Over 85 top climate scientists on Tuesday said that the Trump Energy Department’s recent climate assessment used to justify an unwinding of federal greenhouse gas rules does not meet standards for scientific integrity.
The group of scientists, led by professors Andrew Dessler from Texas A&M University and Robert Kopp from Rutgers University, submitted a more-than 400 page review of the assessment written by five scientists handpicked by Energy Secretary Chris Wright who have a contrarian view of mainstream climate science in time for the Sept. 2 deadline for public comment.
They said the report by Wright’s Climate Working Group “fails to adequately represent the current scientific understanding of climate change.”
“No attempt appears to have been made to balance the points of view represented on the [Climate Working Group]; rather, this group appears to have been personally recruited by the Secretary of Energy to advance a particular viewpoint favored by DOE leadership,” they wrote.
When the report was released in July, Wright said he believes climate change is real but felt it was necessary to bring more debate to the public on the subject.
“I’ve reviewed the report carefully, and I believe it faithfully represents the state of climate science today,” he said. “Still, many readers may be surprised by its conclusions—which differ in important ways from the mainstream narrative. That’s a sign of how far the public conversation has drifted from the science itself.”
The group of 85 scientists said the Energy Department relied too heavily on debunked research, misinterpreted other research and failed to undertake a peer-review process to ensure the assessment was credible.
In contrast, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and U.S. National Climate Assessment reports have had thousands of authors and contributors and time-consuming independent review. Those reports reflect that climate change is worsening with impacts seen throughout the globe.
“The report privileges the outdated views of individual dissenters rather than the consensus of scientists,” said Andra Garner, a climate scientist who participated in the review. “The report is intended to support a specific policy decision and is not an unbiased synthesis of climate science.”
As of Monday, the Energy Department received over 2,000 comments on the report ahead of the Tuesday deadline.