“The climate working group and the energy department are looking forward to engaging in the comments of the under-volumes following the conclusion of the 30-day comment period,” wrote Woods. “This report criticizes in a critical way of many areas of the current scientific infantry which are frequented, high levels of trust, not by the scientist themselves, but by the political organizations involved, such as the United Nations or the presidential administrations of PREVO. Unlike previous administrations, the Trump administration has committed to initiating a more thoughtful and based conversation.”

Ben Santer, as a climate researcher and honorary professor at the University of East Anglia, has a long history with some of the authors of the new report. (Santer’s research is also cited in the DEE report; he, like other scientists who spoke to Wired, say that the report “fundamentally denounces” his work.)

In 2014, SANTER was part of an exercise at the American Physical Society (APS), one of the country’s largest scientific membership organizations. Known as Red Team against Blue Team Exercise, he opposed the supporters of the traditional climate science against the contrieters – including two authors of the current DOE report – to cross the moment when their claims had merit.

The exercise was practical by Steve Koonin, one of the new recruits of the Ministry of Energy and author of the report. As in climate news report In 2021, Koonin resigned from his role as leadership after the APS refused to adopt a modified state declaration on the climate science he proposed after the exercise. Koonin then launched an exercise similar to Trump’s first white house.

“These guys have a story of harm on important scientific issues,” said Santer. “The note that their opinions were taken in the event of a short -term by the scientific community are simply false.”

Hausfather’s work is quoted twice in the report in a Challining Scenarios: Projects of the quantity of CO₂ Will be issued in the atmosphere under different paths. These citizens, known as Hausfather, are “instructive” to see how the authors of the Doe report “hated data points that are suitable for their story”.

The report includes a graph of a 2019 paper According to the authors of the doe, the authors of the doe show how climate models have “coherent observations” of the atmospheric co₂. However, Hausfather said to Wired, the main observation of his 2019 research was that the historical climate models was in fact remarkably precise to predict warming.

“They flow to have landed all the paper as not established their story, and Insead chose a single figurine which was in additional documents to question the models, when the WHO newspaper really confirmed how well they have performed over the years. job On X, draws a conclusion “completely behind” from his work.)

It is not only Hausfather who feels that his work has been poorly managed. A large part of the early section of the report describes how beneficial carbon dioxide is for plant growth, claim This was repeated by secretary Wright as a “plus” to global warming. The authors cite 2010 research of the evolutionary biologist Joy Ward, now the provost and executive vice-president of the Western University case, to support the affirmations that the life of the factory will flourish with more co₂ In the atmosphere.