Energy chief suggests Trump administration is altering previously published climate reports; staff for next iteration all fired already

Hans Blaster · Aug 16, 2025

Tuur said:
First, since you said you never heard of the Schon scandal, here's what Wikipedia has to say:

Schön scandal - Wikipedia

Mmm-kay. People sometimes commit fraud and they also get caught. The fraud apparently caught the eyes of people in the field immediately as noted in the wikipedia article you just linked "Soon after Schön published his work on single-molecule semiconductors, others in the physics community alleged that his data contained anomalies." Which is followed by details that aren't relevant to our discussion.

Tuur said:
Second, saying the science comes primarily from non-science sources overlooks how propaganda usually involves cherry-picking. Take only that which promotes the policy you desire and overlook the rest.

Again, the "propaganda" claim needs to be demonstrated. You are assuming it.

Tuur said:
So it is that odds are good that you never heard of a study back in 2011 found climate models had an accuracy of less than a random walk.

I've not heard of most papers. I get a list of new papers every day that accumuates to over 10,000 per year. If you want me to "recall" a study you have to be more specific (give a link). (And the phrase "accuracy of less than a random walk" is meaningless. Random walks aren't how accuracy is measured.)

Tuur said:
Models have likely changed in the last 14 years so the study may well no longer be valid. The point is that, at the time, the study essentially flew under radar.

You're putting a lot on some obscure study.

Tuur said:
If someone is wanting to implement a change based on climate predictions, the last thing they want to hear, especially if they've invested a lot of time and money, is those predictions may well have been less accurate than guessing.

No. In fact the models from the mid-90s are accurate in the collective average (how models are actually used in climatology), when predicting the state of our current climate based on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. (All of those 90s models, like those of today, have versions for different level of possible CO2 emissions, only the ones from the past that were modeled using the CO2 emission levels that eventually occurred are relevant since the others were prediction forcings that didn't happen.)

Tuur said:
Climate models are science; the study that in 2011 the models were less accurate than a random walk is science, but telling one and not the other to promote a particular view, and that (with apologies to political science majors) isn't science.

Given I don't have the information needed to evaluate this I can't properly respond.

Tuur said:
Did I mention that study was 14 years old? Did I mention climate models have (hopefully) changed? I did? Good. Wouldn't want anyone to get upset.

Don't distort reality and you won't get harsh feed back.

Tuur said:
Assuming one party does it while another party doesn't strikes me like Art Buchwald's comment that when he poked fun an one party the other thought he was hilarious, but when their party was in office and he poked fun at them, they thought he's lost his sense of humor. All of them do it. Thinking that it's one and not the other creates a blind spot.

What?

Tuur said:
Just some advice from an old cynic who'll read "those" journals if they come up under science news.

What do you know of reading scientific journals anyway?

DaisyDay · Aug 16, 2025

You can compare the climate models predictions - starting from 1981 - to observed average temperatures: RealClimate: Model-Observation Comparisons

Model-Observation Comparisons

Since we have been periodically posting updates since 2009 of climate model output comparisons to observations across a range of variables, we have now set up this page as a permanent placeholder for the most up-to-date comparisons. We include surface temperature projections from 1981, 1988, CMIP3, CMIP5, and CMIP6*, and MSU/AMSU satellite products from CMIP5 and CMIP6, SST and SSU from CMIP6, and we will update this on an annual basis, or as new observational products become available. For each comparison, we note the last update date, and where the comparison was first discussed.

This is a collation of opportunity. To be included, there needs to be a pre-existing public archive of the processed model output for the historical period and projections, and at least one regularly-updated observational data source. Lots of these archives have been produced, but they are not easily discoverable, if available publically at all. Please let us know of others that could be included as well by leaving a comment on the latest open thread. You can use these figures anywhere (with a citation and link back to RealClimate).

See for yourself.

Always in His Presence · Aug 16, 2025

Hans Blaster said:
He did fire the IRS commissioner for not breaking the law this week.

Bold claim - it is either verifiable or slander - your response will demonstrate which it is.

