The Sixth US National Climate Assessment

The Fifth US National Climate Assessment was published in November 2023 during the Biden/Harris administration. Here’s the announcement by Zeke Hausfather on X/Twitter:

The “NCA5” report begins as follows:

The Global Change Research Act of 1990 mandates that the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) deliver a report to Congress and the President not less frequently than every four years that “integrates, evaluates, and interprets the findings of the Program and discusses the scientific uncertainties associated with such findings; analyzes the effects of global change on the natural environment, agriculture, energy production and use, land and water resources, transportation, human health and welfare, human social systems, and biological diversity; and analyzes current trends in global change, both human-induced and natural, and projects major trends for the subsequent 25 to 100 years.”

You may well have noticed that Kamala Harris lost the subsequent election? Hence the Sixth US National Climate Assessment will be prepared during the term of the current Trump/Vance administration.

The first move by Trump et al. was for the US Department of Energy to commission a “Climate Working Group” to produce a report catchily entitled “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate“, which was published in July 2025. The authors of the report were listed alphabetically as John Christy Ph.D., Judith Curry Ph.D., Steven Koonin Ph.D., Ross McKitrick Ph.D. and Roy Spencer Ph.D.

Regular readers will recognise some or all of those names, and it will not surprise you to learn that there was plenty of pushback from a wide range of climate scientists. In particular, the “Climate Experts’ Review of the DOE Climate Working Group Report“, led by Andrew Dessler and Robert Kopp was published at the end of September 2025. This report begins as follows:

In response to the Department of Energy’s recent climate report, more than 85 scientists came together to submit a detailed rebuttal. Our motivation was simple: the DOE report misrepresents the state of climate science by cherry-picking evidence, exaggerating uncertainties, and ignoring decades of peer-reviewed research. Climate science is one of the most scrutinized and well-established fields, and the DOE report falls far short of that standard. 

Our review demonstrates that many of the report’s central claims—such as the absence of trends in extreme weather, or the notion that carbon dioxide is broadly beneficial—are misleading or outright wrong. We conclude that the report undermines science in a way that echoes past efforts by the tobacco industry to manufacture doubt. Our comment, submitted to the DOE, EPA, and the National Academy review, underscore the broad scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is real, it is already driving potentially dangerous impacts, and efforts to obscure that reality should not go unchallenged.

On December 17th 2025 Russ Vought, Director of the United States Office of Management and Budget (“OMB” for short), announced on X/Twitter that:

Subsequently Axios reported that:

The Trump administration plans to close the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, calling its research “climate alarmism.”

Why it matters: The Boulder lab is one of the world’s leading institutions for Earth systems and climate research, playing a crucial role in weather forecasting and climate modeling, and its absence would significantly impact U.S. scientific capabilities.

Climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe wrote in an X post Tuesday that closing NCAR would be “taking a sledgehammer to the keystone holding up our scientific understanding of the planet.”

Image: Tim Farley, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

On January 9th 2026 Colorado Congressman Joe Neguse issued a press release stating that he:

Has forcefully condemned the White House’s attacks on the nation’s leading scientific research center, calling them reckless, dangerous, and blatantly retaliatory. During last Tuesday’s House Rules Committee hearing, he filed an amendment to reiterate sustained federal support for NCAR. House Republicans rejected the amendment by a 8-3 vote. 

“Colorado’s research institutes and laboratories are central to the fabric of our state and our nation, and I’m deeply grateful to the colleagues who joined me in pushing back against the Trump administration’s attacks on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Center for Atmospheric Research. While I’m proud that we succeeded in ensuring the CJS funding bill rolled back dangerous cuts to NOAA — preventing irreversible harm to critical programs — I could not, in good faith, support legislation that fails to safeguard the extraordinary work being done at NCAR. Dismantling this institution would be reckless, dangerous and place the United States at a serious competitive disadvantage. I urge the Trump administration to heed our bipartisan call for a halt to their attacks on this vital institution — and I’ll continue to work with Senators Bennet and Hickenlooper and the bipartisan coalition we’ve built to protect NCAR,”

It is already crystal clear that Katharine, Zeke and the other scientists who produced NCA5 will not be invited by the Trump administration to write NCA6. Which does rather beg the question, “Who or what will be?”.

