Gazeta Lodz - 'Mockery of science': US experts blast Trump climate report

In a sweeping 440-page rebuttal, 85 scientists accused the government of relying on a small group of handpicked contrarians who drew on discredited research, misrepresented evidence, and bypassed the peer review process to reach pre-determined conclusions.

The Trump administration's 150-page report was published on the Department of Energy's website in late July to support the administration's proposal to overturn the 2009 "Endangerment Finding" -- a bedrock determination that underpins much of the federal government's authority to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

"This report makes a mockery of science," Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University and one of the co-authors, wrote in a statement.

"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. This report makes it clear DOE has no interest in engaging with the scientific community."

Entitled "A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the US Climate," the DOE document made sweeping claims: that extreme weather events linked to human-caused emissions were not increasing, US temperatures were not rising, and that higher carbon dioxide levels would benefit agricultural productivity.

The rebuttal marshals experts from multiple disciplines to challenge each assertion.

"Contrary to the authors' claims, the human-induced global warming signal is clearly discernible in all-time high and low temperature records over the continental United States and throughout the world," scientists wrote in one example.

On agriculture, the rebuttal notes that while elevated carbon dioxide can sometimes spur greater yields in isolation, rising heat and shifting rainfall patterns are expected to cause overall declines.

The DOE report also downplays the threat of ocean acidification, stating that "life in the oceans evolved when the oceans were mildly acidic" billions of years ago.

But according to the rebuttal, this is "irrelevant for evaluating whether current or near-future conditions are suitable for modern ecosystems to continue," since complex multi-cellular life had not evolved at the time.

Since returning to office in January, President Donald Trump has gone far beyond the pro-fossil fuel agenda of his first term.

Republicans recently passed legislation titled the "Big Beautiful Bill" which gutted clean energy tax credits established under former president Joe Biden, while opening ecologically sensitive areas to expanded fossil fuel development.

Trump has also withdrawn the United States from the Paris Agreement on climate and is pressing America's fossil fuel agenda abroad -- requiring the EU in its trade deal to buy more US liquefied natural gas and pressuring the World Bank to stop prioritizing climate change.

X.Pietrzak--GL