Climate scientists have formally challenged a US government report they say incorrectly downplayed clear evidence of human-driven warming.
A leading climate scientist is challenging “demonstrably incorrect” claims in a major US government report that he says misrepresented his research and minimized 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 scientists to detect a human ‘fingerprint’ in Earth’s climate system. His work helped inform the landmark 1995 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which concluded for the first time that evidence showed a “discernible human influence” on global climate.
In July 2025, however, a US Department of Energy (DOE) report cited Prof Santer’s research while making the opposite claim. That report appeared the same day the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a proposal to reverse the 2009 ‘endangerment finding’ – the ruling that gave the agency legal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from sources such as vehicles, power plants, and other industrial operations.
Earlier this year, the Trump administration moved ahead with revoking the ruling. The decision raised concerns about possible effects on human health and efforts to cut emissions, as well as fears that it could pave the way for ending other environmental regulations in the US.
A correction enters the record
In a new analysis published in AGU Advances, Prof. Santer and climate scientists Prof. Susan Solomon from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Prof. David Thompson from UEA and Colorado State University, and Prof Qiang Fu of the University of Washington reaffirm the evidence for human-driven warming. They also warn that the DOE report should not be used to support legal decisions about the scientific basis for 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.”
An unresolved policy problem
Scientists have also questioned other parts of the DOE report’s handling of climate change detection and attribution. The report was cited 16 times in last year’s EPA proposal.
After a lawsuit alleged that the DOE had not followed proper Federal Advisory Committee procedures, the author team behind the DOE report was dissolved in early September.
Even so, Prof Santer and his coauthors note that the DOE report has not been corrected or withdrawn.
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.”
Reference: “Modeled and Observed Stratospheric Temperature Changes: Implications for Fingerprint Studies” by Benjamin D. Santer, Susan Solomon, David W. J. Thompson and Qiang Fu, 24 February 2026, AGU Advances.
DOI: 10.1029/2025AV002196
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
17 Comments
More quacks pushing the human-made climate change hoax. Archeology has proven it’s cyclical and warming/cooling has happened many times before.
Your inability to understand the science is clearly demonstrated by your assertion that ” Archeology has proven it’s cyclical…” Archaeology has done no such thing, as it concerns events in the recent past. Evidence for past climate change is derived from teams combining geologists with physicists and goes back much further than archaeologists can study.
“warming/cooling has happened many times before”
It’s a grisly scene: a dark alley with a corpse lying on the asphalt, blood everywhere and a knife sticking out of its back. Detective Shan studies the evidence carefully and then announces: “People have died of natural causes many times before. This person died of natural causes.”
Give it a rest. We know lies when we hear them. I watched an interview with the man who invented the climate satellite monitoring system and even he said the data is distorted to create an emergency that doesn’t exist. Humans aren’t in any danger and by the time we are, fusion will have long since solved all the problems, not to mention population estimates are dropping like crazy to 4 Billion 50 years from now instead of 12 billion because fertility rates have dropped off so much.
He also said the Left never talks about the positive sides of the changes including much better growing conditions for plants and food. Food production is up 35% since the turn of the century, a far cry from the dried up desert the crazies like to scare people with. The 0kabet is getting wetter and more ideal for food and forest growth.
The lying Communists on the Left will say or do literally anything to get and stay in power. That is the true threat to humanity. They are proven to be emotionally driven illogical power hungry mentally unstable types and it’s time to take the world back to sanity. There is no clue you won’t say to refute every word I say and it’s all bologna.
These “scientists” are attacking the wrong problem. That is how I know they are quacks. Whether or not humans are causing warming, there is diddly poo we can do about stopping it. About all we can do, all the massive measures in most Western nations, we might slow it down just a little. But, then, the developing world is free to pollute as they will; and they so do.
The problem involving climate we CAN deal with is not quite utterly ignored. It’s going to get hotter if your models are correct, which is a risible assumption, we must learn what it will do and figure out what we must do to cope with it. Since those screaming about climate ignore that task I must conclude they are screaming about Climate for other reasons, such as “seeing the world burn” when it tries to stop CO2 emissions.
