US Energy Department Criticised for Misrepresenting Climate Science in Key Report

A new report from the United States Department of Energy (DoE) has raised concerns among leading scientists that it misrepresents peer- reviewed climate research to minimize the role of human activity in accelerating global warming. This is not the first time that this has been exposed. The report, released on 29. On July 2025, the Trump administration is endeavoring to reverse a long-standing scientific finding that forms the basis of federal climate policy. 

A report authored by a group that includes John Christy and his colleague Judith Curry, who have previously worked for The Heartland Institute, has been criticized by several researchers whose studies were referenced in their findings. According to these scholars, their research has been wrongly misrepresented or distorted in favor of policy outcomes that contradict the scientific consensus. 

The University of East Anglia's Benjamin Santer, an atmospheric scientist, claimed that his research on climate fingerprinting was mishandled. He cited his work as evidence for the analysis, but noted that the section on stratospheric cooling in the report contradicts his findings. 

Other experts have identified similar misrepresentations and misuses of scientific evidence. The report, as reported by Bor-Ting Jong from Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, contained false statements about climate models that her team examined, adding new terms to the debate and distorting the meaning of her own team's data. Climate scientist J. The absence of a rigorous peer-review process was cited as causing her concern, particularly for preparing if the report is intended to inform public policy. 

According to independent reviews conducted by AFP, NOTUS, and other media, the report contains several flaws, such as flawed citations of sources, analytical errors, or editorial discrepancies. The report represents the third instance in 2025 where scientists have publicly accused a US government agency of misrepresenting academic research to justify policy decisions. Similar concerns were highlighted in the administration's "Make America Healthy Again" report earlier this year, but it was swiftly revised after public scrutiny. 

Many scientists in the fields of atmospheric science and extreme weather have condemned the report on academic forums like "The Bluesky" popular among researchers. The report is accused of picking out information selectively without considering important findings that could impact its conclusions. Criticism was directed towards the report, which lacked the depth and rigorousness required from a federal agency that has been instrumental in climate science advancement. 

According to James Rae, a climate researcher from the University of St Andrews in Scotland, his work was among those being misrepresented. He criticized the report as lacking in academic credibility and described it as an undergraduate experiment with climate research that was misrepresented. ". 

The department's Office of Science and National Laboratories conducted an internal review, as reported by a spokesperson. For the next 30 days, the agency will release the final version of the report to the public, and then it will be released through publication in the Federal Register. 

This document seeks to scientifically justify overturning the 2009. Federal agencies are able to regulate greenhouse gas emissions through the Endangerment Finding, a significant legal precedent. The key drivers of climate change, industries and vehicles, may lose the ability to impose limits on emissions due to this action. During the Obama administration, scientists developed and published the Endangerment Finding, which linked greenhouse gas emissions to adverse environmental and public health effects. 

The current administration is seeking to reframe the debate on climate change and eliminate regulatory obstacles by questioning the scientific reasoning behind this discovery. Such a strategy is said to have an adverse impact not only on public confidence in academics, but also on efforts worldwide at reducing carbon emissions and mitigating climate-related risks. 

The report's release coincides with a growing number of climate-related events, such as heatwaves, rising sea levels, and worsening weather. The occurrence takes place in the context of mounting worldwide recognition for the necessity of decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels and shifting to renewable energy sources. The misrepresentation of climate data by a major federal agency has caused concern, which may have implications for global climate diplomacy and the United States' role in environmental governance. 

Scientific experts have urged for an extensive review process that includes external, peer-reviewed evidence to validate the report's claims. The majority of scholars maintain that policy documents should incorporate dependable and impartial science, particularly when it comes to creating long-term climate and environmental guidelines. Insufficient action could harm the credibility of future policymaking and amplify opposition to climate action that is scientifically sound. ". 

Conclusion: 
Despite being cited without proper context or interpretation, the US Department of Energy's July 2025 report has been heavily criticised by researchers for misrepresenting climate science. The report's relevance to policymaking is questioned due to its connection with the Reversal of the Endangerment Finding. While the document is being publicly reviewed, experts are advocating for transparency, peer-review, and accountability to ensure that future decisions regarding climate change are backed by sound evidence. This situation demonstrates the necessity for strict, scientific governance in the face of growing global environmental challenges.' 

Source: 
Sourced from the AFP report that 1 was released. August 2025. 
© 2025. 
AFP.