theglobeandmail.com
85 Climate Scientists Condemn Trump Energy Department's Climate Assessment
Over 85 leading climate scientists criticized the Trump Energy Department's climate assessment, deeming it scientifically unsound and biased due to its reliance on outdated and misinterpreted research, lack of peer review, and handpicked contrarian scientists.
- What are the main criticisms of the Energy Department's climate assessment?
- The assessment is criticized for relying heavily on debunked research, misinterpreting other research, and lacking a credible peer-review process. The scientists involved were handpicked for their contrarian views, resulting in a biased report that doesn't reflect the scientific consensus.
- What are the potential implications of this flawed assessment on climate policy?
- The flawed assessment could be used to justify the unwinding of federal greenhouse gas regulations. This undermines efforts to mitigate climate change and ignores the overwhelming scientific consensus on the urgency of climate action.
- How does this assessment compare to other major climate reports, such as the IPCC report?
- Unlike the IPCC and U.S. National Climate Assessment reports, which involved thousands of authors and rigorous independent review, the Energy Department's report used a small group of handpicked scientists, leading to a skewed representation of climate science and its consensus view of worsening climate change and its global impacts.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article presents a clear conflict between the Trump Energy Department's climate assessment and the findings of 85 top climate scientists. The framing emphasizes the criticism of the assessment, highlighting its flaws and the lack of scientific integrity. The headline and introduction immediately establish this contrast. The inclusion of quotes from the scientists strengthens this framing by directly presenting their concerns. However, the inclusion of Secretary Wright's statement provides a counterpoint, offering a different perspective. This balanced presentation, while leaning towards the criticism, avoids overly one-sided framing.
Language Bias
The language used is mostly neutral and objective. Terms like "contrarian view," "debunked research," and "misinterpreted research" are used to describe the assessment, but these are supported by the scientists' critique and don't appear overtly biased. The use of "mainstream narrative" could be considered slightly loaded, implying a rejection of the scientific consensus. A more neutral alternative might be "prevailing scientific understanding.
Bias by Omission
While the article presents a comprehensive overview of the conflict, potential omissions exist. The article doesn't delve into the specific policy decisions the assessment is intended to support, limiting the reader's understanding of the context and implications. Additionally, it lacks information on the specific types of "debunked research" and "misinterpreted research," although the large scale of the 400-page review suggests this information is present within that review. Further details on the backgrounds and potential conflicts of interest for both the 85 scientists and Secretary Wright's group would provide a more balanced understanding.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a dichotomy between the Energy Department's assessment and the consensus view of climate scientists. However, this isn't necessarily a false dichotomy. While nuances exist within climate science, the article correctly reflects the significant disagreement between the two groups. The article doesn't oversimplify the issue by suggesting there are only two viewpoints. The disagreement is presented as significant, but the broader spectrum of scientific thought is implicitly acknowledged.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights a climate assessment that contradicts mainstream climate science, undermining efforts to mitigate climate change. The assessment's flawed methodology, reliance on debunked research, and lack of peer review directly hinder progress toward climate action goals. The Energy Department's actions, as described, actively impede the implementation of effective climate policies and could lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions and further environmental damage.