Who wrote the Trump administration's sham climate report? Learn more in my latest blog about the record of #climatedisinformation, scientific contrarianism and ties to the #fossilfuel industry of the so-called “Climate Working Group” report authors. #climatedeception blog.ucs.org/kathy-mulvey...

Countdown to the number of days before Chris Wright starts referring to coal as "buried sunshine."

Well worth the time to read. Why logic doesn't work with many hard-core Trump supporters.

Outstanding work from climate.us.

The most powerful demonstration of the importance of EPA's research to protecting and improving public health and the environment is the administration's effort to halt and undermine that research. Also true for NOAA, NASA, NSF, NIH, CDC... www.eenews.net/articles/epa...

It's worth considering, but we need to be very clear about what we can and can't know in advance. For instance, projecting the responses of complex ecosystems over century time frames is dicey, to say the least (also true for climate change alone).

Ignoring facts that contradict ideology never ends well.

The Academies committee did a spectacular job of sticking to the science, demonstrating the solid scientific basis of the Endangerment Finding, and crushing Koonin's 'red team.' The committee's choice to simply review changes in the science since 2009 and avoid the DOE report was simply brilliant.

New from me on The Climate Brink: The Cartoon Villain's Guide to Killing Climate Action www.theclimatebrink....

ICYMI: NASEM is releasing its report on the Effects of GHGs on US climate, health, and welfare. This is in response to the recent, infamous DOE climate report. This afternoon at 1 EDT. Should be interesting.... www.nationalacademies.org/event/45701_...

Clear sign that DOE is going to completely ignore the 60k comments on their climate denial report. The full article is behind a firewall and I don't have a way to provide access. We'll probably see an open article before long. subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2025...

And it's not just independent and transparent expert review. The DOE report must follow EPA's requirements given its obvious connection to the EPA rulemaking. EPA requires public review and comment as well as expert review *before* the report is used in an EPA decision.

So...they want to spend about $30 billion (in 2023$) for three bangs. Seems like they've been taking notes from Elon.

Not just for the late night crowd. Evidently for the Secretary of Energy as well!

"There is value, still, in a collective response to Official Bullshit."

More than 85 scientists say that a recent U.S. Department of Energy report is full of errors and misrepresents climate science.

Hear, hear!

The expert review of the DOE climate report is exactly the red team/blue team exercise pushed by Koonin et al. Koonin’s red team clearly shows one thing: they’re at best beer-league weekend players getting utterly demolished by a blue team of top-tier professionals.

20 years ago EPA's research office was using remote control helicopters to measure fire emissions, until they were prohibited from using UAVs by Congress. Now the office is being demolished. It's not what Feds *can't* do, it's what they're *allowed* to do.

Funny how this isn't a problem with offshore oil platforms...

"How to design good institutions" - this is an issue that we need to face after decades of taking institutions for granted. The world has changed a *lot* since nearly all of our federal institutions were established or last restructured. Just restoring won't get us to where we need to be.

#Ohio Rally for the EPA Friday, Sept 5 from 330p to 530p (local time) #AltCitizen

Oh, boy. I suppose I'll need to learn what the term is for a gathering of cranks.

NCA5 authors: Not angry enough? Here’s more: EPA’s proposed rule to rescind the Endangerment Finding also went out of its way to defame the NCA5 and its authors, implying that NCA5 did not meet OMB requirements for quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of Federal scientific information. [1/3]

On July 29, Trump’s EPA proposed rescinding the 2009 Endangerment Finding, a pillar of US climate policy for 15 years. How did they do it? By using a 150-page disinformation document that distorts climate science & parrots fossil fuel talking points. UCS’s Carlos Martinez breaks down their tactics.

Way to go, UCS!

Informative article by Chris Frey, the most recent Assistant Administrator for EPA's Office of Research and Development, on the legal hurdles faced by the recent DOE climate report: theconversation.com/4-laws-that-...