[Update – January 22nd]

Thanks to Gavin Schmidt on BlueSky for the heads up. According to a press release from the Environmental Defense Fund:

Newly disclosed records about the Trump administration’s “Climate Working Group” (CWG) reveal brazenly unlawful actions behind the creation of a report that underlies the administration’s attack on the Endangerment Finding – including evidence of at least 18 meetings held in secret. 

The records – which also show politicization, reckless haste, disregard for public health, and contempt for rigorous science – are part of more than 68,000 pages of records obtained by Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) as the result of a lawsuit alleging violations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act regarding the secret creation of the CWG and its production of a widely discredited report. 

EDF sent a portion of the records in a formal submission to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) late yesterday, along with a request for immediate withdrawal of the agency’s proposal to repeal the Endangerment Finding – which relies heavily on the CWG report…

The records show that CWG members recognized their objective was to “call into question” the basis for EPA’s long-standing determination that greenhouse gas pollution endangers public health and welfare.

The CWG openly injected policy and legal considerations into what was supposedly a scientific assessment. 

To be continued…

9 thoughts on “The Sixth US National Climate Assessment

  1. In a perhaps surprising turn of events, several “contrarian” climate science commentators have proclaimed their public support for NCAR on Elon Musk’s (anti)social media platform “X”.

    Ryan Maue, appointed as chief scientist of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration during Donald Trump’s first term of office had this to say:

    If you believe A.I. and numerical weather prediction are important for our economy and national security, then NCAR in Boulder probably is our best bet to compete globally.

    US weather modeling has been neglected for 20 years, and moonshot focus is needed, not dismantling.

    According to Roger Pielke Jr.’s profile on the Desmog Climate Disinformation Database:

    He started studying extreme weather and climate in 1991 at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, CO…

    While Pielke Jr. argues that he is not a climate change skeptic, and accepts that man-made climate change is a real problem, he has consistently opposed the idea that extreme weather events and climate change are connected.

    He had this to say to his faithful followers on X regarding the imminent demise of NCAR:

    Trump moves to dismantle major US climate research center in Colorado [are] ridiculous and dumb.

    Even “Snow White’s” old adversary Tony Heller insisted that:

    I have been one of the more prominent voices of climate realism over the past two decades, but this move has the potential to be a disaster for both US atmospheric research and supercomputing.

    Bulls in a china shop.

  2. A Carbon Brief interview in which renowned climate scientist Ben Santer explains why he has left the United States in order to continue his work in the United Kingdom:

    If the US no longer is willing to lead, is no longer willing to invest in basic monitoring of weather and climate, other countries have to try and fill the gap.

    We’re part of the problem now in the US, not part of the solution to the problem of climate change.

  3. The U.S. National Science Foundation issued a press release yesterday entitled “NSF Intent to Restructure Critical Weather Infrastructure” containing a letter addressed to the writer’s “Dear Colleagues”.

    The sub-heading reads:

    Invites concepts for efficient and cost-effective operations and management of atmospheric observational platforms, cyberinfrastructure and computing capabilities, and community training on weather and space weather modeling and forecasting.

    The letter begins:

    On December 17, 2025, the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) announced its intent to restructure critical weather science infrastructure at the NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC). NSF remains committed to providing world-class infrastructure for weather modeling, space weather research and forecasting, and other critical functions. As part of a restructuring of the research and observational capabilities currently operated by NCAR, NSF requests input from agency partners and the research community on the scope of work currently performed by NCAR.

    Atmospheric research at NCAR began with a vision developed in the late 1950s. Since then, it has evolved to encompass a wide range of observational, laboratory, and computational approaches to studying the composition and dynamics of the atmosphere. NCAR currently comprises seven laboratories located in Boulder, Colorado and operates the Mauna Loa Solar Observatory, located atop Mauna Loa in Hawai’i, and various ground-based platforms for atmospheric observations, and a suite of weather and earth system models. The NCAR-Wyoming Supercomputing Center (NWSC), located in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and two research aircraft (a Gulfstream V and an EC-130) are being considered separately from this DCL.

    NSF is seeking transformative and creative concepts that enable efficient and cost-effective operations, management and continued evolution of the following capabilities:

    1. Atmospheric observational platforms,
    2. Cyber infrastructure and computing capabilities, including atmospheric and space weather modeling and forecasting research, and
    3. Training and development for students and community members on weather and space weather modeling and forecasting.

