Trump’s DOE Ditches 400 Climate Cultists, Taps 5 Experts for Balanced ‘Climate Assessment’
The new climate assessment will be valuable as a basis for making wise decisions that balance the nation’s energy and economic needs with valid and reasonable environmental concerns.
In April of this year, at the height of the DOGE movement, President Donald Trump ditched 400 climate cultists who were slated to prepare the “National Climate Assessment.”
The howling from the elite media and eco-extremists was extraordinary.
The report, known as the National Climate Assessment, is a major publication produced every four years that summarizes the impacts of climate change in the United States, and it is congressionally mandated under the Global Change Research Act of 1990. The sixth edition is scheduled for publication in 2027 and preparations have been underway for months to meet that deadline.
The National Climate Assessment is the basis for which federal, state, and local governments, as well as private companies, can prepare for climate change impacts, understand future projections of climate risk, as well as learn to adapt and mitigate those challenges.
An email sent to participants from the deputy director of services of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, a federal office that organizes the publication of the report read, “Thank you for your participation in the 6th National Climate Assessment … we are now releasing all current assessment participants from their roles.”
“The Trump administration has dismissed all the scientists from their work on the nation’s most important climate change report,” Steven Hamburg, chief scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. “Refusing to study climate change won’t make it go away — or help us deal with stronger storms, droughts, floods, wildfires and hotter temperatures, or help us stop emitting the pollution that is making it worse.”
Instead of waiting until 2027, Energy Secretary Chris Wright commissioned a new climate assessment report that is entitled, “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate.” It is a thoughtful, balanced work that reviews both the science and economics behind “climate change.” The document also references studies that suggest that the economic impact of carbon dioxide-induced warming may be less severe than promoted by the media and activist climate ‘scientists,” and notes that aggressive climate mitigation efforts could potentially do more harm than good. Finally, it notes that U.S. policy measures are expected to have minimal effects on global climate.
And the best part? The entire document will be authored by a five-member team, including: Dr. John Christy (climatologist), Dr. Judith Curry (climatologist), Dr. Steven Koonin (theoretical physicist), Dr. Ross McKitrick (economist) and Dr. Roy Spencer (meteorologist and climate scientist).
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has published a new climate assessment report:
A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate
Key findings:
1️⃣ Carbon dioxide- (CO₂-) induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly… pic.twitter.com/1Tm6Sk3Hun
— Chris Martz (@ChrisMartzWX) July 29, 2025
Curry, who has deemed “climate crisis” a pseudoscience and has long championed a comprehensive assessment of reliable data with an eye to reasonable risk assessments, presented a list of topics the report will address.
- Chapter 1 discusses the scientific rationale for considering CO2 as a pollutant (or not)
- Section 2.1 examines “global greening” including the benefits to agriculture
- Section 2.2 provides a concise assessment of ocean alkalinity and the so-called ocean acidification problem, including the recent rebound of coral reefs
- Section 3.2 provides clear justification against using extreme emissions scenarios in policy-relevant analyses
- Section 3.3 provides a comprehensive assessment of the urban heat island effect
- Chapter 4 assesses the uncertainties associated with climate sensitivity, with prominent discussion of Nic Lewis’ most recent work.
- Chapter 5 challenges climate models with observations; it is difficult to argue that global climate models are fit for any policy-relevant purpose
- Chapter 6 provides a comprehensive analysis of extreme weather in U.S., using the entire available data record back to 1900 (earlier where possible), with a context of natural climate variability
- Chapter 7 challenges the extreme projections of sea level rise, and emphasizes the importance of vertical land motion in local sea level changes
- Section 8.2 challenges conventional notions of attribution of global warming in terms of problems with the statistical analysis methods and inadequate assessment of natural climate variability
- Section 8.4 highlights the declining planetary albedo and cloud cover since 2015, including analysis of contributions from natural variability
- Section 8.6 assesses challenges and problems with attribution analyses of individual extreme events
- Chapter 9 on agriculture shows that increasing CO2 and warming is expected to be a net benefit to US agriculture
- Section 10.3 addresses mortality from temperature extremes (both heat and cold), including a section on mortality risks and energy costs
- Section 11.1 clarifies the unimportance of global warming in economic growth
- Section 11.2 assesses the deep uncertainties associated with estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon
- Chapter 12 concludes that U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate and any effects will emerge only with long delays.
