Swirling in the chaotic vortex of climate discourse, where headlines scream apocalypse and policy demands trillions in "green" spending, a new report from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) lands like a contrarian thunderclap. Titled A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate, released on July 23, 2025, this 151-page document, authored by a quintet of seasoned scientists (John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer), doesn't deny the basics: the planet is warming, CO₂ is a greenhouse gas, and humans play a role. But it skewers what the authors call the "climate orthodoxy," the narrative that we're hurtling toward catastrophe, extreme weather is exploding, models are gospel, and aggressive mitigation is our only salvation. Instead, it argues for nuance, better science, and a hard look at costs versus benefits.
At its heart, the report is a "red team" exercise, a deliberate adversarial review commissioned under the Trump administration's DOE Secretary Christopher Wright to probe the peer-reviewed literature and government datasets on GHG impacts. It's not a wild-eyed denial manifesto; the authors align with about 95% of the IPCC's consensus on fundamentals like radiative forcing and observed warming trends. But they zero in on the "aspects" that get glossed over in public rhetoric, delivering findings that feel like a cold splash of realism.
Extreme Weather: No Detectable Trends in Most Categories. The report crunches decades of data and finds "no detectable link" between GHG-driven warming and the majority of extreme events — hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, and wildfires. For instance, U.S. tornado frequency has declined since the 1970s, and global hurricane activity shows no upward trend (low confidence, per IPCC AR6 itself). Dr. Koonin, in his Sky News interview, quipped about scientists' "very short memory for weather disasters," citing the July 2025 Texas floods as eerily similar to events in 1900, when human CO₂ influence was negligible. Natural variability (e.g., ENSO cycles, Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) explains most spikes, not a linear CO₂ fingerprint.
Climate Models: Demonstrably Deficient. These are the crystal balls of climate policy, projecting doom scenarios that justify everything from carbon taxes to EV mandates. The report calls them "all over the place," with equilibrium climate sensitivity (how much warming per CO₂ doubling) ranging wildly from 1.5–4.5°C in IPCC estimates, and models often overpredicting recent warming by 20–50%. Why? Parameter tuning, incomplete physics (e.g., cloud feedbacks), and a bias toward high-end scenarios that amplify urgency. The upshot: Future impacts, even under these flawed models, are "minimal" compared to hype, think modest sea-level rise (0.3–0.6m by 2100) and agricultural boosts from CO₂ fertilisation in some regions.
Economic Realities: Mitigation Could Hurt More Than Help. Here's the politically explosive bit: CO₂-induced warming might be less damaging economically than assumed, while "excessively aggressive" policies (e.g., rapid Net Zero) could slash GDP by 2–10% in vulnerable nations, exacerbate energy poverty, and widen global inequities. The report invokes benefit-cost analysis: Sure, adapt to changes (dikes, resilient crops), but bankrupting the present to "save" a future that's more nuanced than doomsday? That's bad maths. It echoes Koonin's 2021 book Unsettled, where he argued the "social cost of carbon" is often inflated by cherry-picked assumptions.
In essence, the report isn't anti-climate action, it's anti-hysteria. It urges balancing certainties (e.g., warming oceans) against uncertainties (e.g., tipping points) and priorities like affordable energy for the developing world, where 750 million people still lack electricity.
Predictably, the report ignited a firestorm. Mainstream outlets like The New York Times branded it an "attack on climate science," accusing it of cherry-picking contrarian views and ignoring consensus. The American Meteorological Society (AMS) slammed it for "five foundational flaws": selective data, misused stats, no uncertainty quantification, and failure to engage recent literature. Wikipedia calls it "widely criticised" for lacking objectivity, with lead author John Christy (a known sceptic) drawing ire for his satellite data work that often tempers warming claims.
Climate advocates, meanwhile, counter with videos from experts like Katharine Hayhoe, insisting we're "loading the dice" for extremes, even if trends are regionally variable. One thread debates if it's "debunked" or just unwelcome truth, with replies citing AMS critiques versus the report's IPCC alignment.
The irony? The report invites public comment precisely to foster debate, yet critics often dismiss it wholesale rather than engage specifics, like why models diverge so wildly or why U.S. flood records show no century-scale uptick. This knee-jerk rejection smacks of the orthodoxy Koonin laments: a field where nuance annoys, and funding flows to alarm.
The "climate orthodoxy" isn't a cabal; it's an emergent culture in science, media, and policy that prioritises certainty over scepticism, urgency over precision. It turns probabilistic risks (e.g., "possible" 4°C warming) into certainties, inflating costs of inaction while downplaying adaptation's wins (e.g., fewer weather deaths since 1920 due to tech, not cooler weather). The DOE report disrupts this by demanding better science: refined models, transparent attribution, and integrated economic modelling that includes CO₂'s upsides (greener plants, milder winters).
In a world needing more energy and smarter stewardship, this "red team" effort isn't heresy, it's hygiene. It sets the record straighter, not perfectly, but enough to spark real debate.