{"id":488493,"date":"2026-05-17T00:44:12","date_gmt":"2026-05-17T00:44:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/488493\/"},"modified":"2026-05-17T00:44:12","modified_gmt":"2026-05-17T00:44:12","slug":"leading-climate-scientist-rebuts-factually-incorrect-us-government-climate-claims","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/488493\/","title":{"rendered":"Leading Climate Scientist Rebuts \u201cFactually Incorrect\u201d US Government Climate Claims"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Climate<\/a>Climate scientists are pushing back against a controversial government report they say misrepresented key evidence about global warming. Their latest research highlights why subtle changes high in Earth\u2019s atmosphere remain central to understanding humanity\u2019s impact on the climate system. Credit: Shutterstock<\/p>\n

Climate scientists have formally challenged a US government report they say incorrectly downplayed clear evidence of human-driven warming.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A leading climate scientist is challenging \u201cdemonstrably incorrect\u201d claims in a major US government report that he says misrepresented his research and minimized the role of human activity in global warming.<\/p>\n

Prof Benjamin Santer, an Honorary Professor at the University of East Anglia (UEA)<\/a>, was one of the first scientists to detect a human \u2018fingerprint\u2019 in Earth\u2019s climate system. His work helped inform the landmark 1995 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which concluded for the first time that evidence showed a \u201cdiscernible human influence\u201d on global climate.<\/p>\n

In July 2025, however, a US Department of Energy (DOE) report cited Prof Santer\u2019s research while making the opposite claim. That report appeared the same day the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a proposal to reverse the 2009 \u2018endangerment finding\u2019 \u2013 the ruling that gave the agency legal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from sources such as vehicles, power plants, and other industrial operations.<\/p>\n

Earlier this year, the Trump administration moved ahead with revoking the ruling. The decision raised concerns about possible effects on human health and efforts to cut emissions, as well as fears that it could pave the way for ending other environmental regulations in the US.<\/p>\n

A correction enters the record<\/p>\n

In a new analysis published in AGU Advances, Prof. Santer and climate scientists Prof. Susan Solomon from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Prof. David Thompson from UEA and Colorado State University, and Prof Qiang Fu of the University of Washington reaffirm the evidence for human-driven warming. They also warn that the DOE report should not be used to support legal decisions about the scientific basis for regulations such as the endangerment finding.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe view it both important and with precedent to rebut an incorrect scientific claim made in the DOE report,\u201d said Prof Santer, of UEA\u2019s Climatic Research Unit. \u201cSetting the record straight in the peer-reviewed literature is particularly important when demonstrably incorrect scientific claims are made in official government reports.<\/p>\n

\u201cChanges in the vertical structure of atmospheric temperature are an important \u2018fingerprint\u2019 of human effects on global climate. These changes are mainly driven by human-caused increases in atmospheric levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.<\/p>\n

\u201cKey features of this fingerprint are warming of the troposphere, the lowest layer of the atmosphere, and cooling of the stratosphere, the layer above the troposphere. Satellite observations of this distinctive fingerprint are in agreement with current state-of-the-art climate model estimates of human-caused temperature changes.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis indisputable fingerprint of human effects on climate has been predicted for over 50 years by both simple and more sophisticated climate models, and is identifiable in satellite temperature data.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe claim to the contrary made in the US DoE review of climate science is factually incorrect. As our analysis clearly illustrates, the DOE report is not a reliable source of information on the vertical structure of changes in atmospheric temperature, which is a key piece of evidence for human effects on global climate.\u201d<\/p>\n

An unresolved policy problem<\/p>\n

Scientists have also questioned other parts of the DOE report\u2019s handling of climate change detection and attribution. The report was cited 16 times in last year\u2019s EPA proposal.<\/p>\n

After a lawsuit alleged that the DOE had not followed proper Federal Advisory Committee procedures, the author team behind the DOE report was dissolved in early September.<\/p>\n

Even so, Prof Santer and his coauthors note that the DOE report has not been corrected or withdrawn.<\/p>\n

Prof Santer said: \u201cThe report is still available on the DOE website and is still being publicly referenced by DOE Secretary Wright as a credible source of information on climate science. It is not.\u201d<\/p>\n

Reference: \u201cModeled and Observed Stratospheric Temperature Changes: Implications for Fingerprint Studies\u201d by Benjamin D. Santer, Susan Solomon, David W. J. Thompson and Qiang Fu, 24 February 2026, AGU Advances.
DOI: 10.1029\/2025AV002196<\/a><\/p>\n

Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.<\/a><\/b>
Follow us on Google<\/a> and Google News<\/a>.<\/b><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Climate scientists are pushing back against a controversial government report they say misrepresented key evidence about global warming.…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":488494,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[77],"tags":[442,23045,18,7261,4799,19,17,133,203820],"class_list":{"0":"post-488493","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-science","8":"tag-climate-change","9":"tag-climate-science","10":"tag-eire","11":"tag-environmental-science","12":"tag-global-warming","13":"tag-ie","14":"tag-ireland","15":"tag-science","16":"tag-university-of-east-anglia"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@ie\/116587152520901964","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/488493","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=488493"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/488493\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/488494"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=488493"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=488493"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=488493"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}