Dear Secretary Wright:
Thank you for the excellent report on the state of climate science from DOE’s Climate Working Group (CWG) contained in “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate”. You have assembled a team of highly qualified scientists and their ability to encapsulate the vast body of climate change literature into such a readable volume is to be commended. It is a breath of fresh air to read a straightforward, comprehensive summary of the best available science from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and National Climate Assessments (NCA) with an honest detailing of the confidence levels and uncertainties.
Multiple-use Advocacy strongly supports the efforts of DOE to honestly assess climate science and the effectiveness of climate change policy and its impact on the economy. We are proud that the oil and natural gas industry has a three-and-a-half decade record of success reducing methane emissions. The Biden Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) credited natural gas and renewable energy in the electric power sector for the fact that total U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are 17% below 2005 levels, yet Energy Information Administration (EIA) data have consistently shown that natural gas has reduced more GHG emissions than wind and solar combined, delivering about 61% of the reductions to wind and solar energy’s 39%.
As you state in the foreword, the public conversation has veered far from the actual science. We commend your efforts to educate the public on the true state of the science, which usually runs counter to the alarmist narrative in the media propagated by activists. Those expressing criticism of the orthodox climate change narrative are dismissed as deniers, even if they are concerned about addressing climate change in a measured, scientific manner, as you are. You have had the courage to resist that pressure and by releasing this Critical Review, you are forcing those who purposefully refuse to address the full complexity of climate change science to engage if they wish to continue to shape U.S. climate change policy. You are indeed initiating a full, honest conversation about the actual science contained within the IPCC reports and NCAs, not just the political summaries agreed to by governments. This public comment period is a brilliant way to force a conversation with those who incorrectly assert that the science is settled. By simply highlighting the science behind the IPCC and NCA reports, the Critical Review clearly shows that it is indeed far from “settled.”
We have watched in dismay over the years as scientists who dare to challenge exaggerated claims about a climate crisis are shunned and silenced. Climate alarmists have developed a positive feedback loop using pressure and reputational attacks to silence countervailing opinions; scientific journals refuse to accept papers that do not contribute to the alarmist narrative; and government funding dries up for those scientists who offer a measured analysis of climate change or dare to offer unorthodox conclusions. Scientists are pressured to “downplay or even to misrepresent [their] research on the roles of climate and society in the economic impacts of extreme weather” because nuanced studies “might distract from efforts to advocate for emissions reductions.” Scientists are shunned for publishing accurate research that contradicts the alarmist narrative, so they purposefully follow the formula for getting published by, “shaping your research in specific ways to support pre-approved narratives than it is about generating useful knowledge for society.” No wonder a large segment of the public distrusts scientists and academia. They have watched scientists turn from dispassionate, objective seekers of truth to advocates for particular scientific and policy outcomes. We applaud your courage to stand up to the fray, and only wish there were more vocal support from the oil and natural gas industry for your efforts.
Should those who have shirked engagement with the Critical Review’s authors and others who are critical of the climate science orthodoxy continue to hide behind the very unscientific concept of a “scientific consensus” on climate change and refuse to engage in this comment period, they will choose to disengage from current U.S. climate change discourse. If that turns out to be the case, their disengagement should be interpreted as an inability to address the uncertainties, biases, and discrepancies in the IPCC and NCA science itself.
Further, the climate policies that have flowed from a skewed view of climate science and the “climate catastrophe” narrative would truly threaten human well-being as they seek to limit access to abundant, affordable energy. We appreciate your leadership reversing the misguided policies that flow from a misapplication of climate science
In conclusion, we very much appreciate the Critical Review and how well it brings balance to the public conversation on climate change. The criticism will be intense, but this conversation is too important to leave to the loudest voices who deny the true state of climate science and seek to impose a climate orthodoxy. Thank you for having the courage to boldly take on the challenge.
My full comment letter is available here:
