A recent report in the New York Times states: "A federal judge on Friday ruled the Energy Department violated the law when Secretary Chris Wright handpicked five researchers who reject the scientific consensus on climate change to work in secret on a sweeping government report on global warming.

The Energy Department issued the report, which downplayed the dangers of warming, in late July without having held any public meetings or made records available to the public.

Hundreds of scientists, including researchers from the American Meteorological Society, a leading climate science organization, denounced the group’s findings as riddled with errors and misrepresentations.

Thousands of pages of emails and internal documents made public under the judge’s orders showed that the group had worked diligently to keep its existence shielded and met in secret more than a dozen times".

It comes as no surprise that the tactics used by deniers to sway public opinion are being exposed as "riddled with errors and misrepresentations".

Hi WTF,

From the very early days, as scientific research began to show that climate change was real, and happening faster that natural phenomenon allowed, alarm bells started to ring in the board rooms of Big Oil, Big Coal and others within the corporate world. Simply put the fossil fuel mob were very worried, as the attention stared to focus on man's contribution to the looming climate disaster. These corporate giants realised this could be disastrous for them! How? By the destruction of their profit hungry enterprises, the gravy train of mega dollars from their polluting businesses were in danger, what a real disaster that would be. You know what they did, knowing they couldn't directly discredit the science, so they attacked the researches, attacked those who disagreed with them, created false science. Lets say it was another case of employing the "Smoking is good for you" scenario.

A sucker is born every minute, and the deniers such the Useful Idiots they are, have been totally sucked in by the profit hungry multinational corporations, believing whatever they say.

Paul,

According to the National Library of Medicine (and dozens of other references):

"Climate projections by the fossil fuel industry have never been assessed. On the basis of company records, we quantitatively evaluated all available global warming projections documented by-and in many cases modeled by-Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp scientists between 1977 and 2003.

We find that most of their projections accurately forecast warming that is consistent with subsequent observations. Their projections were also consistent with, and at least as skillful as, those of independent academic and government models.

Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp also correctly rejected the prospect of a coming ice age, accurately predicted when human-caused global warming would first be detected, and reasonably estimated the "carbon budget" for holding warming below 2°C.

On each of these points, however, the company's public statements about climate science contradicted its own scientific data".

This contradiction and denial of scientific modeling and predictions has been going on for decades.

Hi WTF,

I use the tobacco industry as a prime example of misinformation tactics, we all know that now. The Fag mob were well aware of the facts about their product, and negative health issues regarding smoking early on, but they chose to engage in misinformation and lies to protect corporate profits. The fossil fuel industry has done the same thing, they allocate millions of dollars annually to propagate falsehoods to protect profits. We know that, but unfortunately millions of useful idiots, including some on this forum, don't, or choose not to understand. In fairness a few on here are as old as a lump of coal, ready to fall off the perch, and don't give a stuff about future generations. If I was one of them, I'd say, stuff it keep on burn'n dat coal!

It did not take scientific evidence to convince me that smoking was
dangerous when I was 17, I just had to listen to my mates and their coffs !
Plus the girls didn't like kissing the smokers !

This is the report that so vexes the we're-all-gunna-die crowd that they'll do anything to discredit it....

http://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/DOE_Critical_Review_of_Impacts_of_GHG_Emissions_on_the_US_Climate_July_2025.pdf

....except look at the data.

The issue is process and credibility, mhaze.

What people are objecting to isn't that a report exists, or that it challenges parts of the mainstream literature. It's how this report came into existence and how it was presented.

A hand-picked panel of five long-standing contrarians, convened in secret, with no public meetings, no transparent record, and no exposure to adversarial review, is not how serious scientific assessment is done. That's not "following the data", that's curating a conclusion and then publishing it under the authority of a government department.

If the report is as solid as you think it is, it wouldn’t need to be insulated from scrutiny. Strong claims survive being picked over in public, argued about in journals, and tested against competing work. That didn’t happen here. The process was opaque by design, which is exactly why a judge stepped in.

And “look at the data” doesn’t settle anything on its own. Data still have to be chosen, interpreted and put in context. You can use perfectly real datasets and still end up with a skewed conclusion by focusing on what suits the argument, glossing over inconvenient uncertainties, or treating minority interpretations as if they’re mainstream.

No one is saying dissent is forbidden. Science advances by disagreement. But disagreement earns credibility through transparency and exposure, not secrecy and authority laundering.

If this report really overturns decades of climate science, the way to demonstrate that isn't to sneer about hysteria. It's to let it stand up, openly, against the rest of the field. So far, the authors and the Department chose the opposite. And that tells us far more than the rhetorical "just look at the data" ever could.

Your contribution has accomplished nothing.

and still no attempt to look at the actual data.

Of course, that's what we'd expect, disappointing as it may be.

But the notion that all this should have been vetted in public prior to publishing is pretty funny. How many government reports have been published without prior public scrutiny? The way this works is that the report is published and then the critiques can evolve. Except it seems when the report challenges the one true faith. Then it must euthanised in utero.

mhaze,

You keep saying "look at the data", but you haven't pointed to a single finding in the report you think overturns the mainstream assessments.

