A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate Public Comment DEADLINE September 2, 2025

July 30, 2025

Print This Article Share it With Friends

(U.S. Department of Energy) On July 29, 2025, the Department of Energy (DOE) published a report entitled A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate, evaluating existing peer-reviewed literature and government data on climate impacts of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions and providing a critical assessment of the conventional narrative on climate change.

Among the key findings, the report concludes that carbon dioxide (CO2) -induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and that aggressive mitigation strategies could be more harmful than beneficial. Additionally, the report finds that U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate and any effects will emerge only with long delays.

The report was developed by the 2025 Climate Working Group, a group of five independent scientists assembled by Energy Secretary Chris Wright with diverse expertise in physical science, economics, climate science and academic research.

Summary

This report:

Reviews scientific certainties and uncertainties in how anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other GHGs have affected, or will affect, the Nation’s climate, extreme weather events, and metrics of societal well-being.
Assesses the near-term impacts of elevated concentrations of CO2, including enhanced plant growth and reduced ocean alkalinity.
Evaluates data and projections regarding long-term impacts of elevated concentrations of CO2, including estimates of future warming.
Finds that claims of increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts are not supported by U.S. historical data.
Asserts that CO2-induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and that aggressive mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial.
Finds that U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate and any effects will emerge only with long delays.

Read the Full Report

Public Comment

DOE is inviting feedback on this report by opening a public comment period. A notice of availability and invitation for public comment will be published in the Federal Register. READ MORE

Related articles

Notice of Availability: A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate (U.S. Department of Energy/Federal Register)
Climate Regulation Liberation Day: The Trump EPA moves to repeal the Obama-Biden ‘endangerment’ finding. (Wall Street Journal Opinion)
EPA attacks climate science. Here are the facts. The Trump administration’s proposal to roll back the endangerment finding includes many misleading and inaccurate claims. (E&E News by Politico)
Contrarian climate assessment from U.S. government draws swift pushback -- Researchers say DOE report cherry-picks data to downplay threat of greenhouse gases (Science Magazine)
DOE reframes climate consensus as a debate -- Energy Secretary Chris Wright handpicked five researchers to write a report that assaults what he called the “cancel culture Orwellian squelching of science.” (E&E News Climatewire)
Scientists slam Trump administration climate report as a ‘farce’ full of misinformation: Experts say the report being used to justify the mass rollback of climate regulations has many claims based on long-debunked research (The Guardian)
National Academies Launch Fast-Track Review of Latest Evidence for Whether Greenhouse Gas Emissions Endanger Public Health and Welfare (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine)
Groups sue Trump agencies for using 'secret' report to reverse core of US climate rules (Reuters)
Trump team readies more attacks on mainstream climate science: The plans include a public debate on global warming. Scientists say that falsely implies the major tenets of climate research are unsettled. (E&E News Climatewire)

Excerpt from E&E News by Politico: “This is a general theme in the report; they cherrypick data points that suit their narrative and exclude the vast majority of the scientific literature that does not,” Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at the science nonprofit Berkeley Earth, said in an email.

The proposed rule cites — and misrepresents — some of his research, Hausfather said, adding, “This gives a terribly skewed view of the underlying climate science, and highlights a number of fringe studies that have been subsequently shown to be riddled with errors.”

Climate science has long been based on data and facts, as well as extensive peer-reviewed research. Thousands of studies conducted throughout the globe over decades have unequivocally shown that humanity’s reliance on fossil fuels is pushing the planet toward dangerous climate tipping points, such as significant sea-level rise, more deadly heat waves and increased extreme weather.

On Tuesday, Energy Secretary Chris Wright characterized that scientific record as flawed.

“What we really want to do is bring climate science into the same realm we treated all science in the past, which is critical thinking, challenging, basing things on data and facts,” Wright said at a press conference at an Indiana trucking company. “And if your model doesn’t match the data, you can’t hide the data, you’ve got to fix your model. We want to end the cancel culture.”

The proposed rule suggests that scientists’ projections of global warming are flawed, that scientists have overstated the dangers of climate change and that rising temperatures even pose a net benefit to humankind. It’s all part of the Trump administration’s efforts to overturn the endangerment finding, which determined that greenhouse gas emissions drive warming and endanger public health and welfare.

Here is a fact check of some claims made in the EPA proposal.

