Trump Administration Dissolves Climate Skeptic Panel After Legal Challenge

The Trump administration has officially disbanded a controversial climate research panel following mounting legal pressure and widespread scientific criticism of its work questioning established climate science consensus.

Legal Pressure Forces Group’s End

Energy Secretary Chris Wright confirmed the dissolution of the five-member climate working group in a September 3 letter to participating researchers. The decision came after environmental organizations filed a lawsuit alleging violations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, specifically citing failures to properly disclose the group’s formation and activities.
The Environmental Defense Fund and Union of Concerned Scientists argued that the working group’s creation violated federal transparency requirements by operating in secrecy for months before public disclosure. Additionally, the lawsuit challenged the deliberate selection of members known for contrarian views on climate science, arguing this approach undermined balanced scientific assessment.
The disbanded group included prominent climate skeptics John Christy and Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama at Huntsville, Steven Koonin from Stanford’s Hoover Institution, Georgia Tech professor emeritus Judith Curry, and Canadian economist Ross McKitrick. Wright had personally selected these researchers earlier this year to author a report challenging mainstream climate science conclusions.

Controversial Report Generates Scientific Backlash

The working group’s draft report, released in July, questioned the severity and impacts of human-caused climate change while suggesting potential benefits from warming temperatures. This document was intended to support the administration’s proposal to repeal a 2009 scientific finding that established climate change as a threat to human health and safety.
The report triggered unprecedented pushback from the scientific community. More than 100 climate scientists coordinated efforts to submit over 400 pages of critical public comments to the Energy Department last week, systematically challenging the working group’s methodology and conclusions.
Andrew Dessler, a Texas A&M University climate researcher who helped organize the scientific response, characterized the dissolution as surrender in the face of overwhelming expert criticism. “My interpretation is they’re waving the white flag,” Dessler explained, noting the impossibility of five researchers adequately responding to thousands of detailed scientific comments.

Administration Maintains Position Despite Dissolution

Despite disbanding the working group, the Department of Energy will not withdraw the controversial report. A DOE spokesperson stated that the document and subsequent public comments “achieved the purpose of the CWG, namely to catalyze broader discussion about the certainties and uncertainties of current climate science.”
Wright defended the group’s work in his dissolution letter, stating that their efforts “excited the much-needed debate in this area” despite facing resistance from scientific orthodoxy. He expressed satisfaction that the resulting discourse “exceeded my expectations” and created space for diverse scientific viewpoints.
The administration simultaneously removed previous National Climate Assessment reports from government websites and terminated scientists working on future assessments, drawing additional alarm from the climate science community.

Ongoing Impact and Future Implications

While officially disbanded, former working group member Judith Curry indicated that researchers plan to continue working independently, potentially issuing revised reports and responding to scientific criticism. However, climate scientists view the dissolution as effectively ending prospects for the administration’s desired “red-team, blue team” climate debate format.
Dessler suggested the working group’s inability to mount effective responses to scientific criticism exposed fundamental weaknesses in contrarian arguments. “They honestly believed they had good arguments,” he noted, describing the outcome as “a disaster for them.”
The dissolution represents a significant setback for climate skeptics seeking official government platforms to challenge established climate science, while demonstrating the power of coordinated scientific community responses to questionable research methodologies.