A growing coalition of climate researchers is challenging the DOE climate report released in July, filing an expansive technical rebuttal and urging the federal government not to use it in policy decisions. More than 85 scientists, led by Andrew Dessler and Robert Kopp, argue the report was produced by five authors without peer review, relies on selective evidence, and understates risk from heat and extreme weather—flaws they say could influence EPA rulemaking and court cases tied to greenhouse gas regulations [1][2][3].

Key Takeaways

– Shows 85+ researchers submitted a roughly 400-page rebuttal challenging the DOE climate report’s methods, interpretations, and policy relevance during a 30-day comment window [1][5]. – Reveals the DOE climate document was drafted by five authors, without peer review, and assembled rapidly, raising process and credibility concerns for rulemaking [1][2][3]. – Demonstrates critics flagged cherry-picked studies on heat, drought, crops, and extremes, with experts warning of downplayed risks and misleading trend claims [3][5]. – Indicates the timing is pivotal: a Federal Register comment period closed Sept. 2, potentially shaping EPA actions and related legal challenges this fall [2][5]. – Suggests dueling analyses—400 to 500 pages—could weigh on debates about reversing the EPA endangerment finding and broader climate policy rollbacks [1][4].

What the DOE climate report is and how it was produced

The contested DOE climate report, published in July, was assembled by a team of five authors outside traditional journal peer review, according to multiple outlets that examined its provenance and methodology. The drafting was described as rapid, with a small group steering the analysis without external refereeing—an atypical route for work positioned to inform federal policy [1][2][3].

The Washington Post’s fact-check identified a series of recurring issues, including selective data choices and misrepresentation of underlying studies. Experts cited by the Post, including Zeke Hausfather and Steven Sherwood, said the report cherry-picks lines of evidence and downplays well-documented trends in heat and some extremes—departures from the mainstream literature synthesis represented by major assessments [3]. Axios likewise highlighted that the DOE document was put together quickly, by a small, non-peer-reviewed team, amplifying concerns about rigor when the stakes include regulatory decisions [2].

Scientists coordinating the response framed authorship as central to the controversy: Reuters reported the DOE report’s five authors are widely viewed as contrarian within climate science, which critics say heightens the need for transparent methods and thorough vetting if the product is to influence rulemaking [1]. These process critiques are not merely academic; they are pivotal because federal agencies often depend on methodological clarity and consensus-grade evidence when creating durable rules [2][3].

How 85 scientists challenged the DOE climate report

Beginning in August, a network of more than 85 researchers organized by Andrew Dessler and Robert Kopp compiled a comprehensive technical counteranalysis. Reuters put the rebuttal at roughly 400 pages, while Time described a 500-page counteranalysis, reflecting the scope of the review and the breadth of literature the authors say the DOE climate report overlooked or misused [1][4]. Axios characterized the response as a coordinated effort that cataloged “pervasive problems,” from statistical framing to interpretive leaps not supported by the cited studies [2].

The scientists’ submission, filed during the DOE’s 30-day Federal Register comment period ending Sept. 2, challenges what they call misleading readings of evidence related to heat, drought, and agriculture. Dessler and colleagues argue the DOE report elevates short-run or selective findings while downplaying trend analyses and attribution work that link rising greenhouse gases to intensifying risks—an imbalance that could misguide policymakers if taken at face value [5]. The Washington Post’s earlier fact-check echoes this critique, recounting expert assessments that the DOE analysis understates heat and extreme-weather trends by privileging narrower datasets or time windows [3].

The rhetorical temperature rose after publication of the rebuttal: Time quoted leading scientists calling the DOE climate report a “mockery of science,” underscoring a view that the document’s analytical standards fall short of what would be expected for a product with potential regulatory impact [4]. Even as the language sharpened, the thrust of the challenge remained technical—insisting that claims be anchored in the weight of peer-reviewed research and communicated with appropriate uncertainty and context [1][2][4].

Where the numbers diverge: heat, extremes, drought, and agriculture

The deepest fissures lie in how the DOE climate report handles core risk indicators. On heat, experts cited by the Washington Post said the document downplays rising heat stress by emphasizing narrower time slices or geographies, rather than synthesizing multi-decadal, multi-dataset trend evidence that shows widespread increases in dangerous heat exposure. Critics warn that focal choices like these produce an impression of weaker warming impacts than the literature supports [3].

For extreme weather, the Post’s fact-check highlighted concerns that the DOE report mixes metrics and timeframes in ways that obscure attribution progress and detection of trends in certain extremes. While not all extremes exhibit uniform trends everywhere, researchers flagged the report for underplaying areas where the signal is strong—especially heat extremes—by pivoting to narrower indicators without clear justification [3]. Axios similarly reported “misleading interpretations” that arise when selective slices of the evidence base are elevated over comprehensive assessments [2].

