Climate Scientists Challenge U.S. Department of Energy’s Report

A group of more than 85 climate scientists has criticized the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) recent climate report, deeming it unfit for policymaking. Their comprehensive review, made public on July 25, 2023, highlights significant concerns over the report’s credibility, asserting that it cherry-picked evidence and lacked essential peer-reviewed studies to support its claims regarding climate change impacts in the United States.

The scientists contend that the DOE’s report is “fundamentally incorrect.” They pointed out that since the 1970s, researchers have accurately modeled and predicted the effects of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a practice initiated by workers at Exxon who first began assessing the environmental impacts of fossil fuels.

In a statement accompanying the review, Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, expressed his dismay: “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 emphasized that the DOE’s actions suggest a lack of engagement with the scientific community.

A spokesperson for the DOE defended the report, indicating that it was prepared as part of the Trump administration’s initiative to foster a “more thoughtful and science-based conversation about climate change and energy.” The spokesperson confirmed that the report underwent internal review by DOE scientific researchers and policy experts, and mentioned that it is open for wider peer review during the public comment period.

U.S. government scientists have long contributed to reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which are widely regarded as authoritative sources on climate science. However, the process behind the DOE’s recent report remains unclear, with no public meetings reported during its drafting. The agency stated that the document was reviewed internally among its scientific research community.

This divergence in perspectives has raised alarms among some scientists. Kim Cobb, a professor at Brown University and director of the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society, co-authored two sections of the review and expressed concern over the implications of the DOE’s stance. “Trying to circumvent, bypass, undermine decades of the government’s own work with the nation’s top scientists to generate definitive information about climate science to use in policymaking—that’s what’s different here,” Cobb remarked.

Under the Trump administration, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has indicated it may reconsider the 2009 endangerment finding, which allows the agency to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The EPA cited the DOE’s climate report as a contributing factor in developing “serious concerns” regarding U.S. greenhouse gas regulations.

Cobb emphasized the importance of upholding the integrity of climate science. “It’s really important that we stand up for the integrity of [climate science] when it matters the most,” she said. “And this may very well be when it mattered the most.”

In contrast, Roger Pielke Jr., a science policy analyst and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, does not believe the push to overturn the endangerment finding will hinge on the DOE report. He argues that the administration’s rationale is primarily legal rather than scientific. “I think that given the composition of the Supreme Court, the endangerment finding might be in danger. But it’s not going to be because of the science,” he stated.

As communities across the United States increasingly face the consequences of climate change—manifested through hurricanes, wildfires, and floods—Cobb voiced concern that the federal government risks abandoning essential scientific insights. “Science is a tool for prosperity and safety,” she said. “And when you turn your back on it in general—it’s not just going to be climate science; it’s going to be many other aspects of science and technology that are going to be forsaken—that will have grave costs.”