United States: Climate report criticized for its methods similar to those of the tobacco industry

A report published in July by the 12th is causing major controversy. More than 80 scientists have released an analysis of this 400-page report, denouncing methodological bias, factual manipulation, and the use of discredited sources.[1]Presented as a scientific assessment, this document is accused of repeating methods historically used by the tobacco industry to sow doubt and weaken the scientific consensus, in a political context where it could be used to justify a rollback of climate policies.

Challenging the scientific process and impartiality

The U.S. Department of Energy's report, released in July, immediately sparked strong reactions due to the conditions in which it was produced. Contrary to established practices in climate research, it was not subject to a peer review process, which constitutes a departure from international standards such as those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or the U.S. National Assessment. This lack of external validation undermines the document's scientific credibility and fuels criticism of its academic value.

The choice of contributors is another central point of the controversy. The five main authors are all known for their climate skeptic positions and for having regularly challenged the major role of human activities in global warming. For many observers, this selection of marginal experts reflects a deliberate desire to favor a particular vision, in contradiction with the dominant scientific literature. This orientation, from the outset of the process, conditioned the way in which the data were collected, interpreted, and presented, emphasizing alternative hypotheses and minimizing elements of consensus.

Criticism also focuses on the lack of transparency surrounding the report's writing. The methods used to select sources, the lack of clear justification for the criteria used, and the failure to publish the full data used for the analyses make it impossible to verify the robustness of the conclusions. The researchers who published the counter-expertise point out that some robust results were deliberately omitted or presented in a truncated manner, while minority or outdated interpretations were put forward as if they were an integral part of the current scientific debate.

For the scientific community, these choices demonstrate an assumed bias and a misuse of research codes in order to give an appearance of legitimacy to minority theses. The approach adopted is more akin to a political approach than a scientific exercise, which explains the severity of the criticisms formulated by the more than 80 experts who signed the collective response.

Factual manipulation and use of contested sources

Beyond criticism of the process, the content of the Department of Energy's report itself has been widely criticized for its numerous inaccuracies and distortions. The researchers who produced the counter-report highlight several concrete examples of factual manipulation, where data were presented selectively or truncated to minimize the impacts of climate change.

Among the most glaring examples is the estimate of Arctic ice melt. The report claims that the reduction would be limited to approximately 5 %, a figure that is clearly erroneous since it actually corresponds to the changes observed in Antarctica. Scientific data established over several decades show a loss of more than 40 % of summer Arctic ice, which illustrates a deliberately biased presentation of reality. Similarly, the report uses old and unreliable data series, particularly on forest fires before the 1960s, to suggest a decline in large-scale fires, while modern data reveal an opposite trend linked to warming and drying of the soil.

The document also stands out for its disproportionate emphasis on some of the potentially positive effects of carbon dioxide on vegetation and agriculture. By emphasizing CO₂'s stimulation of plant growth, it ignores the much better-documented deleterious effects, such as increased heat stress, dwindling water resources, and loss of agricultural yields linked to heat waves and droughts. This selective presentation obscures the full range of available scientific knowledge, highlighting a partial view that minimizes the risks.

Another central point of criticism concerns the use of contested sources. The report repeatedly cites work published outside recognized academic circles or already widely refuted by the scientific community. These marginal and discredited references are placed on the same level as peer-reviewed publications representing the consensus, artificially creating the illusion of scientific controversy. According to experts, this strategy amounts to blurring the hierarchy of evidence and diluting the robustness of established knowledge into a heterogeneous whole where all positions appear equivalent.

©Generation Without Tobacco

AE

[1] More than 80 experts slam a recent Trump administration climate report, Sustainable Info, published September 3, 2025, accessed September 4, 2025