Researchers initiate united action against Trump's effort to erase reliable climate study findings from official records
======================================================================
The Trump administration has released a report on climate change that challenges the mainstream scientific consensus and is seen as an attempt to undermine the U.S. government's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
The report, authored by a select group of scientists with skeptical views of mainstream climate science, has been met with strong criticism from mainstream climate scientists and experts. They argue that the report misrepresents data, omits critical evidence about the harms of greenhouse gas emissions, and downplays the public health and environmental risks of climate change.
The report, which was accompanied by moves such as defunding climate research programs and suppressing climate science, has been described as a "wholesale assault" on climate science by environmental law scholars and researchers. Critics also highlight that the administration’s policies, including expanding fossil fuel production and limiting renewable energy development, violate established environmental statutes and constitutional authority, disproportionately harming future generations, especially children.
In response to these controversial moves, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine announced a fast-tracked review of the scientific basis underlying the EPA's climate "endangerment finding"—a key legal foundation for regulating carbon emissions. The review aims to provide independent, expert advice on the science amid what many see as politically motivated attempts to erase critical climate protections.
The controversy is not just limited to the report itself. Several climate scientists whose research was cited in the report have spoken out, stating that their work was misused or misrepresented. Zeke Hausfather, a climate researcher at financial services company Stripe, found his work misrepresented in the DOE report.
Energy Sec. Chris Wright, who personally selected the researchers who authored the report, dismissed the criticism that the DOE report misused others' research as an "unfair assessment". The Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency are using the report as evidence to weaken pollution rules.
Despite the administration's efforts, many scientists find the Trump administration's arguments and reports on climate change to be offensive and not raising valid questions or identifying overlooked issues. The worst-case climate scenario, a planet warming to 4 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, is looking less likely due to nations reducing fossil fuel emissions and adopting clean technology.
The National Academy of Sciences' review is set to be completed by September and will be self-funded. The review, along with the coordinated response from veteran climate scientists, is a significant step towards countering what many scientists interpret as the Trump administration's attempts to wipe credible, widely accepted climate science off the record.
References:
- NASA Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
- Union of Concerned Scientists
- Environmental Data & Governance Initiative
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
- The ongoing climate-change debate within the Trump administration's policy-and-legislation approach raises questions about the role of science in environmental-science and its impact on general-news discussions.
- Amidst criticism from mainstream climate scientists, the Trump administration's science-challenged climate change report seems to defy established data and evidence about the harms of greenhouse gas emissions, disregarding the risks to public health and the environment.
- Concurrently, the moves made by the administration, such as suppressing climate science and limiting renewable energy development, raise concerns about whether their decisions violate established environmental statutes and constitutional authority, potentially causing detrimental effects for future generations, particularly children.