Drought and agriculture emerged as another flashpoint. Time reported that the DOE analysis misinterprets drought and crop research, while OPB/NPR noted critics took issue with claims about carbon dioxide’s benefits for agriculture that omit heat stress, water constraints, and other real-world limits. The rebuttal argues that focusing on CO2 fertilization without integrating concurrent heat and moisture stresses presents a partial picture that could mislead users about net agricultural impacts under warming [4][5]. OPB/NPR further described how the critics see such omissions as emblematic of a broader pattern—highlighting potential benefits while minimizing risks observed in the literature [5].

The crux of the methodological dispute is less about whether isolated datasets can be found to support contrarian narratives and more about whether the totality of peer-reviewed evidence is reflected. The scientists pressing the rebuttal say it is not, pointing to systematic cherry-picking and misrepresentation of cited studies as key failings that, in their view, disqualify the DOE climate report as a basis for policy [3][5].

DOE climate review timeline and the policy stakes

Timing is front and center. OPB/NPR reported that the DOE opened a 30-day Federal Register comment period for the report that closed on Sept. 2, an unusually brisk window given the breadth of scientific claims at issue. The 85+ scientist rebuttal was submitted within that period, ensuring it becomes part of the administrative record [5]. Axios emphasized that what happens next could ripple into litigation, as interested parties sometimes use agency documents to challenge EPA actions in court [2].

Substantively, critics worry the DOE climate report could be invoked to support efforts to reverse or weaken the EPA’s greenhouse gas “endangerment finding,” a foundational determination underpinning regulation of carbon pollution. Reuters reported the rebuttal authors explicitly warned the document could influence EPA rulemaking aimed at reversing that finding, a move that would affect the legal basis for numerous climate-related standards [1]. The Washington Post likewise flagged concerns that the report is already being leveraged in debates over endangerment and the future trajectory of federal climate policy [3].

If the DOE report is accorded weight despite the alleged methodological flaws, the scientists argue, it could skew cost-benefit analyses, undermine reliance on mainstream assessments, and create a patchwork evidentiary basis vulnerable to court challenges. Conversely, if agencies emphasize peer-reviewed syntheses and comprehensive trend evaluations, the rebuttal’s organizers say, the administrative record will better withstand scrutiny [2][3]. These are not abstract stakes: they shape how risks are quantified, how uncertainty is characterized, and ultimately how rules are justified and defended [1][2][3].

DOE response and what happens next

The DOE, through spokesperson Ben Dietderich, defended the department’s internal review processes when asked about the backlash. While not addressing each scientific claim in detail, the department’s position is that it followed its procedures in preparing the document, even as critics call for independent peer review and broader expert engagement given the potential regulatory implications [5]. That tension—between internal quality control and external peer review—is now a focal point for the report’s legitimacy.

With the comment period closed as of Sept. 2, the department will review submissions, including the scientists’ 400- to 500-page counteranalysis, as part of the Federal Register process. OPB/NPR’s reporting indicates the rebuttal is formally lodged, creating a public record of the alleged errors and offering an itemized roadmap of requested corrections or withdrawals [5]. Reuters and Time underscore the breadth and intensity of the critique, from claims of biased framing to explicit warnings against using the DOE climate report to underpin regulatory rollbacks [1][4].

In the coming weeks, attention will shift to how DOE responds in writing to the technical points and whether any revisions, disclaimers, or procedural steps follow. Axios reports that legal and policy communities are already parsing the implications for EPA rulemakings and prospective court challenges. For the 85+ scientists who signed the rebuttal, the bottom line is straightforward: anchor policy in the weight of peer-reviewed evidence, not selective readings, especially when decisions may reverberate across the economy for years to come [2].

Sources:

[1] Reuters – Over 85 scientists say Energy Dept. climate report lacks merit: www.reuters.com/sustainability/cop/over-85-scientists-say-energy-dept-climate-report-lacks-merit-2025-09-02/” target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow noopener noreferrer”>https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/cop/over-85-scientists-say-energy-dept-climate-report-lacks-merit-2025-09-02/

[2] Axios – “Mockery of science”: Energy Department climate report riddled with errors: https://www.axios.com/2025/09/02/doe-climate-energy-environment-climate-science [3] The Washington Post – We fact-checked the Trump administration’s climate report: www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/07/31/endangerment-repeal-climate-science-report/” target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow noopener noreferrer”>https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/07/31/endangerment-repeal-climate-science-report/

[4] Time – Scientists Slam Trump Administration’s Climate Report: https://time.com/7314000/trump-administration-climate-report-scientists/ [5] OPB/NPR – Dozens of scientists find errors in a new Energy Department climate report: www.opb.org/article/2025/09/02/climate-scientists-find-errors-in-a-new-doe-climate-report/” target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow noopener noreferrer”>https://www.opb.org/article/2025/09/02/climate-scientists-find-errors-in-a-new-doe-climate-report/

Image generated by DALL-E 3