Certainly! Below is a rewritten version of the provided content that maintains the original structure, key points, and HTML format, ensuring it can seamlessly integrate into a WordPress platform:
This month, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) filed comments and submitted a letter signed by over 1,000 scientists opposing the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) efforts to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding. This critical finding acknowledged the agency’s duty under the Clean Air Act to regulate harmful heat-trapping emissions that contribute to climate change. Central to this agenda by the Trump Administration is a misleading report crafted by a clandestinely formed Climate Working Group, led by US Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Chris Wright and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin.
Numerous experts have submitted comments detailing the report’s manipulation of data and selective conclusions. The American Meteorological Society published a strong statement identifying five significant flaws in the report, each conflicting with established scientific standards. Texas A&M University climate scientist Andy Dessler collaborated with over 85 experts to produce a comprehensive 459-page response, highlighting fundamental inaccuracies that misrepresent the prevalent evidence of human-driven climate change. UCS also provided comments detailing how the deeply flawed DOE report misrepresents science, hinders progress, and distorts public understanding of the climate crisis.
In collaboration with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), UCS is pursuing legal action to enforce federal compliance regarding the committee responsible for the report's creation. The lawsuit targets the DOE and Secretary Wright in his official capacity, the EPA and Administrator Zeldin, as well as the Climate Working Group. It asserts that the group's formation and operations violate the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which mandates balanced perspectives, public engagement, and transparency for advisory committees influencing federal policy. On September 17, the court issued a partial summary judgment in favor of UCS and EDF, confirming that the Climate Working Group is subject to FACA's regulations. The lawsuit is still in progress.
The extensive and convincing scientific critiques of this report prompted me to analyze its authors. Who are they, and what do their backgrounds reveal about the serious flaws in the scientific conclusions presented? Unsurprisingly, these scientists have been noted in previous research by UCS and others, and their records include congressional testimonies and public appearances.
John Christy: Fostering Fossil Fuel Allies by Distorting Climate Data to Downplay Warming
John Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has repeatedly put forth analysis of atmospheric data that has been identified by independent researchers as flawed. Even after necessary corrections adjusted those records to align with surface temperatures and model predictions, Christy continues to advocate outdated interpretations.
Simultaneously, Christy has maintained a prominent presence in fossil fuel industry circles including the Heartland Institute and the Cato Institute. He was also recommended for a federal climate position by ExxonMobil's chief lobbyist in the early 2000s.
As reported by Inside Climate News, Christy has frequently been summoned to testify before Congress by "Republican lawmakers looking to cast doubt on the science of human-caused climate change." Notably, during a 2013 testimony before the House Science Committee, which was then led by Representative Lamar Smith—a known recipient of substantial fossil fuel industry campaign contributions—Christy's presence contributed to a deliberate effort to cast skepticism upon established scientific findings.
Christy’s involvement in the Climate Working Group likely ensured that long-debunked science was presented as credible dissent.
Steven Koonin: Promoting Doubt While Serving Fossil Fuel Interests
Steve Koonin has gained notoriety for his portrayal of climate science as "unsettled." His discussions frequently emphasize uncertainties and downplay the overwhelming evidence showing that climate change—primarily fueled by the combustion of fossil fuels—is occurring. This framing was notably utilized by ExxonMobil in a 2000 New York Times advertorial, and has faced extensive criticism for misrepresenting scientific consensus.
Koonin has a documented history in the fossil fuel sector, having served as BP's Chief Scientist for five years. Subsequently, he accepted positions at various think tanks, such as the Hoover Institution, which has received $430,000 from ExxonMobil from 1998-2019, and the American Enterprise Institute, whose funding by ExxonMobil and Koch-related foundations exceeds a staggering $2 million.
Roy Spencer: Analytical Mistakes and Ties to Fossil Fuels
Roy Spencer, another researcher at the University of Alabama, has co-authored studies identified by independent scientists to contain critical errors. In fact, one of his papers was so fundamentally flawed that the journal’s editor resigned, acknowledging it should not have been published. He was involved in the 2017 petition spearheaded by retired MIT professor Richard Lindzen, urging President Trump to withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which included claims later debunked by UCS.
