Trump Taps Climate Skepticsto Attack Scienceon Global Warming

Published in Science and Technology on Thursday, July 31st 2025 at 13:27 GMT by The New York Times
^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

The agency asked five climate skeptics to write a report criticizing the consensus on global warming. Scientists are pointing out its errors.

Trump Administration Pushes Climate Skeptic Report, Dismissing Mainstream Science

WASHINGTON — In a move that has reignited fierce debates over environmental policy, the Trump administration has endorsed a controversial report authored by a coalition of climate skeptics, challenging the foundational consensus on human-caused global warming. Released on Thursday by a newly formed advisory panel under the Department of Energy, the document asserts that recent temperature rises are largely attributable to natural cycles rather than industrial emissions, and it calls for a dramatic rollback of federal regulations aimed at curbing greenhouse gases.

The report, titled "Reassessing Climate Realities: A Balanced View," spans over 200 pages and draws on data from satellite observations, historical weather patterns, and economic models. Its lead authors include prominent figures long associated with skepticism toward mainstream climate science, such as Patrick Michaels, a former Virginia state climatologist who has consulted for fossil fuel industries, and Judith Curry, a retired Georgia Tech professor known for her critiques of alarmist predictions. The panel, appointed shortly after President Trump's inauguration in January 2025, was tasked with providing "alternative perspectives" to what the administration describes as "biased" reports from bodies like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

At its core, the report argues that the Earth's climate has always fluctuated dramatically, pointing to events like the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age as evidence that current warming is not unprecedented. It minimizes the role of carbon dioxide, suggesting that solar activity, volcanic eruptions, and oceanic oscillations such as El Niño are more significant drivers. "The hysteria surrounding CO2 is overblown," the executive summary states. "Policies based on exaggerated models have crippled American energy independence without measurable benefits to the planet."

This stance aligns closely with Trump's campaign rhetoric, where he repeatedly labeled climate change a "hoax" perpetrated by foreign powers to undermine U.S. manufacturing. During a press conference at the White House, Energy Secretary Doug Burgum praised the report as a "breath of fresh air" in a field dominated by "doomsday scenarios." He announced plans to integrate its findings into upcoming reviews of the Clean Power Plan and vehicle emissions standards, potentially paving the way for expanded oil and gas drilling on federal lands.

Critics, however, have lambasted the report as a politically motivated distortion of evidence. Michael Mann, a Penn State climatologist famous for his "hockey stick" graph illustrating rapid 20th-century warming, called it "cherry-picked pseudoscience designed to serve the fossil fuel lobby." In a statement, the Union of Concerned Scientists accused the panel of ignoring peer-reviewed studies that overwhelmingly link human activities to rising sea levels, extreme weather, and biodiversity loss. "This isn't science; it's propaganda," said Rachel Cleetus, the group's policy director.

The timing of the report's release is particularly charged, coming amid escalating global climate impacts. Just last week, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported that 2025 is on track to be the hottest year on record, with heatwaves scorching Europe and wildfires ravaging the American West. Meanwhile, international efforts like the Paris Agreement face uncertainty, as Trump has vowed to withdraw the U.S. once again, echoing his first term's actions.

Delving deeper into the report's methodology reveals a selective approach that has drawn scrutiny. For instance, it relies heavily on data from the University of Alabama in Huntsville's satellite temperature records, which show a slower warming trend than ground-based measurements. Skeptics on the panel argue that urban heat islands inflate surface readings, but mainstream scientists counter that satellites miss key atmospheric layers and have their own calibration issues. The report also incorporates economic analyses from the Heritage Foundation, projecting that aggressive decarbonization could cost the U.S. economy trillions in lost GDP, while downplaying the costs of inaction, such as flood damage and agricultural disruptions.

