A coalition of over 85 climate scientists has issued a critical review of a recent U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) report, asserting that it is “biased, full of errors, and not fit to inform policymaking.”
This DOE report, produced by a small, hand-selected team known as the “2025 Climate Working Group,” was released in late July alongside a proposed repeal of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “Endangerment Finding,” which has served as a key basis for regulating greenhouse gas emissions since it was established in 2009.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who formed the group in March, defended the findings of the report, stating, “The rise of human flourishing over the past two centuries is a story worth celebrating. Yet we are told, relentlessly, that the very energy systems that enabled this progress now pose an existential threat.”
The controversy surrounding the DOE report is compounded by allegations that the Climate Working Group was improperly assembled and failed to operate transparently, leading to a lawsuit against the Trump administration.
In stark contrast to the conclusions drawn in the DOE document, accepted assessments from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S. National Climate Assessment, which draw from the expertise of thousands of scientists, emphasize that human actions have definitively caused global warming.
The IPCC has stated, “Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming,” a sentiment echoed by the National Climate Assessment which warns of ongoing severe climate risks unless significant reductions in emissions are achieved.
Following the release of the DOE report, numerous renowned climate scientists quickly criticized its findings, methodology, and the questionable composition of the Climate Working Group.
In response, a group of climate experts came together to publish an extensive rebuttal to the DOE report, detailing its shortcomings.
Andrew Dessler, a climate researcher at Texas A&M University who organized the rebuttal, said, “This report makes a mockery of science. It relies on ideas that were rejected long ago, supported by misrepresentations of the body of scientific knowledge, omissions of important facts, arm waving, anecdotes, and confirmation bias.”
Experts who reviewed the report found it peppered with “biased assessments” and “fundamentally flawed” arguments.
Critics noted that the report’s authors, often writing beyond their areas of expertise, made basic factual errors and emphasized that it had not undergone a standard peer review process.
The report lacked transparency and did not allow for public input, a fact highlighted by many in the scientific community.
According to the rebuttal, the DOE team’s work “selectively cites outdated or discredited studies” and distorts mainstream climate science.
There are also concerns that the DOE report was crafted with a specific policy agenda in mind—to challenge the EPA’s Endangerment Finding—rather than serving as an impartial scientific evaluation.
Specific claims in the DOE report assert that climate models exaggerate warming trends, that long-term disaster trends show minor changes, and that the economic impacts of carbon emissions are “negligible.”
Furthermore, the report highlights supposed benefits of increased carbon dioxide, such as enhanced plant growth.
However, experts like Becca Neumann, an associate professor at the University of Washington, warn that while these benefits do exist, they do not outweigh the broader detrimental impacts of climate change, which include rising temperatures and extreme weather—factors that threaten agricultural productivity.
As Neumann puts it, “For most regions in the U.S. and globally, the net effect of climate change on food production is projected to be negative. Yet the report repeatedly suggests the opposite.”
The DOE report goes further by questioning the validity of various climate data sources, alleging that factors like urbanization significantly skew temperature observations.
However, the scientific consensus, as reflected in IPCC assessments, maintains that these influences have minimal impact on global warming trends, and that reliable data methodologies are in place to address and correct for such biases.
An extensive rebuttal report, totaling more than 400 pages, was submitted to the DOE during its public comment period.
Legal action is also afoot, as the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Environmental Defense Fund have filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the establishment of the Climate Working Group.
This lawsuit raises questions concerning the adherence to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which mandates transparency, public access to materials, and balanced membership for advisory committees formed by the federal government.
Dr. Gretchen Goldman, president and CEO of UCS, stated, “Decades of rigorous scientific analysis show burning fossil fuels is unequivocally contributing to deadly heat waves, accelerating sea level rise, worsening wildfires and floods, increased heavy rainfall, and more intense and damaging storms across the country.”
In light of the lawsuit, the EPA has declined to comment on ongoing litigation.
Responding to the critique, a DOE spokesperson maintained that the Trump administration is committed to a more thoughtful and science-based dialogue regarding climate change and energy.
They emphasized that, unlike previous administrations, the current administration aims to engage the public and scientific community in discussions of climate science.
The DOE spokesperson outlined that the report underwent internal review by DOE scientists and policy experts and is now open to public comment.
In conclusion, while the DOE report claims to advocate for transparency and a dialogue around climate science, the stark backlash from the climate science community raises significant questions about its validity and intent.
image source from：abcnews
