A forceful condemnation has been released by over 85 global scientists in response to a recent U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) publication that downplayed the risks of climate change, contending that it distorted data and selectively presented figures contradicting established scientific understanding.
The Trump Administration’s assessment from July, concerning the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, asserted that the dangers of climate change are overstated and would cause “less economic harm than generally thought.” Energy Secretary Chris Wright, previously a fossil fuel executive, personally chose the report’s five authors, all of whom challenge the widely accepted view that the combustion of fossil fuels is rapidly warming the Earth.
“This report makes a mockery of science,” stated Dr. Andrew Dessler, a contributor to the 500-page document drafted by climate experts in opposition to the DOE review. “It relies on ideas that were rejected long ago, supported by misrepresentations of the body of scientific knowledge, omissions of important facts, arm waving, anecdotes, and confirmation bias. This report makes it clear DOE has no interest in engaging with the scientific community.”
The scientists who authored the opposing report contend that the DOE’s document serves to promote and legitimize the administration’s focus on fossil fuels, coinciding with the White House’s curtailment of the Environmental Protection Agency’s capacity to combat climate change during President Donald Trump’s second term.
Numerous instances were identified where the DOE authors inaccurately presented climate change information, for example, asserting that elevated carbon dioxide levels could yield a “net benefit” for the U.S. agricultural sector, while failing to mention the recorded adverse effects of higher temperatures on that very industry.
The DOE review contained inaccuracies such as misrepresenting quotes from a climate report, offering faulty explanations for scientific principles, and conflating findings from different studies referenced within the report.
The Department of Energy offered no response to TIME’s inquiry regarding the criticisms leveled against it.
Dr. Kim Cobb, director of the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society and a co-author of the report, pointed out a “glaring omission” by the DOE concerning anthropogenic ocean warming and its destructive impact on coral reefs via marine heatwaves.
Cobb additionally observed that the DOE contested the increase in global temperatures, attributing it to centuries of natural weather fluctuations.
“Maybe there was a time when that debate could be had, but that is no longer a tenable position,” Cobb informed TIME. “From a scientific perspective, we have extremely robust lines of evidence pointing out that we are living through a period of unprecedented warmth.”
Cobb underscored that a major danger of the DOE’s assessment is its capacity to serve as a foundation for forthcoming environmental policy. She contrasted the credibility of the DOE’s review with the scientific community’s refutation, likening it to “a feather on one side and 1,000 pounds of metal on the other.”
“It is really important that climate scientists stand up and be active stewards of their science in the public sphere. It’s part of our job. It’s our responsibility to the world, to taxpayers, to the next generations. That’s what we are charged with doing. And this may be the most important moment where we are called to do that,” Cobb stated.
The scientists who challenged the DOE’s review assert that its integrity was compromised from its inception, citing its “tiny team of hand-picked contrarians,” the lack of a peer review process (which is customary for a document of such scope), selectively chosen evidence, and erroneous citations.
“Normally, a report like this would undergo a rigorous, unbiased and transparent peer review. When it became clear that DOE wasn’t going to organize such a review, the scientific community came together on its own, in less than a month, to provide it,” Dr. Robert Kopp, another contributor, commented upon its publication.
Various organizations and scientists, among them the American Meteorological Society, have also rejected the DOE’s review, pointing out additional deficiencies in the report and advocating for the agency to amend its conclusions.
During his second term, Trump has undertaken measures to dismantle governmental initiatives aimed at confronting climate change, such as impeding state legislation targeting climate issues, increasing oil and gas output, and gradually eliminating FEMA—the agency tasked with responding to climate-linked catastrophes, which have intensified in frequency due to escalating global temperatures.
In his initial term, Trump reversed over 125 environmental regulations. Columbia University’s tracker documents the administration’s actions to reduce climate mitigation efforts and has recorded more than 200 such instances in Trump’s subsequent term.