An American climate scientist has strongly criticised a US Department of Energy (DOE) report on the impacts of climate change in the US.
Benjamin Santer, honorary professor at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit in the UK, stressed that while the report quoted his research, it had come to the opposite conclusions to his own findings. Professor Santer is one of many in the mainstream scientific community who have condemned the report, claiming it is 'demonstrably incorrect'.
Benjamin Santer is a pivotal figure in the history of climate science and has spent over 30 years identifying the human influences on global warming. His research contributed to the momentous 1995 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which concluded for the first time that there was enough evidence to suggest a 'discernible human influence' on global climate.
Throughout his career, Professor Santer has faced public pushback and attacks from those who dispute his findings and, speaking to the Oceanus Journal in 2024, he cautioned that 'there are very powerful individuals who incorrectly dismiss human-caused climate change as a hoax perpetrated for the purpose of diminishing U.S. economic competitiveness.'
The DOE report, A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate, was published in July 2025 and developed by the 2025 Climate Working Group. This body, the report says, comprises 'five independent scientists assembled by US Energy Secretary Chris Wright with diverse expertise in physical science, economics, climate science and academic research.'
- What’s the hottest place on Earth? And where's the biggest desert?
- How long can animals survive without water? While humans can only manage a day in a desert there's one toughie that can last decades
The report's stated goal was 'evaluating existing peer-reviewed literature and government data on climate impacts of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions and providing a critical assessment of the conventional narrative on climate change.'
Quoting Professor Santer's research as evidence, its key conclusions were:
- Carbon dioxide (CO2)-induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed
- That aggressive mitigation strategies could be more harmful than beneficial
- That U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate and any effects will emerge only with long delays
The report has faced a backlash from the scientific community, which challenged its findings. For instance, 85 climate experts compiled a peer-reviewed critique of the DOE report in September 2025, saying 'the report currently fails to adequately represent the scientific understanding of climate change... it misrepresents the state of climate science by cherry-picking evidence, exaggerating uncertainties, and ignoring decades of peer-reviewed research'.
After the advocacy groups the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) brought a lawsuit against the DOE, William Young – a district court judge for the District of Massachusetts – ruled that the DOE Secretary and the CWG has acted illegally by not following transparency rules under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
The CWG was disbanded but the judge did not rule that the report should be nullified, meaning that it can be used by the US Environmental Protection Agency to overturn greenhouse gas regulations in the US.
In February 2026, the Trump administration continued dismantling the US's environmental and climate regulations by revoking the 2009 'endangerment finding', which determined that six greenhouse gases threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.
Professor Santer published his own analysis of the DOE report in February, in the journal AGU Advances, in collaboration with fellow climate scientists Professor Susan Solomon from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Professor David Thompson from UEA and Colorado State University and Professor Qiang Fu of the University of Washington.
This reiterated the role of humans on climate warming and warns that the DOE report should not inform legal decisions on the scientific basis of regulations such as the endangerment finding.
The DOE was approached for comment.
