A group of over 85 leading climate scientists in the US have compiled a scathing review of a Trump administration report that downplays the risks of the climate crisis.
The comprehensive 434-page report excoriates a US Department of Energy document written by five hand-picked fringe researchers, arguing that global heating and its consequences have been overstated.
According to the climate experts, the Trump administration report is riddled with “pervasive problems with misrepresentation and selective citation of the scientific literature, cherry-picking of data, and faulty or absent statistics”.
The experts’ review was written in the style of the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, lending weight to the criticism. Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, bluntly stated, “this report makes a mockery of science. 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.”
Dessler further emphasized that the report makes it clear the Department of Energy “has no interest in engaging with the scientific community”.
The Trump administration report, released in July, has sparked intense debate among climate experts. The criticism highlights the ongoing divide between the scientific community and the Trump administration’s stance on climate change. With the experts’ review, it is evident that the controversy surrounding the report will continue to unfold.
The report contains at least 100 false or misleading statements, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists.
The executive summary inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed”. The report’s authors have been accused of cherry-picking data and relying on outdated research.
Climate scientists have strongly criticized the report, with some contributors asking to be anonymized due to the Trump administration’s attacks on science.
Dr. Delphine Deryng, lead author of the IPCC AR6 WG2, stated that the report’s claims about CO2 fertilization are false, and the topic is only briefly mentioned in the IPCC reports. Dr. Gernot Wagner, climate economist at Columbia Business School, noted that the report’s discussion of the social cost of carbon is misleading.
The report is designed to provide a scientific underpinning to the Trump administration’s plans to rescind a finding that serves as the legal prerequisite for federal emissions regulation.
However, climate scientists argue that the report’s findings are not supported by evidence and are instead driven by ideology. The controversy surrounding the report highlights the need for accurate and unbiased scientific research to inform climate policy.
Perspectives on the Trump Administration’s Climate Report
Scientific Community’s Perspective
The scientific community has strongly criticized the Trump administration’s climate report, calling it a “mockery of science” and accusing the administration of cherry-picking data and ignoring evidence that contradicts its conclusions.
Many scientists have expressed frustration and disappointment, stating that the report’s findings are not supported by evidence and are instead driven by ideology.
Climate scientist Zeke Hausfather said the reports pulled a single figure from his work on climate modeling to build a case that the models scientists use are often overly pessimistic, when in fact his research concluded that climate models have performed quite well.
The Trump administration defends its report, stating that it provides a different perspective on climate change.
The Trump administration defends its report, stating that it provides a different perspective on climate change.
The authors of the report claim that it is not meant to be a comprehensive review of climate science, but rather focuses on data and topics that the media and others have underreported and overlooked.
However, critics argue that the report is designed to create doubt about the importance of addressing climate change and to justify the rollback of climate regulations.
Environmental groups have strongly criticized the Trump administration’s climate report, arguing that it puts both public health and the planet at risk. They emphasize the need for accurate and unbiased scientific research to inform climate policy.
Rachel Cleetus, a senior policy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, stated that dismissing hundreds of experts working on the National Climate Assessment without a plan for creating an alternative is “irresponsible”.
Environmental groups are concerned that the report will be used to justify policies that prioritize economic interests over environmental concerns.
The controversy surrounding the report highlights the ongoing battle over the role of science in policymaking, with the Trump administration accused of prioritizing political agendas over evidence-based decision-making.
The report’s findings could be used to justify the rollback of climate regulations and undermine efforts to address climate change.
Melissa Finucane, vice president of science and innovation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, noted that the National Climate Assessment provides critical information on how to best address problems with effective solutions, and that its elimination would harm American communities that benefit from the knowledge and tools developed by the assessment.