Human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are “not the exclusive source” of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations and rising global temperatures.

The links between climate change and human-caused greenhouse gas emissions have been established beyond any mainstream scientific doubt. That’s thanks to a combination of real-world observations and sophisticated climate models.

Scientists have been collecting detailed temperature records at weather stations around the world for over a century. These observations indicate that the planet has been warming since the 19th century. By the 1980s, the warming trend had clearly statistically diverged from the previous global temperature average — in other words, the rising temperatures weren’t just a blip, but an obvious shift into a new climate regime.

Climate models have allowed scientists to attribute this warming trend directly to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. With these computerized simulations, researchers can test the influence of different factors on the Earth’s climate system — from natural variables like solar radiation and volcanic eruptions to manmade ones like fossil fuel emissions.

The models clearly demonstrate that natural variables can’t explain the recent increase in Earth’s temperatures, while greenhouse gas emissions closely track the warming trends. Studies have agreed on this point for decades.

“Recent data and analyses suggest, however, that despite increased public attention and concern, such extreme weather events have not demonstrably increased relative to historical highs.”

Numerous studies have demonstrated that weather extremes are becoming more frequent or more intense over time — including heat waves, wildfires, hurricanes and floods.

At the same time, climate models have become so sophisticated that they can demonstrate links between greenhouse gas emissions and individual weather events.

The most recent version of the congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment — which the Trump administration removed from the internet — found that “communities across the country are built for a climate that no longer exists” because of weather extremes. The observed climate effects happening now include “drought in the Western U.S. and heavier precipitation and increased flood risk across much of the U.S.,” according to the federal assessment, which draws upon the peer-reviewed research of hundreds of scientists.

Meanwhile, the World Meteorological Organization has concluded that weather and climate disasters caused $4.3 trillion in global economic losses over the last 50 years and killed at least two million people.

“The Endangerment Finding consistently cites climate models as showing or predicting warming trends, melting ice, anthropogenic droughts, shrinking snowpack, damage to aquatic systems of life, and increased ocean temperature and acidity. However, the data relied upon as inputs to these models may be based on inaccurate assumptions.”

Those who deny climate science have frequently attacked the performance of climate models, suggesting that they overestimate global warming and other climate impacts. But research shows that climate models have been highly accurate for decades.

A groundbreaking 2019 study examined all the global climate models used by scientists between 1970 and 2007, including the models used to support the first three reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It found that most of them closely predicted the actual warming rates observed on Earth. That includes long-obsolete models built decades ago; today’s simulations are far more advanced and just as accurate.

The fossil fuel industry’s own computer models have also accurately predicted global warming. A study published in 2023 revealed that Exxon Mobil’s state-of-the-art climate models have correctly predicted global warming since at least the late 1970s.

“Our findings demonstrate that ExxonMobil didn’t just know ‘something’ about global warming decades ago — they knew as much as academic and government scientists knew,” the study’s authors concluded.

Critics of climate models have also often suggested that the underlying data used to feed the simulations — including on-the-ground measurements of Earth’s temperatures — are untrustworthy. Some have pointed out that urban areas are hotter than their natural surroundings — a phenomenon known as the urban heat island effect — and that this phenomenon can skew the measurements collected by weather stations around the world.

But that’s not actually a problem. Scientists adjust their datasets to account for factors like the urban heat island effect. And weather stations around the world — on land and sea and in cities and wilderness — all demonstrate that global average temperatures are rising.

At the same time, on-the-ground weather stations aren’t the only ways scientists monitor global warming. Satellites have been observing the planet’s temperatures for decades, and instruments operated by countries around the world — from the U.S. to Europe to Japan — all agree that the Earth is heating up.

“Recent data and analysis show that even marginal increases in CO2 concentrations have substantial beneficial impacts on plant growth and agricultural productivity.”

This well-worn claim — asserting that increased carbon dioxide is “greening” the planet and causing crop yields to spike — is misleading, experts say.

“The statement that higher CO2 is good for plants is sort of facile and self-serving and doesn’t reflect the depth of the research done on this,” said Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University.

It’s a selective fact that ignores or downplays the major role played by decades of agricultural innovation, including vast improvements in long-term weather predictions, high-yield crop varieties, hybrid seed developments, mechanization, irrigation methods and infrastructure, as well as herbicides and pesticides.

