How does a government climate report become a political advocacy document and not the product of scientific diligence? That is the question behind a furious pushback by the climate science community against the U.S. Department of Energy’s recent “Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate.”
An international group of more than 85 climate experts submitted a 439-page rebuttal, accusing the DOE report of being replete with inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and cherry-picking citations aimed at downplaying carbon dioxide emission risks. Its examination, backed by leading scientific bodies, reveals a pattern of bias closely tracking fossil fuel industry spin and the administration’s broader effort to dismantle greenhouse gas rules.
1. A Handcrafted Report Written by Handpicked Contrarians
The DOE report was authored by five handpicked contrarians selected personally by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former oil and gas industry executive. They all have known public records of contrarian opinions on climate science. Contrary to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) lengthy process 743 experts, iterative review rounds, and open authorship the DOE report was vetted only by internal anonymous staff. “The only way to get this report was to choose these authors,” said Dr. Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University.
2. Misrepresentation and Cherry-Picking of Research
A number of the scientists whose quotes are used in the DOE report have charged it with misrepresenting their work. Dr. Zeke Hausfather further noted that the writers “scoured my paper to find the one figure to make the point they were trying to make” and overruled his actual conclusion that climate models are performing well. Dr. Kristie Ebi stated that her research was misused to suggest that selective breeding would be able to revert nutrient loss in crops, which her research doesn’t establish. This judicious use of evidence is a feature of disinformation strategies documented in systematic reviews of climate obstructionism.
3. Discrediting the CO₂ Scientific Consensus
The DOE report identifies uncertainties in solar forcing and natural climate variability and implies CO₂’s role in recent warming is overstated. This contradicts over a century of atmospheric physics and modern attribution studies that confirm that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are the dominant explanation for warming since 1970. New paleoclimate data and satellite data of high resolution confirm again that solar activity has had little effect on recent temperature trends.
4. The “Greening Effect” Argument
By focusing on CO₂ fertilization of crops, the DOE omits the net negative impacts of warming, drought, and extreme weather on agriculture. Peer-reviewed literature shows that without adaptation, even with CO₂ fertilization, world calorie production from major crops declines by about 2–2.5% per 1°C of warming. Elevated CO₂ also reduces grain protein and micronutrient content, which degrades food quality.
5. Discounting Extreme Weather Risks
The report asserts that no long-term trends in hurricanes, floods, or droughts have been found. This is rebutted by experts as confusing detection by statistics with assessing risk, and disregarding model projections and physical theory. As an example, increasing sea surface temperatures increase the upper limit of hurricane intensity, and observation data already evidence a growth in the percentage of the strongest storms.
6. Wildfire Trends Mischaracterised
By aggregating national wildfire data, the DOE hides western U.S. forest fire upticks, with area burned yearly tripled during 40 years. Research attributes the increase virtually solely to climate change, despite extensive fire suppression efforts. Omission of regional trends represents a classic case of scale manipulation in statistical framing.
7. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs
The DOE reports marine life is pH-resistant, pointing back to prehistory, and alludes to a “rebound” in Great Barrier Reef coral cover. Marine biologists acknowledge that ongoing acidification is occurring at an order of magnitude greater than natural variability, eroding coral skeletons and worsening bleaching threats. The DOE records stop short of the 2024 mass bleaching event that led to widescale coral loss.
8. Sea Level Rise Reduced to Local Subsidence
The report focuses on subsidence on the surface at particular US tide gauges, ignoring worldwide satellite altimetry data of increased sea level rise of ~3.7 mm/year from thermal expansion and ice melting. This biased account skirts the climate-driven component of rising seas that will continue post-2050, threatening coastal infrastructure and ecosystems.
9. Political Interference as a Systemic Threat
The defects in the DOE report are part of a larger set of political science manipulation revealed in decades of studies of federal advisory procedures. As documented in reports on climate disinformation networks, the techniques include juggling expert choice, hiding unwanted findings, and promoting marginal views to shift the Overton Window of policy debate. Dr. John Balbus, former HHS official, likened the approach to anti-vaccine movements: “It’s obvious that this administration prefers to gain control, at the political level, of the scientific process of the government.”
The DOE’s “Critical Review” is now legally challenged for violating open-government standards for federal advisory committees. Whether or not the courts act, the debacle shows how susceptible scientific integrity is to being used for political ends once the conventions of evidence-based analysis are sacrificed for political agendas.
