In August 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) released a report, A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the US Climate, authored by respected scientists John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer. This document, grounded in empirical data and peer-reviewed research, challenges the "settled science" narrative underpinning Net Zero policies. It argues that climate models are unreliable, extreme weather events aren't worsening, and CO2's role in warming is overstated. Predictably, green activists, led by figures like Leo Hickman of Carbon Brief, have launched a campaign to discredit it, labelling it a "farce" and rallying a "crowdsourced" fact-checking effort. Far from a defence of truth, this backlash is a desperate attempt to suppress open debate and protect a faltering ideological agenda. The DoE report is a necessary corrective to decades of alarmist overreach, and its critics' tactics only expose their fear of scrutiny.
The DoE report, authored by five PhD scientists with decades of climate research experience, meticulously evaluates the impact of greenhouse gases. Its findings are sobering: climate models, the backbone of Net Zero advocacy, offer "little guidance" on CO2's warming effects, with predictions ranging from 1.8°C to 5.7°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, a threefold uncertainty unchanged after 40 years. It notes that extreme weather events, like hurricanes and floods, show no increasing trend in the U.S., contradicting alarmist claims. Sea level rise in North America lacks an accelerating pattern, and weather attribution studies, often used in legal "lawfare," are undermined by natural climate variability. These conclusions, drawn from extensive data and cited peer-reviewed studies, align with observed reality, not speculative models.
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., whose work is cited 30 times in the report, reviewed its use of his eight peer-reviewed papers and three Substack posts. He concluded that every reference was accurate, giving the authors "a strong A" for fidelity to his findings. This precision undercuts accusations of "mischaracterisation" levelled by Hickman and outlets like The Guardian. The report doesn't deny human influence on climate, but questions the exaggerated certainty used to justify economic upheaval. It's a call for humility in a field long dominated by dogma.
Rather than engage the report's arguments, green activists have opted for smear tactics. Leo Hickman, a former Guardian journalist now at Carbon Brief, is spearheading a "crowdsourced" effort to "fact-check" the report, emailing scientists to solicit complaints about their cited work. The Guardian pre-emptively called it a "farce full of misinformation," quoting Harvard's Naomi Oreskes, who claims it's a ploy to avoid regulating fossil fuels. Zeke Hausfather of Berkeley Earth disputed the report's use of his 2019 paper, arguing it "confirmed" model accuracy, yet failed to mention that his study, ending in 2017, relied on adjusted inputs and has been questioned by mathematicians for its methodology. These critiques dodge the report's core point: models consistently overestimate warming, as shown in CMIP6 data from 1979–2024, where most projections exceed observed temperatures, some by double.
This isn't fact-checking; it's a coordinated effort to silence dissent. Hickman's past disdain for "false balance" in climate science, evident in his 2014 Guardian quote advocating debate limits to policy, not science, reveals a mindset allergic to open inquiry. Oreskes' push to lower legal proof standards for climate claims, further exposes the agenda: not truth, but control. By framing the report as "misinformation," critics aim to protect Net Zero's trillion-dollar edifice, which hinges on demonising CO2, a trace gas comprising 0.04% of the atmosphere, while ignoring its role in plant growth and food security.
The DoE report threatens the green movement's foundation: the claim that CO2-driven warming justifies dismantling hydrocarbon economies. Net Zero policies, from EV mandates to wind farm subsidies, rely on apocalyptic predictions from flawed models. The report's revelation that these models are unreliable, backed by a graph showing CMIP6 projections far exceeding actual temperatures, undermines the urgency of such measures. Its timing, alongside proposals to rescind the 2009 EPA endangerment finding classifying CO2 as a pollutant, signals a policy shift that could unravel decades of regulatory overreach. No wonder activists are panicking.
The backlash also reflects a deeper fear: losing narrative control. For years, green advocates, backed by media and institutions like NASA's GISS, have suppressed debate by branding sceptics as "deniers." X posts from users like @ChrisMartzWX highlight the outrage, noting legacy media's framing of the report as an "attack on science" while ignoring its empirical basis. The GISS cutbacks ordered by the Trump administration further fuel this anxiety, as climate alarmism loses its federal megaphone. The green elite, accustomed to dictating terms, now face a reckoning.
This report was inevitable because the "settled science" narrative has long outstripped evidence. Climate models, as the DoE notes, are the primary tool for projecting warming, yet their wide divergence, 1.8°C to 5.7°C, shows they're more art than science. Natural variability, like solar cycles or ocean currents, is downplayed in favour of CO2-centric explanations, despite evidence that pre-industrial warming cycles occurred without human influence. The report's call for transparency and scepticism isn't anti-science; it's the essence of the scientific method, which thrives on challenge, not consensus.
Had green activists embraced debate instead of censorship, the climate conversation might be less polarised. Instead, their tactics, smearing scientists, rigging peer review, and adjusting temperature data (as seen in GISS's controversial datasets), have eroded trust. A 2025 Pew poll shows only 40% of Americans fully trust climate science, down from 55% a decade ago. The DoE report, by contrast, offers a path to rebuild credibility through data-driven analysis, not ideological bullying.
The DoE report isn't a "farce"; it's a lifeline for rational discourse. Its critics, from Hickman to Oreskes, aren't defending science, they're guarding a political project that thrives on fear and control. By exposing the fragility of climate models and the exaggeration of extreme weather claims, the report demands a return to evidence over activism. The green backlash, with its ad hominem attacks and selective outrage, only proves the need for such scrutiny. Science advances through debate, not dogma. It's time to welcome the DoE's findings, and let reason, not ideology, guide the climate conversation.