A cursory ai search:

- Lack of Tax Experience: Long, a former congressman and auctioneer, had limited background in tax policy and was considered an unconventional pick for the role.
- Controversial Tax Credit: He faced scrutiny over his promotion of a pandemic-era tax credit that had been plagued by fraudulent claims.
- Internal Clashes: Reports suggest tensions between the IRS and the White House over using taxpayer data to locate undocumented immigrants. Long reportedly opposed the initiative, which may have contributed to his dismissal.
- Cultural Fit Issues: Long’s informal leadership style—such as sending staff-wide emails encouraging early Friday departures—was seen as unorthodox for a federal agency undergoing major restructuring.
- IRS Turmoil: His firing is part of a broader shake-up under Trump’s second term, which has seen seven different leaders at the IRS in 2025 alone. The agency has also lost about 25% of its workforce amid budget cuts and buyouts.
Trump has since appointed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent as acting commissioner while nominating Long to serve as ambassador to Iceland.

Hans Blaster · Aug 16, 2025

Always in His Presence said:
Bold claim - it is either verifiable or slander - your response will demonstrate which it is.

I really don't care. All the reporting is sourced to unnamed persons and "administration sources", so who can tell.

Always in His Presence said:
A cursory ai search:

Don't care what the artificial idiot says.

DaisyDay · Aug 16, 2025

Always in His Presence said:
Bold claim - it is either verifiable or slander - your response will demonstrate which it is.

False dilemma.

essentialsaltes · Aug 16, 2025

Always in His Presence said:
Bold claim - it is either verifiable or slander - your response will demonstrate which it is.

A cursory ai search:

Lack of Tax Experience: Long, a former congressman and auctioneer, had limited background in tax policy and was considered an unconventional pick for the role.

Controversial Tax Credit: He faced scrutiny over his promotion of a pandemic-era tax credit that had been plagued by fraudulent claims.

Internal Clashes: Reports suggest tensions between the IRS and the White House over using taxpayer data to locate undocumented immigrants. Long reportedly opposed the initiative, which may have contributed to his dismissal.

Cultural Fit Issues: Long’s informal leadership style—such as sending staff-wide emails encouraging early Friday departures—was seen as unorthodox for a federal agency undergoing major restructuring.

IRS Turmoil: His firing is part of a broader shake-up under Trump’s second term, which has seen seven different leaders at the IRS in 2025 alone. The agency has also lost about 25% of its workforce amid budget cuts and buyouts.

Funny. Trump appointed him to the position. You'd think he'd have known some of this.

Always in His Presence said:
Trump has since appointed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent as acting commissioner while nominating Long to serve as ambassador to Iceland.

And more firings have occurred.

Bessent ousts 3 more IRS executives, asserting greater control

The departures come as the tax agency has seen unprecedented turnover, including seven commissioners since January.

Always in His Presence · Aug 16, 2025

essentialsaltes said:
Funny. Trump appointed him to the position. You'd think he'd have known some of this.

And more firings have occurred.

Bessent ousts 3 more IRS executives, asserting greater control
The departures come as the tax agency has seen unprecedented turnover, including seven commissioners since January.

With the lack of proof, it can be considered nothing more than slander.

Tuur · Aug 17, 2025

Hans Blaster said:
Again, the "propaganda" claim needs to be demonstrated. You are assuming it.

(Raises eyebrows).

Umm...check out the original post again and the weeping and gnashing of teeth at the current administration removing previous assessments from government sites. There's your demonstration right there.

Hans Blaster said:
Don't distort reality and you won't get harsh feed back.

Oh, all it takes is to challenge a closely held belief. That's usually guaranteed to generate hostility.

Hans Blaster said:
Given I don't have the information needed to evaluate this I can't properly respond.

Validation and Forecasting Accuracy in Models of Climate Change, Robert Fildes and Nikolaos Kourentzes, International Journal of Forecasting, Volume 27, Issue 4, October-December 2011, pages 968-999. Here's a link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169207011000604

Hans Blaster said:
I've not heard of most papers. I get a list of new papers every day that accumuates to over 10,000 per year. If you want me to "recall" a study you have to be more specific (give a link). (And the phrase "accuracy of less than a random walk" is meaningless. Random walks aren't how accuracy is measured.)

