A newly released Department of Energy (DOE) report titled A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate is stirring intense debate.

The report, prepared by a Climate Working Group composed of five independent scientists, challenges mainstream assessments of climate risks—arguing that CO₂-driven warming may be less economically damaging than commonly believed. It also asserts that aggressive mitigation policies might be misguided and that U.S. actions have minimal direct impact on the global climate.

Key points from the report include:

• A conclusion that human-caused warming appears economically less harmful than widely anticipated.

• A suggestion that ambitious mitigation strategies could be misdirected or even counterproductive.

• The finding that U.S. policy changes produce “undetectably small” global climate effects, with any such impacts emerging only after long delays.

These conclusions coincide with the EPA’s proposed repeal of its 2009 “Endangerment Finding,” which recognized greenhouse gases as threats to public health and strictly regulated them. The DOE report was unveiled concurrently with public comment invitations through the Federal Register.

Scientists Criticize the DOE Report as Misleading and Selective

Mainstream climate scientists have responded robustly to the report, accusing it of misrepresenting climate science and cherry-picking data.

Michael Mann, director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Science, Sustainability, and the Media, condemned the report in Inside Climate News:

• “They constructed a deeply misleading antiscientific narrative, built on deceptive arguments, misrepresented datasets, and distortion of actual scientific understanding. … There is nothing scientific about this report whatsoever."

Additional analysis by Columbia’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law described the DOE report as making “false claims” — suggesting it understated climate risks and overstated economic benefits of inaction. The report’s assertion that human-caused climate change “appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed” was labeled misleading.

A Washington Post fact-check further highlighted that the report was “riddled with errors and cherry‑picked data.” Climate researcher Zeke Hausfather stated:

• “They cherrypick data points that suit their narratives and exclude the vast majority of the scientific literature that does not. This gives a terribly skewed view of the underlying climate science.”
  

Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, also criticized the report, warning:

• “If almost any other group of scientists had been chosen, the report would have been dramatically different.”

Moreover, the report has been described by multiple scientific commentators as embodying a broader pro–fossil fuel agenda rather than a neutral, data-driven analysis.

Broader Implications and What’s Next

The strong backlash reflects concerns that the DOE’s report may serve as a policy tool rather than a scientific reassessment. Critics argue that its release alongside efforts to repeal foundational climate protections signifies a strategic push to delay or roll back climate action.

Despite the controversy, the DOE has opened the report for public comment, inviting feedback from stakeholders across academia, industry, and government.