How good is the report? So good that the mainstream media is hysterically decrying it as….”disinformation.” This chestnut is from Politico.
Written by five scientists known for denying accepted climate science, the report is rife with disinformation, write Chelsea Harvey and Scott Waldman. It uses misleading and inaccurate statements to argue that climate science has overstated the risks of a warming planet while underestimating the societal benefits of burning fossil fuels.
…Climate scientists noted the DOE report’s publication comes after the Trump administration pulled the congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment down from its official government webpage. That report involved scores of scientists, public comments and peer review from the National Academy of Sciences, said Phil Duffy, a physicist who studies climate change and served at the Office of Science and Technology Policy during the Biden administration.
The trouble is that the press, “experts,” and “government scientists” blew up all their credibility during the COVID pandemic. They are the ones offering disinformation.
Furthermore, the internet has a log of failed predictions that show the only climate crisis that is really occurring is a political one — manufactured by Democrats.
Sir, I’ve followed your climate projections for decades. May I observe that your track record seems unblemished by success https://t.co/qQMLDa5BOF
— Rick Rule (@RealRickRule) July 29, 2025
The new climate assessment will be valuable as a basis for making wise decisions that balance the nation’s energy and economic needs with valid and reasonable environmental concerns. This is one small win for science, and one big win for the American people.
This is one small win for science, and one big win for the American people. https://t.co/mbGHODzaxo
— Leslie Eastman ☥ (@Mutnodjmet) July 31, 2025
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
If they have Dr. Judith Curry onboard with the assessment you know it’ll at least be worth reading.
“Always listen to experts. They’ll tell you what can’t be done and why. Then do it!”
“Most “scientists” are bottle washers and button sorters.”
“Expertise in one field does not carry over into other fields. But experts often think so. The narrower their field of knowledge the more likely they are to think so.”
– Robert Heinlein
And, of course, as alluded to above, almost all government-sanctioned “experts” were proven during the Covid Fraud to be no more than ventriloquist’s dummies parroting whatever their political masters decreed.
Experts ?
At my high school reunion, one of my classmates became an “infectious disease expert” working a a major CA university. He stated that without masking and lockdowns, 2million americans would have died, including 500k children.
Experts? you be the judge
I am still waiting for the climate cooling that I was promised back to the 60s and 70s.
Not a single climate catastrophe described in my 65 years has occurred, even remotely.
I can’t imagine that a climate related job can have so many people so wrong, and still insist on paying these people.
Yup. I have been waiting for a couple of polar bears to ease across the dozen pond in front of my hunting camp up in New England so I could try out my 416 Mag.
Frozen
I remember back then it was so cold! In the WINTER!! I think we had one of those Arctic Air systems that kept bringing the frigid air South into the US. I suggested setting Canada on fire to warm it up a bit – just joking of course!
I wonder WHEN did it become necessary to even have a “Climate Assessment”! For centuries we’ve operated under one assumption : Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall!! Now there could be some variations of severity, but not the “Al Gore End of the World” events!
Well, they’re in a field related to meteorology & we all know one need not have a track record of accuracy to be gainfully employed in such.
The earth is dynamic climate going back billions of years. Mass extinction events were caused by massive cooling and heating. Some caused by asteroids and some by glacial periods. The past 60 years has shown us that climate and its natural changes have been weaponized by climate grifters. There is absolutely nothing man can do to change the climate. Good or bad. We are at the whim of volcanoes, large asteroids, the earth’s orbit and solar maximus/minimus.
How dare you!
“Refusing to study climate change won’t make it go away”
I thought the science was settled
Contrary voices are blasphemy, and the
Global WarmingClimate ChangeClimate Weirding Inquisition will deal them.The only settled science are those theories that have been falsified, i.e. those which have been tested and found incorrect.
Somewhere, Michael Mann just soiled his pants (hopefully).
The climate change cultists never did tell us what we were supposed to do about the pollution from China and, to a slightly lesser extent, India.
.
Since the 1980s, “climate scientists” have been trying to scare people by telling us that we have five years until we’re all gonna fry. Well, here it is, 45 or so years later, and we haven’t fried yet. As Rick Rule said (above) of Al Gore, their prognostications have been unblemished by success.
For a half century now, these Al Goracles have been making claims of impending disaster, none of which has ever occurred. Let their histrionics fall on deaf ears.
The purpose of “climate policy” is to scare us to gladly sign up for poverty.
