WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Trump administration report aimed at justifying the reversal of a key climate finding is facing harsh criticism from dozens of scientists who accuse the document of containing errors, bias, and cherry-picked data. The report, used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to propose overturning the “endangerment finding,” has become a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over the role of science in public policy.
The “Endangerment Finding” and the New Report
The “endangerment finding,” issued by the EPA in 2009, is a foundational document in U.S. climate policy. It concluded that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and other sources endanger public health and welfare, providing the legal basis for federal regulations on carbon emissions. The Trump administration’s new report challenges this scientific consensus, arguing that climate models are “alarmist” and that the future effects of climate change are both uncertain and likely less severe than projected.
A survey of 64 scientists by The Associated Press found overwhelming criticism of the administration’s report. The most common critique was that the document ignored, twisted, or misrepresented scientific data to create doubt about the severity of climate change. For example, the report incorrectly claimed that Arctic sea ice has declined by only 5% since 1980, a number that is actually accurate for Antarctic sea ice. Arctic sea ice has, in fact, shrunk by more than 40% over the same period.
“This is a general theme in the report; they cherrypick data points that suit their narrative and exclude the vast majority of the scientific literature that does not,” said Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist with the nonprofit Berkeley Earth. He noted that the report cited his research on climate modeling to build a case that models have over-predicted warming, even though his work actually concluded that the models have performed quite well.
The administration’s report also faced criticism for its use of outdated or unreliable data on wildfires. One chart in the report used data from before 1960, which scientists consider unreliable for making accurate comparisons to modern-day trends, to suggest that wildfires were more frequent in the past. In reality, data from the National Interagency Fire Center shows that the average annual acreage burned by wildfires has increased since 2007.
The Politics of Science
The Trump administration has defended its report, with a White House spokesperson stating that it is based on “Gold Standard Science research driven by verifiable data.” The spokesperson also said the endangerment finding has been misused to justify “expensive regulations that have jeopardized our economic and national security.”
Environmental groups have already launched legal challenges to the administration’s attempt to revoke the finding. The outcome of this debate could have far-reaching implications, as overturning the endangerment finding could undermine or eliminate many of the federal laws and regulations aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, vehicles, and other sources.
The EPA, the federal agency at the center of this controversy, is responsible for enforcing environmental regulations and protecting public health. For more on its mission and recent reports, visit the official website. The clash between the administration’s findings and the consensus of the scientific community highlights the deep political divide over climate change and the role of government in addressing it.