Not one.

More importantly, you're mischaracterising the objection. No one is saying "government reports must be vetted by the public before publication". That's a strawman.

The issue here is that this wasn't a normal assessment process at all. It was a small, hand-picked group assembled in secret, with no open meetings, no transparent record, and no exposure to adversarial review, then published under departmental authority as if it reflected the state of the field. A federal judge didn't invent that concern. He ruled on it.

And yes, reports are often published before critique. The difference is that legitimate assessments don't go out of their way to avoid scrutiny during their construction. They don't treat transparency as a threat. They don't need to.

If you think this report stands on its merits, then great. Pick a concrete claim from it and explain why it outweighs the broader literature. Climate sensitivity, extreme events, attribution, whatever you like. But repeating "look at the data" while avoiding specifics isn't analysis, and it doesn't magically shift the burden onto everyone else.

And for the record, calling this "the one true faith" is just another way of dodging the same point. Science isn't protected by orthodoxy. It's protected by process. This report failed that test, which is why we're even having this discussion.

"but you haven't pointed to a single finding in the report you think overturns the mainstream assessments."

I didn't say there was one. Accepted shibboleths don't get overturned by one paper. It takes time.

But what is really happening here is that the gatekeepers of the faith are upset that the gates are being broken down as the hoax unravels.

Its glorious to watch.

Still no attempts to address the data, just assertions that it should be suppressed.

mhaze,

You posted the report, accused others of refusing to "look at the data", and framed it as something that seriously troubles the mainstream view.

When asked what specific finding you think warrants that confidence, you said there isn't one, and shifted to talk of "gatekeepers", "faith", and a "hoax unravelling".

That isn't disagreement over data. It's a substitution of narrative for analysis.

If you want engagement on the substance, point to a concrete claim in the report and explain why it should outweigh the broader literature. If you don't, then accusing others of avoiding "the data" doesn't make sense.

It's clear now that you're just making this up as you go.

"accused others of refusing to "look at the data",

Not an accusation... an observation.

"framed it as something that seriously troubles the mainstream view."

No that was you trying to misrepresent what I said.

The data in the report isn't new or even unsurprising to those with the will and the wit to look at data other than the approved versions. What vexes the people that you call 'mainstream' ( a give-away if ever there was one) is that the data was issued in a format and forum that made it more accessible in the face of strenuous efforts to suppress it.

You're still circling the same gap, mhaze.

Whether you call it an "observation" or an "accusation" is beside the point. You said others weren't engaging with the data. When asked which part of the data warrants engagement, you haven't named one.

And now you say the data in the report isn't new, isn't surprising, and doesn't actually overturn anything. Fine. But that makes your earlier posture even harder to square.

If the data aren't new, aren't decisive, and don't materially change the assessment, then there's nothing here that needs rescuing from "suppression", and nothing for others to be faulted for not addressing.

What you're left with is a narrative about access, formats, and gatekeepers. That's not a scientific claim. It's a political one.

So again, very simply:
either point to a specific claim in the report you think deserves substantive debate, or stop telling people they're avoiding "the data". You can't keep insisting both that nothing in the report is new and that it represents some great unravelling.

Back to you...

"When asked which part of the data warrants engagement, you haven't named one."

The whole report needs to be read.... especially by those who just believe the 'mainstream'.

"And now you say the data in the report isn't new, isn't surprising, and doesn't actually overturn anything."

Now? I've been saying that from the outset. Let me repeat... it doesn't overturn 'mainstream' opinion, just offers a different, previously suppressed, opinion.

"then there's nothing here that needs rescuing from "suppression".

The data is well known to those who have desire and wit to find it. The report is important because it draws it together for others to see the alternate view - and that's what so vexes the 'mainstream'.

If you think there's some aspects of the report that are clearly wrong (and remember, being different to 'mainstream' assertions isn't the same as wrong) then point it out. Oh wait, that'd require checking the data and we can't have that. Much better to rely on what the 'mainstream' tells us, n'est pas?

This is where it stalls, mhaze.

You say the report doesn't overturn anything, contains nothing new, and yet is somehow being suppressed because it's dangerous to the "mainstream". You also insist the entire report must be engaged with, but still can't point to a single claim that actually does the work you keep hinting at.

That combination makes substantive discussion impossible. If everything is important but nothing is decisive, there's nothing concrete to debate.

You're free to treat the report as a statement of an alternative worldview. Just don't pretend that declining to chase a 150-page document with no specified claims is avoidance of "the data". It isn't.

You won't cite anything from the report because you know there is nothing in it that will withstand scrutiny. And the longer you drag this out, the more obvious that becomes.

While not directly responding to this thread I would like to make an
observation somewhat related.
At this time of year, say Nov to March I normally open the bedroom
window to let in some ool air.
Being someone who has to get up during the night I am able to note
the state of airflow.
Almost without fail from about 7pm to 8am the night is absolutely still.
Only the slightest waft of air is seen. The leaves on the trees are absolutely still.
How the hell do they expect to power the economy at night on that.
It does not seem to be realised that the sun drives the wind.
Never noticed the yachts after a days sailing coming back to their
moorings on engines ?
So much for ocean turbines.

