Birdnow's Aviary

February 04, 2026

Judge Suppresses DOE ADvisory Report on CO2

This was one of the most biased and brazenly stupid articles I've read Carlos.

I love this paragraph:

"What do the emails reveal? The Climate Working Group was organized by a political appointee at the DOE (one who was previously at the libertarian Cato Institute) and done with the intention of producing material that would aid the EPA with overturning the greenhouse gas endangerment finding. The group recognized that its members’ opinions were outside of the mainstream, but they viewed most mainstream scientists as hopelessly biased and generally ascribed that to their political views."

As if the original endangerment finding wasn't done in the exact same way for the exact opposite purpose.

The purpose of this group was to counterbalance the original report calling carbon dioxide a dangerous pollution that needs to be regulated. Why would you stick a counter-balance group with the same people who produced the original report?

Then there is this:

"There was some talk of having the group’s report peer-reviewed, motivated by an executive order naming that a necessary component of "gold standard science.” That discussion largely focused on thinking about scientists who shared their views and would give it a favorable review."

As if peer review is anything but a biased exercise these days. We know from the Climategate e-mails https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/climate-change/climategates-10th-anniversary-the-stain-continues/ that peer review has been subverted purposefully by the "hockey team" at a minimum (that is the name given the group of e-mailers in the chain which included guys like Phil Jones from the Climate Research Unit at the Hadley Center in Britain, guys like Michael Mann, etc.) We know from their e-mails that they were strong-arming journal editors to keep "denier" papers out, were making it so they could do the peer review and thus give thumbs up to alarmist papers and rejecting papers that questioned the orthodoxy, etc. We know they have been blackballing young scientists who dared question the orthodoxy. We know they subverted peer review in the case of Roy Spencer and his paper in Remote sensing which led to the editor pulling Dr. Spencer's paper and then resigning.https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/09/the_warmists_strike_back.html

I would also like to point out the SCOTUS ruling was made because the Bush Administration refused to challenge the claim that CO2 is a pollutant and that it isn't causing SCOTUS said the Clean Air Act was applicable. This is akin to a bank robber not challenging the fact he robbed the bank but said the security guard didn't have the authority to arrest him. There was no way to win with this argument and the EPA lawyers knew it.

As to the Ars Technica article, it says a whopping 85 "scientists" tore into the report - no mention of scientists who agreed with it. I'm sure if they looked they could have found an equal number. Shoot; the Oregon Petition had over 40,000 signators disputing man-made climate change and AT didn't mention THAT!

Do notice the author did not give out the names of anybody; that's because he feared a lawsuit, no doubt.

Also notice that every complaint made about this is predicated on what is essentially technicalities. There is no there here.

This big ARS article is what is the thinly-veiled politics masquerading as scientific reporting, not the report put out by this advisory group.

As to the advisory group, it does sound like they didn't follow protocols, which is a shame. But I would ask, were they actually a formal advisory group or an informal one? At any rate this is hardly the slapdown that Ars Technica claims it to be. And of course we haven't heard the argument made by the DEO - we were just given a few sketchy details.

This can probably be done better in the near future.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 632 words, total size 5 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment