华盛顿——据美联社调查的数十位科学家称，特朗普政府旨在撤销长期认为气候变化具有危险性的两项关键文件充满了错误、偏见和歪曲。
其中一份报告声称北极海冰减少幅度很小，但却使用南极的数据来证明这一点。它引用了一项以法国为中心的气候相关作物损失研究来声称美国的情况——该研究的作者表示这种概括不成立，因为气候和农业存在显著差异。在声称几十年前的野火统计数据不可靠之后，报告仍然在图表中复制了这些数据，使其看起来一个世纪前的野火比近年更严重。
科学家们指出了这些基本错误，但64位回应美联社提问的科学家中绝大多数最常见的批评是，环境保护署和能源部忽视、歪曲或选择性使用信息，以制造对气候变化严重性和威胁的怀疑。
耶鲁大学气候变化传播项目数据科学主任詹妮弗·马龙是其中之一。
“这些工作和结论似乎有偏见。数据和图表使用了典型的错误和虚假信息技巧，”她说。“这几乎是一本如何用数字撒谎的用户指南。”
特朗普政府于7月提议撤销2009年政府认为气候变化对公共健康和福利构成威胁的结论，这一概念被称为“危害性”认定，并得到主流科学的支持。推翻它可能为削减一系列限制汽车、发电厂和其他来源污染的规则铺平道路。
特朗普政府的一份报告由能源部撰写，声称科学家用来预测变暖的气候模型过于夸大，灾害的长期趋势通常没有显示太大变化，气候对经济影响很小。能源部文件还称，一个碳更多的世界有好处，比如植物生长增加。
美联社通过电子邮件联系了约350位科学家——几乎是特朗普政府工作中引用的所有主要研究作者，外加该领域知名的139位气候、健康和经济专家。回应的64位科学家中53位——包括报告中未提及的外部研究人员——对环保署和能源部的文件给出了负面评价。七位赞扬了它们。其余四位没有明确立场。
在15个案例中，被引用工作的科学家表示他们的研究被误用、误解或断章取义。
当被要求回应科学家的批评时，环保署表示在评估2009年认定气候变化是公共威胁的预测和假设是否“准确和一致”时，它考虑了各种来源和信息。能源部表示致力于“更深思熟虑和基于科学的对话”。
白宫发言人泰勒·罗杰斯表示，特朗普政府“正在生产由可验证数据驱动的黄金标准科学研究”，危害性认定长期被误用以证明昂贵法规的合理性，“这些法规危及了我们的经济和国家安全”。
公众可以在9月2日前对能源部报告发表评论，在9月22日前对环保署撤销危害性认定的提案发表评论。然后特朗普政府必须在最终决定前考虑这些反馈。
推翻该认定可能破坏环境标准，如要求某些燃煤电厂减少90%排放的规则，或限制污染最严重的石油和天然气井甲烷释放的规则。另一项受影响的法规要求到2032车型年将新车排放减少约一半。
环保组织已在法庭上挑战这些文件。
特朗普政府认为气候科学危言耸听
环保署主张推翻危害性认定的报告 heavily relied on the Energy Department’s work. 美联社调查的大多数科学家 focused on the DOE report. 这两份特朗普政府文件 together maintain that while climate change is real, its future effects are unclear and likely weaker than projected by many mainstream scientists. 政府还 contends that US cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, which largely come from burning fuels like oil and coal, would mean little globally. 美国是仅次于中国的世界第二大排放国。
耶鲁研究员马龙 singled out the flawed wildfire data and said the proper thing for scientists to do is not to show such information. “The report instead plots this unreliable data,” she said.
该文件还 erroneously claimed that the area burned by wildfire in the US hadn’t increased since 2007. 马龙自己运行数据确认它增加了， though more slowly than in prior years. 国家跨机构消防中心数据显示，10年平均年燃烧面积2007年为650万英亩；2024年 nearly 760万英亩。
当讨论海冰时，特朗普报告 refer to the wrong part of the world.
“自1980年以来北极海冰范围下降了约5%，”能源部报告 said. 但报告链接到国家冰雪数据中心的南半球图表， which means Antarctica. 南极海冰事实上下降了约5%，但北极海冰收缩了超过40%。
“这表明工作草率，”数据中心高级科学家沃尔特·迈尔 said.
报告作者回应批评
该错误和任何其他发现的错误将被纠正，报告作者 said.
“报告前言明确指出，它并非旨在全面回顾气候科学，而是专注于媒体和政治讨论中未充分报道或被忽视的重要数据和主题，”能源部报告作者在合著者罗斯·麦基特里克提供的联合声明中 said, 他是加拿大圭尔夫大学教授，专攻环境经济学。
“对偏见或选择性使用的泛泛指责无助于严肃的科学讨论，”他们 said.
