From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

The Trump administration has issued a stop-work order to U.S. government scientists, effectively excising them from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) next major report, due in 2029. The decision pulls American expertise and funding from a process that’s long leaned on both to prop up its dire pronouncements. For those who’ve watched the IPCC churn out one overheated forecast after another, there’s a certain satisfaction in seeing the climate establishment forced to limp along without its biggest benefactor.

The directive halts federal scientists’ contributions to the IPCC’s seventh assessment report, a multi-volume undertaking that typically mobilizes thousands of researchers across years to paint a picture of imminent catastrophe. NASA’s chief scientist, Kate Calvin, was tapped to co-chair an international meeting in Hangzhou, China, next week, where the report’s scope was to be hammered out. That’s off the table now, and the meeting itself hangs in limbo—organizers must be wondering how to proceed without one of their star players.

“Dr. Calvin will not be traveling to this meeting,” a NASA spokesperson said. NASA denied CNN’s request for an interview with Calvin.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/02/21/climate/trump-blocks-scientists-ipcc

An unnamed scientist involved in the effort told CNN they’re unsure what this means for the planned work. One imagines the uncertainty stings a bit more when your whole career’s been hitched to the IPCC wagon.

The person involved in the report told CNN they were “not sure what this means for the planned work going forward, or if US scientists will participate in the writing of the IPCC reports.”

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/02/21/climate/trump-blocks-scientists-ipcc

The U.S. has historically been a pillar of the IPCC’s operations, supplying not just talent but a hefty chunk of the budget needed to keep its machinery humming. These reports—laden with warnings of soaring temperatures, melting ice caps, and “deadly, costly consequences”—have been the bedrock of global climate policy, from the Paris Agreement (promptly abandoned by Trump on day one of his term) to endless rounds of UN summits. The IPCC’s clout depends on its ability to project authority, and American involvement has lent it a sheen of credibility. Without that, the 2029 report risks looking like a thinner, less convincing shadow of its predecessors. Climate advocate Harjeet Singh insists the IPCC remains “unbiased” and “evidence-based,” decrying the loss of U.S. collaboration. Skeptics, meanwhile, might note that an outfit prone to amplifying computer-modeled nightmares over real-world data could use a breather—or at least a reality check.

“The IPCC is the backbone of global climate science, providing the world with unbiased, evidence-based insights needed to confront the climate crisis,” said Harjeet Singh, a climate advocate and founding director of Satat Sampada Climate Foundation.

“The decision to exclude US scientists significantly undermines this collaborative effort and risks compromising the process at a time when robust climate action is needed more than ever,” he told CNN in a statement.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/02/21/climate/trump-blocks-scientists-ipcc

This isn’t Trump’s first rodeo with the climate crowd. His exit from the Paris Agreement in 2017 (and again in 2025) set the tone, and this latest move doubles down on that skepticism. The timing adds a layer of irony: just as the IPCC was gearing up for its Hangzhou confab, the administration yanked the plug, leaving Calvin sidelined and the process scrambling. It’s a dry kind of poetic justice for those who’ve long questioned the IPCC’s track record—think hockey-stick graphs that wobble under scrutiny, Himalayan glaciers that refuse to vanish on cue, or tipping points that keep tipping past their deadlines. The group’s not dead, of course; it’ll soldier on with whatever it can muster from Europe, China, and the usual suspects. But without Uncle Sam’s stamp of approval and deep pockets, the final product might carry less sway—and that’s a prospect worth savoring.

For the IPCC, the road ahead just got bumpier. The Hangzhou meeting, if it happens, will lack a key voice, and the years-long grind to 2029 will test how well the organization can function on a leaner diet. Trump’s decision doesn’t dismantle the climate machine outright, but it does strip away some of its horsepower. Those who’ve spent decades poking holes in the IPCC’s narrative can sit back and watch the fallout with a quiet grin. The alarmists will howl about “denial” and “sabotage,” no doubt, but the Oval Office isn’t losing sleep over it. Neither, frankly, are we.