Meaningless? Not really. A classic "gag" example is to have a chimpanzee or some other animal make stock picks and compare it with expert picks. When the animal, who obviously knows nothing about the stock market, does better than the experts, that gets picked up as a story mocking stock experts. Those animal choices are random, unless the gag is fixed or they pick up on unintentional cues from the testers. When the experts failed in these gag picks, they were doing worse than random choices. Obviously random choices are a poor way of managing a stock portfolio, and experts don't always do worse, which is why it's a gag, but it wouldn't even be a gag without the underlying premise that if someone is making choices worse than random picks, they might not know what they're doing.

Hans Blaster said:
What do you know of reading scientific journals anyway?

Offhand, more than you think.

Tuur · Aug 17, 2025

essentialsaltes said:
Funny. Trump appointed him to the position. You'd think he'd have known some of this.

Something companies face every day when they fire someone.

essentialsaltes · Aug 17, 2025

Tuur said:
Something companies face every day when they fire someone.

He didn't know the guy had no tax expertise, even from a legislative standpoint?

That can only happen nowadays because the only qualification is loyalty to Donald, not expertise.

Hans Blaster · Aug 17, 2025

Tuur said:
(Raises eyebrows).

Umm...check out the original post again and the weeping and gnashing of teeth at the current administration removing previous assessments from government sites. There's your demonstration right there.

Oh, all it takes is to challenge a closely held belief. That's usually guaranteed to generate hostility.

The administration's general apathy to science is well known as is their affinity for the fossil fuel industry that has funded anti-climate change propaganda for decades.

Tuur said:
Validation and Forecasting Accuracy in Models of Climate Change, Robert Fildes and Nikolaos Kourentzes, International Journal of Forecasting, Volume 27, Issue 4, October-December 2011, pages 968-999. Here's a link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169207011000604

Thanks. I have read the first two sections and will pick up more of it later. I'm refreshing my knowledge of the terminology as I haven't looked into climate modeling in a few years and my old training is, well, old.

Tuur said:
Meaningless? Not really. A classic "gag" example is to have a chimpanzee or some other animal make stock picks and compare it with expert picks. When the animal, who obviously knows nothing about the stock market, does better than the experts, that gets picked up as a story mocking stock experts. Those animal choices are random, unless the gag is fixed or they pick up on unintentional cues from the testers. When the experts failed in these gag picks, they were doing worse than random choices. Obviously random choices are a poor way of managing a stock portfolio, and experts don't always do worse, which is why it's a gag, but it wouldn't even be a gag without the underlying premise that if someone is making choices worse than random picks, they might not know what they're doing.

The example you give is a random selection or draw. ("no better than a coin flip" is a phrase that comes to mind.) There is nothing resembling a "walk" in your example.

Tuur said:
Offhand, more than you think.

That wouldn't be hard.

Tuur · Aug 18, 2025

Hans Blaster said:
Thanks. I have read the first two sections and will pick up more of it later. I'm refreshing my knowledge of the terminology as I haven't looked into climate modeling in a few years and my old training is, well, old.

You're welcome. Just keep in mind that the study is fourteen years old, with (hopefully) different models now.

Here's another that I'll toss out with the "Dubious" label: came across some late 20th Century claims that min/max temperature itself is a random walk, which doesn't quite ring true to me unless they're talking about it like a drunk staggering to a light pole: He might be all over the street getting there, but he does get there. Have not read them; just don't be surprised if you come across it.

Hans Blaster said:
That wouldn't be hard.

DaisyDay · Aug 18, 2025

Tuur said:
Validation and Forecasting Accuracy in Models of Climate Change, Robert Fildes and Nikolaos Kourentzes, International Journal of Forecasting, Volume 27, Issue 4, October-December 2011, pages 968-999. Here's a link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169207011000604

From the link:

Cited by (0)

No other researchers found this ancient article worth citing.

Tuur · Aug 18, 2025

DaisyDay said:
From the link:

Cited by (0)

No other researchers found this ancient article worth citing.

If we have reached the point where science depends on consensus rather than veracity, then it is truly dead.

RocksInMyHead · Aug 18, 2025

Tuur said:
If we have reached the point where science depends on consensus rather than veracity, then it is truly dead.

