Science is nuanced. This basic truth certainly holds for the field of atmospheric science, where the complexities of the airy environment are investigated.
The climate science subdiscipline explores one of the most complicated and serious issues of our time: climate change. Yet the story the public often reads concerning current and future climate conditions is overwhelmingly gloomy, even disastrous, and couched in terms of “settled science.”
Fortunately, a new chapter to the climate narrative has been written which highlights a more positive and reasonable perspective. A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate is a July 2025 U.S. Department of Energy document by a Climate Working Group consisting of five accomplished professionals in the fields of atmospheric science, physics, and economics.
To critique the argument that hydrocarbon-based fuels “must be rapidly abandoned or else we risk planetary ruin,” the Critical Review was commissioned to “encourage a more thoughtful and science-based conversation about climate change and energy.”
The succinct Critical Review report was limited by production time and scope. As such the report contains three brief parts covering “Direct Human Influence on Ecosystems and the Climate,” “Climate Response to CO2 Emissions,” and “Impacts on Ecosystems and Society.”
The report is amply referenced with peer-reviewed literature and frequent quotes taken from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Climate Assessment documents.
Although covering technical subject matter in science and economics, the authors deliver a readable public document. Clear diagrams and tables are provided with readily understandable text.
The Critical Review delivers numerous conclusions that can be challenged by organizations such as the American Meteorological Society, which has already released a scathing critique. Regardless, spot-on messages are found throughout the report that deserve careful consideration.
One recurring assessment within the Critical Review is the noting of small sample sizes, limited datasets, and truncated starting points for some well-publicized climate trend conclusions.
For instance, if a U.S. temperature trend is based on observations beginning in the 1950s, the substantial influence of record high temperatures in the 1930s are excluded, making recent warm periods seem more extreme. For extended time periods, a sidebar titled “Perils of short data records” illustrates “the limitations of using relatively short climate periods (~130 years) to assess the character and range of natural variability in general and of extreme events in particular.” And a case study examining an alternative explanation for the 2021 Western North America heat wave is helpful to understanding climate data interpretation.
Biased reporting is also discussed, especially regarding the use of the most extreme “worst case” climate modeling scenario as a “business as usual” baseline that hypes expected future conditions.
The Critical Review section on the “Vertical temperature profile mismatch” was of particular interest to me, since I produced a climatology (1991-2020) of surface-based temperature inversions derived from southwest Pennsylvania twice-daily balloon-launch data collected from the lower atmosphere. The report section alerts the reader not only to the dramatic mismatch between model results and actual measurements, but also the fact that the atmosphere is three-dimensional and more complex than most people realize.
Furthermore, assumptions and limitations — the knowledge of which is a staple of comprehending scientific research and putting results into perspective — are explored with respect to portions of the IPCC and NCA reports and related references. For example, models of the Social Cost of Carbon is an issue given rigorous attention.
Overall, the Earth is warmer with a measure of resulting deleterious effects. Humans have contributed to the planetary warmth, but likely not as much or in a manner as science gatekeepers assert. In addition to greenhouse gas emissions, a great deal of warmth is undoubtedly because of what’s termed the “urban heat island” effect, which has been acknowledged for many decades and noted in the Critical Review. This effect results from the replacement of green spaces with city structures, thus increasing the production and retention of energy in the exchange.
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES ARE POLITICALLY CORRUPTED
The Critical Review contains some fresh analysis prepared specifically for the report, so new independent analysis of these claims is necessary. Yet, on balance, the report highlights the reality that many poorly understood, interacting components affect the global climate and “settled” should not be appended to the “science” in this case.
The future of Earth’s air and its impact on world economies is still largely unknown, regardless of assurances of doom by certain prognosticators. At least A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate gives thoughtful readers pause to consider a more hopeful outlook.
Anthony J. Sadar is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist and an adjunct associate professor of science at Geneva College, Beaver Falls, PA. He is also co-author of Environmental Risk Communication: Principles and Practices for Industry (CRC Press).
