CLIMATE WORKING GROUP REPORT (DOE): NO CLIMATE CRISIS!
The current climate narrative is heavily exaggerated and lacks factual support.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
CLEAR FINDINGS
On July 29, 2025, the US Department of Energy (DOE)/CLIMATE WORKING GROUP, released a report titled “A Critical Review of the Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate.”
Since climate is a global issue, the report’s findings also apply to Europe, and other continents. You can replace “U.S.” with “EU”, “Asia” or “Latin America” in the text.
In the foreword, U.S. Energy Secretary Christopher White states:
“Climate change is real and deserves attention, but it’s not the greatest threat to humanity. As someone who values data, I know that improving human conditions depends on increasing access to reliable, affordable energy. Climate change is a challenge—not a catastrophe. However, misguided policies based on fear rather than facts could genuinely harm human well-being.”
The report was written by the Climate Working Group 2025, a group of five independent, highly qualified scientists with credentials from NASA, the UN’s IPCC climate panel, and leading universities. One author, Prof. Koonin, served as Undersecretary for Science under President Obama.
Key Messages from the Climate Assessment Report:
- CO2 is not a pollutant. Through photosynthesis, CO2 helps make the planet greener and boosts crop yields. NASA satellites show the Earth is about 25% greener than before.
- CO2-driven warming causes less economic harm than claimed. A recent study in The Lancet found that, across 854 European cities, 10 times more people die from cold than from heat.
- Claims of increased extreme weather (like hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, or droughts) are not supported when historical data is included in the analysis.
- Global sea levels have risen by about 20 cm since 1900, not metres, with significant regional differences mainly due to local land subsidence. Tide gauge measurements generally show no clear acceleration in sea level rise compared to historical averages.
- Estimates of the social cost of carbon (economic damage from CO2 emissions) are highly sensitive to assumptions and provide limited, reliable information.
- Global climate models are unreliable. The latest IPCC AR6 report’s models predict surface warming from doubled CO2 levels ranging from 1.8°C to 5.7°C—a threefold uncertainty. This wide range shows climate models are not suitable for guiding policy.
- Current CO2 reduction measures do more harm than good. Aiming for net-zero CO2 emissions is economically disastrous. Solar and wind energy are unreliable and unpredictable, requiring a backup energy system for when they fail, doubling the energy system’s costs.
- Linking climate change or extreme weather to human CO2 emissions is questionable due to the complexity of natural climate variability, a lack of reliable historical data, and flaws in climate models.
- Policies aiming for zero CO2 emissions in the U.S. have a negligible impact on the global climate. This also applies to Europe, with its smaller emissions. For example, Belgium’s efforts would reduce global temperatures by just 0.00002°C—barely measurable. Additionally, economies cannot run reliably on solar and wind alone. China remains the largest CO2 emitter.
Based on this evidence-based assessment, the U.S. plans to end subsidies for wind and solar and focus on fossil fuels and nuclear energy to create more prosperity for its citizens. The hope is that Europe will follow suit.
As expected, the DOE report has faced strong criticism from the climate consensus community. A lawsuit was filed, claiming Energy Secretary Chris Wright did not follow proper procedures to form the advisory committee. In response, the DOE disbanded the scientific group, but the five scientists from the Climate Working Group have vowed to continue their critical climate research.
source:
Climate Working Group (2025) A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the
U.S. Climate. Washington DC: Department of Energy, July 23, 2025
Disclaimer
The views and analysis expressed in this content (video, blog, article, etc.) are solely that of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of humani-well, the organisation, or other associated parties.
Medical disclaimer: you should not rely on the information on this website as a replacement for seeing a doctor or other qualified healthcare provider for a diagnosis or treatment. Nothing in this publication should be interpreted as a substitute for the advice of a qualified healthcare provider. Please consult a medical professional before using any information contained in this publication.
Please login to join discussion
We are an independent organization refusing sponsorships and advertisements, all to prevent any external influence on our research.