    As stated in the December 17 announcement, NSF is exploring options to transfer stewardship of the NWSC to an appropriate operator; to divest of or transfer the two NSF aircraft that NCAR manages and operates to another federal agency; and to redefine the scope of modeling and forecasting research and operations to concentrate on critical national needs such as seasonal weather prediction, severe storms, and space weather. NSF is considering multiple approaches for supporting weather science infrastructure.

    Etc.

  4. The Union of Concerned Scientists has issued a press release stating that:

    The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a judgment today declaring that the Trump administration violated federal law when it secretly formed the “Climate Working Group” (CWG) and tasked it with writing a dangerously slanted report that the administration then used as the basis of its proposal to overturn the Endangerment Finding.

    The court’s judgment states that the “violations are now established as a matter of law” with regard to the U.S. Department of Energy, Secretary of Energy Wright, and the Climate Working Group pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).

    The court further declared that the “Climate Working Group was a Federal Advisory Committee, and not merely ‘assembled to exchange facts or information,’ but rather provided substantive policy ‘advice and recommendations’ to the Department of Energy.”

  5. The climate scientists over at Real Climate report that:

    For the first time, the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) commissioned a chapter on climate science for the manual they put out (with the NASEM) for judges, the Reference on Scientific Evidence (4th Edition). This week, a month after it was published, they pulled the chapter out after being pressured by 27 Republican Attorneys General. You can nonetheless read it here.

    You can also (for the moment at least) read the climate science chapter of the Reference on Scientific Evidence “officially” on the web site of the US National Academies:

    https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/26919/chapter/21

    The Real Climate article continues:

    Some background. The FJC is “the research and education agency of the judicial branch of the United States Government”. As one of its roles, it is tasked to provide educational materials to judges and other court workers about issues that might come up in court, and in particular, on scientific matters that one might not expect judges or lawyers to be expert in. They have codified this information in the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, which is now in it’s Fourth Edition. (Previous editions were issued in 1994, 2000, and 2011)…

    Of course, there are groups that would rather not have climate change discussed knowledgeably in the courts, and after the publication of the 4th Edition of the manual, the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee started sending threatening letters to all involved (Jan 16th). Additionally, a group of 27 Republican Attorneys General (led by West Virginia) sent a letter (Jan 29) to the FJC claiming that Wentz and Horton were biased because they have (correctly) stated that the “political sphere in the United States continues to be clouded with false debates over the validity of climate change”. Additionally, they were upset that there are no references to the recent DOE CWG report.

    Given the way things have been going over on the far side of the pond you will probably not be surprised to learn that:

    The Republican AGs demanded that the FJC remove the chapter, arguing that any official acknowledgement of the science in the Manual would prejudice their cases that are based on, let’s say, “contrary” interpretations of the scientific evidence (or no evidence at all). And without much ado, or even consultation, the FJC did exactly that, putting out an amended Manual on Feb 6th. The only note to mark the deletion is:

    The FJC omitted Reference Guide on Climate Science on 2/6/2026

    No explanation or excuse was noted.

    1. Thanks, Jim.

      On behalf of those f*cking idiots in my what is now a Christo-fascist dictatorship, I apologize.

  6. According to Reuters:

    https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/trump-directs-energy-department-issue-funds-keep-coal-plants-online-2026-02-11/

    President Donald Trump on Wednesday ordered the Defense Department to purchase electricity from coal-fired power plants in his latest effort to boost the coal sector.

    The move, which was announced at the White House as an executive order, calls for the Pentagon to form purchase agreements to buy electricity from coal-fired power plants for an unspecified amount.

    The president also announced that the Energy Department will provide six coal plants in Kentucky, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia and West Virginia with $175 million for upgrades…

    Trump has declared an “energy emergency” to justify moves to keep open aging coal plants that have been set for closure and exempt aging coal plants from key air regulations. Trump has also removed tax incentives for wind and solar projects and his administration has slow-walked permits for renewable energy on federal land, as well as private and state lands…

    On Wednesday, Trump also announced that the Tennessee Valley Authority, the country’s largest public utility, plans to delay the closure of two of its older coal-fired power plants in Tennessee.

