A bombshell report from the U.S. Department of Energy has dismantled the foundation of “settled” climate science and exposed critical flaws in the Net Zero agenda.
Published earlier this week, the official document challenges decades of climate policy and mainstream narratives.
The report, covered by Chris Morrison of Daily Sceptic, was authored by five leading scientists with backgrounds at NASA, the IPCC, and top universities.
It directly rebukes the credibility of climate models used to drive extreme emissions scenarios and public policy.
Computer simulations, the report states, offer “little guidance” on the Earth’s response to rising CO₂ levels.
The scientists concluded that most extreme weather events show no increasing trend and sea levels in North America remain stable.
They also noted that climate attribution studies often ignore natural variability and are shaped to support legal action.
The report outlines how the Net Zero strategy has relied on alarmist scenarios such as RCP8.5, now deemed “implausible.”
This extreme pathway, widely cited in scientific literature and media, has played a central role in pushing aggressive climate policies.
Researchers warned that such flawed modeling has created 40 years of fear-based messaging to justify dismantling hydrocarbon industries.
According to Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That?, the study is a “comprehensive critique” based on peer-reviewed data and unfiltered analysis.
He emphasized that unlike think tank reports, this document has official standing and author independence.
Watts, known for uncovering the Climategate scandal, praised the report for openly addressing scientific uncertainty and model inconsistencies.
One major revelation involves the underreported global “greening” caused by rising CO₂ concentrations.
Thousands of studies have shown that higher carbon levels enhance plant growth, photosynthesis, and water-use efficiency.
In 2016, Zhu et al. observed a 25–50% greening of the planet, a development largely ignored by climate summaries and policymakers.
The report notes that this positive ecological impact receives minimal coverage in mainstream climate reports, including those by the IPCC.
Authors criticized the World Weather Attribution (WWA) project for pushing non-peer-reviewed claims designed for litigation.
Led by Dr. Friederike Otto at Imperial College London, WWA has been accused of manipulating data and using flawed methods to link weather events to human activity.
The report warned that limited historical records and untested assumptions undermine these attribution claims.
By examining paleoclimate records, the authors demonstrated that many so-called “unprecedented” events fall within natural variability.
They argued that selective reporting and overreliance on models distort public understanding of climate dynamics.
Critics say the media’s refusal to cover this report underscores a larger issue of censorship and narrative control.
Despite its official status and scientific depth, the report has been ignored by outlets like the BBC and The Guardian.
Morrison, who has published nearly 500 articles on climate and Net Zero, called the findings “devastating” for ideological climate policy.
He wrote that the report finally ends the censorship that has long surrounded alternative climate perspectives.
The report urges policymakers to reconsider costly climate strategies based on uncertain science and politicized projections.