It also ignores numerous studies which suggest that rising temperatures, intensifying drought and increasing extreme weather events — all driven by climate change — are expected to damage crop yields in many regions of the world over the coming decades.

A study published just last month in the scientific journal Nature found that climate change is likely to drive down global food production by as much as 120 calories per person per day with every degree Celsius the world warms — even if farmers take steps to adapt.

The claim that climate change benefits agriculture overall “presumes that all you’re doing is changing carbon dioxide,” Dessler said. “Other things also change. Temperature goes up, soil moisture goes down, precipitation patterns change.”

“Contrary to the Endangerment Finding’s assumptions, data continue to suggest that mortality risk from cold temperatures remains by far the greater threat to public health in the United States,” the proposed rule reads. “Although the risk of heat waves featured prominently in the Endangerment Finding … the data since 2009 suggest that the balance of climate change as a whole appears to skew substantially more than previously recognized by the EPA in the direction of net benefits.”

This is a carefully selected data point, which is frequently invoked by climate policy opponents such as Wright. But it ignores an important counterpoint. While it’s true that the warming of the planet is cutting down on the number of cold-related deaths — largely in sub-Saharan Africa — it is rapidly increasing the number of extreme-heat related deaths.

In the U.S., extreme heat kills more Americans than any other natural disaster. In fact, most official estimates probably underestimate the number of people who die each year as a result of high temperatures.

Another degree or two of warming means the places where people in the U.S. die from temperature extremes will also shift and increase, Dessler said. The balance of science since 2009 certainly does not show more “net benefits,” he said.

Places like Phoenix — which has set repeated high temperature records in recent years — may not see a major spike in deaths because the built environment includes air conditioning and other protections, he said. But he added that places like Chicago, which is built for months of extreme cold, will see many more deaths from an increase in extreme heat waves since the city is unprepared for that climate.

The world is actually on track for less warming than the IPCC’s worst-case scenarios — and these studies have led the public to believe that climate change is more harmful than it actually is.

It’s true that many climate studies have explored a worst-case scenario that assumes world leaders will take no steps at all to address climate change in the coming decade. Such scenarios predict as much as 5 degrees Celsius, or 9 degrees Fahrenheit, of warming by the end of the century. It’s also true that this “business as usual” scenario is unlikely to actually occur.

But many more studies have focused on the consequences of small amounts of warming, like exceeding the Paris Agreement’s targets of 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius.

Hausfather, the Berkeley Earth climate scientist, has himself critiqued worst-case climate scenarios in a paper the Trump administration cited in its move to revoke the endangerment finding. But he has also published studies demonstrating the overall accuracy of climate models and the dangers of rising temperatures — research he notes the Trump administration “somehow neglected to mention.”

Numerous studies have shown that the impacts of climate change are already happening and affecting human health and well-being at warming far less than forecast in worst-case scenarios.

Sea levels are already rising. Extreme weather events are already worsening. Climate-related disasters like hurricanes, wildfires and floods already cost the U.S. billions of dollars each year, and they’re growing more intense over time.

Dessler emphasized that skepticism is normal in science, with researchers often debating and arguing the merits of plenty of findings. But the recently hired DOE researchers behind the proposed rule’s climate claims make general proclamations that certain bodies of research are not “believable,” he said.

“There’s a lot of stuff that happens in science that relies on the good faith of the people arguing,” he said. “And it breaks down in the face of these people that are professional contrarians.” READ MORE

Excerpt from Science Magazine: The last assessment of the state of climate science from the United Nations’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in its final form 2 years ago, was a monumental effort, with 721 volunteer scientists synthesizing all available published research. Yesterday, the Department of Energy (DOE) released its own climate assessment, as part of a campaign by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to overturn its landmark endangerment finding from 2009, which found that burning fossil fuels endangers public health and established carbon dioxide as a pollutant EPA could regulate. But the DOE report—called A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate—had fewer authors than IPCC’s: just five.

Handpicked by DOE Secretary Chris Wright, a fossil fuel entrepreneur, the authors are well known to climate scientists. Although the members of this Climate Working Group all hold scientific doctorates, they hold contrarian views on climate science that are out of step with the mainstream. The report, assembled in months, argues that some of the warming attributed to fossil fuel burning is instead driven by natural cycles or variability in the Sun, and that sea level rise has not been accelerating. Climate researchers say the authors cherry-picked evidence and highlighted uncertainties to achieve the net effect of downplaying the impacts of climate change. “This shows how far we have sunk,” says Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard University. “Climate denial is now the official policy of the U.S. government.”

