The recent report released by Energy Secretary Chris Wright on the climate impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the U.S. has caused quite a stir in the climate science arena. “Outrage,” “pushback,” and “criticized” are the words used in many of the headlines about it.

To better gauge the overall opinion of the report, two journalists from the Associated Press asked members of the climate science committee if they believed that it accurately portrayed the current “mainstream view of climate science.”

Answering this question depends on how one defines “mainstream view of climate science.” If it is defined as the preponderance of climate-related publications in the journals Science and Nature, then the Department of Energy (DOE) report decidedly deviates from it, as both publications have been shown to be extremely biased towards alarmist climate narratives. Instead, Secretary Wright has performed a beneficial public service by contradicting the “mainstream view of climate science” with actual scientific evidence.

For example, the media widely asserts that extreme weather of all types is getting worse due to GHGs and climate change, yet the DOE report points to numerous expert assessments from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which prove that most extreme weather events in the U.S. do not show long-term trends and that claims of increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts are not supported by U.S. historical data.

However, when IPCC findings are inconsistent, the DOE report demonstrates the discipline to say so. Such was the case in the organization’s Sixth Assessment Report which is ambiguous in its assessment of the role of anthropogenic warming that differs between its chapters.

The value of the DOE report is its holistic treatment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and their effect on the nation’s climate, extreme weather events, and accepted metrics of societal well-being.

Consider the opening chapters that address anthropogenic CO2, which is accurately described as being at a concentration of about 430ppm and increasing at a rate of about 2ppm per year. The report openly acknowledges the role of CO2 as a GHG that alters the earth’s energy balance and warms the planet, but it also documents the expansive research which confirms the net benefit that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 have had on agriculture.

The report also takes a significant departure from what might be considered the “mainstream view of climate science” by calling the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 emission scenario what it truly is: implausible and unrealistic. RCP 8.5 was developed as an extreme worst-case, but its overuse as a “business as usual” scenario with extreme climate change impacts has resulted in many misleading studies and media reporting.

Another beneficial aspect of the DOE report is that it informs the public about the facts regarding climate science. Namely, it finds fault with those who invoke process-based reasoning and simple thermodynamic arguments to assert that warming is worsening extreme weather events. Because climate is the statistical property of weather over decades, single event attribution to climate change is not possible by definition

The AP reporters also asked members of the climate science community if they believed the DOE report was biased. In its entirety, the document follows the data, and this is especially the case for its transparent treatment of climate change projections.

For example, the authors describe in detail how the assumptions in fine scale process parameterization clearly reveal the significant subjectivity and inherent uncertainty in climate models. Such details allow for the report’s precise characterization of climate model performance. Not only do the models diverge in their projections for the future, they also are unable to accurately replicate the recent past. Awareness of these shortcomings is essential if we are to effectively use such tools for making public policy decisions.

Another indication of the absence of bias in the DOE report is its examination of natural, non-anthropogenic forcing and variability. The “mainstream view of climate science” tends to treat climate change as the direct result of anthropogenic GHG emissions only. Instead, the DOE report demonstrates a complete understanding of the Earth system by including content regarding the influence of solar radiation on climate, extreme events in the climatic record that occurred before anthropogenic GHGs were introduced into the atmosphere, and the inability of most climate models to accurately represent multi-decadal climate oscillations associated with Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

Regarding upward trends in losses from extreme weather and climate events, the DOE report accurately assesses that U.S. population increases and economic growth have been the dominant drivers, while technology advancements and infrastructure improvements have led to dramatic reductions in mortality.

Another impartial aspect of the report regards the relatively minor economic impacts of climate change that even the IPCC assessed. In fact, the authors point out the biased nature of the social cost of carbon concept, which fails to consider the private marginal benefits to consumers and society of CO2 that derives from the availability of fossil fuels. Public willingness to pay for fuels of all types indicates the value to society of reliable, abundant fossil energy.

Finally, in a stark contrast with the “mainstream view of climate science,” the DOE report is unbiased in its objective assessment of the costs, efficacy, and collateral impacts of any “climate action”, considering the nation’s need for reliable and affordable energy. The fundamental physics of the global carbon cycle dictate that even if emissions were to stop tomorrow, it would take decades to see a meaningful reduction in the global CO2 concentration and hence human influences on the climate. Thus, the authors conclude accordingly that even drastic local actions to reduce GHG emissions will have negligible effects, such that calling unilateral U.S. reductions “combatting climate change” reflects a serious misunderstanding of the scale of the issue.

For too long, the American people have been fed an unrealistic narrative that climate change is an existential threat that only drastic reductions in fossil fuel use will solve. Secretary Wright has finally got it right, and it’s about time that the U.S. supports unbiased and objective climate science.