Government Climate Report Misrepresents Research, Scientists Allege

A new climate report from the Department of Energy has sparked fierce criticism from mainstream scientists who say it misrepresents established research. The 141-page document was written by five scientists known for questioning climate science. They include John Christy, Roy Spencer, Steve Koonin, Judith Curry, and Ross McKitrick.

DOE Secretary Chris Wright, who runs fossil fuel companies, personally chose these authors. He said they worked independently from government science agencies. The report challenges the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding. This finding allows the government to regulate greenhouse gases.

Leading climate researchers say the report cherry-picks data to downplay climate change. Robert Kopp specifically criticized the report for misusing his sea-level rise research. The authors focus on natural cycles and changes in the sun’s energy instead of human-caused warming. This goes against what most scientists have found. The report also highlights uncertainties while selecting evidence that contradicts broader climate research.

Michael Mann and Naomi Oreskes, both respected climate scientists, called the process and conclusions misleading. They’re concerned that NOAA and NASA scientists weren’t included. These agencies are known for their climate research expertise.

The report’s release comes as nearly 400 climate scientists were removed from working on the National Climate Assessment. This assessment is required by Congress. The USGCRP, which coordinates federal climate research, is now under government review. Its future structure remains unclear. The program typically facilitates collaboration among 15 government agencies to study and respond to environmental changes.

These actions align with administration efforts to repeal climate regulations. The DOE report gives officials grounds to challenge rules for controlling greenhouse gases. If the endangerment finding is overturned, it could weaken health and environmental protections.

The scientific community quickly denounced the report. They say it doesn’t represent peer-reviewed research. Leading climate scientists and historians call it government-supported climate denial. Researchers worry about excluding hundreds of vetted experts from federal assessments.

Scientists fear these actions will prevent the public from getting accurate climate information. This could hurt planning for climate impacts. Legal experts expect strong opposition and lawsuits if officials try to reverse established findings. Many see this as a shift toward official climate skepticism within federal agencies.

The controversy highlights growing tensions between political appointees and the scientific community over climate research.