Over 85 Climate Experts Criticize Energy Department's Greenhouse Gas Report

An assembly of more than 85 climate specialists from across the globe published an extensive critique disapproving a Trump administration report issued by the Department of Energy. This detailed 439-page analysis argues the report inadequately reflects current scientific understanding and mishandles scientific data.

This report from the Energy Department, which spans 151 pages, was crafted by five selected authors under Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a figure with deep roots in the fossil fuel sector. The divisive conclusion of the report stated that the economic impact of carbon dioxide-induced warming is less severe than commonly perceived, and suggested that aggressive measures to curb greenhouse gases might do more harm than good, aligning with fossil fuel interests.

Chris Wright defended the report, suggesting that while climate change merits attention, it is not the most critical threat to humanity.

CBS News reached out to the Department of Energy for comment on the critiques, but they have yet to issue a response.

This latest expert review follows a series of criticisms from environmental and scientific communities, highlighting how the report violated transparency norms. Critics argue the report trivializes science.

Andrew Dessler, who leads the Texas Center for Extreme Weather at Texas A&M University, voiced his concerns about the report's lack of scientific integrity on social media and rallied peers to join in a collective rebuttal.

Organized swiftly, Dessler collaborated with global experts across continents to dissect the DOE report, finding it laden with inaccuracies, partiality, and unfit to guide policy decisions.

The group submitted their detailed response to the DOE, sparking substantial public commentary, though it remains uncertain how these criticisms will be addressed by the department.

The American Meteorological Society also expressed concerns, highlighting several foundational flaws in the DOE report that deviate from established scientific methods.

Dessler and his team provided numerous examples where the DOE report selectively cited scientific literature, painting an inaccurate picture.

Critics assert that the DOE document is symptomatic of a broader tendency by the Trump administration to manipulate scientific processes for political advantage.

Dr. John Balbus, previously a senior figure at the Department of Health and Human Services, parallels these tactics to controversial strategies in health sectors, underscoring a recurring pattern of distorting scientific consensus for policy gains.

Despite cutbacks affecting many governmental scientists, many have transitioned to private sectors, forming countermoves against perceived governmental misinformation.

In May, following significant reductions in scientific personnel, efforts continued to ensure vital climate research remains accessible, counter to administration policies.

Public servants have taken steps to publicly address their concerns over policy shifts, risking career repercussions to spotlight issues within scientific governance.

Balbus emphasizes the dedication of these individuals to uphold scientific truths despite challenges, serving as a warning of systemic issues within government practices.

About the Author

Tracy J. Wholf is the senior coordinating producer for CBS News, leading coverage on climatic and environmental narratives from New York.