• Green Glow
  • Posts
  • 🌱 85+ Climate Scientists Call Out Major Errors in U.S. Energy Report 📄🌍

🌱 85+ Climate Scientists Call Out Major Errors in U.S. Energy Report 📄🌍

Over 85 climate scientists have condemned a U.S. Energy Department report on greenhouse gases, calling it misleading, biased, and scientifically flawed. Discover what’s behind the controversy and why experts say this report threatens climate policy integrity.

Author

Green Glow
September 03, 2025

A recent report from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has ignited a firestorm in the scientific community. Titled “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate,” the 151-page document questions the economic harm of carbon dioxide emissions and suggests that aggressive climate mitigation may do more harm than good.

However, this controversial stance has been met with intense scrutiny. In response, more than 85 climate scientists from around the world have released a detailed 439-page rebuttal, calling the DOE report “full of errors,” “biased,” and “unfit to inform policy.”

Table of Contents

The DOE Report: Controversial Claims

The DOE report, released under the Trump administration, was authored by five individuals hand-selected by Energy Secretary Chris Wright — a former fossil fuel executive. The report presents several disputed claims, including:

  • That carbon dioxide-induced warming may be economically less harmful than previously thought.

  • That aggressive mitigation strategies could backfire, causing more damage than benefit.

  • That climate change, while real, is not the greatest threat facing humanity.

These statements align closely with the interests of the fossil fuel industry and mark a significant departure from mainstream scientific consensus on climate change.

The Scientific Response: A Coordinated Rebuttal

Alarmed by the DOE’s conclusions, Texas A&M climate scientist Dr. Andrew Dessler quickly voiced his concerns on social media. He was soon joined by dozens of like-minded experts. Within weeks, a coalition of over 85 scientists from leading universities and institutions across the U.S., Europe, Asia, Australia, and Canada came together to analyze and refute the DOE’s findings.

Their review found that the DOE report:

  • Cherry-picks data and misrepresents scientific literature

  • Lacks context and transparency

  • Was designed to sow doubt about climate science rather than clarify it

The review was submitted as part of a 30-day public comment period, during which over 2,300 comments were lodged.

Scientific Integrity at Risk

Experts argue that the DOE’s report is not just flawed — it’s emblematic of a broader effort by the Trump administration to politicize and distort science. According to Dr. John Balbus, former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Climate Change and Health Equity at HHS, this is part of a recurring pattern in multiple agencies where scientific processes are replaced with politically motivated narratives.

Balbus compared this manipulation to similar efforts surrounding vaccine misinformation, where federal agencies selectively relied on pseudoscience to justify policy decisions. “It’s a ludicrous and completely unsubstantiated assertion,” he said, referring to claims in both domains.

Fallout and Mobilization

Even as the Trump administration continues to dismiss or remove scientists from federal agencies — reportedly firing hundreds involved in key climate assessments — many of those affected have regrouped in the private sector or are collaborating on independent scientific initiatives.

Examples include:

  • Alternative climate reports being prepared by dismissed federal researchers

  • Public health guidelines issued independently of CDC recommendations

  • Whistleblowers in agencies like EPA and HHS risking retaliation to speak out

“This is about defending scientific truth in the face of political manipulation,” said Dessler.

Institutional Pushback: AMS Weighs In

The American Meteorological Society (AMS), a respected body in climate science, also released its own critique. It identified “five foundational flaws” in the DOE report that it claims are at odds with accepted scientific practices. The AMS called into question the credibility of using such a report to guide national policy on greenhouse gas emissions.

What’s at Stake

At its core, this controversy is not just about a single report — it’s about how science informs public policy, and whether federal agencies can remain trustworthy stewards of truth in the face of political pressure.

If reports like the DOE’s are allowed to stand unchallenged:

  • Climate policy could be shaped by industry-friendly fiction rather than fact.

  • Public trust in government science could erode even further.

  • Efforts to address climate change could be delayed or derailed entirely.

Conclusion

The clash over the DOE’s greenhouse gas report is a potent reminder that scientific integrity must be defended, especially when the stakes involve the planet’s future. The coordinated response by over 85 climate scientists is not just a rebuttal — it’s a rallying cry.

In an age where misinformation can shape national policy, the scientific community is making it clear: facts matter.

FAQs

What is the U.S. Energy Department’s greenhouse gas report?

It is a 151-page report titled “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate,” released under the Trump administration. It argues that carbon dioxide emissions may be less harmful economically and suggests aggressive climate policies could be counterproductive.

Why are climate scientists criticizing it?

Over 85 scientists argue that the report misrepresents scientific literature, cherry-picks data, and promotes biased conclusions that downplay the seriousness of climate change. They claim it is politically motivated and unfit to inform policy.

Who authored the DOE report?

The report was written by five individuals handpicked by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former fossil fuel executive, raising concerns about conflicts of interest and scientific impartiality.

What was the scientific response to the report?

A group of international scientists produced a 439-page rebuttal, outlining the report’s errors and inconsistencies. They submitted this during the DOE’s public comment period, which received over 2,300 responses.

What are the broader implications of this controversy?

Experts warn that politicizing climate science could undermine public trust, delay action on climate change, and result in policies based on misinformation. The case reflects wider concerns about scientific integrity in government agencies.

You May Also Like

Sponsored Links