Scientists denounce the Trump administration’s climate report as a ‘farce’ filled with misinformation
Experts argue that the report advocating for a significant reduction in climate regulations is based on established research but is also filled with misinformation about climate change, as produced by Trump administration officials.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a proposal to repeal the 2009 “hazards investigation,” which aimed to reduce global-warming pollution from vehicles, power plants, and industrial sources. Hours later, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
released a 150-page report in favor of the proposal, claiming that scientific concerns about the climate crisis are exaggerated.
U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright wrote in the report’s introduction that “Climate change is a challenge—not a catastrophe.”
Climate scientist Michael Mann commented that the report’s results resemble what one might expect from a chatbot trained on major fossil fuel industry-funded climate denial websites.
The U.S. Department of Energy released the report hours after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) 2009) announced plans to repeal the 2009 “hazards investigation.” The decision was made under the Clean Air Act. The measure gives the agency a legal basis to regulate climate-warming pollution. If finalized, the move would effectively repeal all U.S. climate controls.
In an interview with Fox News, Wright claimed that the report pushed back against the “Orwellian squelching of science.” Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard professor and climate misinformation expert, said the real goal was to “justify the unscientific failure to regulate fossil fuels.”
“Science is the foundation of climate regulation, so now they’re trying to replace legitimate science with pseudoscience,” she said.
Rachel Cleetus, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists and author of the Sixth US Assessment, stated that the current agenda promotes fossil fuel use, undermining efforts to address climate dangers.
Efforts to tackle the dangers of greenhouse gases, which harm public health, hinder Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” approach to increasing fossil fuel production, the primary cause of global warming.
“This new report shows that it promotes fossil fuels rather than public health, welfare, or environmental protection,” he stated.
Energy Nations Intergovernmental Diederich addressed scientists’ claims of misinformation in the new report, explaining that it assesses various scientific inquiries influenced by political institutions such as the United Nations and previous presidential administrations, rather than the scientists themselves.
The United NatThe United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the top authority on climate science, formed by a diverse group of scientists and endorsed by all national governments.hesis report from two years ago involved 721 volunteer scientists globally and highlighted significant harm to nature and people.
The Trump administration’s report was made without peer review and depended on five selected scientists whose views are seen as fringe by mainstream climate experts; the report authors have previously denied being climate deniers. The U.S. The Department of Energy did not respond to questions about the authors.
Zeke Hausfather, a research scientist at Berkeley Earth, called the report a “farce,” pointing out that it had five authors and was created in just four months without proper peer review.
U.S. Energy Secretary Wright stated that he did not influence the report’s conclusions. Judith Curry, one of the authors, hoped in a blog post that the report would shift climate science from fear to support. Natalie Mahowald, a climate scientist at Cornell University, stated that the report is authored by scientists who lack coherence in their arguments about climate change.
“This document does not lessen the importance of previous assessments; it cherry-picks literature to seem like a new review. It is “not as strong” as the IPCC report or the National Climate Assessment, which the Trump administration recently eliminated. The 2023 National Climate Assessment, produced by government agencies and scientists, shows that human-caused climate change is increasingly affecting every U.S. region.
Andrew Dessler stated that if any other scientist had been chosen, the report would not have been the same. “The only way to get this report was to select these authors.”
Hausfather stated that the authors’ views may differ from the broader scientific consensus on climate change. He was among those whose work the authors cited.
The new paper features a chart from a 2019 report he led, showing that climate models have “consistently overestimated” atmospheric carbon. But Housefather’s study actually found that climate models performed well.
“They dismissed the entire paper because it didn’t fit their narrative and instead highlighted a figure from the supplementary materials to question the models, even though the paper confirmed their strong performance since publication,”
he said. The U.S. Department of Energy did not respond to a request for comment about Housefather’s concerns. This approach to research seems to underlie the entire paper, said Hausfather, head of climate research at technology company Stripe.
“Reporters often select data points that support their narrative while ignoring a wealth of contradicting scientific literature,” he said.
Scientists are obligated to engage with the full body of evidence, even if it contradicts their initial assumptions, Dessler said. Ignoring this principle “can amount to scientific misconduct,” he said.
“The report they produce should be considered a legal brief for their clients, the lawyers defending carbon dioxide,” Dessler said. Their objective is not to fairly assess the evidence but to aggressively argue for CO2’s innocence.
The administration’s lack of peer review has led to conclusions that deviate from the scientific literature, sometimes wildly. Many of its claims are based on disproven research long promoted by climate deniers, Mann said.
It’s the same old, decades-old, discredited climate denier talk, dressed up in some clever new publicity,” he said. “What’s different is that it now has the influence of the EPA and the federal government.”
For example, the report claims that warming trends have been exaggerated despite evidence to the contrary. It was released because extreme heat is affecting millions of Americans.
Mann stated that they urge us to doubt our own observations and instead accept their denialist views, which disregard both science and the obvious reality we see outside.
The authors stated that ocean acidification is happening “within natural variability” and benefits marine life, despite current acidity levels being the highest in 14 million years, coinciding with a major extinction event. National Science Foundation staff condemn Trump’s ‘politically motivated’ cuts.
The report notes the apparent health of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, which has “made significant progress in recent years”. Since 2016, the reef has experienced mass bleaching, where corals turn white due to ocean currents. Sometimes they die. No video of general bleaching has been recorded on the reef since 1998.
Bob Cope, a contributor to Reuters’ Full Climate, said the report was “exhausting” and sometimes “downright disturbing.” The paper argues that the work will negatively impact both growing and declining yields, contradicting the report’s claim that releasing carbon dioxide will lead to improvements. fails to address the growing concern that carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to the warming and severe climate change that is driving the global warming.”
The United States is in a dangerous moment for dissent.
I hope you appreciate this Porter. Before I close this tab, I would like to ask if you can support the Guardian in this time of journalism?
When the United States is used to suppress dissent, when mass murderers are handcuffed, when students are imprisoned or exiled, and when the US federal government targets and orders protests and gives orders to various civic organizations—non-profits, law firms, universities, newspapers, industries, civil society, advocates—it – it is difficult to imagine that our core principles are disappearing and democracy is losing strength.
“On the brink of authoritarianism, the role of local, member-elected, and elected representatives has become increasingly important. We need to make it our job to welcome voices, to ensure that they are welcomed, to join us.” “Organizations are being pressured to avoid opposing the government by those who define their goals, not the problems,” he said. The Guardian.
The Guardian’s UK editor’s statement
The Guardian’s global perspective helps to contextualise and illuminate what we are experiencing in this country. This does not mean that we have a single view, but we do share a set of values. We are guided by humanity, curiosity, and integrity, and our work focuses on solidarity with ordinary people and hope for a shared future.
It’s crucial now more than ever to ensure accountable reporting that prevents misinformation. At the Guardian, we provide free and accessible journalism for everyone. Can you spare just 37 seconds now to support our work and protect a free press? Recurring contributions have the greatest impact, allowing us to invest more in our important and fearless journalism. We appreciate any support you can provideTo show our gratitude, we can offer you benefits such as fewer fundraising messages. We’ve been very quick to set this up, so we hope you’ll consider it. Thank you.
Betsy Reid
Editor, Guardian US
(Edited /Rewriting)
Courtesy: The Guardian
