Scientists condemn Trump administration climate report as misleading and lacking credibility

The controversy follows an announcement by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposing to revoke the 2009 “endangerment finding,” a landmark decision that underpins federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, power plants, and other sources under the Clean Air Act. Shortly after, the Department of Energy released a 150-page report defending the move, arguing that the risks posed by climate change have been overstated.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright described climate change as “a challenge, not a catastrophe,” a position that has been widely criticized by scientists. Leading climatologist Michael Mann compared the report to material generated from fossil fuel-funded denial sources, suggesting it lacks scientific rigor.

Critics argue that the document was designed to support policy decisions rather than reflect established science. Naomi Oreskes of Harvard University said the report attempts to replace credible scientific evidence with pseudoscience in order to justify continued fossil fuel use.

Environmental groups also see the report as part of a broader political agenda. Rachel Cleetus of the Union of Concerned Scientists stated that the effort prioritizes fossil fuel expansion over public health and environmental protection.

By contrast, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) continues to represent the global scientific consensus. Its latest assessment, compiled by hundreds of scientists worldwide and reviewed by governments, concludes unequivocally that human activity is driving global warming and causing widespread harm.

Experts have also questioned the methodology behind the administration’s report. Unlike major climate assessments, it was produced by a small group of selected authors and did not undergo a formal peer-review process. Zeke Hausfather of Berkeley Earth described it as scientifically unreliable, noting that it selectively uses data while ignoring the broader body of evidence.

Several researchers cited in the report say their work was misrepresented. Hausfather pointed out that one of his studies was used to suggest climate models are inaccurate, despite his findings showing the opposite. He said the report repeatedly cherry-picks data to support predetermined conclusions.

Other scientists echoed these concerns. Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University argued that the report reads more like a legal defense of carbon emissions than an objective scientific analysis. Natalie Mahowald of Cornell University added that the document fails to match the depth and rigor of established climate assessments.

The report’s claims have also been challenged on specific issues. It suggests that warming trends have been exaggerated, despite mounting evidence of rising global temperatures and increasing extreme weather. It also downplays ocean acidification and highlights isolated signs of coral growth, even as events such as repeated bleaching of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef point to significant ecological stress.

Bob Kopp of Rutgers University criticized the report’s conclusions on agriculture, noting that rising temperatures and drought are expected to reduce crop yields, contradicting claims that higher carbon dioxide levels will be beneficial.

Overall, scientists say the report diverges sharply from decades of peer-reviewed research and risks undermining evidence-based policymaking. They warn that promoting misleading or incomplete interpretations of climate science could have serious implications at a time when environmental and public health risks are intensifying.