Ed. Note: These comments were prepared in support of the U.S. Department of Energy study, “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate.” For legal reasons, the DOE has disbanded the effort, inviting the authors to respond to criticisms on their own time. The comments below are for the record.

The new DOE report, A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate (July 29, 2025) is a welcome rebuttal to “the cause” (a Climategate term) of climate alarm and policy activism. Its optimistic view of CO₂ enrichment and climate change should be welcomed by all interested in the subject.

This comment highlights quotations from climate scientists who are not associated with the “skeptic” or “realist” school of climate science (such as the 2025 Climate Working Group), but who nonetheless rightly understand energy as the master resource and the uncertainties of climate modeling.…

“Personal character matters for scientific transparency and honesty. Andrew Dessler does not pass the temperament test in a field of unsettled causality and ambiguous data.”

The intellectual case for CO2/climate optimism in place of doomism and despair is straightforward. As neatly summarized by Steven Koonin (a ‘climate flat earther‘ to Andrew Dessler) in the Wall Street Journal:

• Elevated carbon-dioxide levels enhance plant growth, contributing to global greening and increased agricultural productivity.
• Complex climate models provide limited guidance on the climate’s response to rising carbon-dioxide levels. Overly sensitive models, often using extreme scenarios, have exaggerated future warming projections and consequences.
• Data aggregated over the continental U.S. show no significant longterm trends in most extreme weather events. Claims of more frequent or intense hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and dryness in America aren’t supported by historical records.

The New York Times, the climate alarmist paper of record, is sponsoring the “Climate Forward” conference in New York City on Wednesday September 24th. Will it be a wake? Consider the latest promotional push by Times reporter David Gelles:

“This has been perhaps one of the most consequential years ever for United States climate policy,” he notes, promising “frank discussions about what it all means.”

Announced Speakers

The announced speakers are fringe: Brian Schatz (Senate Democrat, Hawaii); Abigail Dillen (Earthjustice); Scott Strazik, (GE Vernova); Manish Bapna, (Natural Resources Defense Council); and Bob Mumgaard (Commonwealth Fusion Systems).

Where is everybody? Will Al Gore and John Kerry appear to rally the demoralized? Michael “Climategate” Mann? What about Angry Joe Romm? John Holdren? Jigar Shaw and Jennifer Granholm of Biden’s U.S.…

“And yes, there is empirical, peer-reviewed support for the conclusion that climate deniers, in general, are truly awful human beings.” (- Michael Mann, below)

Michael “Climategate” Mann cannot get out of his own way. His arrogant, condescending social tweets speak for themselves–just as the words, sentences, and paragraphs of the East Anglia emails did. He is not the kind of person you would want in just about any endeavor, much less as a climate scientist trying to present a case.

This post traces Mann’s angst on X and then at BlueSky, his successor to X.

This is my final post on this platform (aside from my social media team’s pro forma posts noted below) until it is no longer owned by Elon Musk. “But on X, my social media team is reposting things” [Joe Romm?].