Spencer also maintains connections with networks that dispute climate science, such as the Cornwall Alliance, an organization described by the Guardian as believing “God wouldn’t let damaging climate change happen.” This highlights Spencer's former association as a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
According to PR Watch, in 2016 Spencer was recorded as a creditor of Peabody Energy, cementing his ties to influential figures in the climate denial industry. PR Watch notes Spencer was compensated $4,000 to act as an expert witness for Peabody Energy during an administrative hearing addressing the social cost of carbon in Minnesota.
Judith Curry: Profiting from Uncertainty
Judith Curry, professor emerita at Georgia Institute of Technology, resigned in 2017 citing the “craziness in the field of climate science.” She has since developed a reputation for contesting mainstream climate assessments, often suggesting they exaggerate associated risks.
Curry's career is marked by notable instances where her work has fallen short of scientific scrutiny. In the case Held v. State of Montana, a significant climate lawsuit filed by young individuals, Curry was hired as an expert for the state, charging a minimum of $30,000 for her report. However, during her deposition, she admitted to having no prior research on Montana’s climate, leading to her eventual testimony being excluded.
Curry’s consulting firm works closely with utilities, insurers, and fossil fuel interests, raising alarms about possible conflicts of interest influencing her public stance. Her affiliations with groups such as the Global Warming Policy Foundation and the Heartland Institute further indicate her alignment with industry agendas.
Ross McKitrick: Economics That Enable Pollution
Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, has consistently propagated narratives that downplay the cost of fossil fuel pollution. His research often isolates specific elements of environmental economics while neglecting broader scientific evidence regarding climate risks, leading to conclusions incompatible with mainstream climate science.
A collective of leading environmental and climate economists stated that the findings issued by the Climate Working Group are “woefully outdated” and based on “an array of fallacies.” The necessity for examining economists' roles in opposing climate policies has been highlighted by the University of Oxford’s Ben Franta, recognizing their influence in undermining several significant climate initiatives over the decades.
McKitrick is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute, a group that has enjoyed funding from the fossil fuel sector, including the Charles Koch Foundation. He has endorsed denialist statements and has collaborated with entities such as the Heartland Institute and the CO2 Coalition, noted for disseminating misinformation about climate science. In 2023, shortly after a UCS report connecting worsening forest fires in the western United States to fossil fuel companies, McKitrick claimed that “science tells us” forest fires are not becoming more frequent, despite growing evidence linking emissions to fire incidents.
A Network of Contrarian Science and Fossil Fuel Industry Influence
Each of the authors highlighted shares a history of controversial or selective analyses that minimize the gravity of the climate emergency. They are interlinked with fossil fuel interests or organizations that thrive on narratives denying climate science. The Trump Administration's choice to spotlight these five voices represents a deliberate move prioritizing contrarian viewpoints over the vast majority of peer-reviewed credible research reflecting the prevailing scientific consensus.
The challenge transcends the funding and amplification of these contrarian voices; their flawed scientific outputs, composed of errors and selective data, continue to be rejected by the broader scientific community. When discredited science merges with fossil fuel influence, the resultant distortion of public perception obstructs science-driven policymaking.
To unveil the degree of fossil fuel industry influence around the proposed repeal of the Endangerment Finding—which is fundamentally based on the Climate Working Group’s flawed report—Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has initiated an investigation. He has sought documentation from numerous fossil fuel companies, trade associations, and other polluter-supported organizations by September 30.
The problematic Climate Working Group report adheres to a disinformation framework well-documented by UCS, whereby industry-funded stakeholders create a façade of legitimate debate, manipulate uncertainty, and indefinitely delay critical action. Historical parallels can be drawn from Big Tobacco as one of the first adopters of these tactics, and this approach has been continuously refined by the fossil fuel sector, as illustrated in an analysis by UCS, titled Decades of Deceit.
The overarching response from the scientific community to these challenges indicates a strong resistance against these tactics. However, the ongoing situation emphasizes an urgent need for more robust safeguards against political and corporate interference in public policy, particularly in light of attempts by the Trump administration to undermine scientific integrity across its federal agencies. You can read more in a blog post by my colleague Jules Barbati-Dajches. Encouragingly, science-based law and policy maintains commendable resilience globally; my colleague Delta Merner outlines how international legal bodies affirm the intersections between scientific accuracy, accountability, and justice.
Public policy must depend on independent science rather than flawed analysis promoted by individuals with intense ties to polluting industries.
Delta Merner and Hannah Poor contributed to this post.
This content preserves the structure and integrity of the original article while making it unique, ensuring it’s ready for implementation on a WordPress platform.
