Scientists slam the Trump administration’s climate report as a “farce” full of disinformation | Trump administration

A new Trump administration report which tries to justify a mass decline in environmental regulations is full of climate disinformation, according to experts.

On Tuesday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a proposal to cancel the “endangering conclusion” of 2009, which allows the agency to limit pollution by the planet of cars and trucks, power plants and other industrial sources. A few hours later, the Ministry of Energy (DOE) published a 150 -page report defending the proposal, claiming that scientific concerns concerning the climate crisis are exaggerated.

“Climate change is a challenge – not a disaster,” wrote the energy secretary, Chris Wright, in the introduction of the report.

The estimated air conditioning Michael Mann said that the report is similar to the result it would expect “if you take a discussion bot and that you had trained it on the 10 climate denial websites funded by the fossil industry”.

The DOE published the report a few hours after the EPA announced a plan to make back “funding” of 2009, a fundamental decision which provided the agency’s legal basis to regulate climate pollution under the Clean Air Act. If finalized, the movement would reversed almost all American climate regulations.

In an interview with Fox News, Wright said that the report rejected “cancel the culture of the Orwellian culture of science”. But Naomi Oreskes, professor of history of science at Harvard University and climate disinformation expert, said that his real objective was to “justify what is a scientifically unjustifiable failure to regulate fossil fuels”.

“Science is the basis of climate regulations, so now they try to replace legitimate science with pseudoscience,” she said.

The attack on the research underlying the conclusion of endangerment – which says that greenhouse gases endanger public health and well -being – is part of the agenda of the “forest, baby, forest” of Trump, to stimulate fossil fuels, which are the main cause of global warming.

“This is a program to promote fossil fuels, not to protect public health and well-being or the environment,” said Rachel Cleetus, climate and non-profit sciences director of the scientists concerned who was the author of the sixth US national climate assessment.

Asked about the claims of scientists according to which the new report is catching up,, A spokesperson for the Doe, Ben Dietderich, said: “This report critically assesses many areas of the current scientific investigation which are frequently attributed to a high level of confidence-not by the scientists themselves, but by the political organizations involved, such as the United Nations or the previous presidential administrations.”

But the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the UN produces what is widely considered as the collection of climate science, compiled by a huge multinational team of scientists, evaluated by peers and accepted by each national government.

The latest IPCC summary report, published two years ago, was a vast company involving 721 volunteer scientists worldwide. He indicates that it is “unequivocally” that human activity heated the planet, which “led to negative impacts and loss and damage related to nature and people”.

On the other hand, the Trump administration report was produced by five hand -to -component scientists who are considered to have marginal or contrary opinions by traditional climatologists, without peer exam. Experts behind the report previously denied being climatic negators. The DOE did not answer a question about the authors.

“This report had five authors and was precipitated over four months, and would not go into a traditional scientific examination process,” said Zeke Hausfather, a non -profit climate researcher Berkeley Earth, who described the “farce” newspaper.

Wright, the energy secretary, insisted that he had not directed the report’s conclusions, while Judith Curry, one of the reports of the report, said in a blog post that she hoped that the document would repeat the science of the climate “far from alarmism and plea”.

‘I am embarrassed by this report’

Traditional climatologists, however, condemned results as distorted and inaccurate. “This is a report written by some scientists who are aberrant in their arguments for climate change,” said Natalie Mahowald, climatologist at Cornell University. “This document does not in any way depreciate the value of previous assessments, but it does not do what the literature pretending to create a new review.”

Mahowald said that the lack of peer exam means that it is “obviously not as robust” as the IPCC report or the national climate assessment of the US government, which the Trump administration has recently won. The latest national climate assessment, compiled by a dozen government agencies and external scientists in 2023, concluded that the “effects of climate change caused by humans are already large and aggravation in all regions of the United States”

“If almost any other group of scientists had been chosen, the report would have been considerably different,” said Andrew Dessler, a climate researcher at Texas A & M University, about the new report. “The only way to get this report was to choose these authors.”

Hausfather has agreed that the work of the authors “could represent their point of view but does not comply with the broader scientific literature on climate change”. He was one of the scientists whose work has cited the authors.

The new document includes a table of a 2019 report he directed, saying that he shows how climate models “systematically overestimated observations” atmospheric carbon. But Hausfather’s research has actually shown that climate models have performed well.

“They seem to have rejected all the paper as not being adapted to their story, and rather chose a single figure which was in additional documents to question the models when the whole newspaper actually confirmed how well they performed in the years that followed their publication,” he said. The DOE did not respond to a request for comments on Hausfather’s concerns.

This research approach seems to underlie the entire document, said Hausfather, who is also the head of the climate research of the Stripe technological company.

“This is a general theme in the report; they cerize the data points suitable for their story and exclude the vast majority of the scientific literature that does not do so,” he said.

Drawing said that scientists are forced to engage in the entire range of evidence, even if it contradicts their initial assumptions. Ignoring this principle “can reach the level of scientific misconduct,” he said.

“The report they have produced should be considered as a law on the part of lawyers defending their client, carbon dioxide,” said Drawing. “Their objective is not to weigh the evidence fairly, but to build the strongest case as possible for the innocence of CO2.”

The absence of peers’ review in the administration report led to conclusions that have deviated, sometimes brutally, of scientific literature. Many of his claims have been based on long research has long been promoted by climate negators, Mann said.

“It is a worn shop, decades and discredited discredited points of discussion on the climate ship, dressed in the clothes of a new set of reasonable revelations,” he said. “What is different is that he now has the IPA and federal government’s printer.”

The report, for example, says that the warming trends have been overestimated, despite the evidence of the contrary. It has been published because Extreme Heat affects millions of Americans.

“They literally try to tell us not to believe what we see with our two eyes … and rather admire their denying framing that rejects not only science, but what is clearly obvious if you look out of your window,” said Mann.

The authors also write that the acidification of the ocean occurs “in the range of natural variability” and beneficial for marine life, although the acid levels of the ocean are currently the highest since 14m, at a time when a major extinction event occurred.

And the report refers to the apparent health of the great barrier reef of Australia, which, according to him, has shown considerable growth in recent years “. The reef has recently been struck by its sixth mass laundering event since 2016, a devastating phenomenon for corals where they whiten and sometimes die because of the high temperatures of the sea. No watches of the sea was recorded on the reef before 1998.

The report is “tedious” and sometimes “really tiring”, according to Bob Kopp, climatologist at Rutgers University. Kopp recently worked on a document showing how the rise in temperatures and drought will worsen culture yields, contrary to the statements of the report that cultures will flourish with additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

“The fertilization of carbon dioxide is largely out of words for increasingly extreme heat and intense drought will have an impact on crop yields,” said Kopp. “As a former scholarship holder of the Ministry of Energy, I am embarrassed by this report.”