This is a fool's errand, tho that may be obvious given who's considering it. There are already multiple versions of all the NCAs out and about and those can't be changed. But why not? They've already tried to hide parts of the Constitution they don't like.

🚨 If you're interested in working on a coordinated response to the DOE climate report, please enter your info on this google form 🚨 Please RT this so as many people see it as possible. forms.gle/BL9xUAfRxA...

Now, think about that. The very purpose of the rule being rescinded -- its "direct benefits" -- are not being considered as the "costs" of that rescission. That is just laughable. Hell, if you're going to ignore a rule's direct benefits, a rescission will pass any cost-benefit analysis test.

EPA’s proposal to rescind the Endangerment Finding relies heavily on a draft report from DOE. The report was written by a small group of well-known climate deniers and has yet to be reviewed as required for documents of such importance. Here are the key points quoted from the Exec Summary: 👇[1/8]

Revoking the endangerment finding on same day when 150 million Americans are endangered by extreme heat and all the bodies of people lost in the Texas floods have not yet been recovered may not have been a deliberate political strategy. Or maybe it was. www.nytimes.com/2025/07/29/c...

Russ Vought - the personification of Hobbes's phrase, "nasty, brutish, and short."

Excellent summary of how the effort to rescind the endangerment finding might play out, with frightening consequences that go well beyond climate issues.

It seems they're focusing on the legal basis for the finding, and not the scientific basis. They evidently recognize the strength of the science. The legal basis for rescinding seems weak, but with this Supreme Court, there's already six strikes against us.

It's not just turning the dollars to the states - it's creating an infrastructure for creating alternative facts they can use for their preferred policies. Real science and real facts get in the way of that, so they must be destroyed.

So here's some good climate documentation news for a change. The Fifth National Climate Assessment is back up on a government website, at the Climate Resilience Toolkit: toolkit.climate.gov/NCA5. Seems to be the full pdf, but not the web version. Did I miss an earlier announcement about this?

This isn't "gold standard science", it's crap standard science. Actually, it's not science at all. blog.ucs.org/julie-mcnama...

ICYMI Really need this one to get around. Discusses cloud seeding, geoengineering and more. Your Wikipedia reading, You Tube Watching relative needs this in their life :) Sunday reading at: www.forbes.com/sites/marsha...

Nice article by @leighkboerner.bsky.social on the administration's approach to undermining the legal basis for GHG emission rules: cen.acs.org/environment/...

I agree with @katharinehayhoe.com that the NCA was written for the American people, but won't be surprised if the Trump version is kept from the public. The law says it's for Congress and the President. I can see them writing their own version and using it internally to justify anti-climate actions.

Hmm. These seem to be different than the sorts of actions that my Sunday school lessons said were godly. www.theatlantic.com/health/archi...

Alas, the dude who's making these predictions seems likely to be a lead chapter author for the Trump version of the National Climate Assessment. 🤢

EPA’s two new websites on chemtrails and geoengineering are remarkably accurate and informative. Destructor Zeldin’s comments, not so much. Tho he was pretty clear that this administration doesn't support solar geoengineering. Curious why this is an important topic now. www.epa.gov/newsreleases...

No surprises here. Look for these guys to take the lead on a new National Climate Assessment that makes their denialist views the official position of the government. That will be the "scientific" basis for overturning the Endangerment Finding that officially designates GHGs as pollutants.

The letter to EPA Destructor Zeldin is not only proper, it follows his own policy encouraging elevation of issues that pose “a substantial threat to human health or the environment.” www.epa.gov/aboutepa/mes... [1/3]

In one form or another, this is happening to dedicated experts across the federal government. It will take decades to recover from the damages.

Just realised that from today (July 2) it’s now closer to the year 2050 then it is to 2000.

As @katharinehayhoe.com points out in her thread, there are numerous resources that were provided by the US Global Change Research Program's website, globalchange.gov, which has been taken off line. Your only recourse for USGCRP information now is to submit a FIOA request to OSTP.