In a dramatic escalation of the climate change debate, nearly one hundred climate scientists have issued a forceful critique of a new report from the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), accusing the agencies of promoting a "false narrative" that downplays human contributions to global warming. The controversy, which erupted on September 2, 2025, has ignited a fresh round of public and scientific scrutiny over the direction of U.S. environmental policy under EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and Energy Secretary Chris Wright.
The flashpoint is the DOE’s newly released report, titled A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate. According to Daily Kos, the report questions the prevailing scientific consensus on climate change, suggesting that the impact of human-generated greenhouse gases is less severe than previously believed. The document, which has become the centerpiece of a sweeping deregulatory push, also challenges the foundation of decades-long efforts to curb emissions and regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
In an open letter delivered to the Department of Energy, 85 climate scientists condemned the report, stating it "undermines previous scientific studies on climate change and creates a false narrative that downplays the scale of recent atmospheric changes and the degree to which those changes are attributable to human activities." The letter’s authors argue that the report unjustifiably minimizes humanity’s role in driving global warming, potentially derailing years of progress in environmental protection.
Texas A&M Professor Andrew Dessler, speaking to Inside Climate News, didn’t mince words in his criticism of the agencies’ approach. "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," Dessler said, adding that the report "makes a mockery of science."
At the heart of the controversy is the assertion by the DOE and EPA that the climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought. The agencies’ new direction, as outlined in the DOE report, emphasizes natural variability—such as ocean cycles, solar activity, and volcanic eruptions—as dominant factors in climate shifts. The report also points to biases in temperature datasets, particularly the urban heat island effect, and criticizes weather attribution studies that link extreme events to climate change as methodologically flawed. According to the DOE, these studies often ignore long-term trends that show no cause for alarm.
Administrator Zeldin has seized on these findings to justify a series of sweeping policy changes. In recent months, he has slashed the EPA’s workforce to a fraction of its former size and proposed ending the enforcement of pollution limits on power plants. Even more dramatically, Zeldin has called for the EPA to stop collecting data on greenhouse gases altogether—a move that would significantly hamper future climate research. During a press conference, he declared, "The proposal would, if finalized, amount to the largest deregulatory action in the history of the United States," and announced plans to eliminate emission limits on vehicles. In parallel, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has expanded coal mining and approved new oil leases, further distancing federal policy from previous climate goals.
Supporters of the new direction argue that the DOE report marks a long-overdue return to scientific rigor and open debate. In an opinion piece published on September 4, 2025, Vijay Jayaraj of the CO2 Coalition contended that for two decades, an alliance of "partisan ideologues," media, and academic elites dictated the narrative around climate change, stifling dissent and promoting costly energy policies. Jayaraj claims that the climate establishment declared the debate over too soon, ostracizing scientists who questioned prevailing models or pointed out inconsistencies in the data. "The result was a chilling illusion of unanimity, where models were tuned to produce predetermined conclusions and inconvenient data was disregarded or downplayed," he wrote.
Jayaraj and other proponents of the DOE’s findings highlight that carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring gas essential for life, with atmospheric concentrations rising from 280 parts per million (ppm) before the Industrial Revolution to 430 ppm today. They note that the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) considers levels up to 5,000 ppm safe for an eight-hour workday—far above current atmospheric concentrations. The DOE report claims that, contrary to alarmist narratives, increased CO2 has actually benefited global vegetation, as confirmed by satellite data.
Critics, however, warn that the new policies and scientific direction threaten to unravel decades of hard-won environmental protections. The scientists’ letter argues that the DOE and EPA are engaging in confirmation bias to support a predetermined agenda of deregulation and industry expansion. By sidelining the science that underpinned previous regulations, they say, the agencies are putting public health and the environment at risk. The letter warns, "The EPA report unjustifiably downplays human impact on warming," and cautions that the administration’s actions could have far-reaching consequences for the planet.
The debate has also exposed deep divisions over the role of science in policymaking. Supporters of the DOE’s approach argue that science is never "settled" and should always be subject to rigorous questioning and empirical testing. They claim the new report opens the door for more researchers to examine evidence without fear of professional repercussions. "The DOE report and EPA’s new direction mark a liberation of climate science from ideological captivity," Jayaraj asserted, predicting that as more researchers engage freely, the full extent of errors in past research will be revealed.
On the other hand, environmental advocates and many in the scientific community see these developments as a dangerous retreat from established knowledge. They argue that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree on the human causes of global warming, and that weakening regulations and slashing research capacity could have disastrous effects. The letter from the 85 scientists is a clear signal that the scientific consensus remains firm, despite political efforts to shift the narrative.
As the EPA and DOE press forward with their new agenda, the outcome remains uncertain. Entrenched interests on both sides are gearing up for a prolonged battle over the future of U.S. climate policy. What is clear, however, is that the debate over climate change in America has entered a turbulent new phase—one where the very definition of science, evidence, and public responsibility is up for grabs.
With regulatory frameworks and the scientific process itself under unprecedented scrutiny, the coming months promise to be pivotal for the nation’s environmental trajectory.