The report is far from comprehensive. Many of its arguments are common among critics of climate action, previously made online and in obscure journals. It amounts to a “law brief from attorneys defending their client, carbon dioxide,” said Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, on Bluesky. “Their goal is not to weigh the evidence fairly but to build the strongest possible case for [carbon dioxide’s] innocence. This is a fundamental departure from the norms of science.”

...

Already multiple scientists have said their work has been mischaracterized. Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at Stripe, noted in a Bluesky post that the report cited his influential study in 2020 showing the most extreme climate scenario sometimes used by modelers, based on emissions rising for many decades to come, no longer represents reality because emissions are close to plateauing. But the report said that finding undermined EPA’s projections of warming. “Their point is completely backwards,” Hausfather wrote, noting that Earth would still warm with lower emission scenarios. “My paper actually supports the EPA’s 2009 range of 1.8C to 4C warming by 2100.” And Richard Tol, a climate economist at the University of Sussex, wrote a blog post today noting the report mischaracterized his studies to suggest climate change could benefit poor countries, when the preponderance of evidence finds the opposite.

The report makes some points that mainstream climate scientists would acknowledge. It decries media hype and points out that global warming is not the only challenge facing humanity. It argues that rising carbon dioxide levels can benefit some plants—a known “carbon fertilization” effect. It says the extreme emissions scenario should not be used to forecast climate impacts, a course correction the field has rapidly made. It points out that the latest generation of climate models run too hot, and they should be used with care—something climate scientists have also done. And it says that because the models run hot, the future rate of warming should be estimated instead using constraints from observed warming levels and past climates, among other factors—a step IPCC already took in its last report.

The report also highlights real research questions. It brings up the fact that more sunlight has been reaching the ground over the past 2 decades than before, accelerating warming. And it notes that, although declining air pollution is certainly part of the reason for this trend, diminishing cloud cover is as well—and, as Science covered late last year, the pressing question is now whether these changes are a feedback from warming. The report also attacks so-called extreme event attribution—efforts to quantify the contribution of global warming to extreme weather—as unreliable. Although the critiques may not be identical, mainstream climate scientists have also pushed for more rigor in attribution studies. READ MORE

Excerpt from E&E News Climatewire: In a prologue to the report, Energy Secretary Chris Wright wrote that he intentionally assembled a “diverse team of independent experts” who were chosen for “their rigor, honesty, and willingness to elevate the debate.” That team did not include any of the hundreds of government climate scientists from NOAA or NASA, two of the world’s leading science agencies.

...

The Trump administration has also ended work on the National Climate Assessment, a congressionally mandated, yearslong report produced by hundreds of scientists, and removed earlier versions of the report from government websites.

The assessment, which the DOE team repeatedly contradicts, involves scores of scientists, public comment and peer review from the National Academy of Sciences, said Phil Duffy, a physicist who studies climate change and served at the Office of Science and Technology Policy during the Biden administration.

“If the administration wanted to have a good review of climate science and the impact of climate change on the United States, then they shouldn’t have pulled the plug on that assessment,” Duffy said.

‘Red team’ ideas

Wright’s team began work in early April and finished before the end of May, with the explicit mission of producing a report that would “challenge the mainstream consensus.”

It is just the beginning of a more expansive process that will solicit public feedback, respond to that feedback and then produce a longer report that stands to serve as the final record, according to report co-author Curry, who wrote about it on her blog. The ultimate goal, she wrote, is “breaking the link between energy policy and human-caused climate change, whereby anthropogenic climate change currently ‘mandates’ emissions targets, preferred energy production methods, etc.”

...

“Attribution of climate change or extreme weather events to human CO2 emissions is challenged by natural climate variability, data limitations, and inherent model deficiencies,” the group concluded. “Moreover, solar activity’s contribution to the late 20th century warming might be underestimated.”

