Aug 14 2025 – On Sky News Australia popular broadcaster and climate skeptic champion, Andrew Bolt, laments that the media is giving “little attention” to a new report on global warming out of the United States.
The report released by the US Department of Energy concluded that popular climate models are unreliable and the global warming is less damaging than commonly believed. “I’ve seen how the media ignores proof that the warming scare is grossly exaggerated,” Mr Bolt said. “You can understand why the authors have since been trashed for daring to doubt the scare and upsetting the climate industry.”
In his latest commentary Andrew Bolt argued that the media was giving “little attention” to a newly released report from the U.S. Department of Energy. According to Bolt:
- The DOE report concluded that popular climate models are unreliable, and that global warming is less damaging than commonly believed.
- Bolt lamented how the media “ignores proof that the warming scare is grossly exaggerated.”
- He also suggested that the report’s authors have been “trashed” by critics for questioning what he calls the “scare” and challenging mainstream climate science.
Broader Media and Scientific Response
Select alarmist outlets—including The Guardian, Washington Post, Wired, and Wall Street Journal—have covered the report critically:
- The Guardian described the DOE report as “a farce full of misinformation”. It notes that the report seeks to justify rolling back critical environmental safeguards and that climate experts denounced it as scientifically flawed and politically motivated.
- The Washington Post published a fact-check, highlighting how the report was drafted hastily (in under two months), lacked peer review, and was accused of cherry-picking data and misrepresenting broader climate science.
- Wired further reported that several scientists whose research had been selectively cited in the DOE report publicly criticized it for distorting their work, using out-of-context data, and pushing contrarian, long-debunked claims.
- The Wall Street Journal noted that the DOE’s report challenges consensus views—including those of the IPCC and U.S. National Climate Assessment—by downplaying greenhouse gas risks and questioning climate model reliability. The report is a key part of the Trump administration’s regulatory rollback.
Far from being ignored, the report has drawn strong, sustained attention within the media and scientific sectors—largely because of the substantive backlash against its credibility and methodology.
Summary Table
| Andrew Bolt’s View (4 Aug 2025) | Broader Reaction from Media & Scientists |
|---|---|
| Media is ignoring the DOE report | Coverage is cherry-picked and selective—major outlets are clinging to the failing junk science predictions of doom and gloom |
| DOE report shows models are unreliable and warming is overstated | Politicised ‘experts’ argue the report is flawed, biased, and politically motivated |
| Authors were “trashed” for dissenting opinions | Critics claim the report is rife with cherry-picking, lack of peer review, and misrepresentation |
Bottom Line
For years alarmists have defended the DOE as a bastion of trustworthy science. But the mainstream media has performed a U-turn to denigrate this new report. However, below are some reasons why the DOE has often been held in high regard by so many.
Why the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is often considered reliable
- Scientific Infrastructure
- The DOE oversees 17 National Laboratories (e.g., Lawrence Berkeley, Oak Ridge, Argonne, Los Alamos), which are world leaders in climate modeling, energy systems, and atmospheric science.
- Many breakthroughs in climate modeling, satellite data interpretation, and renewable energy technologies have come from DOE-funded labs.
- Data & Modeling Power
- DOE labs run some of the fastest supercomputers in the world (e.g., Frontier, Aurora).
- These machines process climate simulations, enabling DOE scientists to model temperature changes, storm intensities, and long-term impacts more accurately than almost any other organization.
- Transparency & Peer Collaboration
- DOE research typically goes through peer-reviewed journals and international collaborations (including with NASA, NOAA, and the IPCC).
- This ensures results aren’t just internal government memos, but part of the broader scientific conversation.
- Longevity of Research
- DOE climate science programs date back to the 1970s, making it one of the longest-standing, continuous climate research efforts in the U.S. government.
- This long-term consistency provides valuable historical baselines for understanding trends.
✅ In short:
The DOE is one of the most technically capable and scientifically respected institutions for climate research, thanks to its labs, supercomputers, and decades of expertise.
97% of all Scientists paid believe” the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is often considered reliable”
Gawd
U.S. Department of Energy
DOE
Government
US Government
There will be Deep State control
one swallow does not make a summer
Either you trust US Govt or you dont. I dont
nor the local lot
nor the Australian lot, or the English lot, or the Canadians.
This is one, just one wee entry from Sky News AU which is a teeny cult outfit of feeble repute. Lots of excitable people who are seldom consistent.
The US has NASA which has been bullshitting for decades on many topics incl. Weather
The US has NOAA which has been bullshitting for decades on Weather.
lots of outfits, controlled by Deep State , putting out bullshit .
Finding one wee outfit that finally agrees with your view, today, is not a solitary swallow making summer
esp. in a time when it is trendy to align with Trump, even if a little bit.
I would ignore this crap (and pretty much anything from SKY News AU, which is on par with The Platform in NZ, or lower than ) and see if there is any truth from DOE in 5 years when Trump is gone.
Oh and that fake thing, JD Vance /Bowman/Hamel /this year’s name who is as fake and contrived as a Kardashian, will not be running things in 5 years .