• Over 85 climate scientists refute a Department of Energy report on climate change, citing errors and bias.
• The DOE report, released by a panel handpicked by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, is criticized for lacking scientific integrity.
• Critics argue the report misrepresents climate science and supports a predetermined policy agenda.
• The review underscores the urgency of addressing human-caused climate change amid regulatory rollbacks.
• The scientists emphasize that established climate science overwhelmingly supports the reality and severity of climate change.

A group of more than 85 climate scientists has issued a critical review of a recent U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) report, finding it fundamentally flawed and biased. The report, compiled by a panel of five scientists hand-selected by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, argues that the effects of climate change may not be as severe as previously thought. This review follows the release of the DOE report in late July alongside a proposal to repeal the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) "Endangerment Finding," which recognized greenhouse gases as a threat to public health, according to CBS News and Reuters.

The scientists’ extensive response, spanning over 459 pages, describes the DOE report as "not scientifically credible" due to its reliance on outdated or discredited studies and a lack of peer review. According to Andrew Dessler, a professor at Texas A&M University and one of the reviewers, the report selectively cites literature that supports a misleading narrative about climate change, making it unfit to inform policy decisions. The criticism highlights that, unlike the comprehensive assessments from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this DOE report disregards prevailing scientific consensus, as noted by LA Times and NPR.

The DOE report has faced particular scrutiny for its claims that rising carbon dioxide levels could be economically beneficial and that aggressive mitigation policies may be more harmful than helpful. Critics argue that these assertions are unfounded and reflect a misunderstanding of the broader implications of climate change. By emphasizing select data and downplaying critical aspects, the report appears designed to support the administration’s broader regulatory rollback efforts, according to The Hill and ABC News.

Moreover, the review conducted by the group of scientists details how the DOE report misinterprets key climate data and omits significant scientific findings. For instance, it claims there is no evidence of significant drought increases, despite numerous studies detailing how climate change exacerbates drought conditions globally. This phenomenon is a critical aspect of ongoing climate change research, as emphasized by the review team, which includes climate experts from multiple disciplines across leading universities, as reported by CBS News, Reuters, and LA Times.

In light of the critical review, Andrew Dessler articulated that the DOE report seemingly attempts to cast doubt on established climate science to facilitate regulatory rollbacks rather than promote informed and unbiased scientific discourse. The backlash reflects a broader concern within the scientific community about the implications of misrepresenting climate science in policymaking, as captured by the extensive commentary submitted to the DOE during the public comment period, noted by The Hill and ABC News.