In a seismic shift for U.S. climate policy, the Department of Energy's (DOE) July 2025 report:
US Department of Energy: A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the US Climate. Authors – John Christy Ph.D., Judith Curry Ph.D., Steven Koonin Ph.D., Ross McKitrick Ph.D., Roy Spencer Ph.D.,
has delivered a fatal blow to the Net Zero ideology that has gripped Western policy for decades. Authored by five eminent scientists, John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer, the report dismantles the foundations of politicised climate science, exposing its exaggerated claims, flawed methodologies, and activist-driven motives. As Chris Morrison notes in his August 3, 2025 article, this official document marks the end of Net Zero's stranglehold on U.S. policy, challenging the "settled" science narrative with rigorous evidence and ushering in a call for transparent, rational debate.
The DOE report, backed by the authority of the U.S. government and the expertise of scientists with pedigrees from NASA, the IPCC, and top universities, is a comprehensive critique of the climate alarmism that has fuelled Net Zero. Unlike think-tank papers or dissenting journal articles, its official status and independence set it apart, as highlighted by Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That? The report confronts the politicised rhetoric dominating mainstream media, offering a clear-eyed assessment of climate science's certainties and uncertainties.
Key findings include:
Climate Models' Unreliability: The report exposes the limitations of global climate models, noting that they provide "little guidance" on how climate responds to rising CO2 levels. Despite decades of development, these models produce a wide range of warming projections (1.8°C to 5.7°C for a doubling of CO2), with no narrowing of uncertainty. This undermines their use as a basis for sweeping policy decisions like Net Zero.
No Surge in Extreme Weather: Claims of increasing hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, or droughts, are not supported by U.S. historical data. The report challenges groups like the World Weather Attribution (WWA), noting their non-peer-reviewed findings and admitted focus on litigation over science. Natural climate variability, not human activity, explains most extreme weather events.
CO2's Benefits Ignored: The report highlights the "global greening" effect of rising CO2 levels, which has boosted plant growth and agricultural productivity. Studies, such as Zhu et al. (2016), show greening over 25%–50% of the planet, yet this is barely mentioned in IPCC summaries, revealing a selective narrative.
Implausible Scenarios: The IPCC's extreme RCP8.5 scenario, often used to justify Net Zero, is dismissed as "implausible." This model has driven fear-mongering predictions, from collapsing Gulf Streams to vanishing coral reefs, that lack grounding in reality.
These findings directly contradict the alarmist narrative that has justified trillions in regulations, including the EPA's 2009 Endangerment Finding, which the Trump administration is now moving to repeal.
Net Zero, with its promise of zero carbon emissions by 2050, has been sold as a moral imperative to save the planet. But the DOE report reveals it as a costly, misdirected fantasy rooted in shaky science. Morrison argues that the report's release, timed with the EPA's push to dismantle climate regulations, signals a broader rejection of policies that choose ideology over evidence. The U.S., responsible for 11% of global emissions in 2025, cannot meaningfully alter global climate through unilateral action, especially when effects are delayed by decades.
The report also critiques the economic toll of aggressive mitigation. Far from being a panacea, Net Zero policies risk higher energy prices, job losses, and industrial displacement, evidenced by the UK's experience, where slashing emissions pushed industries to Asia, increasing global emissions. By contrast, the report advocates for innovation-driven energy solutions, like advanced nuclear and geothermal, over restrictive measures like wind farms or forced electrification.
The report has sparked fierce debate. Mainstream outlets like The Washington Post and Science have accused it of cherry-picking data and misrepresenting climate science. Critics like Zeke Hausfather argue that it overstates CO2's benefits (e.g., global greening) while downplaying risks like droughts or crop stress. Judith Curry, a co-author, acknowledges the report's selective focus due to time constraints, but defends its aim to redirect climate science away from "alarmism and advocacy."
Yet, the report's defenders, including Watts and Morrison, argue it restores balance by highlighting suppressed truths, like CO2's role in greening or the lack of evidence for extreme weather trends. They point to its rigorous use of peer-reviewed literature and its call for public comment as evidence of scientific integrity. The inclusion of scientists like John Christy and Roy Spencer, who pioneered satellite-based temperature monitoring, bolsters its credibility.
The DOE report is more than a scientific critique, it's a cultural and political watershed. By challenging the "settled" science narrative, it empowers policymakers to prioritise affordable energy and economic growth over ideological mandates. Morrison notes the mainstream media's silence, with outlets like the BBC and The Guardian ignoring the report, likely because it threatens the Net Zero agenda they've championed.
For the public, the report exposes the disconnect between climate rhetoric and reality. While Net Zero advocates push for sacrifice, the U.S. is poised to lead with an "all-of-the-above" energy strategy that leverages fossil fuels, nuclear, and innovation, to lift billions out of poverty without crippling economies. The report's call for "honest scrutiny and scientific transparency" resonates as a rebuke to decades of fear-mongering and censorship.
The report's findings suggest that CO2's impacts are less catastrophic than claimed, and aggressive mitigation may do more harm than good. As the EPA moves to rescind the Endangerment Finding, saving an estimated $54 billion annually in regulatory costs, the U.S. is betting on energy abundance over restriction.
In conclusion, the DOE's A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate is a much-needed call to rethink climate policy. By exposing the flaws in "settled" science, unreliable models, exaggerated risks, and suppressed benefits, it buries the Net Zero fantasy under the weight of evidence. Chris Morrison's analysis captures its significance: this isn't just a report; it's a rebellion against decades of politicised science. As the U.S. charts a new course, the world watches. Will this spark a global shift toward energy realism, or will the climate establishment double down? For now, Net Zero's demise in America offers hope for a future where science, not ideology, drives progress.