Scientists Call DOE Climate Review a 'Mockery' and Publish 500‑Page Rebuttal

More than 85 scientists from around the world issued a scathing rebuttal this week to a U.S. Department of Energy review released in July, saying the government document misrepresented the science of climate change and downplayed the risks and economic costs of rising greenhouse gas emissions.

The DOE review, overseen by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, concluded that the threat posed by climate change is exaggerated and “less damaging economically than commonly believed,” according to its summary. Wright, a former fossil fuel executive, hand‑selected five authors for that review; those authors have expressed views at odds with the broad scientific consensus that burning fossil fuels is rapidly warming the planet.

The rebuttal, a roughly 500‑page report compiled by climate experts, accuses the DOE review of cherry‑picking data, omitting key findings from the peer‑reviewed literature, and relying on outdated or discredited ideas. "This report makes a mockery of science," said Dr. Andrew Dessler, one of the contributors to the rebuttal. "It relies on ideas that were rejected long ago, supported by misrepresentations of the body of scientific knowledge, omissions of important facts, arm waving, anecdotes, and confirmation bias."

The international group of scientists said the DOE review understates projected temperature increases, minimizes the expected frequency and intensity of extreme weather events tied to warming, and mischaracterizes the economic analyses that show growing costs from climate impacts over time. The rebuttal notes where it says peer‑reviewed studies were ignored or selectively cited to support more optimistic economic outcomes.

Scientists who signed the rebuttal come from multiple disciplines that contribute to understanding climate risk, including atmospheric science, oceanography, ecology and climate economics. They say their report synthesizes recent evidence from observational records, climate modeling, and economic assessments to counter what they describe as the review’s misleading conclusions.

The dispute highlights growing tensions between elements of the current administration and the mainstream climate science community over how scientific findings should inform policy. The DOE review’s claim that economic damages from greenhouse gas emissions are smaller than commonly believed has particular policy implications because federal climate and energy decisions often weigh projected impacts and costs.

Representatives of the Energy Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the rebuttal. The administration has defended its approach to energy and regulatory review in other settings, saying it seeks to balance economic and national security considerations.

Scientists behind the rebuttal called for the DOE review to be retracted or revised to reflect the consensus findings and for federal decision‑makers to rely on the broader body of peer‑reviewed evidence when setting policy. They said continued reliance on analyses that downplay risks could weaken efforts to reduce emissions and to prepare communities for climate impacts already occurring.

The exchange follows a pattern seen in past administrations, in which official government assessments of climate change have occasionally sparked critiques from the scientific community when they depart from widely accepted interpretations of the evidence. The authors of the rebuttal said that accurate, transparent assessments are essential for informing infrastructure planning, public health protections and economic strategies tied to climate resilience.

The newly published rebuttal is likely to become part of an ongoing public and policy debate about how federal agencies should evaluate and communicate climate risk. Researchers said they will make the report and its supporting materials available to policymakers and the public to ensure that decisions reflect the full weight of scientific evidence.