A prominent climate scientist has hit back at claims he described as “patently false” in a major U.S. government climate report, claiming the report misrepresents his research and downplays the role of human activity in global warming.
Professor Benjamin Santer, Emeritus Professor at the University of East Anglia (UEA), was one of the first researchers to identify a distinct human ‘fingerprint’ in the Earth’s climate system. His research helped shape the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) landmark 1995 report. The report concluded for the first time that there is sufficient evidence to support a “clear human impact” on the global climate.
However, a report issued by the US Department of Energy (DOE) in July 2025 asserted the opposite conclusion, citing Santer’s research. The report was released on the same day that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a proposal to overturn the 2009 “endangered status” designation that gave the agency legal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, power plants, and other industrial sources.
Earlier this month, the Trump administration moved to reverse the findings. The decision raised concerns about the potential impact on public health and efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Critics also warned that 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, AGU progressProfessor Santer joined fellow climate scientists Professor Susan Solomon of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Professor David Thompson of UEA and Colorado State University, and Professor Zhang Hu of the University of Washington to reaffirm the evidence that human activity is causing global warming.
Researchers also argue that DOE reports should not be used to support legal decisions related to climate regulation, such as endangerment certification.
“We believe it is important and precedent-setting to refute the incorrect scientific claims made in the Department of Energy’s report,” said Professor Santer, from the UEA Climate Research Unit. “When official government reports make clearly incorrect scientific claims, it is especially important to set the record straight with peer-reviewed literature.
“Changes in the vertical structure of atmospheric temperature are important traces of human influence on Earth’s climate. These changes are primarily caused by human-induced increases in the levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
“The main 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 consistent with current state-of-the-art climate model estimates of anthropogenic temperature change.”
“This indisputable signature of human influence on climate has been predicted for more than 50 years by both simple and more sophisticated climate models, and is identifiable in satellite temperature data.
“Claims to the contrary made in the U.S. Department of Energy’s Climate Science Review are factually false. As our analysis clearly shows, the Department of Energy’s report is not a reliable source of information about the vertical structure of atmospheric temperature change, which is key evidence of human influence on the Earth’s climate.”
DOE report still leaves questions
The authors note that additional scientific concerns have been raised regarding other parts of the DOE report, including the treatment of climate change detection and attribution. They also point out that the report was cited 16 times in EPA proposals last year.
The team that produced the report disbanded in early September following a lawsuit that alleged the DOE failed to follow required federal advisory committee procedures.
However, the report itself has not been retracted or amended.
Professor Santer said: “Although this report is still available on the Department of Energy’s website and has been publicly referred to by Secretary of Energy Wright as an authoritative source of information on climate science, it is not.”