An honest scientists will say that CO2 has an effect on the climate but that it can not be discerned from natural variations in a span of only 100 years. Never mind that the effect can either be positive or negative. And never mind again that the negative affect won’t be something we cannot adapt to. And never mind once again that even if we can’t adapt we will consider it a price to pay for freedom.
But that’s a long long way into the future. Meanwhile, the living have lives to live and bills to pay.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
H.L. Mencken
Wow!
That is some collection of real, balanced experts.
The only two they’re missing are Roger Pielke Jr and Bjorn Lomborg,
Lomborg would be a great addition. He’s the first guy I recall asking the question “What’s the point?”, as in “What do we gain by X?”
fossil fuels..petroleum makes for a comfortable life and tears into the earth
green solar wind……may make for an assist in making life comfortable and also tears into the earth
yet the left has to force us into their system
and the maga merely has to enjoy the system that is current and can stay current
Talk about putting in the A team. When Trump is doing good, he just levels the opposition. Now if he could only work on that impulse control and maybe, just a little, dial down the egomania, leftists would be committing mass suicide.
his destruction of the evil left….by any means necessary
It’s nice to see that the left is fighting this new approach with their usual calm, reasonable, fact-based arguments. That’s how open discussion takes place in a democratically-oriented society.
If climate change is real, we can recognize its effects and plan to mitigate them. A fair assessment might conclude that in our recent (and extremely short-term, on a geological time scale) weather data that we are seeing the signals of “climate change,” but still not see justification for action to attempt to stop what is a natural process. But the climate change cultists wouldn’t be satisfied with that. The crux of their argument isn’t that that the climate is changing, but that it’s changing due to human activities, activities that themselves can be taxed and regulated in order to prevent or slow the change. Of course, it is the control that their overlords are looking for, not the mitigation of climate change, real or imagined.
Climate alarmism = GIANT GRIFT!
“Chapter 5 challenges climate models with observations; it is difficult to argue that global climate models are fit for any policy-relevant purpose”
Scientists start with a hypothesis: The climate is changing
They make measurements to see if the hypothesis is correct. If they find it is correct, they then make a theory. A theory attempts to explain the “how and why” of what has been observed.
The best any model can do is show “how” the theory might work. It demonstrates nothing, scientifically speaking. Real-world observations must still be made that can verify or falsify the theory. This has not been done. That fact this is difficult, or even impossible, is an excuse that no scientist should ever employ.
Note that every climate research institution (and there are dozens of them) creates their own climate models. This is an indication that no research group has any faith in the veracity of the climate models of any other group, making all of them suspect.
“As briefly as possible, a model may make good, even excellent predictions, but this does not prove that the model’s premises accurately describe Reality.”
William M. Briggs
https://wmbriggs.substack.com/p/probability-doesnt-exist-nothing
“Science, unlike politics, is not supposed to be ruled by popular opinion.”
Leonard Susskind, Felix Bloch Professor of theoretical physics, Stanford University writing in The Black Hole War: My Battle With Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe For Quantum Dynamics
“Science…requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results.”
Dr. Michael Crichton
Speaking at the California Institute of Technology, 2023
Contrast the above attitudes about science with the statements below.
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports.
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
Timothy Wirth, president of the UN Foundation.
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony. … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
Professor Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.
“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University.
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace.
The climate change infrastructure should be replaced with additional focus on nuckear power, since whether there is a climate crisis or not, nuclear energy is the best answer.
The org could be called the “Actually proceeding with nuclear energy instead of tinkering at the margins with regulations to placate the public office.”
Good, anyone that bought into that climate cultist nonsense is obviously no expert on anything. Anybody who seriously said the science is settled obviously knows nothing of science. If you’re not a skeptic then you’re not a scientist
But it meant grants & studies, food on the table, trips to symposiums, prestige & awards for the so-called scientists . . .
and provided a boogyman for the politicos to cite as the reason why they should be given more power.
Best comment “Unblemished by success”!! Now that’s a good one.
You can tell this article is not that important to the usual leftist trolls – no comments by Milhouse to completely render the report as unconstitutional or right wing propaganda. Not even a legal doctrine that insists co2 is dangerous! It must be – that’s why GREENHOUSES purchase and utilize co2 GENERATORS – to increase plant growth! If the left wants to be the “climate concerners” then let them pay for it out of their own pockets!