Such factors have been considered, studied, measured and addressed for more than two decades, and they don’t disprove clear evidence linking a warming planet to more extreme weather events. READ MORE

Excerpt from U.S. Department of Energy/Federal Register: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) seeks public comment on the draft report produced by DOE's Climate Working Group (CWG), titled “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate” (CWG Report). DOE is seeking input from the public, especially from interested individuals and entities, such as industry, academia, research laboratories, government agencies, and other stakeholders. Information received may be used to assist DOE in planning the scope of future research efforts and may be shared with other Federal agencies.

DATES:

Written comments and information are requested on or before September 2, 2025 and must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. eastern time (ET) on that date. Written submissions received after the deadline may not be considered. DOE will not reply individually to responders but will consider all comments submitted by the deadline. DOE also intends to summarize all comments received by topic. READ MORE

Excerpt from National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine: A new National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine study will review the latest scientific evidence on whether greenhouse gas emissions are reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and welfare in the U.S.

The committee conducting the study will focus on evidence gathered by the scientific community since 2009 — when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency first declared greenhouse gas emissions a danger to public health. Any conclusions in the committee’s report will describe supporting evidence, the level of confidence in a conclusion, and areas of disagreement or unknowns.

The EPA recently announced that it intends to rescind its “endangerment finding,” a statement issued by the agency in 2009 that found that greenhouse gas emissions do pose risks to public health and welfare. The National Academies study will be completed and publicly released in September, in time to inform EPA’s decision process.

“It is critical that federal policymaking is informed by the best available scientific evidence,” said Marcia McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences. “Decades of climate research and data have yielded expanded understanding of how greenhouse gases affect the climate. We are undertaking this fresh examination of the latest climate science in order to provide the most up-to-date assessment to policymakers and the public.”

The committee will be led by Shirley Tilghman, professor of molecular biology and public affairs, emeritus, and former president, Princeton University. The committee will also include experts in public health, extreme weather, climate modeling, agriculture, infrastructure, and other areas.

The committee has issued a request for information to the public and scientific community. The study is being self-funded by the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are private, nonprofit institutions that provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions related to science, engineering, and medicine. They operate under an 1863 congressional charter to the National Academy of Sciences, signed by President Lincoln. READ MORE

Excerpt from Reuters: Two major environmental groups announced on Tuesday they have sued the Trump administration for secretly convening a group of climate skeptics, which prepared a report that served as the basis for a reversal of U.S. rules on greenhouse gas emissions without public notice.

The Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists filed the lawsuit in a federal district court in Massachusetts, arguing that the so-called Climate Working Group that Energy Secretary Chris Wright put together, evaded public view, delivered erroneous results and was illegally used to inform the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to reverse the scientific finding that served as the foundation for federal climate regulation.

...

The preparation and use of the report has raised concern that the United States is rejecting the mainstream consensus about the causes and impacts of climate change at a time that more severe storms and record-breaking temperatures cause trillions of dollars in damage around the country. Downplaying the impacts of climate change and eliminating U.S. climate data collection and reports also takes away the urgency for the U.S. to shift away from fossil fuels toward cleaner energy.

...

Through the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Congress requires public disclosure and public records in the establishment and operation of any federal advisory committee. READ MORE

Excerpt from E&E News Climatewire:

One author of a recent Department of Energy report that assailed established climate science said the 141-page document is only the beginning — and that the Trump administration plans to do more to undercut research that shows humanity’s use of fossil fuels is warming the planet and endangering its inhabitants.

Steve Koonin, one of the report’s five main contributors, told POLITICO’s E&E News last week that the document likely is a precursor to a sustained assault on mainstream global warming research. Under discussion are plans to hold a public debate about climate science, write a line-by-line rebuttal of the National Climate Assessment and ready a counterattack against climate scientists critical of last month’s Energy Department report.

A key next step, Koonin said, is to expand the Trump administration’s team of climate contrarians beyond the five scientists who wrote the initial report. The document already has attracted hundreds of responses through the Federal Register, and Koonin said they need the reinforcements to push back against the criticism.

“It can’t be five against the world,” said Koonin, a former chief scientist for BP. “We will have to enlist other scientists.”

But that may be easier said than done — as there is only a small pool of credentialed researchers who back the claims of the DOE report.

The document, for example, questions the link between climate change and humanity’s output of carbon dioxide. And it suggests that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed.”

