A leading climate scientist is pushing back against what he describes as “demonstrably incorrect” claims in a major US government climate report, arguing that it misrepresented his research and understated the role of human activity in global warming.
Prof Benjamin Santer, an Honorary Professor at the University of East Anglia (UEA), was one of the first researchers to identify a distinct human “fingerprint” in Earth’s climate system. His work helped shape the landmark 1995 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which concluded for the first time that there was enough evidence to support a “discernible human influence” on the global climate.
In July 2025, however, a report issued by the US Department of Energy (DOE) cited Santer’s research while arguing the opposite conclusion. The report was released the same day the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed overturning the 2009 ‘endangerment finding’ — the ruling that gives the agency legal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, power plants, and other industrial sources.
Earlier this month, the Trump administration moved forward with revoking the finding. The decision raised concerns about potential effects on public health and efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Critics also warned it could weaken other environmental protections in the United States.
New Analysis Defends Human Role in Climate Change
In a new paper published this week in AGU Advances, Prof Santer joined fellow climate scientists Prof Susan Solomon of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Prof David Thompson of UEA and Colorado State University, and Prof Qiang Fu of the University of Washington to reaffirm the evidence that human activity is driving global warming.
The researchers also argue that the DOE report should not be used to support legal decisions involving climate regulations such as the endangerment finding.
“We view it both important and with precedent to rebut an incorrect scientific claim made in the DOE report,” said Prof Santer, of UEA’s Climatic Research Unit. “Setting the record straight in the peer-reviewed literature is particularly important when demonstrably incorrect scientific claims are made in official government reports.
“Changes in the vertical structure of atmospheric temperature are an important ‘fingerprint’ of human effects on global climate. These changes are mainly driven by human caused increases in atmospheric levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
“Key features of this fingerprint are warming of the troposphere, the lowest layer of the atmosphere, and cooling of the stratosphere, the layer above the troposphere. Satellite observations of this distinctive fingerprint are in agreement with current state-of-the-art climate model estimates of human-caused temperature changes.
“This indisputable fingerprint of human effects on climate has been predicted for over 50 years by both simple and more sophisticated climate models, and is identifiable in satellite temperature data.
“The claim to the contrary made in the US DoE review of climate science is factually incorrect. As our analysis clearly illustrates, the DOE report is not a reliable source of information on the vertical structure of changes in atmospheric temperature, which is a key piece of evidence for human effects on global climate.”
Questions Remain About the DOE Report
The authors note that additional scientific concerns have been raised about other parts of the DOE report, including its treatment of climate change detection and attribution. They also point out that the report was cited 16 times in last year’s EPA proposal.
After a lawsuit alleged that the DOE failed to follow required Federal Advisory Committee procedures, the team that authored the report was dissolved in early September.
However, the report itself has neither been withdrawn nor corrected.
Prof Santer said: “The report is still available on the DOE website and is still being publicly referenced by DOE Secretary Wright as a credible source of information on climate science. It is not.”