On July 29th, The United States Department of Energy (DoE) put out an inflammatory and widely criticized report. This report has drawn fierce rebuke from leading climate change scientists. The report outlines the rationale behind the Trump administration’s decision to revoke a foundational scientific ruling, which has long supported the government’s authority to combat climate change. Climate scientists reacting to the draft report say it misrepresents key points of climate science. They claim that report cherry-picks studies to downplay the role of human activity on global warming.
The report stirred outrage among a scientific establishment already alarmed. They contend that their research has been hijacked to support a politically motivated agenda. The working group that wrote the report included well known climate skeptics, John Christy and Judith Curry. He and she both work for The Heartland Institute, an anti-regulation group notorious for its denialism over the scientific consensus on climate change.
Misrepresentation of Scientific Research
Top scientists have criticized the way their research has been abused in the report. That’s partly because Bor-Ting Jong, an assistant professor at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, raised concerns about the way his findings were reported. He stated, “I am concerned that a government agency has published a report, which is intended to inform the public and guide policy, without undergoing a rigorous peer-review process, while misinterpreting many studies that have been peer-reviewed.”
Other scientists, such as physicist and retired Lawrence Livermore researcher Bill Collins, atmospheric scientist Benjamin Santer of the University of East Anglia, told a similar lament. So when the DoE cited Santer’s research on climate “fingerprinting,” it did so to undergird an analysis that completely goes against his findings. Santer’s scientific research has been essential in establishing that humans are driving climate change. This new report appears to be taking issue with that scientific consensus.
James Rae, an expert in climate warfare at the University of St Andrews, was similarly incensed by the lead report’s @mentioning his work. He remarked, “DoE was at the forefront of science for decades. Whereas this report reads like an undergraduate exercise in misrepresenting climate science.”
Inconsistencies and Contradictions
The report thus goes beyond misrepresenting the work of these researchers and unfortunately, contradictions abound even within the report’s own sections. For example, one section on “stratospheric cooling” contradicts conclusions long ago established by Santer himself. Climate experts are understandably alarmed by these blatant inconsistencies. In their brief, they contend that this document could mislead policymakers and the American people about the critical need for climate action.
The backlash from scientists is not isolated. This incident marks the third occurrence since January where experts have reported that government agencies misrepresented academic work to justify their policies. This trend in the pattern indicates a deeply concerning trend of cherry-picking and misrepresenting scientific research in government official statements.
Implications for Climate Policy
The implications of this report extend beyond academic circles. They affect national climate policy and public understanding of climate change. Misinterpreting scientific conclusions can lead to poorly-informed, even dangerous policies. These policies only serve to impede our collective progress as we fight to address one of the biggest challenges humanity faces right now.
As battles over climate policy continue to rage, the independence of our scientific research is more important than ever. As this powerful letter demonstrates, scientists understand that getting their work represented correctly is key to steering the right policy decisions. The DoE’s report sets out to raise alarm over what can happen when political agendas take precedence over a solid scientific understanding.
