How Trump-Approved Scientists Are Challenging the Climate Consensus: What You Need to Know

A recent report from the U.S. Department of Energy suggests that predictions about global warming may be overstated. It argues that the potential benefits of increased carbon dioxide, like improved agricultural yields, are often ignored. This perspective differs from the mainstream scientific view, which overwhelmingly supports policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

This report comes amid a broader effort by the Trump administration to limit the government’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases. It contrasts sharply with established research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is endorsed by nearly every country worldwide.

The timing is significant. On the same day, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced plans to revoke the endangerment finding—a key determination that recognizes greenhouse gases as a threat to public health. Since its introduction in 2009, this finding has underpinned numerous environmental regulations.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin claimed that eliminating this finding would save American businesses and families over $1 trillion by removing what he described as “hidden taxes.”

However, many climate experts fear that this move jeopardizes U.S. efforts to combat rising temperatures and mitigate the consequences, like intense storms and wildfires. Recent federal research estimates that climate-driven extreme weather costs the U.S. about $150 billion each year.

The new report’s authors include Steven Koonin, Roy Spencer, and Judith Curry, who have all questioned the mainstream perspectives on climate science. Despite this, an Energy Department spokesperson emphasized that these authors represent a range of viewpoints.

Experts like Andrew Dessler from Texas A&M have begun drafting a response to highlight inaccuracies and omissions in the report. Dessler’s initiative reflects a growing call among climate scientists to engage with these narratives actively.

Ann Carlson, an environmental law professor at UCLA, suggested that this report creates a framework for arguing that emissions from sectors like transportation and energy do not significantly endanger public health. Rather than denying climate change, she believes the administration aims to minimize its perceived severity, arguing that mitigation efforts could be more harmful than the effects of climate change itself.

Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at Berkeley Earth, described the report as lacking rigor and unlikely to withstand traditional peer review. He criticized the endangerment finding’s revocation as counterproductive, especially after the administration removed vital resources like the National Climate Assessments.

Jennifer Jacquet, from the University of Miami, remarked on the surreal state of U.S. climate policy in 2025, observing that the report serves as a challenge to the previously established scientific consensus.

EPA’s action is set to undergo a lengthy federal rulemaking process, and if finalized, it could lead to legal battles. This issue might reach the Supreme Court, which previously ruled in the landmark 2007 case Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gases can be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

Going forward, there will be immense pressure on the courts, particularly with the current conservative majority. Experts like Carlson note that while the arguments from the EPA may be weak, the political landscape could shift outcomes considerably.

In this rapidly evolving situation, staying informed and critically evaluating emerging science is more crucial than ever, as the implications for public health, the environment, and policy are profound. Understanding the intricate dance between policy, science, and politics can help individuals navigate these pressing issues more effectively.



Source link

U.S., Donald Trump, emissions, climate change