US Scientists Denounce Trump Climate Report as Unscientific

A report commissioned by the Trump administration that disputes the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change has drawn sharp criticism from a group of 85 scientists. These experts assert that the document employs tactics reminiscent of those once used by the tobacco industry to create doubt about established science. Their comprehensive 440-page rebuttal challenges the findings of the administration’s 150-page report, which was published by the Department of Energy in late July.

The Trump administration’s report titled “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the US Climate” claims that extreme weather events linked to human-caused emissions are not increasing, that US temperatures are stable, and that higher carbon dioxide levels could benefit agricultural productivity. In stark contrast, the rebuttal argues that these assertions rely on a selective group of contrarian scientists who have utilized discredited research, misrepresented key evidence, and circumvented the peer review process to support their conclusions.

Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University and co-author of the rebuttal, 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 emphasized that the Department of Energy shows little interest in engaging with the broader scientific community.

The rebuttal systematically addresses each claim made in the original report. For example, the scientists assert that the signal of human-induced global warming is evident in climate records across the continental United States and the globe. They contend that while increased carbon dioxide can enhance crop yields in isolation, the combined effects of rising temperatures and changing precipitation patterns are likely to lead to overall declines in agricultural productivity.

The report from the Department of Energy minimizes the risks associated with ocean acidification, suggesting that ancient ocean conditions should not be considered relevant for modern ecosystems. The rebuttal counters that complex multicellular life did not exist during those earlier conditions, making the comparison inappropriate.

Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has intensified his pro-fossil fuel policies compared to his previous term. Republicans recently passed the “Big Beautiful Bill,” which eliminated clean energy tax credits introduced under former President Joe Biden. This legislation also facilitates expanded fossil fuel development in environmentally sensitive areas.

In addition, Trump has withdrawn the United States from the Paris Agreement on climate change and is advocating for the fossil fuel agenda internationally. This includes pressuring the European Union in trade negotiations to increase purchases of US liquefied natural gas and urging the World Bank to deprioritize climate initiatives.

The ongoing debate over climate science reflects a broader struggle over energy policy in the United States, with significant implications for both domestic and international efforts to combat climate change. As the scientific community continues to challenge the Trump administration’s narrative, the consequences of these policy decisions will resonate for years to come.