The claims run counter to the findings of tens of thousands of scientists from around the world who have spent decades studying climate change. The overwhelming consensus from these researchers is that the modern world’s burning of oil, gas and coal is pumping planet-warming gases such as carbon dioxide into atmosphere, creating a greenhouse effect. And with a hotter planet comes a cascade of consequences, from rising sea levels to more intense hurricanes and wildfires.

Numerous researchers cited in the DOE report said their work had been cherry-picked and presented in a misleading way — and that it recycled arguments that had long been debunked.

“If you are a sophisticated academic — which I would put all of them in that category — you know how to basically torture the data long enough so it’ll tell you what you want to hear,” said Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University who is leading an academic response to the DOE report.

But Koonin, a senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution, said that kind of pushback was expected — and in fact plays into a long-running plan to conduct a “red team vs. blue team” exercise for climate science.

The term is a nod to a type of military planning that uses adversarial reviews to identify potential weaknesses. The report is, in effect, the red team’s opening move and Koonin said the criticism will start to make up a blue-team response.

“What we do is a more accurate depiction of climate science for the general public,” he said.

Koonin was preparing a similar effort during the first Trump administration, but it was blocked by White House aides preparing for the 2020 election. At that time, Trump had personally considered a televised prime-time climate debate.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who recruited Koonin and the other four researchers to write the DOE report, told CNN last week that he wants to “update” the National Climate Assessment but did not provide any details. He also endorsed the idea of climate debates.

“We’ll probably have public events here in D.C. this fall,” Wright said. “We want to have an honest dialogue with the American people about climate change.”

Koonin said he expects to carefully scrutinize and challenge every paragraph of the National Climate Assessment, a long-running report mandated by Congress that identifies the threats that global warming poses to the United States.

Judith Curry, one of the other five authors of the DOE report, said she wants a debate — but also wants the chance to recast the National Climate Assessment and other government science reports by emphasizing uncertainty. She envisions a release of a new report infused with disagreements and disputes.

“A public debate is one approach, but I would like to see a broadening of the tent for the ‘official’ assessments to include disagreement, debate, uncertainty,” she wrote in an email.

...

2014: Red team, blue team

If there is a climate debate, Koonin said he wants to structure it much like a 2014 event at New York University that pitted a team of climate scientists against some of the DOE report authors, including Curry and Christy.

It was a daylong effort organized by Koonin, in which the two teams presented their case to a panel of distinguished physicists from the American Physical Society. For the upcoming debate he now envisions, Koonin said both sides would exchange research notes and talking points ahead of time.

“Healthy debate, challenge response is just the way you do science, and that has been sorely absent from this business for far too long,” Koonin said. “If you can show that it’s wrong, we’ll change it.”

Exaggerating uncertainty in science while downplaying broad-based findings long has been a strategy of conservative groups and lawmakers opposed to fossil fuel regulations, scientists say. The current Trump administration has made it a priority to slash climate regulations and boost U.S. production of fossil fuels.

Ben Santer, a climate scientist who worked at DOE for 30 years before retiring in 2021, participated in Koonin’s 2014 debate at New York University — and he remembers it differently.

He said the red team failed to make a compelling case to the panel of physicists, who ultimately rejected their argument and did not issue a statement that questioned climate science findings. The red team has refused to acknowledge any weakness to their arguments, which have long been rejected by the vast majority of climate scientists, he said.

After the debate, Koonin resigned from the effort he organized and soon after dismissed the field of climate science in the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page for being “not yet mature enough to usefully answer the difficult and important questions being asked of it,” Santer noted.

In response, Koonin acknowledged that he resigned but disputed the notion that the red team “lost” and said a transcript of the event shows a strong response by the red team.

Santer also pointed out that debate — and the weighing of disparate hypotheses — long has been an essential part of science. He said the scientific community for years has accounted for the arguments of Koonin’s team.

“The notion that they have not been part of the community and have not had the opportunity to convince others of the correctness of their arguments is just plain wrong,” Santer said. “The bottom line is, they haven’t succeeded in defending the arguments that they now present in the DOE report.”

The report is not a genuine effort to gain a new understanding, he said, but rather “provide political cover for rescinding the endangerment finding.”

...

Santer said the claims by Koonin and Energy Secretary Wright that the small group of fringe researchers had been silenced by the larger scientific community were not true.

Their arguments have been explored and debunked already, he said, by years of good science.

“These are questions,” he said, “that we’ve been adjudicating for decades in thousands of peer-reviewed publications.” READ MORE