Climate Scientists Condemn DOE Report for Misrepresenting Science

More than 85 climate scientists have criticized the Department of Energy’s (DOE) recent climate report, deeming it unfit for policymaking. Their comprehensive review, released on Tuesday, asserts that the report cherry-picked evidence and failed to include peer-reviewed studies that substantiate its claims questioning the adverse effects of climate change in the United States. The authors labeled the report as “fundamentally incorrect.”

Since the 1970s, scientists have been accurately modeling and predicting the impact of excess carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere. This period coincided with the initial measurements conducted by Exxon workers regarding their product’s environmental ramifications. Over the decades, climate science has evolved into a vital resource, informing strategies to address the implications of a warming planet on various aspects, including weather patterns, agriculture, and public health.

Strong Critique from Experts

“This report makes a mockery of science,” stated Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University. He emphasized that the report relies on outdated concepts and is supported by misrepresentations of established scientific knowledge. Dessler’s remarks came as part of the review’s official statement, which criticized the report for its omissions of critical facts and reliance on anecdotal evidence.

A spokesperson for the DOE defended the report, stating it aimed to foster a “more thoughtful and science-based conversation about climate change and energy,” as part of the initiatives of the Trump administration. The spokesperson noted that the report was reviewed internally by DOE scientific researchers and policy experts, and it is currently open for broader peer review from the scientific community and the public during a comment period.

Despite the agency’s claims, the process behind the report’s creation remains unclear. The timeline leading to its July 2023 release has not been disclosed, and no public meetings were held during its drafting. The DOE indicated that internal peer review was conducted within its scientific research community.

Concerns Over Policy Implications

While scientific disagreements are not uncommon, many authors of the review assert that the report lacks scientific rigor. “This effort attempts to circumvent decades of collaborative research with the nation’s leading scientists, aimed at producing definitive climate science for policymaking,” remarked Kim Cobb, a professor at Brown University and director of the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society. Cobb, who co-authored two sections of the review, expressed concern over the potential implications of the DOE report.

Under the Trump administration, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has signaled intentions to reconsider the 2009 endangerment finding, which allows regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. In its proposal to rescind this finding, the EPA cited the DOE report among the factors raising “serious concerns” regarding the U.S. regulation of greenhouse gases.

Cobb highlighted the critical importance of upholding the integrity of climate science, especially given the current challenges posed by climatic changes. “It is vital to advocate for science when it matters most,” she asserted.

Conversely, Roger Pielke Jr., a science policy analyst affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute, expressed skepticism regarding the report’s influence on the endangerment finding. He emphasized that the legal arguments surrounding it are distinct from the scientific basis of the report. “Given the composition of the Supreme Court, the endangerment finding might be at risk, but the reasons will not stem from scientific evidence,” he stated.

As communities increasingly face the repercussions of climate-related disasters such as hurricanes, wildfires, and floods, Cobb fears that the federal government may be neglecting the essential scientific tools available to help populations adapt. “Science serves as a foundation for prosperity and safety,” she remarked. “Abandoning it poses significant risks, not only for climate science but for various fields of science and technology.”

This story originally appeared in Inside Climate News.