  7. The United States’ alleged Environmental Protection Agency has just issued a press release, which reads in part as follows:

    Alongside President Trump in the White House’s Roosevelt Room, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history. In this final rule, EPA is saving American taxpayers over $1.3 trillion, eliminating both the Obama-era 2009 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding and all subsequent federal GHG emission standards for all vehicles and engines of model years 2012 to 2027 and beyond. The action also eliminates all off-cycle credits, including for the almost universally hated start-stop feature. EPA’s historic move restores consumer choice, makes more affordable vehicles available for American families, and decreases the cost of living on all products by lowering the cost of trucks. This major deregulatory process included substantial public input and robust analysis of the law following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and West Virginia v. EPA.

    In finalizing this rule, EPA carefully considered and reevaluated the legal foundation of the 2009 Endangerment Finding and the text of the Clean Air Act (CAA) in light of subsequent legal developments and court decisions. The agency concludes that Section 202(a) of the CAA does not provide statutory authority for EPA to prescribe motor vehicle and engine emission standards in the manner previously utilized, including for the purpose of addressing global climate change, and therefore has no legal basis for the Endangerment Finding and resulting regulations. EPA firmly believes the 2009 Endangerment Finding made by the Obama Administration exceeded the agency’s authority to combat “air pollution” that harms public health and welfare, and that a policy decision of this magnitude, which carries sweeping economic and policy consequences, lies solely with Congress. Unlike our predecessors, the Trump EPA is committed to following the law exactly as it is written and as Congress intended—not as others might wish it to be.

    Etc. etc.

    Plus some “small print” at the end:

    Major Supreme Court decisions… including Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, West Virginia v. EPA, Michigan v. EPA, and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, have significantly clarified the scope of EPA’s authority under the CAA and made clear that the interpretive moves the Endangerment Finding used to launch an unprecedented course of regulation were unlawful. The decisions emphasized that statutes have a single, best meaning fixed at the time of enactment; that major policy determinations must be made by Congress, not by administrative agencies, and that agencies cannot bury their heads in the sand as to the consequences of their actions when considering regulations that impose immense costs.

    Irony is not dead?

    Yet.

  8. In recent article in The Atlantic Brett Simpson bemoans “The Blind Spot at the Top of the World“:

    Last week, Thomas E. Dans, the recently appointed chair of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, showed up unexpectedly in Tromsø, Norway, at an annual conference about the Arctic’s future. He had flown in from Mar-a-Lago and, he told me, was there to observe. The next day, he watched as Åsa Rennermalm, a Rutgers University professor who studies polar regions, sat onstage with European foreign ministers and spoke out against cuts to U.S. science funding.

    “A leading US Arctic scientist is on stage absolutely ripping her country to the delight of the audience,” Dans wrote on X. “Embarrassing.” He punctuated his post with an American-flag emoji.

    When I asked him at the conference about his plans in his new job—the commission’s main function is advising the federal government on what Arctic science to pursue—he said that future research will put America first and focus on the economic opportunities of the north. In a later email, he emphasized investments in Arctic military and energy security. “Under President Trump, our expansive Arctic research enterprise, across the entirety of the U.S. government enterprise, is increasing not decreasing,” he wrote…

    In the past year, the government’s own scientists, as well as scientists who depended on federal funding, have had to leave the region in droves, while thousands of federal data sets have vanished without warning, including many key to climate research. One day last May, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced that the Sea Ice Index, a nearly half-century-long archive kept by one of its centers, would no longer be maintained or updated. In December, when NOAA quietly published its 20th-anniversary Arctic Report Card, it not only detailed record-high temperatures and record-low winter sea-ice cover, but also indexed the report’s own at-risk projects, threatened by U.S. staffing and budget cuts—including, for instance, a sea-ice-monitoring satellite system already scheduled for decommission…

    Given the Trump administration’s aggressive approach to Arctic politics, any wariness about continuing to share data would be unsurprising. But not even American scientists can access the decades-long data sets they’ve removed, nor is it clear that those data sets exist anymore. To [Rolf] Rødven, “the U.S. situation is much worse” than the 2022 breakdown in Russian science collaboration. Russia is still collecting key data, even if other countries can’t currently access the information. The Trump administration has been planning to pull carbon-measuring satellites out of the sky. European institutions are now preparing for a future without American data: The Norwegian Meteorological Institute, for example, has been downloading still-online NOAA and NASA data sets to its own servers; the European Space Agency, [Morven] Muilwijk said, “is really stepping up” with its satellite data sets. But these efforts may not be enough to patch the holes the U.S. is leaving behind.

    Etc. etc.

Leave a Reply to Jim Hunt Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 8 MB. You can upload: image. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.