A large coalition of climate scientists is stepping up to address a report from the Trump administration that undermines the seriousness of climate change. This document, released last week alongside plans to reduce regulations on major polluting industries, was developed by five individuals famous for casting doubt on the serious impacts that many Americans are currently experiencing due to climate change.
These scientists, who have vast experience and have contributed to a multitude of peer-reviewed studies, feel it’s crucial to counter the Trump administration’s efforts to dismiss reputable climate science from the conversation.
The report in question is now being cited by the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency as justification for loosening pollution regulations. Moreover, the administration has removed all climate assessments that were required by Congress from federal websites. Energy Secretary Chris Wright mentioned that they plan to revise these assessments before reinstating them online, CNN reported.
Andy Dessler, who heads the Texas Center for Extreme Weather at Texas A&M University, shared that they are planning to release a public response to the Energy Department’s report from last week.
“We aim to set the record straight by making all scientific information available to the public, ensuring that any debate around this topic rests on solid data,” Dessler told CNN.
Alongside this grassroots effort from climate researchers, the National Academy of Sciences announced its intention to conduct a thorough review of climate science findings dating back to 2009. That year marked the initial recognition of climate pollution as a threat to public well-being and safety. This swift examination will be internally funded and is slated for completion by September.
“Decades of research have enhanced our understanding of the role greenhouse gases play in climate change,” stated Marcia McNutt, president of the NAS, in a news release. “We’re embarking on this updated review to provide the most current evaluation for policymakers and the public at large.”
One federal climate scientist, wishing to remain anonymous, drew attention to the glaring issues with the DOE report, which lacks peer review and was written within an unusually short two-month timeframe.
“It’s fundamentally silly to refer to this as a full evaluation of climate science,” the scientist remarked. They condemned the revival of what they view as a “false debate” about the anthropogenic nature of climate change. “It’s like someone took outdated misconceptions, didn’t store them properly, and is now revisiting them,” they asserted.
In response to the misleading report, Kim Cobb, who leads the Institute for Environment and Society at Brown University, emphasized that the juxtaposition of the Trump administration’s attempt to suppress legitimate climate assessments while forwarding a questionable report is deeply troubling.
“Seeing the departure from factual climate science—to favor a report riddled with inaccuracies—feels like a dark moment in history,” she commented via email. “It’s reminiscent of 2005 when similar unfounded discussions flourished.”
Cobb intends to advocate for accurate climate science during a public hearing aimed at revoking the 2009 finding that recognized the harms of human-caused climate change—an essential foundation for numerous federal environmental regulations.
Wright disclosed that he personally selected the five scientists, including John Christy and Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama at Huntsville, as well as Steven E. Koonin from Stanford, Judith Curry from Georgia Tech, and Canadian economist Ross McKitrick, to author the report.
“I compiled a list of respected scientists that I believe are true experts,” Wright noted. “When I contacted the top five, they all accepted.”
Zeke Hausfather, a scientist whose work was misrepresented in the DOE report and who also contributed to the Fifth National Climate Assessment, mentioned he was not surprised to find his research referenced, as it features enhancements in climate modeling.
“The difference in how the EPA and DOE reported my findings does not encapsulate the full context of community evolution in modeling approaches,” Hausfather conveyed.
Trying to dismantle the endangerment finding, the Trump EPA pointed out that some extreme climate scenarios are becoming less likely, suggesting that as a result, the U.S. should ease up on existing climate protections—a notion that has left many scientists aggravated.
Hausfather remarked, “It seems the administration argues, ‘We are edging towards a less dire future regarding emissions, so it’s time to reverse climate policies.’”
While there’s a decline in the likelihood of dire predictions, such as a potential 4°C rise in the planet’s temperature by the century’s end, it reflects nations’ effective moves toward cleaner technology. However, the world is still facing significant challenges.
“Even a rise of 3°C by 2100 would involve severe climate consequences,” Hausfather warned.
Wright dismissed claims of their report misusing scientific insights, labeling the critiques as ‘unjustified evaluations.’
“If a dataset is used by a researcher but their conclusions differ from someone else’s analysis, that’s simply part of the ongoing scientific process,” he stated. “We’re open to refining it based on the feedback we get and will continue to improve the work.”
However, Dessler, who is orchestrating the scientific community’s pushback against the DOE report, expressed profound frustration about their findings being misused and distorted to champion fossil fuels while downplaying climate crisis realities.
“The scientific community is genuinely upset,” Dessler remarked. “Our lives are committed to presenting rigorous science, and the misuse of our work is quite offensive. They aren’t raising pertinent questions or revealing overlooked areas—much of this has already been disproven.”
