Net Zero: The Final Curtain Call in the US
In a whirlwind announcement that’s both headline‑ready and low‑key brain‑busting, the Department of Energy has just dropped a blue‑book that says the age of Net Zero is officially over.
The Blue‑Book Buzz
First out this week, the government’s newest report is a no‑holds‑barred blow‑away at what it calls the “settled” climate science dogma that has been wielded for decades. Five high‑profile scientists—think Nobel‑winner caliber—together flipped the script, taking on the math, the motives, and the very rhetoric that feeds the Net Zero hype.
This is not the kind of thing you stumble across on the coffee‑shop news feed. It’s the kind of paper that appears in the archives of a certain museum of policy, that, when you finally read it, you’ll want to shout, “What?!”
Why It Matters
- A systematic dismantling of the claims that make Net Zero appear inevitable.
- Methodologies that allegedly misread data and cherry‑pick results.
- Motivations behind a handful of activist scientists and the political players who’ve sold the dream.
The Media Response
Despite its ground‑breaking fire‑power, the report has been effectively left in the shadows by most mainstream outlets—yes, even the heavyweights like the BBC and Guardian. It’s like the best tip of the iceberg that no one chose to mention in a public meeting.
What We Can Do
It isn’t just a matter of letting scholars debate. It’s a concrete call to action. If we really want to shape our climate future (or just keep our politicians honest), we need to spread this new perspective far and wide.
Bottom line: The US has handed over the last loaf of Net Zero bread, struck down the ancient altar of climate orthodoxy, and left the world staring at a blank slate.
Unpacking the Climate Debate: A Fresh Take
Ever wondered why some climate reports feel like they’re speaking in code? A new study claims it’s not just noise—computer models might be giving us the wrong numbers on how our planet reacts to carbon dioxide.
What’s the Big Picture?
- Model Woes: Scientists say models don’t clearly show how much temperature shifts when CO₂ climbs. Plus, extreme weather isn’t skyrocketing.
- Sea Level Set‑Back: North America’s water bars look pretty steady—no big climb about the corner of the globe.
- Attribution Ambiguity: Linking disasters to climate change is tricky because nature’s own wiggle room plays a role.
Meet Anthony Watts
Anthony Watts, the man behind Watts Up With That?, has spent decades poking at what he calls the “settled” science. He claims this new report gives scientists the chance to shine a light on the hype that’s been dressing up data for years.
He’s proud that the report:
- Is written by real pros—researchers from NASA, IPCC, and top universities.
- Device-not a think‑tank or a grievance piece.
Why This Matters to Skeptics
Fans of the WUWT site feel comfortable with the topics. The new findings echo what regular skeptics have long been calling out: the “gigantic greening” of Earth.
- Plants thrive when CO₂ levels rise—especially modern studies that shout out the “green” side of the story.
- Some papers say 25‑50% of the planet’s surface has seen more lushness.
- Yet, the mainstream news seldom covers that. Even IPCC reports hardly mention it.
What About the Hot Topic? RCP8.5
Every climate paper out here starts with RCP8.5. It’s that “business‑as‑usual” scenario that’s become the poster‑child for doom‑scrolling.
- Now viewed as unlikely by many scientists.
- Turns out it lures a lot of “clickbait” stories—Gulf Stream collapse, coral bleaching.
- And some policy plans rely on this extreme path to push Net Zero like a bike‑spokes steering a long‑distance race.
Models Those Old Debate Wheels
For decades, around 35+ models across research communities have been quietly deciding the future of warming when CO₂ doubles.
- Problems? The projected warming ranges wildly—up to three times different.
- Because the spread hasn’t shrunk, people ask: Are these models useful?—many say no, especially for solid public policy.
Weather Attribution, That Shiny New Scare
The infamous World Weather Attribution (WWA) brand, funded by the “Green Blob,” leads the charge linking extreme events to human actions.
- Critics say WWA’s reports are unreviewed and tailored for litigation.
- They also highlight the low historical data—only a few years of records that are riddled with biases.
- When scientists dive into paleoclimate loops, they find it’s hard to distinguish real human fingerprints from natural moods.
Bottom Line
This fresh report argues that the climate ‑ and especially our assignment of extreme weather to humanity ‑ is far less certain than the glossy headlines tell us. While the science community is still churning out more evidence, there is a persistent thread of skepticism: the models might be too messy to judiciously guide policy.