A group of the US’s top climate scientists has written a strong critique of a controversial Trump administration report that downplays the risks of climate change. Their review says the report is biased, full of errors, and lacks basic scientific credibility.
Over 85 climate experts contributed to a 434-page report that strongly criticizes a US Department of Energy (DOE) document. The DOE report, written by five hand-picked researchers, claims that the dangers of global warming have been exaggerated.
The Trump administration report, released in July, “has pervasive problems with misrepresentation and selective citation of the scientific literature, cherry-picking of data, and faulty or absent statistics,” according to the new analysis. The review is written in a style similar to the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports.
“This report makes a mockery of science,” said Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University.
“It relies on ideas rejected long ago, supported by misrepresentations of scientific knowledge, missing facts, and biased anecdotes. It shows that DOE has no interest in engaging with the scientific community.”
Lucas Vargas Zeppetello, an environmental scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, said he was “shocked and appalled” by the report and joined other researchers to correct the record.
The review will be submitted during a public comment period on the report, which ends Tuesday.
Chris Wright, the US energy secretary, said the report fights against “cancel culture Orwellian squelching of science” and that the authors were not told what to write.
However, most climate scientists have condemned the report as a “farce” meant to justify rolling back climate regulations rather than present legitimate science.
“Spending weeks helping correct cherry-picked data in a US government report wasn’t on my summer bingo card,” said Andra Garner, a climate scientist at Rowan University. “But it was necessary.”
DOE spokesperson Ben Dietderich said the Trump administration aims to have a “more thoughtful and science-based conversation about climate change and energy.”
Four main issues with the DOE report
Authors
The DOE report’s problems started with the selection of its five authors, all known for questioning mainstream climate science. They are John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven E Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer.
Wright called them “rigorous and honest,” but the review says they are “well known for manufacturing uncertainty.” Selecting them may also violate a 1972 law requiring balanced perspectives in advisory committees.
“[T]his group appears to have been personally recruited by the Secretary of Energy to advance a particular viewpoint favored by DOE leadership,” the review says.
Peer review and transparency
Federal advisory groups are supposed to follow transparency laws and allow public input. But this group worked in secret, and their work was kept from the public.
Assessments are also supposed to go through peer review, which has not happened. “When DOE didn’t organize such a review, the scientific community stepped in within a month,” said Robert Kopp, a climate scientist at Rutgers University.
Abigail Swann, a professor at the University of Washington, said, “We should use scientifically reviewed assessments for decisions – not unreviewed documents that distort knowledge.”
Dietderich said the DOE report was “reviewed internally by DOE researchers and policy experts” and is now open for wider peer review through public comments.
Cherry-picked evidence
The report selectively uses scientific studies to support its points. For example, it highlights the 1930s Dust Bowl but ignores global trends today. It also misrepresents extreme events and climate sensitivity to carbon emissions.
“Five people were hand-selected by the secretary of energy for their viewpoints, and they produced a shoddy mess of cherry-picked data and unsupported assertions,” said Pamela McElwee, associate professor at Rutgers University.
Unlike traditional reports written by hundreds of experts and reviewed multiple times, the DOE report was written in four months. About 11% of its citations were by its own authors, nearly five times higher than a recent IPCC report.
Predetermined outcome
The DOE report was released to support a Trump administration push to repeal the “endangerment finding,” a 2009 ruling that greenhouse gases harm human health. Removing it would weaken US policies to reduce pollution from vehicles and power plants.
Dietderich said the administration values science and has not pre-judged the report’s impact on EPA rules or DOE policies.
However, by excluding credible scientists and promoting the report’s conclusions, the administration shows the report is meant to support political goals.
“Work contrary to the DOE report is ignored, showing the report was designed to back a policy, not provide unbiased science,” said Christopher Callahan, a climate scientist at Indiana University.
