Posted on 22 September 2025 by Ken Rice

This is a re-post from *And Then There’s Physics*.

—

It seems that the US Department of Energy has now disbanded the Climate Working Group that drafted the report I discussed in this post. However, about a week ago, Steven Koonin, one of the authors of the report, had an article in the Wall Street Journal titled *At Long Last, Clarity on Climate*.

Clarity is a bit of a stretch. Personally, I think it more muddied the waters than brought clarity.

A general point that I didn’t really make in my previous post (and that has just been highlighted in a comment) is that the report is explicitly focused on the US. The richest country in the world is probably more resilient than most others and could well decide that it’s better to deal with the impacts of climate change than committing too much now to avoiding them.

I happen to disagree with this, as I think it ignores how the US has benefited from something that will negatively impact others. It also ignores that countries can’t really exist in isolation, and overlooks potentially severe outcomes that even a wealthy country will struggle to handle.

However, I can see how some might conclude this, although it would be good if the report were much more explicit about these assumptions.

—

What I thought I would do is try to address some of the claims and conclusions made in Steven Koonin’s article.

There’s an element of “truthiness” to the article; some claims may be true, but they don’t really support the argument being made.

For example, he says:

> “While global sea levels have risen about 8 inches since 1900, aggregate U.S. tide-gauge data don’t show the long-term acceleration expected from a warming globe.”

U.S. tide-gauges may indeed not show the expected long-term acceleration, but the rate of global sea-level rise is indeed accelerating.

Similarly, he says that:

> “Data aggregated over the continental U.S. show no significant long-term trends in most extreme weather events. Claims of more frequent or intense hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and dryness in America aren’t supported by historical records.”

Some of these statements — like “no long-term trends” and “historical records” — may be technically true. However, numerous studies have shown that climate change has affected extreme events in North America.

You can find many examples in this Carbon Brief article that maps how climate change affects extreme weather around the world.

—

He also claims that:

> “Natural climate variability, data limitations and model deficiencies complicate efforts to attribute specific climate changes or extreme events to human CO2 emissions.”

I suspect these factors do indeed complicate efforts, but so what? It is complicated, but that doesn’t mean that studies haven’t been done that demonstrate human CO2 emissions are driving climate change and influencing extreme events.

—

I’ll end this section with a comment about something he says regarding climate models:

> “Complex climate models provide limited guidance on the climate’s response to rising carbon-dioxide levels. Overly sensitive models, often using extreme scenarios, have exaggerated future warming projections and consequences.”

There is a “hot model” problem, but there are ways to correct for this, and climate models have generally been skillful.

Also, climate models typically make projections or conditional predictions because the emission pathways are inputs to the models. Hence, the results tell us what might happen if we follow a particular emission pathway. These pathways range from scenarios where emissions reduce soon to those where emissions continue increasing.

To suggest that climate models have exaggerated future warming projections when emission pathways are inputs seems a little confused.

—

I’m not writing this to try and change the minds of those who think the DOE climate report was excellent and who believe the authors are some of the best scientists in the field. That would be silly and naïve.

I’m partly writing this because it’s a rainy Saturday afternoon and it’s a topic I find interesting. However, another reason is that I think it’s important to consider why people with relevant expertise can write something that seems intellectually weak and sloppy but present it as if it is a careful piece of work that provides clarity.

It would be easy to conclude that it’s simply dishonesty, but I’m not convinced it’s that simple or convenient. I wouldn’t be surprised if the authors believe that they have written a good report and that what they’ve presented has actually provided some clarity.

—

So, how do we have serious discussions about complex topics when people who are regarded as experts in the field can’t even decide on some of the scientific fundamentals or the significance of what the scientific evidence suggests?

I certainly don’t know the answer, but I do think it is something worth thinking about.
https://skepticalscience.com/koonin-providing-clarity.html