BP
In July 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy released “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate” – a comprehensive assessment that challenges virtually everything you’ve been told about global warming. This wasn’t produced by a fossil fuel think tank or climate skeptic blog. Five distinguished scientists were commissioned by Energy Secretary Christopher Wright to conduct an independent assessment of climate science as it relates to U.S. policy. Among them is Judith Curry, former Chair of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech – the scientist who first opened my eyes to the climate deception back in 2020. Her rigorous questioning of consensus science despite enormous professional cost showed me that serious, credentialed scientists had profound doubts about the climate narrative. Now she’s co-author of an official government report that validates those doubts with devastating comprehensiveness. The other authors include John Christy who pioneered satellite temperature measurements and Steven Koonin, former Under Secretary for Science at the Department of Energy under Obama.
The authors were given complete editorial independence. No government oversight, no political interference. Their mandate: examine the evidence and uncertainties that mainstream assessments overlook or downplay. What they found contradicts the climate narrative so fundamentally that it reads like scientific heresy. CO2 is greening the planet, not destroying it. Cold kills far more people than heat. Climate models run hot by 40 percent. Extreme weather isn’t increasing. The economic costs of warming are trivial while the costs of climate policy are catastrophic.
This 141-page report, bearing the official seal of the Department of Energy, represents the most significant challenge to climate orthodoxy ever published by the U.S. government. The authors – with combined credentials including NASA medals, Nobel Prize contributions, hundreds of peer-reviewed papers, and IPCC lead authorship – can’t be dismissed as cranks or deniers. They accept greenhouse gas physics. They acknowledge human influence on climate. But they demonstrate through meticulous analysis that we’ve been catastrophically wrong about the magnitude, impacts, and appropriate response.
The significance extends beyond scientific debate. If this report’s conclusions are even partially correct, we’re destroying wealth, condemning billions to poverty, and restricting the very energy access that enables human flourishing – all to prevent a non-existent crisis. We’re trying to control a chaotic system that mathematics proves is uncontrollable while ignoring massive benefits from CO2 that are already observable. The cure has become infinitely worse than the “disease.”
No comments:
Post a Comment