New DOE report final death knell for Net Zero in the U.S. as it breaks down climate science’s flaws
By willowt // 2025-08-05
Copy
 
  • A report from the Energy Department challenges climate orthodoxy, asserting aggressive net-zero policies may be more harmful than beneficial.
  • Scientists criticize climate models (like RCP8.5) for unreliable projections and question extreme weather attribution studies.
  • The report highlights CO2’s role in global greening and economic benefits versus politicized fears.
  • A controversial heatwave analysis claims climate change made record temperatures 35× more likely, sparking debate over methodological rigor.
  • Authors emphasize U.S. climate policies’ negligible global impact and advocate for pragmatic energy solutions.
Last week, a landmark Department of Energy (DOE) report authored by five prominent scientists cast sweeping doubt on the foundational claims of climate alarmism, asserting that aggressive net-zero policies could harm the economy more than warming itself. The 396-page Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate concludes that carbon dioxide-driven climate effects are less economically damaging than often claimed, and that U.S. climate policies would cause “undetectably small” global impacts, with benefits delayed centuries. The report, authored by Dr. John Christy, Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. Steven Koonin, Dr. Ross McKitrick and Dr. Roy Spencer, has reignited debates over the scientific and political narratives guiding energy policy.

Questioning the climate models: “Little guidance” on key metrics

The report’s most scathing critiques target the reliability of climate models. It notes that models over the past three decades have produced “a range of future warming [projections] extending over a factor of three,” with no reduction in uncertainty. Notable among these is the RCP8.5 scenario, long relied on for alarmist headlines but deemed “implausible” by scientists. Dr. Christy, a climatologist and Alabama State climatologist, highlighted in the review that “extreme predictions about collapsing ecosystems or runaway warming assume fictional energy consumption rates,” with no empirical basis for these “sky’s-the-limit” emissions pathways. The team also dismantled claims linking CO2 to extreme weather. Despite widespread media narratives, historical U.S. data reveal no statistically significant increases in hurricane frequency, tornado intensity, or drought duration. The report states, “Natural climate variation, not human activity, remains the primary driver for many weather patterns observed in recent decades.”

Hot debates: Heatwave study sparks dispute over attribution science

The tension between model-based attribution and empirical evidence flared anew as climate activists pointed to a World Weather Attribution (WWA) report, which claimed the May-June 2024 record heatwave across the U.S. Southwest and Mexico was 35 times more likely due to climate change. The DOE report, however, directly challenges such methodologies. It notes that WWA’s reliance on unproven computer models and fragmented climate records fails to account for natural variability, including centuries-old paleoclimatic data. Dr. Curry, the report’s lead economist, argued, “Attributing isolated heatwaves to CO2 risks conflating correlation with causation. We need to ask: How do you prove a temperature increase is man-made if we lack baseline data from 500 years ago?” This skepticism mirrors growing concerns from independent researchers about “lawfare”-driven science, such as the WWA’s admissions of tailoring analyses to litigation purposes. The DOE analysis also highlighted the “greening Earth” paradox — evidence that rising CO2 has boosted crop yields and forest growth across 25–50% of Earth’s vegetated areas since the 1980s, a topic intentionally omitted from flagship IPCC reports.

Economic toll: Mitigation costs outweigh benefits

The report’s economic assessment paints a stark picture of climate policy trade-offs. While adhering to net-zero targets by 2050 might reduce global temperatures by a fraction of a degree by 2150, the immediate costs — including fossil fuel bans, renewable subsidies and energy poverty — are unconscionable. “The worst-case climate scenarios drive policies that may cause more harm than good,” said Dr. Koonin, former U.S. Under Secretary of Energy. “Investing $50 trillion for 0.07°C less warming by 2100 is an unconscionable misallocation of resources.” The authors stress that CO2’s planetary greening and increased crop resilience demonstrate “a silver lining too often obscured by fear-mongering.” They urge prioritizing adaptation, like drought-resistant crops or cooling infrastructure, over “unrealistic” emissions targets.

Political crossroads: Can any policy make a global difference?

Perhaps the report’s most provocative claim is that even If the U.S. achieves zero emissions tomorrow, the climatic impact would remain “statistically indistinguishable” for centuries — mere fractions of a degree with no measurable effect on the once-salient RCP8.5 scenarios. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who commissioned the study, framed the findings as a “reality check” for lawmakers: “No nation can shoulder this burden alone, yet we’re pouring trillions into solutions proven ineffective.”

A new era in climate science—or back to the future?

As debates over the report escalate, one truth remains undeniable: Climate science has never been more politically charged. The DOE’s findings threaten to erode the “settled science” mantra that once monopolized the conversation. Yet opponents argue the report endangers environmental progress. The heatwave inched into Canada by week’s end, with temperatures soaring past 110°F in Chicago—prompting contrasting reactions. For now, the clash over climate models, mitigation costs and extreme weather causation has redefined the policy landscape. As one scientist succinctly framed it: “Climate action can’t afford to be a binary ‘save humanity’ cult. It needs honesty, rigor and respect for individual freedoms.” For better or worse, the era of dogmatic climate orthodoxy is over. Sources for this article include: WattsUpWithThat.com TheDailySceptic.com BBC.com Energy.gov
Copy