Scientists Condemn Trump-Era Climate Reports as Misleading and Error-Filled

According to a survey conducted by Associated Press, most of the experts who reviewed the documents said their research had been misrepresented or taken out of context. The reports, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE), aim to challenge the long-standing scientific conclusion that climate change poses a threat to public health and welfare.

Researchers identified multiple factual errors within the reports. One example involves a claim that Arctic sea ice loss has been minimal; however, the report incorrectly cited Antarctic data to support that argument. In another case, a study focused on agricultural impacts in France was used to draw conclusions about U.S. farming, despite clear differences in climate and agricultural systems.

Scientists also pointed out inconsistencies in the use of wildfire data. While the report dismissed older wildfire statistics as unreliable, it simultaneously included them in visual charts, creating the impression that fires were more severe in the past than they are today.

Out of 64 experts who responded to AP’s inquiry, 53 expressed negative views of the reports, while only seven offered support. The remaining participants did not take a clear stance. In at least 15 cases, researchers said their own studies had been misused or misinterpreted.

Many experts accused the agencies of deliberately selecting information that downplays the risks of climate change. Jennifer Marlon from Yale Program on Climate Change Communication described the reports as biased and said they relied on techniques commonly associated with misinformation.

The controversy comes as the Trump administration moves to overturn the 2009 “endangerment finding,” a legal determination that greenhouse gas emissions threaten public health. Reversing this finding could weaken or eliminate a range of environmental regulations, including limits on emissions from vehicles, power plants, and industrial sources.

Officials from the EPA defended their approach, stating that they reviewed multiple sources to reassess whether the assumptions behind the 2009 finding remain valid. Meanwhile, the DOE said it aimed to promote a more balanced and science-based discussion. A White House spokesperson also argued that the administration’s work represents “Gold Standard Science” and criticized previous policies as economically harmful.

The DOE report further claims that climate models may overestimate future warming and suggests that increased carbon dioxide could bring benefits such as enhanced plant growth. It also argues that reducing U.S. emissions would have limited global impact, given that the country is the second-largest emitter after China.

However, scientists strongly disputed these conclusions. For instance, the report’s assertion that wildfire activity has not increased since 2007 was contradicted by data from the National Interagency Fire Center, which shows a clear rise in burned acreage over time.

The reports also drew criticism for their treatment of ocean acidification. One section suggested renaming the phenomenon “ocean neutralization,” arguing that marine life appears resilient. Experts rejected this claim, emphasizing that increased carbon dioxide levels are making oceans more acidic and posing serious risks to ecosystems such as coral reefs and shell-forming species.

Legal experts questioned whether the administration’s effort meets the standard of objective, evidence-based policymaking required when reversing established regulations. At the same time, environmental organizations have already begun challenging the reports in court.

A forthcoming review by the National Academy of Sciences is expected to provide an updated assessment of whether greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health, potentially influencing future policy decisions.

Criticism of the reports was widespread and often severe. Many scientists described them as examples of “cherry-picking” evidence to minimize perceived risks. Steven Sherwood of the University of New South Wales said the documents selectively present information in a way that undermines the broader scientific consensus.

Similarly, Francois Bareille criticized the misuse of his research, noting that findings specific to France cannot be generalized to other regions like the United States.

When asked to evaluate the reports as if grading academic work, many scientists gave them failing marks. Several assigned an “F,” citing serious flaws in methodology and interpretation. Others acknowledged that while the reports were clearly written, they were fundamentally biased in their selection and presentation of evidence.

The debate highlights a deep divide between the administration’s interpretation of climate science and the broader scientific community. While some supporters argue that the reports challenge what they see as exaggerated claims, most experts maintain that they distort established research and risk misleading policymakers and the public.

Public feedback on the DOE report is open until early September, while comments on the EPA’s proposal will be accepted until later that month. The administration is required to review these responses before making a final decision on whether to revoke the endangerment finding.