The Department of Energy’s A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate has unleashed a Category 5 tantrum across climate science’s more excitable precincts. No surprise there. What is new, and potentially consequential, is that the Blob—our affectionate term for the climate-industrial complex—has chosen to focus its fury on claims that their research was misused or twisted in the DOE’s report.
With all the smoke and thunder, WUWT is uniquely positioned to cut through the noise and offer readers a rare public service: an actual forensic examination of these accusations. This post will enumerate the claims of misuse—as aired by the alarmist press and aggrieved researchers—quote them directly, reference the actual DOE report and cited studies, and invite readers (especially those who agree to an honest, source-based evaluation) to judge whether the charges hold any water.
Let’s give sunlight a chance to disinfect this process.
The Complaint Parade: What Scientists (and the Blob) Claim Was “Misused”
The press coverage since the report’s release has been almost comically uniform: scientists, whose research was cited, claim it was misrepresented, cherry-picked, or taken out of context. Some go further, accusing the DOE of outright deception or anti-scientific intent. Here are the most prominent examples, as reported in the major climate advocacy outlets:
1. Ben Santer: “Fundamentally Misrepresents My Work”
Ben Santer, a fixture in U.S. climate science, is quoted in WIRED:
“Santer’s research is also cited in the DOE report; he, like other scientists who spoke to WIRED, say the report ‘fundamentally misrepresents’ his work.”
Unfortunately, neither Santer nor the journalists specify exactly how or where his work was misrepresented in the DOE report. The complaint is long on adjectives, short on details. Readers: If you can pinpoint the passages in both the DOE report and Santer’s original research and make an independent assessment, WUWT will gladly publish your findings.
2. Zeke Hausfather: “Cherry-Picked Data”
Zeke Hausfather, another frequent media commentator, gets more specific. He objects to the DOE’s use of a chart from his 2019 paper to argue that “climate models have ‘consistently overestimated observations’ of atmospheric CO₂.” Hausfather’s complaint:
“They appear to have discarded the whole paper as not fitting their narrative, and instead picked a single figure that was in the supplementary materials to cast doubt on models, when the whole paper actually confirmed how well they have performed in the years after they were published.”
Let’s be clear: the DOE report does cite his chart and notes that, when you look at the IPCC’s model projections versus observations, models run “hot” compared to reality. But it’s also true that the original paper by Hausfather and colleagues argues for the general accuracy of climate models. Readers: Is this a cherry-pick, or is the DOE highlighting an aspect the mainstream glosses over? The footnotes in the report cite both the chart and Hausfather’s text. We encourage readers to review both and weigh in.
3. Joy Ward: “CO₂ Plant Experiments Don’t Prove What DOE Claims”
Ward, a biologist whose CO₂ enrichment studies are used to bolster the DOE’s argument that rising CO₂ “promotes plant growth (global greening), thereby enhancing agricultural yields”, is quoted in WIRED:
“Our studies indicate that major disruptions in plant development such as flowering time can occur in direct response to rising CO₂, which were not mentioned in the report.”
She adds that her experiments were in “highly controlled growth conditions” and not indicative of net agricultural outcomes under climate change.
Again, readers can consult the DOE section on “CO₂ fertilization” (Chapters 2 and 9) and compare to Ward’s publications. Is the DOE overselling, or simply presenting a perspective excluded from mainstream summaries? The report openly discusses model uncertainties, meta-analyses, and caveats.
4. Josh Krissansen-Totton: “My Research on Ancient Oceans Is Irrelevant”
Krissansen-Totton, an assistant professor at the University of Washington, is incensed that his work on ocean pH “billions of years ago” is cited to suggest that today’s modest pH changes are not unprecedented:
“[My] work on ocean acidity billions of years ago has ‘no relevance’ to the impacts of human-driven ocean acidification today…”
The DOE report states:
“The recent decline in [ocean] pH is within the range of natural variability on millennial time scales… ocean biota appear to be resilient to natural long-term changes in ocean pH since marine organisms were exposed to wide ranges in pH.”
Is this an unfair inference, or does the literature genuinely support resilience and variability claims? Readers with the stomach for geochemistry, take a look at the sources and make the call.
5. Jeff Clements: “My Findings Downplayed, But Not Misquoted”
A rare note of honesty: Clements, a Canadian marine biologist, says the DOE accurately described his findings that acidification impacts on fish behavior have been exaggerated. He simply wants the DOE to make clear that his conclusion about “relatively unaffected” fish behavior doesn’t mean all ocean species are equally safe:
“I want to make it clear that our results should not be interpreted to mean ocean acidification (or climate change more generally) is not a problem…”
The DOE report, for its part, cites Clements’ meta-analyses and notes the one-sidedness and exaggeration of acidification impact claims in the literature, including the “decline effect” in publication trends.
6. Richard Seager: “Models Getting Tropical Pacific Wrong”
Seager, of Columbia, objects to the use of his work in two ways:
“I think acceptance has been growing that the models have been getting something wrong in the tropical Pacific… what this means for the future however is very much an area of intense research.”
He also claims a separate study on crop yields was “misrepresented.”
Once again, specifics are scarce. The DOE report’s criticism of model-observation discrepancies is heavily footnoted, with direct citations to the source literature on model errors. Readers: Please bring your microscope.
7. Michael Mann and Andrew Dessler: “Cherry-Picking and Contrarianism”
Michael Mann doesn’t mince words, calling the report:
“a deeply misleading antiscientific narrative, built on deceptive arguments, misrepresented datasets, and distortion of actual scientific understanding. Then they dressed it up with dubious graphics composed of selective, cherry-picked data.”
Andrew Dessler echoes the complaint that the authors are “widely recognized contrarians who don’t represent the mainstream scientific consensus” and that “cherry-picking” is rampant—without ever detailing a single concrete example from the text.
What Do These Accusations Have in Common?
- Vagueness: Most complaints are light on specifics. Only a handful (Hausfather, Ward, Krissansen-Totton, Clements) offer any details, and even those are open to interpretation.
- Context Wars: Much of the outrage hinges on whether the DOE report failed to recite every caveat or to frame findings in the most alarming way. This is a demand for narrative control, not evidence of actual “misuse.”
- Definitional Games: Accusations of “misrepresentation” often mean “I don’t like the implication,” not that the quote or citation is inaccurate.
How Readers Can Help
WUWT readers have the perfect opportunity to do what the Blob won’t: read the sources and compare. If you want to participate:
- Select one of the above claims.
- Read the relevant section in the DOE report and compare to the original scientific paper or its abstract.
- Evaluate whether the report misquoted, mischaracterized, or “cherry-picked.”
- Post your findings in the comments, with quotes or page references.
We’ll highlight the best contributions in a future post. WUWT can lead the way in fact-checking the fact-checkers.
Final Word: Sunlight or Slogan?
The Blob’s “misuse” narrative is just that: a narrative. It’s not supported by much in the way of evidence, and it smacks of a defensive reflex against any challenge to climate orthodoxy. If the DOE report is guilty of scientific malpractice, it should be easy to demonstrate—with specifics. The fact that critics rarely do so tells its own story.
Let’s have a real debate, with real facts, in real context. Read, compare, and decide for yourself. If the DOE report “twisted” the science, it will be obvious to any fair-minded reader. If not, perhaps it’s time the Blob found a new talking point.
References
All quotes and specifics above are sourced directly from:
Let’s see if the Blob is ready for a real audit—or just another round of hashtag activism.
Related
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.