I still haven't read the bloody thing, and at this rate I never will, but happily CarbonBrief have read it for me. I'm going to assume that they've put their two best criticisms up front - you'd be mad to do anything else - and those are:The executive summary of the controversial report inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed”.
It also states misleadingly that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”.
Sadly, Stefan Rahmstorf was foolish enough to believe that CarbonBrief make sense.
But "CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed" is true; and "excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial" is also true. I mean FFS, "excessively aggressive" is almost by definition detrimental. These people are clowns. Of course, that doesn't actually make the report itself good; it just shows you how uselessly debased the "discussion" is.
Update
DOE Climate Working Group RIP says RP Jr and this appears to be true. With just a little luck, I may never have to read the thing; the virtues of prevarication. RP says "Based on my connecting the dots, the disbanding is the direct result of a lawsuit filed by the Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists arguing that the empanelment of the CWG violated the bureaucracy in triplicate act" which might be true; though if it is, it displays a considerably greater respect for the niceties of the law than the Trump administration has shown elsewhere. Perhaps, having got their headlines, and the test of the report, they just don't really care that much? Andy Revkin also comments. And Gavin says DOE CWG Report “Moot”? Perhaps interestingly, there's nothing on Curry's ClimateEtc.
14 comments:
"CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed" is true? Based on the range of common belief in the USA, of course. You might get a different answer in the UK or some other civilized place, or from more educated people.
"CO2-induced warming might be more damaging economically than commonly believed" is surely true. Because the damage function isn't symmetrical, this is far more important.
Oh, and some economics to ponder.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/12/how-the-world-works/305854/?gift=UXz-98yeZG1zYWv9OPYfe4KQMjNI7WSSqdu6d8SDhsc&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
I'd strip off the long irrelevant intro and the Rousseau/ Newton stuff. Then we're at (sorry) yet another attempt to argue against freedom again; this is an odd time to be pushing Trumponomics. Next step: while natural selection may seem clear and obvious here is a list of nitpicks...
Meh. On further thought, and perhaps to prove that I do think, I retract the Trumponomics dig and following.
IIRC, the IPCC said a decade ago that the impacts of climate change would actually benefit some developed economies for several decades before the negative impacts started to overwhelm the (admittedly slight) positive impacts.
Human caused climate change was a benefit to most at least to the time when it exactly canceled natural climate change. Oh, somewhere between 1920 and 1950. Maybe later if you want to match the Holocene Optimum climate of 6,000 years ago. We are past that now.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7
Future climate change is a different matter, of course.
Oh, and there is criticism of the DOE report than the DOE report.
https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/the-practice-and-assessment-of-science-five-foundational-flaws-in-the-department-of-energys-2025-climate-report/?utm_source=Subscribers&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Newsletter&_zs=OE4Mh1&_zl=Kh4MA#_ftn1
Missing "more"
Points 3-5 look good. 1 and 2 aren't so great. But I'm still impressed by how badly CarbonBrief did.
Then do better.
So then you agree with Curry?
https://judithcurry.com/2025/09/02/doe-climate-assessment-report-feedback/
The thick plottens!
https://revkin.substack.com/api/v1/file/726f601e-a5c9-4e90-b4ea-1e17dc643611.pdf
Thanks; though I think RP Jr had the word first. I'll add an update section.
Curry has posted an update by editing the post.
"Owing to a lawsuit that has been filed against the DOE by the Environmental Defense and Union of Concerned Scientists, activities of the Climate Working Group are currently on hold."
https://judithcurry.com/2025/09/02/doe-climate-assessment-report-feedback/
There doesn't seem to be any timestamp on when the post was edited.
Post a Comment