"yet is somehow being suppressed "

Nup. Never said it was being suppressed. I said it contained information that had been withheld from the general public and was now in a format that made it accessible. The report wasn't being suppressed but the data previous had been. That's why the 'mainstream' (a giveaway description if ever there was one) are so vexed by it.

"you know there is nothing in it that will withstand scrutiny"

Well if you think that's true and not just one of your standard unsubstantiated assertions, why not pick out some part or other and show how it doesn't stand scrutiny. Oh, but remember, asserting its not true because you don't want it to be true doesn't count.

Yep, you did, mhaze.

//Nup. Never said it was being suppressed.//

We're not going to resolve this because you keep changing the description while avoiding the same basic step.

"Suppressed", "withheld", "not accessible", "gatekept" - pick whichever word you prefer. You're still asserting that material evidence was kept from view, then revealed in this report, and that this is what supposedly unsettles the "mainstream".

Yet you also maintain that:

- the data aren't new,
- the report doesn't overturn anything, and
- no specific claim can be singled out as decisive.

That's the contradiction. And it's why the burden doesn't shift.

I'm not obliged to guess which of 150 pages you think matters, any more than a reader is obliged to accept insinuations in place of arguments. If there's a claim you think fails scrutiny in existing assessments, name it. If not, then this really is just a story about access and distrust, not evidence.

How about you just pick out what you thought was the most damning bit of evidence? Or, you could just keep squirming - because that's working so well for you at the moment.

"//Nup. Never said it was being suppressed.//"

Is this tooo hard for you? I didn't say the report was being suppressed just that the data and opinions in it had been had previously been suppressed.

Again, is this tooooo hard for you? The data isn't new to those with the wit and desire to find it in the past. I assume that counts you out. None of it is decisive because there is no such thing. The CAGW octopus is so all pervading that no one paper or set of papers will overturn it. And indeed we won't even know when it is overturned. It is slowly unravelling and increasing numbers are turning their back on it but we'll never have a eureka moment when the world suddenly realises it was all a hoax.

It is said that science advances one death at a time and this is especially so of CAGW. Too many people have staked and based careers and wealth on it for them to simply say, oops we was wrong.

But as we see reports like this increasingly hit the mainstream. more and more will just ignore the scare-mongers. Its glorious to behold.

In the meantime, its telling that, despite assuring us that the report doesn't stand scrutiny, you can't point to any examples where that's the case.

I know, mhaze.

//I didn't say the report was being suppressed just that the data and opinions in it had been had previously been suppressed.//

I never suggested otherwise. I said you are relying on a narrative that unspecified evidence was previously withheld and is now being revealed, while also saying nothing in it is new or decisive. That contradiction is the issue.

Is this too hard for you?

//None of it is decisive because there is no such thing.//

If there is no possible decisive evidence, then this isn't a scientific disagreement. Science relies on claims that can, in principle, be tested and overturned.

//We won't even know when it is overturned.//

That removes falsification entirely. A view that cannot be shown to be wrong, even in retrospect, isn't being defended on evidenti grounds.

//It is slowly unravelling and increasing numbers are turning their back on it.//

That's a sociological claim about belief change, not an argument about data or models.

//Too many people have staked careers and wealth on it.//

Explaining disagreement by motive rather than evidence is exactly how belief systems insulate themselves from challenge.

//Despite assuring us that the report doesn't stand scrutiny, you can't point to any examples.//

You've already said there are no decisive claims to point to. That's why the burden doesn't shift.

//It's glorious to behold.//

That's not an analysis. It's affirmation.

"I never suggested otherwise."

Well except for the multiple times you said otherwise.

"That contradiction is the issue."

Its only a contradiction in your mind. Otherwise it makes perfect logic.

"That removes falsification entirely"

The whole CAGW debate has removed falsification. That' why its no longer science and instead just a cult.

Oh by the way, claiming that "there is nothing in it that will withstand scrutiny" while not being able to point to any such thing is rather revealing. Its the stock standard JD art of the unsupported assertion that he then expects others to address.

Feel free to quote one, mhaze.

//Well except for the multiple times you said otherwise.//

I haven't said that you claimed the report was suppressed. I've referred to your repeated statements that the data/opinions were previously "suppressed" or "withheld" and are now being made accessible. Those are your words.

//I didn't say the report was being suppressed just that the data and opinions in it had previously been suppressed.//

Again, I know.

And that is what I've been responding to: your claim that unspecified data/opinions were previously withheld and are now being revealed.

//Its only a contradiction in your mind.//

No, it's a contradiction because you simultaneously say:

- nothing in the report is new,
- nothing is decisive,
- yet the material had to be "withheld" and is now unsettling the mainstream.

Those positions don't sit comfortably together.

//The whole CAGW debate has removed falsification.//

That's a philosophical claim about the field as a whole. It doesn't rescue the internal tension in your argument.

//You can't point to any examples…//

You've repeatedly declined to name a specific claim from the report that does the work you're suggesting it does.

The burden doesn't shift until you do.