At a moment when the Trump administration is elevating climate skeptics, a scientific report released Wednesday by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine reads almost like a quiet act of rebellion.
Its findings were notable, but not surprising — the 16-member science panel reaffirmed humanity’s use of fossil fuels is warming the planet and that the increase in Earth’s temperature is putting people’s health and welfare at risk.
But just as significant, science and policy experts said, was the continued commitment by the National Academies to transparency, public input and diverse viewpoints at a time when scientific research is under siege by the Trump administration.
That contrasts sharply with another high-profile climate report published recently by the Department of Energy — a document drafted without public comments by known climate contrarians, which took aim at the mainstream scientific consensus on global warming.
“I do find the Academies themselves to be very transparent,” said Carlos Martinez, an atmospheric scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group. “It’s a part of the robust nature of peer review, of scientific consensus and judgment, when it comes to collecting information, developing and vetting authors.”
That the National Academies undertook the report at all has generated controversy.
Congress began investigating the National Academies report even before it was released, with House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) calling it a “blatant partisan act to undermine the Trump Administration.”
The report was written in response to a proposal by EPA to overturn the 2009 endangerment finding, a landmark decision that made clear greenhouse gases pose a threat to human health.
The endangerment finding has long served as a backbone of federal climate regulations — and for almost as long it’s been targeted for deletion by critics, including EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin.
EPA has relied heavily on DOE’s climate report — which scientists have roundly criticized for false and misleading claims — to justify the proposed repeal.
It’s unclear how the Trump administration will respond to the National Academies report.
The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment. An EPA spokesperson declined to answer specific questions but said the “agency looks forward to responding to a diverse array of perspectives on this issue.”
Founded during Lincoln administration
The National Academies occupies a unique space in U.S. society.
It was founded as an independent institution in 1863 to provide science policy advice during the Abraham Lincoln administration. It is funded by a mix of federal sources, private foundations, individuals and corporations.
But now some of its work is in danger. National Academies leaders have warned staff that they may have to lay off about 250 of 1,100 employees by the end of the year due to the Trump administration’s federal research cuts and the elimination of contracts.
The cutbacks are part of a broader retreat from scientific research by the Trump administration.
Thousands of federal scientists have left the federal government since President Donald Trump returned to the White House, through either layoffs or early retirements. And the administration wants to cut billions of dollars for climate research and scientific equipment — including orbiting satellites.
Against this political backdrop, the National Academies report is clear in its conclusions: EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding was not only accurate, but the evidence that human harm is increased by climate change has only grown in the last 16 years.
“The EPA’s 2009 finding that the human caused emissions of greenhouse gasses threaten human health and welfare was accurate at the time in 2009, it has stood the test of time exceedingly well, and is now even stronger, because it is being reinforced by new evidence,” said Shirley Tilghman, a molecular biologist and former Princeton University president who chaired the review committee.
How the report came together is also significant.
The National Academies, which funded the report, selected a diverse committee of authors and reviewers, including former Trump administration officials and researchers with ties to the fossil fuel industry.
The list of reviewers includes Tim Gallaudet, former acting administrator of NOAA under the first Trump administration. And the author committee included David Allen, a chemical engineer and former consultant to oil and gas companies, as well as Arthur Lee, a former Chevron fellow. Other experts included climate scientists, meteorologists, public health experts and engineers.
Contributors were required to disclose any conflicts of interest, including some authors who noted their investments in fossil fuel companies.
Martinez, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the methods used by the National Academies to produce its climate report differ from how the DOE team put together its document.
The National Academies committee included a diverse panel of contributors, solicited public comments in advance and considered input from more than 200 individuals and organizations before drafting its report.
The DOE report, on the other hand, includes just five authors — all of whom are known contrarians on the subject of mainstream climate science — and failed to reveal its reviewers at all. It also solicited public comments only after the draft report was published.
“Knowing that the DOE report had five climate contrarians, who have fringe thoughts related to the consensus on climate change, I think it is interesting that the makeup of this report has individuals from various industries, from various professions, that come to this conclusion,” Martinez said. “That speaks to what I believe is the nonpartisan nature of climate science.”
Courts weigh in
The DOE report is part of a legal battle now being waged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The latest step in the courtroom brawl played out as the National Academies’ report was published.
A federal judge on Wednesday rebuked DOE for the way its report was crafted — in secret and without following federal transparency laws — as part of a lawsuit brought by environmental groups that have argued it should not be considered in EPA’s effort to overturn the endangerment finding.
DOE officials argued the climate science report was merely a review of the scientific literature and that the process should not have been subject to transparency requirements under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Judge William Young denied requests from the Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists to block the report’s consideration in the endangerment finding rollback, but granted their claims about the way it was crafted.
“The conclusion of the report itself shows that it is no mere ‘review’ of the literature. To suggest otherwise borders on sophistry,” Young wrote. “No reasonable jury could find that these words, arranged as they are, do not constitute advice or recommendations for a renewed approach to climate policy.”
Marcia McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences, told POLITICO’s E&E News that a diversity of viewpoints from industry and academia was a priority to ensure the best available research was reviewed.
She compared that to the way the DOE report was launched, and she pushed back in advance against potential criticism.
“It was Chris Wright who selected the members of that study unilaterally, without any opportunity for comment,” she said. “To say that we have set up a process that is going to bias the outcome, seems to me a little ludicrous compared to how the DOE study, which has obviously triggered this, was conducted.”