{^_^}
So you reason that, if we cause something to happen, we cannot stop the consequence by stopping the cause we create. Your partner complains “It’s freezing in this house. You turned off the heater!” and you tell them “There’s nothing we do about it.” Yeah, right. Sure. Makes perfect sense.
The scientific conclusions generated by decades of research by tens of thousands of scientists are not assumptions. They are measurements and calculations based on the laws of physics. Perhaps you have heard of physics.
” we must learn what it will do and figure out what we must do to cope with it. Since those screaming about climate ignore that task…”
Um, no, you are ignorant of the immense amount of work on that task. Scientists have been telling us for decades what we must do: reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. But you don’t like to hear that, so you stuff your fists into your ears and deny everything.
I have to wonder who pays you to post this nonsense. They certainly aren’t getting their money’s worth.
Maybe the non-deniable facts have little or nothing to do with science but are related to the string of melodramatic claims (from climate scientists) going back decades, that have predicted catastrophic consequences for the world that have not even come close to happening.
If you want to maintain credibility and respect, it might be a good idea to publicly discuss some of the issues at hand with scientists who disagree with your notions. Someone like Judith Curry who no one from the ‘we’re all going to die’ crowd will debate, because her background is impeccable and who would eviscerate their claims.
Come on, Chris! Do you have any evidence that you can provide that just because someone disagrees with you that they are being paid?
You provide a clue to destroy your own own claim. You judge Joanne’s comments to be less competent than your own. Would someone with enough money to pay contributors, pick someone that wouldn’t give them their money’s worth. No. However, if someone on the other side of the debate wanted to hire shills, they would almost certainly hire you.
Where have you been? Its been quite some time since I have heard anything from you.
you really need to either go into a dementia ward or go back to middle school and start over…….losers like you that have ZERO science ability just parrot far-right rich guys that don’t want to pay to help…….
“Even so, Prof Santer and his coauthors note that the DOE report has not been corrected or withdrawn.”
Probably because it has not been demonstrated to be “demonstrably wrong” as asserted by Santer. Before the the committee of distinguished members could get any work done, it was attacked on a technicality of procedure, not on the quality of the science. It is telling that Santer, Solomon, et al. chose to shut down the committee on a procedural technicality rather than openly dispute the science.
The abstract of their AGU article says, “These [fingerprint] changes are mainly driven by human-caused increases in atmospheric levels of CO2 and other well-mixed greenhouse gases.” Actually, the dominant “greenhouse gas,” water vapor, is NOT well-mixed and not even mentioned. Furthermore, they base their claim on a supposed “emerging ‘healing’ of stratospheric ozone levels after the Montreal Protocol.” Go to the NASA website at https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/ (bottom left of the page) and decide for yourself if there is an obvious difference between the Antarctic ozone concentration and extent in the mid-1990s and the most recent years. It looks to me like the last 5 years the trend as been opposite to the claimed “emerging ‘healing.'” The Santer et al. claim strikes me as being wishful thinking, at best.
Speaking of “human fingerprints,” where is the infamous stratospheric “hot spot” that is predicted by models?
I find it curious that Santer is formally associated with his alma mater (East Anglia) in this article rather than where he spent most of his career, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and from which he retired.
“Probably because it has not been demonstrated to be “demonstrably wrong” as asserted by Santer.”
It has been SCIENTIFICALLY demonstrated to be demonstrably wrong. You deny that truth because it has not been demonstrated in MAGA terms. Were Mr. Trump to declare that it was demonstrably wrong, then you’d believe it.
Have you ever heard of “science”? It seems that you are unaware of this field of study. You claim that
“It is telling that Santer, Solomon, et al. chose to shut down the committee on a procedural technicality rather than openly dispute the science.”
Anybody who knows the difference between science and politics and reads the above article will see that the authors didn’t just dispute the science — they obliterated it.
“Speaking of “human fingerprints,” where is the infamous stratospheric “hot spot” that is predicted by models?”
Read it and weep:
https://airbornescience.nasa.gov/content/A_global_view_of_stratospheric_gravity_wave_hotspots_located_with_Atmospheric_Infrared
“I find it curious that Santer is formally associated with his alma mater (East Anglia) in this article rather than where he spent most of his career, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and from which he retired.”
