025
7. Gosselin, “Wake up call for Europe—German professor, Fritz Vahrenholt, on US climate report,” notrickszone.com, August 20, 2025