In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
<snip>

I?m afraid that you have totally failed to justify NASA?s

position that

water vapour in the atmosphere is both a Potent Greenhouse Gas, except when it isn?t, and it acts indirectly except when it doesn?t.

But then again, you have said you believe the experts, so all this for you
is a faith issue rather than a scientific one.

US Department of Energy report, 'A Critical Review of Impacts
of Greenhouse
Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate', challenges central claims,
data handling and motivations behind mainstream climate science
and policy. It asserts:

- CO2 has direct environmental benefits.
- Climate models consistently overestimate warming.
- No US long-term upward trend in "extreme weather".
- Ocean acidification fears exaggerated.
- U.S. emission reductions will have negligible impact on
global climate.

Can someone tell Ed that his $cience isn't settled?

Link: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025- 07/DOE_Critical_Review_of_Impacts_of_GHG_Emissions_on_the_US_Cl imate_July_2025.pdf
Analysis: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/07/30/a-case-for- climate-humility-analyzing-the-does-a-critical-review-of- impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-on-the-u-s-climate/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 20:31:07 +0100, Jim White <[email protected]> wrote:

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
<snip>

I?m afraid that you have totally failed to justify NASA?s

position that

water vapour in the atmosphere is both a Potent Greenhouse Gas, except when >> it isn?t, and it acts indirectly except when it doesn?t.

But then again, you have said you believe the experts, so all this for you >> is a faith issue rather than a scientific one.

US Department of Energy report, 'A Critical Review of Impacts
of Greenhouse
Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate', challenges central claims,
data handling and motivations behind mainstream climate science
and policy. It asserts:

- CO2 has direct environmental benefits.
- Climate models consistently overestimate warming.
- No US long-term upward trend in "extreme weather".
- Ocean acidification fears exaggerated.
- U.S. emission reductions will have negligible impact on
global climate.

Can someone tell Ed that his $cience isn't settled?

Link: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025- >07/DOE_Critical_Review_of_Impacts_of_GHG_Emissions_on_the_US_Cl >imate_July_2025.pdf
Analysis: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/07/30/a-case-for- >climate-humility-analyzing-the-does-a-critical-review-of- >impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-on-the-u-s-climate/

"We fact-checked the Trump administration’s climate report"
"Scientists say the report cherry-picks key data and misrepresents the state of climate research."


https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/07/31/endangerment-repeal-climate-science-report/


Thomas Prufer

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 03/08/2025 09:18, Thomas Prufer wrote:

On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 20:31:07 +0100, Jim White <[email protected]> wrote:

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
<snip>

I?m afraid that you have totally failed to justify NASA?s

position that

water vapour in the atmosphere is both a Potent Greenhouse Gas, except when >>> it isn?t, and it acts indirectly except when it doesn?t.

But then again, you have said you believe the experts, so all this for you >>> is a faith issue rather than a scientific one.

US Department of Energy report, 'A Critical Review of Impacts
of Greenhouse
Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate', challenges central claims,
data handling and motivations behind mainstream climate science
and policy. It asserts:

- CO2 has direct environmental benefits.
- Climate models consistently overestimate warming.
- No US long-term upward trend in "extreme weather".
- Ocean acidification fears exaggerated.
- U.S. emission reductions will have negligible impact on
global climate.

Can someone tell Ed that his $cience isn't settled?

Link: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-
07/DOE_Critical_Review_of_Impacts_of_GHG_Emissions_on_the_US_Cl
imate_July_2025.pdf
Analysis: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/07/30/a-case-for-
climate-humility-analyzing-the-does-a-critical-review-of-
impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-on-the-u-s-climate/

"We fact-checked the Trump administration’s climate report"
"Scientists say the report cherry-picks key data and misrepresents the state of
climate research."

Well it's the Washington Post. Pretty much owned by the GreenBlob

Who have been cherry-picking key data and misrepresenting the state of
climate research for decades. Along with the NYT.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/07/31/endangerment-repeal-climate-science-report/

Thomas Prufer

--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3 Aug 2025 at 09:18:00 BST, Thomas Prufer wrote:

On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 20:31:07 +0100, Jim White <[email protected]> wrote:

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
<snip>

I?m afraid that you have totally failed to justify NASA?s

position that

water vapour in the atmosphere is both a Potent Greenhouse Gas, except when >>> it isn?t, and it acts indirectly except when it doesn?t.

But then again, you have said you believe the experts, so all this for you >>> is a faith issue rather than a scientific one.

US Department of Energy report, 'A Critical Review of Impacts
of Greenhouse
Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate', challenges central claims,
data handling and motivations behind mainstream climate science
and policy. It asserts:

- CO2 has direct environmental benefits.
- Climate models consistently overestimate warming.
- No US long-term upward trend in "extreme weather".
- Ocean acidification fears exaggerated.
- U.S. emission reductions will have negligible impact on
global climate.

Can someone tell Ed that his $cience isn't settled?

Link: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-
07/DOE_Critical_Review_of_Impacts_of_GHG_Emissions_on_the_US_Cl
imate_July_2025.pdf
Analysis: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/07/30/a-case-for-
climate-humility-analyzing-the-does-a-critical-review-of-
impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-on-the-u-s-climate/

"We fact-checked the Trump administration’s climate report"
"Scientists say the report cherry-picks key data and misrepresents the state of
climate research."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/07/31/endangerment-repeal-climate-science-report/

I didn't think it was that bad. Some quite considered analysis, insofar as I understand the science. But overemphasised CO2, and underemphasised other variables.

Its main purpose was, I feel, to underpin accelerated investment in the use
and extraction of fossil fuels, rather than an outright denial of
anthropogenic climate change.


--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Thomas Prufer <[email protected]d> wrote:

On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 20:31:07 +0100, Jim White <[email protected]> wrote:

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
<snip>

I?m afraid that you have totally failed to justify NASA?s

position that

water vapour in the atmosphere is both a Potent Greenhouse Gas, except when >>> it isn?t, and it acts indirectly except when it doesn?t.

But then again, you have said you believe the experts, so all this for you >>> is a faith issue rather than a scientific one.

US Department of Energy report, 'A Critical Review of Impacts
of Greenhouse
Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate', challenges central claims,
data handling and motivations behind mainstream climate science
and policy. It asserts:

- CO2 has direct environmental benefits.
- Climate models consistently overestimate warming.
- No US long-term upward trend in "extreme weather".
- Ocean acidification fears exaggerated.
- U.S. emission reductions will have negligible impact on
global climate.

Can someone tell Ed that his $cience isn't settled?

Link: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-
07/DOE_Critical_Review_of_Impacts_of_GHG_Emissions_on_the_US_Cl
imate_July_2025.pdf
Analysis: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/07/30/a-case-for-
climate-humility-analyzing-the-does-a-critical-review-of-
impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-on-the-u-s-climate/

"We fact-checked the Trump administration’s climate report"
"Scientists say the report cherry-picks key data and misrepresents the state of
climate research."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/07/31/endangerment-repeal-climate-science-report/

Thomas Prufer

The climate believers never have cherry-picked data, of course, like the
single Siberian bristlecone pine tree that was the only one used from the
batch of about 40 that were examined, and used to ‘prove’ global warming existed.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)