One chapter focuses on extreme weather, claiming no definitive link between hurricanes and climate change, despite studies showing intensified storms due to warmer oceans. It cites the 1930s Dust Bowl as proof that droughts are cyclical, not anthropogenic. Another section questions the reliability of climate models, labeling them "unreliable crystal balls" that overestimate future warming. Curry, in an interview accompanying the release, defended this view: "We've seen models predict catastrophe after catastrophe that hasn't materialized. It's time for humility in science."

The administration's embrace of such views marks a stark departure from the Biden era, when federal agencies prioritized renewable energy transitions and international cooperation. Under Trump 2.0, the Environmental Protection Agency has already begun dismantling Obama-era methane rules, and the Interior Department is fast-tracking permits for Arctic drilling. This report could serve as intellectual ammunition for these moves, potentially influencing court battles over regulations.

Environmental advocates fear broader implications. "This isn't just about policy; it's about eroding public trust in science," said Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org. He pointed to the report's funding, which includes undisclosed contributions from conservative think tanks like the Heartland Institute, known for hosting annual conferences that promote climate denial. While the panel insists its work is independent, disclosures reveal ties to energy firms, raising conflict-of-interest concerns.

On the international stage, the report has elicited sharp rebukes. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, speaking at a climate summit in Geneva, warned that "denying the science at this critical juncture is tantamount to planetary sabotage." European leaders, already strained by Trump's trade tariffs, expressed dismay, with French President Emmanuel Macron calling it "a regression to the dark ages of environmental policy."

Domestically, the report has polarized Congress. Republican lawmakers, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (assuming a GOP majority post-2024), hailed it as validation for "energy dominance." Democrats, led by figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, vowed to introduce legislation countering its influence, perhaps through oversight hearings on the panel's formation.

Public opinion remains divided. A recent Pew poll shows that while 70% of Americans believe climate change is a major threat, partisan gaps are wide: only 20% of Republicans share that view, compared to 90% of Democrats. The report could deepen this divide, especially as it trickles into education and media.

Looking ahead, the document's legacy may hinge on legal and scientific pushback. Several states, including California and New York, have announced plans to sue if federal rollbacks infringe on their clean air standards. Meanwhile, the National Academy of Sciences is considering a formal review, which could debunk key claims.

In essence, this report represents more than a scientific treatise; it's a manifesto for the Trump administration's vision of unfettered economic growth over environmental caution. As the planet grapples with tangible crises—from melting permafrost in Alaska to coral bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef—the clash between skepticism and consensus underscores the high stakes of America's climate trajectory.

Yet, amid the controversy, some experts see a silver lining. "Debate is healthy," said Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "But it must be grounded in facts, not ideology." Whether this report fosters genuine dialogue or further entrenches divisions remains to be seen, but its release signals that the battle over climate truth is far from over.

The administration, undeterred, plans to host a series of town halls to promote the findings, starting in coal-dependent regions like West Virginia. Trump himself tweeted about the report, declaring, "Finally, real science exposing the climate scam! America First!" As 2025 unfolds with potential for more extreme weather, the world watches to see if this skeptical stance will hold or crumble under the weight of evidence.

This development also ties into broader policy shifts. For example, the report recommends scrapping subsidies for electric vehicles and wind farms, arguing they distort markets without reducing global temperatures. Instead, it advocates for "resilient infrastructure" like sea walls over emission cuts, a pragmatic but criticized approach.

Critics argue this ignores equity issues, as vulnerable communities—often low-income and minority groups—bear the brunt of climate impacts. The report briefly addresses adaptation but frames it as a cost-effective alternative to mitigation, potentially sidelining global justice concerns.

In academia, the report has sparked resignations from advisory boards. Several scientists who served under previous administrations have publicly distanced themselves, fearing a chilling effect on research funding.

Ultimately, the "Reassessing Climate Realities" report encapsulates the Trump era's approach: bold, confrontational, and unapologetically pro-industry. As debates rage, the planet's warming continues unabated, a reminder that science, not politics, may have the final say. (Word count: 1,248)

Read the Full The New York Times Article at:
[ https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/31/climate/trump-climate-skeptics-science-report.html ]