Scientists say the new government climate report will twist their work
“The Climate Working Group and the Energy Division look forward to being involved in substantive comments following the end of the 30-day comment period,” Woods wrote. “The report critically evaluates many areas of ongoing scientific research, such as the UN and previous presidential administrations, where high levels of trust are often assigned by political groups rather than scientists themselves.
Ben Santer, a climate researcher and professor emeritus at the University of East Anglia, has a long history with some of the authors of the new report. (Santer’s work is also cited in the DOE report. He says that, like other scientists who spoke to Wired, the report “fundamentally misrepresents” his work.)
In 2014, Santer was part of an exercise at the American Physical Society (APS), one of the nation’s largest scientific membership organizations. Known as Red Team and Blue Team Exercises, mainstream climate science supporters have looked into mainstream supporters of opponents, including two authors of the current DOE report, to see if their claims benefited.
The exercise was convened by Steve Kunin, one of the new recruits at the Ministry of Energy and author of the report. Inside climate news It has been reported In 2021, Koonin resigned from his leadership role after refusing to adopt the revised statement on climate science proposed by APS after the exercise. Kooning later failed a similar exercise to the first Trump White House.
“These people have a history of being wrong about important scientific issues,” says Santer. “The concept that their views have been shortened by the scientific community is totally wrong.”
Hausfather’s work has been quoted twice in the report.2 It is released into the atmosphere under various different pathways. According to Hausfather, these citations are “helpick” to see how DOE authors report “cherrypick data points that fit their stories.”
The report includes charts from a 2019 paper The author of DOE shows how climate models make “consistently overestimated observations” of atmospheric Co.2. However, Hausfather told Wired that a key finding in his 2019 study was that historical climate models are indeed very accurate in predicting warming.
“They seem to have thrown the entire paper away from its not suited to the story, and instead chose a single number in the supplemental material to question the model. (Hausfather’s work was also cited in justifications to roll back the findings of the EPA’s dangers. post In X, we draw a “completely backward” conclusion from his work. )
Housefather isn’t the only one who finds his work wrong. Many of the early sections of the report include how carbon dioxide plant growth; Claim It was repeated by Secretary Wright as a “plus” of global warming. The author cites a 2010 study from Joyward, an evolutionary biologist who is currently provost and executive vice president of Case Western Reserve University, supporting the claim that plant life will thrive more jointly2 In the atmosphere.