The Department of Energy has released a climate assessment report that incorporates the conclusions of climate scientists who have long been labeled by Democrats, the media, and climate activists as “climate deniers.” [emphasis, links added]
In a statement announcing the release Tuesday of the report, Energy Secretary Chris Wright said it was part of the EPA’s proposed rule repealing the 2009 endangerment finding, which cites the report.
Wright notes in the report’s foreword that the modern world is one of unprecedented prosperity in human history, but the public is being told that “the very energy systems that enabled this progress now pose an existential threat.”
He said he commissioned the report to “encourage a more thoughtful and science-based conversation” that scrutinizes the view that fossil fuels are threatening humanity’s well-being.
The report’s coauthor, Dr. Judith Curry, president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network and author of “Climate Uncertainty and Risk,” says on her blog that there wasn’t complete agreement among the authors, and she welcomes a robust discussion on the report’s conclusion.
However, she wrote, she didn’t expect the same kind of openness from the alarmists who have long been the primary source of science informing climate policy for the past couple of decades.
“The Michael Mann wing of the climate debate will hate this report because: the CWG [Climate Working Group] authors are reputable scientists outside of their ‘tribe.’ The Report demonstrates that Mann et al. are losing control of the climate narrative in the U.S., and because of Trump Derangement Syndrome,” Curry wrote, adding that their usual ad hominem attacks won’t be effective against the report.
Recognized Contrarians
Media coverage of the 151-page report, which contains hundreds of references, demonstrates Curry’s prediction of the response was accurate.
Neither Climatewire nor CNN made any attempt in the respective stories to dispute the science presented in the report.
Climatewire, a publication of Politico, published a fact check of the EPA’s proposed rule.
The article notes that the proposed rule cites the DOE report, which Climatewire characterizes as “authored by scientists known for denying accepted climate science.”
CNN also referred to the report in its coverage of the EPA proposal, describing the DOE report as “authored by five researchers who have spent years sowing doubt in the scientific consensus around climate change.”
Neither Climatewire nor CNN made any attempt in the respective stories to dispute the science presented in the report.
Andrew Dessler, professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M, posted some initial thoughts on the report on X.
Of course you get this report from these authors. The reason why you haven’t seen this report before is because these authors were outcast by the scientific community. Frankly, it’s a breath of fresh air to see serious discussion of the topic. https://t.co/67MIzDufsb
— Alasdair Robinson (@Alasdair07) July 30, 2025
He described the authors as “widely recognized contrarians.”
After attacking the authors’ credibility for presenting evidence that contradicts the status quo, he goes on to argue that “scientific credibility depends on a willingness to base conclusions on all of the evidence.”
Dr. Sterling Burnett, director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at the Heartland Institute, laughed at the seeming contradiction Dessler displayed in his statement.
He told Just the News that critics of the report, such as Dessler, have long controlled the narrative, insisting that there was a consensus on the issue of which there is no legitimate dispute. Sterling said the very idea of consensus doesn’t belong in science.
“Science is not about debate,” Burnett said. “Science is about discovery, and it’s based on data. Now, debate can help that along. Discussion of different points of view can help that along. But the truth is, in science, it doesn’t matter what people say. It matters what the evidence shows. And this paper focuses on the evidence, not the prestige and the awards given to those who make statements supporting the consensus. A showing of hands? That’s not science. That’s politics.”
Working Group Members
On her blog, Curry says the working group was assembled in April.
Wright had invited her to participate, which she agreed to do, she explained, because she was impressed with what Wright wanted to do, she was familiar with the other members, and she saw an opportunity to set the record straight regarding what we know and don’t know about climate science.
…the working group had no pressure to come to any conclusions and that they had asked for complete autonomy.
The other members of the working group – the people that the media and critics of the report are calling “deniers” – are Dr. John Christy, Alabama’s state climatologist at the University of Alabama Huntsville; Dr. Steven Koonin, who served as undersecretary for science at the Energy Department under the Obama administration; Dr. Roy Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama Huntsville; and Dr. Ross McKitrick, professor of environmental economics at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada.
Spencer said on his blog that the working group had no pressure to come to any conclusions and that they had asked for complete autonomy. They also did not know the process that policymakers at the EPA were going to undertake regarding energy policy.
“We suspected the Endangerment Finding would be the topic of greatest interest, but we also knew that the EPA’s strategy for rescinding that could take a mostly legal approach, with little need for science arguments … for now,” Spencer stated.
Read rest at Just The News
