Climate Scientists Critique US DOE Report as Unscientific

More than 85 climate scientists have criticized the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) recent climate report, declaring it unfit for policymaking. The comprehensive review, released on July 2023, highlights significant flaws in the DOE’s approach, asserting that the report cherry-picked evidence and lacked peer-reviewed studies to substantiate its claims regarding the impact of climate change in the United States.

The scientists argue that the DOE’s report is “fundamentally incorrect.” They emphasize that climate science has developed into a vital tool for understanding how a warming planet affects various aspects of life, including weather patterns, agricultural productivity, and economic stability. According to Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, the report “makes a mockery of science.” He criticized it for relying on outdated ideas and misrepresenting established scientific knowledge.

In response to the review, a DOE spokesperson stated that the report was part of the previous administration’s aim to foster a “more thoughtful and science-based conversation” about climate change and energy. The agency noted that the report underwent internal review by its scientific researchers and policy experts. Furthermore, the DOE has opened the report for broader peer review, inviting feedback from the scientific community and the public during a specified comment period.

U.S. government scientists have historically contributed to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, which are widely regarded as authoritative collections of climate research. The timeline and processes that the DOE followed to create this controversial report remain unclear, as there appear to have been no public meetings associated with its drafting.

Kim Cobb, a professor of Earth, environmental, and planetary sciences at Brown University, co-authored sections of the review and expressed concerns about the DOE’s approach. “Trying to circumvent, bypass, undermine decades of the government’s own work with the nation’s top scientists to generate definitive information about climate science for policymaking—that’s what’s different here,” Cobb explained.

Under the administration of Donald Trump, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicated plans to reconsider the 2009 endangerment finding, which permits the agency to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The DOE report was cited in this reconsideration, raising “serious concerns” about how the U.S. regulates greenhouse gases.

Cobb stressed the importance of upholding the integrity of climate science, stating, “It’s really important that we stand up for the integrity of [climate science] when it matters the most.” She emphasized that this situation may be crucial for the future of scientific integrity in addressing climate issues.

On the other hand, Roger Pielke Jr., a science policy analyst and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, who is referenced in the DOE report, believes that the push to overturn the endangerment finding would hinge more on legal arguments than on scientific ones. He noted, “Given the composition of the Supreme Court, the endangerment finding might be in danger. But it’s not going to be because of the science.”

As communities across the U.S. grapple with the consequences of hurricanes, wildfires, and floods intensified by climate change, Cobb expressed concern that the federal government might be neglecting the most effective means to help citizens adapt to a warming environment. “Science is a tool for prosperity and safety,” she asserted. “When you turn your back on it in general—it’s not just going to be climate science; it’s going to be many other aspects of science and technology that will be forsaken, which will have grave costs.”