Science doesn't depend on consensus, but consensus tends to develop around ideas that are correct and significant. If no one is citing your work - especially after over a decade - then it's most likely insignificant, irrelevant, repetitive, or straight up wrong.

DaisyDay · Aug 19, 2025

Tuur said:
If we have reached the point where science depends on consensus rather than veracity, then it is truly dead.

It's not a very important paper from fifteen years ago. Who could have been expected to have heard of this one?

Job 33:6 · Aug 26, 2025

essentialsaltes said:
LINK

Energy Sec. Chris Wright said Tuesday night the Trump administration is updating the National Climate Assessments that have been previously published, which the administration recently removed from government websites.

The National Climate Assessments are congressionally mandated research reports authored by hundreds of scientists and experts, intended to inform the country of the latest climate science and the current and future impacts of climate change in the US. The reports take years to research, draft and publish and go through multiple rounds of peer review, with all 13 federal agencies that conduct climate research. An independent National Academy of Sciences panel signs off on the content.

The first Trump administration signed off on and released the Fourth US National Climate Assessment in 2018, although it attempted to bury the report’s news by releasing it on Black Friday. The current administration has deleted all previous reports from government websites, fired the scientists working on the next iteration of the report, and recently issued a separate report compiled by five researchers that questioned the severity of climate change.

Wright told CNN that he hand-picked the four researchers and one economist who authored the Trump administration report: John Christy and Roy Spencer, both research scientists at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, Steven E. Koonin of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, Georgia Tech professor emeritus Judith Curry and Canadian economist Ross McKitrick.

Altering or revising previously published assessments would be a significant escalation in the administration’s attempts to wipe credible climate science off the record.

The best part of all this is that the west is still drying out. Miami is still having to invest millions in flood mitigation infrastructure. The ice caps are still melting. And it's still getting hotter outside. Oh and there is that part about CO2 levels over 1,000ppm causing cognitive issues. But I guess it's not a big deal.

Job 33:6 · Aug 26, 2025

rjs330 said:
Well after browsing the 5th assessment its obviously created by human caused catastrophic climate we change believers. So, its not accurate. It does need to be re-addressed without the hype.

How about just addressing the provable situation that the planet's climate is changing. What are we going to do to adapt to it. Since we didn't create it, we cant stop it. But we CAN adapt to it.

We've been told far to many times now that we had to do something right now or we'd be beyond rhe point of no return. Which was back in rhe 80s or 90s now. Which means we aee WAY beyond that. Which means we cant do anything to stop or correct it. We can just hang on for the ride and try to mitigate the impact as much as possible on all of us.

I believe that in the past 20 years or so, the US carbon emissions have dropped by something like 20%. Which is a pretty significant number if you think about it. So I wouldn't say that we can't do anything about the situation. It's just a process that will take a bit of time.

essentialsaltes · Aug 29, 2025

The new one's out. First review are in!

The Practice and Assessment of Science: Five Foundational Flaws in the Department of Energy's 2025 Climate Report

A Statement of the American Meteorological Society

(Adopted by the Executive Committee of the AMS Council on 27 August 2025)

Here we identify five foundational flaws in the Department of Energy’s (DoE’s) 2025 Climate Synthesis report[1]. Each of these flaws, alone, places the report at odds with scientific principles and practices. For the report to accurately characterize scientific understanding and to be useful as a basis for informed policy and decision making, the DoE must first rectify all five flaws and then conduct a comprehensive assessment of scientific evidence. Were DoE to do so, the result will almost certainly be conclusions that are broadly consistent with previous comprehensive scientific assessments of climate change, such as those from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM); American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS); Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), American Meteorological Society (AMS), and a wide-range of other scientific organizations.

The Department of Energy’s recent attempt to synthesize climate science has five foundational flaws as a scientific effort:

Lack of breadth across scientific fields.
Lack of depth within scientific fields and specific topics.
1. The DoE Report is based on an unrepresentative group of subject matter experts.
2. The DoE Report selectively emphasizes a small set of unrepresentative findings, particularly those that might appear beneficial on superficial examination. This “cherry picking” ...
3. The DoE Report extrapolates from a limited subset of findings to reach conclusions that do not follow from comprehensive consideration of the scientific evidence.