环保署报告 heavily drew on the Energy Department document for its science, citing it twice as often as it cited the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has hundreds of scientists and editors that produce a massive document written over several years and was a key source for the 2009 endangerment finding. 能源部文件始于3月，7月发布。其前言称目标是“包括挑战主流共识的证据和观点”。
佛蒙特法学院环境法专家、前主任帕特·帕伦托 said agencies are required to make a “reasoned analysis” when they reverse a policy like the endangerment finding.
“理性意味着客观。我不知道它还能意味着什么其他，” he said, adding that he didn’t believe the Trump administration reports were objective.
国家科学院，一组私立非营利机构，旨在为政策制定者提供独立客观分析， says it’s preparing a fast-tracked special report on the latest evidence on whether greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health.
许多专家称报告有偏见
19位科学家 used variations of the phrase “cherry pick” to describe the administration’s reports.
“我肯定不会 alone in saying these reports cherry-pick information to minimize the threat of climate change,” said 新南威尔士大学教授兼气候研究员史蒂文·舍伍德. He said the reports were well written and easy to understand, then added: “But being biased in selecting what to show, they are not honest efforts to portray the broader picture, but instead read as efforts to persuade against concern about carbon emissions.”
法国经济学家弗朗索瓦·巴雷耶，其工作被能源部报告引用， said the work was fundamentally flawed. “These documents do not reflect genuine scientific rigor, but rather a misleading reinterpretation of peer-reviewed research.”
巴雷耶 said the Energy report misused his research on French agriculture, which concluded that previous research on climate-related crop losses was overly pessimistic. 巴雷耶 said his findings “cannot be generalized to other regions, such as the US, where both climate conditions and agricultural systems differ significantly.”
能源报告一部分 argued that ocean acidification should more accurately be called “ocean neutralization.” 作者 reasoned that ocean life “appear to be resilient” to such changes.
海洋酸化发生在海水吸收上升的二氧化碳时，这损害有壳海洋生物，如珊瑚、牡蛎和软体动物。这种危害 risk disrupting food webs.
石溪大学的斯蒂芬·施瓦茨，前能源部大气科学项目首席科学家， said using a more benign term such as “neutralization” would be “ludicrous.” 而瓦利德·阿卜杜拉提，奥巴马政府期间担任NASA首席科学家， said: “The simple fact is that carbon dioxide is making the oceans more acidic, which carries harmful effects.”
蒂姆·加拉德特，首届特朗普政府期间国家海洋和大气管理局局长， praised the recent administration reports and singled out the issue of ocean acidification. 他 agreed with the word “neutralization” and said recent studies have shown smaller or nonexistent harms when compared with previous science.
报告中引用的一位经济学专家 praised it, saying it departed from unnecessarily alarmist findings of other national and international climate assessments.
“问题是主流‘气候科学’相当 worthless. Hopelessly politicized, mired in groupthink and virtue signaling,” said 埃克塞特大学教授詹姆斯·戴维森. 他的工作被引用 to dispute the mainstream scientific finding that rising carbon dioxide levels in the past drove warming.
戴维森 said the Department of Energy’s authors are skeptical of the current consensus and hold beliefs that previously would have been ignored.
“换句话说，他们和所谓的‘主流’暂时交换了位置，” he said.
科学家给报告从A到F评分
被要求像给本科生作业评分一样给政府文件打分，42位回应此问题的科学家中19位 assigned the work an F, for failing. 报告 earned five As along with an A-minus. 一些 criticized the question as silly or ridiculous, with one saying it suggests “your goal here is not journalism but team sport.”
“我会给它们 both a D on truth and an A on deviousness,” wrote 伍德威尔气候研究中心气候科学家詹妮弗·弗朗西斯. 她 said the analysis was twisted to support the desired narrative.
“环保署报告得‘R’代表 ridiculous,” she said.
能源部报告 argues that worst-case climate models often used by scientists to describe the consequences of doing nothing to reduce emissions exaggerate how much the world has already warmed and how much more it will heat up.
在该部分，能源部报告 cited climate scientist Zeke Hausfather four times, including a graphic of his.
豪斯法瑟在博客中 wrote that the report used one less important figure “to reinforce the point they were trying to make, and never actually referred to the broader conclusion of the paper that old models had by-and-large performed quite well,” Hausfather wrote. “The actual content of my paper went counter to the narrative they were trying to present, and thus was ignored.”
他 added: “That’s why I’ve publicly called this process a farce.”
当被要求回应时，能源部发言人 encouraged Hausfather to submit his concerns as part of the public comment process.
发表评论