On September 2, 2025, a coalition of more than 85 climate scientists from across the globe mounted a sweeping challenge to a controversial report issued by the Trump administration’s Department of Energy (DOE), accusing it of misrepresenting climate science and reviving tactics once used by the tobacco industry to sow doubt about settled science. The scientists’ 439-page response, submitted as public comments to the DOE, meticulously dissects the government’s July 29 Climate Working Group study, which was released alongside a slew of deregulation initiatives in polluting sectors.
The DOE report, authored by five prominent climate change skeptics—John Christy, Roy Spencer, Steven E. Koonin, Judith Curry, and Ross McKitrick—was handpicked by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former fossil fuel executive. According to CNN, the report asserts that “carbon dioxide-induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed” and argues that “aggressive mitigation strategies” could be more harmful than beneficial. In public statements supporting the document, Wright insisted, “Climate change is real, and it deserves attention. But it is not the greatest threat facing humanity.”
But the scientific community’s response was swift and sharp. The group of experts, who first organized informally via the social platform Bluesky, described the DOE report as “science-y in appearance, but grossly misleading, lacking in substance and peer review.” They criticized the report’s sections on sea level rise for failing to capture the acceleration of such trends, and identified a host of other inaccuracies. “It makes a mockery of science,” said Andrew Dessler, a climate researcher at Texas A&M University who helped organize the public comments. Dessler told CBS News, “I can’t tell you how many people looked at this and agreed with me that this was a mockery and we needed to respond to it.”
Among the central criticisms was the DOE report’s attempt to manufacture scientific uncertainty where, according to the scientists, none exists. The report claims, for example, that extreme weather events linked to greenhouse gas emissions are not increasing, that U.S. temperatures are not rising, and that higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would benefit agriculture. It even suggests that solar activity, rather than human activity, could explain warming trends. The counter-report, as AFP noted, brought together experts from various disciplines to challenge each claim, calling out the use of discredited studies, distorted evidence, and the omission of key facts.
“Just as the tobacco industry funded scientists to question the harms of smoking, the fossil fuel industry in the 1990s coordinated a campaign to claim that the sun, not human activity, is driving observed climate change,” said climatologist Ted Amour of Aon Impact Forecasting, expressing concern at seeing “zombie arguments revived.” The counter-report further dismantled the DOE’s invocation of the Dust Bowl era as proof against human-caused warming, noting that poor land management—not climate alone—amplified the extreme heat of the 1930s.
Ecologist Pamela McElwee of Rutgers University also took aim at the DOE report for ignoring biodiversity’s importance, highlighting that “coral reefs in the U.S. alone provide roughly $1.8 billion in annual protection to coasts from storms and flooding.” According to BGNES, McElwee emphasized the vast social and economic impacts of biodiversity loss, a point the DOE report failed to address.
Underlying the scientists’ outrage is the report’s potential policy impact. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has already cited the DOE document as part of the scientific justification for revisiting the 2009 “Endangerment Finding” on greenhouse gas emissions—a legal foundation for regulating emissions from vehicles, power plants, and the oil and gas industry. Repealing this finding could unravel some of the nation’s most significant environmental protections. “What they are trying to do now is rewrite the rules of science, because they know they cannot win in the actual scientific community. So they are busy trying to figure out a venue where they can win,” Dessler told CNN.
The American Meteorological Society, which represents weather and climate experts, weighed in with its own response, identifying “five foundational flaws” in the DOE report and stating that it “places the report at odds with scientific principles and practices.” The society’s statement noted that “scientific assessments that emphasize unusual views are unrepresentative of the larger community of subject matter experts,” and accused the DOE of “selectively emphasizing a small set of unrepresentative findings, particularly those that might appear beneficial on superficial examination.”
Energy Secretary Chris Wright, in response to the mounting criticism, maintained that the Trump administration is “committed to engaging in a more thoughtful and science-based conversation about climate change and energy.” The DOE allowed a 30-day window for public comments, and by September 1, more than 2,333 comments had been submitted. According to CBS News, the department said it would “consider the public comments and possibly involve the public in shaping the final report,” though scientists remain skeptical about how—or if—their feedback will be incorporated.
The controversy comes amid a broader push by the Trump administration to support fossil fuels and roll back climate policies. Since returning to office in January, President Trump has championed the “Big Beautiful Bill,” which removes tax incentives for clean energy and opens sensitive areas to drilling. The U.S. has also withdrawn from the Paris Agreement and pressured international organizations and allies to shift their energy and climate priorities. Critics, including Dr. John Balbus, formerly of the Department of Health and Human Services, argue that such selective committees and reports represent a “larger trend in the federal government under the Trump administration to organize selective committees that publish reports, which are politically advantageous to support policy decisions.”
Many scientists who were dismissed from federal agencies during Trump’s tenure have regrouped in the private sector, launching coordinated responses to counter what they see as government-sponsored misinformation. Major health organizations and scientific societies have also issued their own guidelines and statements, seeking to preserve the integrity of scientific discourse in the face of political interference.
As the DOE reviews the flood of public comments, the scientific community remains vigilant. “When you see nearly a thousand public servants risking their livelihoods to alert the public that senior officials cannot be trusted, that is a clear warning,” said Balbus. The battle over the DOE report is just one front in a much larger war over the role of science in shaping U.S. policy—one that, for now, shows no sign of abating.
