A recent 150-page report from the U.S. Department of Energy, titled “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate,” has ignited a fierce backlash from leading climate scientists. Experts universally condemn the administration’s document as “deceptive,” “cherry-picked,” and fundamentally “antiscientific,” challenging its methodology and conclusions regarding human-caused global warming and its economic implications.
The controversial report asserts that human-caused climate change is “less damaging economically than commonly believed” and suggests that “aggressive mitigation strategies could be more harmful than beneficial.” Furthermore, it posits that increased atmospheric CO2 directly benefits the Earth by promoting “global greening” and enhancing agricultural yields, while paradoxically claiming to “neutralize ocean alkalinity,” a direct contradiction to established ocean acidification research.
These assertions directly contradict the overwhelming body of published scientific research and the findings of major international assessments, including the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment, the European Climate Risk Assessment, and even the U.S. Government’s own Fifth National Climate Assessment. Mainstream climate science emphasizes the severe risks of rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and the critical need for greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
Michael Mann, director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media, vehemently criticized the DOE report, stating it recycles “shopworn, discredited climate denier arguments.” He described the document as a “deeply misleading antiscientific narrative, built on deceptive arguments, misrepresented datasets, and distortion of actual scientific understanding,” asserting that “there is nothing scientific about this government report whatsoever.”
Despite the contentious nature of the report, the Department of Energy has opened a 30-day public comment period. Texas A&M climate scientist Andrew Dessler underscored the critical importance for mainstream climate scientists to participate, even if the Trump administration appears disinclined to heed their input. He emphasized that any information released could become relevant in future litigation, highlighting the high stakes involved in countering such narratives about climate denial.
Ben Sanderson, research director at the CICERO Centre for International Climate Research in Oslo, Norway, meticulously critiqued the report’s pattern: establish a contrarian position, cherry-pick evidence to support it, and then claim it’s under-represented in climate literature. He pointed out the report’s failure to account for crucial factors like heat stress and drought impacts on “global greening,” and its omission of increased burned areas in U.S. wildfires, despite flat ignition numbers, challenging its scientific consensus.
The report’s perceived bias is further underscored by its reliance on the Department of Energy’s new Climate Working Group, comprised of five prominent climate contrarians: John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer. Critics, including Dessler, contend that these authors “don’t represent the mainstream scientific consensus” on global warming, suggesting their selection was intentional to produce a predetermined outcome rather than a balanced scientific review.
This controversial government report is widely seen as another significant step in a series of actions by the Trump administration aimed at undermining established climate science, regulations, and environmental policy. Science historian Naomi Oreskes stated that with this decision, “climate change denial is now the official policy of the U.S. government,” marking a concerning shift in federal environmental policy.
Scientists like Dessler analogized the report to a legal brief, selectively highlighting evidence that supports a pre-conceived conclusion while ignoring contradictory data, which he deemed “bad practice” and potentially “scientific misconduct.” Mann further lamented this “brazen effort to misrepresent climate science in service of an ideological agenda,” drawing parallels to historical instances of state-sponsored scientific distortion.
