Over 85 environmental scientists claim the US government's new climate report is 'misleading'

More than 85 climate scientists filed a detailed rebuttal to a Department of Energy (DOE) report that downplays climate risks. The response argues the document misrepresents research and inflates uncertainty in ways that could mislead policy.

The stakes are high because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is weighing a rollback of the 2009 endangerment finding and has referenced the DOE report. If finalized, that move could reshape rules for vehicles, power plants, and oil and gas.

Climate report disputed

DOE released its report, written by five authors known for contrarian views. The agency opened a public comment period and framed the document as a synthesis for decision makers.

Days later, EPA issued a proposal to rescind the endangerment finding, and cited the DOE study as part of its justification. That connection turned a technical dispute into a live regulatory fight.

Led by Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University, the reviewers set out to provide a public, point by point critique. They aimed to show where claims diverge from the broader peer reviewed literature.

How the rebuttal came together

The reviewer group consisted of more than 85 experts and produced a public review exceeding 400 pages.

They coordinated quickly to prevent errors from hardening into official guidance. They compared each disputed claim with the underlying papers and flagged omissions or misreadings. 

“This report makes a mockery of science,” stated Dessler. The submitted document also challenges the report’s portrayal of benefits from carbon dioxide and its treatment of extreme weather.

The authors call out selective citation, heavy emphasis on uncertainty, and errors in statistics. They argue that several sections omit recent results on sea level rise and heat extremes.

Experts review climate report

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) issued a formal statement identifying five foundational flaws in the DOE report. The society said a small, non representative author group cannot credibly assess the breadth of evidence.

“Each of these flaws, alone, places the report at odds with scientific principles and practices,” said the AMS. The statement points to cherry picking and extrapolations that do not follow from comprehensive consideration of the science.

Major assessments, like the IPCC and the National Climate Assessment, synthesize hundreds of studies across disciplines. That process builds consensus by weighing all the evidence, not a narrow slice of it.

Record on sea level and risk

Sea level along the U.S. coast is projected to rise about 10 to 12 inches by 2050, according to a 2022 NOAA report.

That amount would roughly match the increase of the prior century and would raise the frequency of damaging coastal floods.

These projections rest on tide gauges, satellite measurements, and climate models, plus physics based understanding of melting land ice.

They also account for regional differences caused by land motion and ocean circulation.

Communities will face higher baseline water levels that make storms more destructive. Ports, bases, and neighborhoods will need plans that fit this trajectory, not assumptions that minimize it.

Track record of climate models

A 2020 peer reviewed study compared decades of historical model projections with observed global temperatures. It found the models were generally accurate once evaluated against the emissions that actually occurred.

That result speaks directly to claims that models exaggerate warming. While uncertainties remain about regional details, the physics behind greenhouse gas warming has performed well in retrospective tests.

Confidence in the big picture rests on measurements and skill tests, not on selective charts. When models are checked against reality, they give policymakers usable signals about risk.

Climate report shapes policy

EPA’s move puts the DOE document into the legal record, where it could influence standards for vehicles, power plants, and industrial sources.

Public comments, independent reviews, and court scrutiny will determine how much weight it carries.

For people outside Washington, the practical question is whether rules align with what the evidence shows. Health and infrastructure decisions depend on accurate readings of heat, rainfall, and sea level rise trends.

Scientists are not asking for certainty, only for decisions rooted in well established measurements and validated methods. Studies that test past projections against outcomes help keep those decisions on solid ground.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–