Decades of intensive research on climate change demonstrate that:

Climate is changing, and the rate and magnitude of change are unusual in human experience.
People are the primary cause of modern climate change, mostly through burning fossil fuels.
Climate change is harmful to humanity, and the threats to people and all life are increasing.
A wide range of response options is available that can reduce the dangers of climate change.
Those who study the scientific evidence overwhelmingly agree.

rjs330 · Aug 30, 2025

essentialsaltes said:
The new one's out. First review are in!

The Practice and Assessment of Science: Five Foundational Flaws in the Department of Energy's 2025 Climate Report
A Statement of the American Meteorological Society
(Adopted by the Executive Committee of the AMS Council on 27 August 2025)
Here we identify five foundational flaws in the Department of Energy’s (DoE’s) 2025 Climate Synthesis report[1]. Each of these flaws, alone, places the report at odds with scientific principles and practices. For the report to accurately characterize scientific understanding and to be useful as a basis for informed policy and decision making, the DoE must first rectify all five flaws and then conduct a comprehensive assessment of scientific evidence. Were DoE to do so, the result will almost certainly be conclusions that are broadly consistent with previous comprehensive scientific assessments of climate change, such as those from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM); American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS); Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), American Meteorological Society (AMS), and a wide-range of other scientific organizations.

The Department of Energy’s recent attempt to synthesize climate science has five foundational flaws as a scientific effort:

Lack of breadth across scientific fields.

Lack of depth within scientific fields and specific topics.

The DoE Report is based on an unrepresentative group of subject matter experts.

The DoE Report selectively emphasizes a small set of unrepresentative findings, particularly those that might appear beneficial on superficial examination. This “cherry picking” ...

The DoE Report extrapolates from a limited subset of findings to reach conclusions that do not follow from comprehensive consideration of the scientific evidence.

Decades of intensive research on climate change demonstrate that:

Climate is changing, and the rate and magnitude of change are unusual in human experience.

People are the primary cause of modern climate change, mostly through burning fossil fuels.

Climate change is harmful to humanity, and the threats to people and all life are increasing.

A wide range of response options is available that can reduce the dangers of climate change.

Those who study the scientific evidence overwhelmingly agree.

In other words any science rhat doeant agree with man caused Catastrophic AGW is bad and can't be considered.

1. This is probably true.
2. This is not true and hasn't been proven to be true.
3. This might be true, but we dont know yet.
4. This is probably true, like getting more air-conditioning to people would be good.
5. I'm sure they do, because if they disagree they wont get funding.

Energy chief suggests Trump administration is altering previously published climate reports; staff for next iteration all fired already

Raised by bees

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Model-Observation Comparisons​

Jesus is the only Way

Raised by bees

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Fact-Based Lifeform

Bessent ousts 3 more IRS executives, asserting greater control​

Jesus is the only Way

Bessent ousts 3 more IRS executives, asserting greater control​

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

Raised by bees

Well-Known Member

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Cited by (0)​

Well-Known Member

Cited by (0)​

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

The Practice and Assessment of Science: Five Foundational Flaws in the Department of Energy's 2025 Climate Report​

A Statement of the American Meteorological Society​

(Adopted by the Executive Committee of the AMS Council on 27 August 2025)​

Well-Known Member

The Practice and Assessment of Science: Five Foundational Flaws in the Department of Energy's 2025 Climate Report​

A Statement of the American Meteorological Society​

(Adopted by the Executive Committee of the AMS Council on 27 August 2025)​

Similar threads

Model-Observation Comparisons

Bessent ousts 3 more IRS executives, asserting greater control

Bessent ousts 3 more IRS executives, asserting greater control

Cited by (0)

Cited by (0)

The Practice and Assessment of Science: Five Foundational Flaws in the Department of Energy's 2025 Climate Report

A Statement of the American Meteorological Society

(Adopted by the Executive Committee of the AMS Council on 27 August 2025)

The Practice and Assessment of Science: Five Foundational Flaws in the Department of Energy's 2025 Climate Report

A Statement of the American Meteorological Society

(Adopted by the Executive Committee of the AMS Council on 27 August 2025)