In science, the institution where one earned one’s degree is considered more relevant to one’s credibility than the locations of one’s jobs.
Obliterated? Chris, I’m disappointed. I expect better than that from you. Did you even read the paper that the link points to? It certainly does NOT obliterate the science! As usual, it is a lot of poorly supported assertions, with some modeling of undemonstrated skill. The claim by Santer et al. is based on the assertion that ozone is recovering “largely due to the emerging “healing” of stratospheric ozone levels after the Montreal Protocol.” I provided a link to the NASA data challenging the claim. I don’t see “healing,” and you chose not to respond to the evidence I provided. Ignoring counter evidence is not good science.
Once again, you make a politically-linked claim that I’m being influenced by my political leanings. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I don’t consider myself to be associated with the MAGA group and to suggest that I am, lacking any kind of proof, suggests that you are not a scientist, despite having a bachelors degree in physics.
I misspoke about the “hotspot.” If you were as familiar with the science of climatology as you would have me believe, I would expect you to take the opportunity to correct me. It is in the troposphere. The link that you provided does not address the issue. What is this about “read it and weep.” Based on your ad hominens, you are more emotionally invested in a political position than I am. You might want to take a look at an article written by a meteorologist with the same level of education as yourself: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/14/claim-climate-scientists-find-elusive-tropospheric-hot-spot-over-the-southern-ocean/
Some people who are fortunate enough to graduate from a highly respected university are content to rest on their laurels. However, I would suggest that once someone graduates, they should apply what they learned. Thus, where they find employment and actually work should override where they took their classes. Really talented people can usually overcome handicaps of being taught by people who think that they are God’s Gift to humanity.
Except for two divots the earth held a 0.2% carbon atmosphere all the way until the present animal density in which humans have arisen. It has fallen in the last million and half years to 0.04%. We have been coming out of a cold spell.
When you try to manipulate people, you simply leave out that little piece of information that would give them pause – and the little piece of info left out all these politically motivated “scientists” and media reports is the FLOOR of acceptable atmospheric carbon, past which ALL LIFE ON EARTH DIES.
Research that. – The floor is: 0.02% – where plant life collapses. That is 1/2 below our present precariously low disposition.
Higher carbon means higher temps and it produced Jungles and forests and dinosaurs and all the animals after the dinosaurs – including you. The Sahara was lush with waterfalls and rainbows – now with the lower carbon it is desert – and desert is what happens when plant life can’t breathe. And when plants can’t breathe – you can’t breath – or eat. So wake up.
If the Sahara was once lush with waterfalls and one assumes rivers as well as rainbows, why did it dry out? Something changed.
less carbon in atmosphere. See plant-life breathes carbon. Like you breathe oxygen. If some group of over-excited monkeys were thinking they should lower the level of Oxygen – because someone told them it is poison – to the point where people were turning blue, you’d have to start asking yourself whether they had their info right?
We have dried up deserts all over the place but there are big political movements (where a few people are loudly pitching for vast, unearned incomes to ‘clean up’ the world) saying carbon is too high – when we have had 5 to 7 times the present carbon for all of earth’s history – and it fed the forests that gave us oxygen.
Here’s a good rule: ‘Shut your ears and open your eyes.’ Allow you own good mind to think – not arbitrate the latest false information – go look up the source yourself and analyze it.
Orbital mechanics.
The “human fingerprint” was never established by real science. That statement was inserted mysteriously after that political section was supposed to have been completed.
Susan Solomon – “expert”? Under Susan Solomon you were not allowed to ask any questions about the “papers” you were reviewing and commenting on.
The “human fingerprint” statement was made more significant in each subsequent IPCC Report with no more evidence.
There are NO measurements of any significant temperature change caused by “emissions” aka CO2. It is a false ASSUMPTION being continually repeated.
Trump recognized the folly.
I leave you with some quotes from earlier days at the U.N.
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong, Founder of the UN Environment Programme
“Our aim is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to change the global economic system… This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.”
– UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres
”The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
– The Club of Rome Premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations.
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
In simpler terms, replace free enterprise, entrepreneurial capitalism with UN-controlled centralized, One World government and economic control.
UN official Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III, explained what climate policy is all about: “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy … One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
thanks for this