Portuguese 
Spanish 
Benjamin Santer, one of the scientists linked to the historic 1995 IPCC report, contested a document from the U.S. Department of Energy and stated that it distorted evidence about human influence on global warming.
The Earth has returned to the center of a scientific and regulatory dispute in the United States after Benjamin Santer contested a climate report from the Department of Energy, published in July 2025, which cited his research to support an opposite conclusion.
Santer, honorary professor at the University of East Anglia, was one of the first researchers to identify a human “fingerprint” on the planet’s climate. His research supported the historic 1995 IPCC report, which pointed to a “discernible human influence” on the global climate.
Scientists contest report used in climate decision
The Department of Energy report was released when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed to revoke the 2009 “endangerment finding,” the legal basis for regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
-
Student Creates 3D-Printed Prosthetics from Recycled Plastic, Turning Waste into Affordable Custom Arms
-
NASA Targets Saturn’s Icy Moon Titan as a Waystation for Interplanetary Travel, Utilizing Its Resources for Fuel and Astronaut Support
-
Researchers Revolutionize Nanotechnology with Rocket-Inspired Modular Nanorobot for Efficient Microscopic Missions
-
Farmer in Ireland Discovers Intact Bronze Age Tomb While Moving Stone on His Land
The measure involves emissions from vehicles, power plants, and industrial sources. Earlier this month, the Trump administration proceeded with the revocation, raising concerns about public health and emissions.
Critics warned that the decision could weaken environmental protections. In this scenario, Santer stated that the report distorted his research and underestimated the human role in global warming.
Earth holds human signature in the atmosphere
In an article published in AGU Advances, Santer joined Susan Solomon from MIT, David Thompson from UEA and Colorado State University, and Qiang Fu from the University of Washington.
The group reaffirmed that human activity drives global warming and argued that the Department of Energy report should not be used in climate court decisions.
Santer stated it is important to refute, in peer-reviewed scientific literature, an incorrect scientific claim present in an official government report.
He highlighted that changes in the vertical structure of atmospheric temperature form a fingerprint of human effects on the climate, driven by the increase of CO2 and greenhouse gases.
Report remains available despite criticisms
The climate signature described by the researchers combines warming of the troposphere, the lowest layer of the atmosphere, and cooling of the stratosphere, the layer above it.
Satellite observations of this signature are consistent with estimates from modern climate models. Santer stated that this human influence has been predicted for over 50 years.
The authors pointed out other scientific concerns about the report, including its approach to the detection and attribution of climate changes.
The text was cited 16 times in the EPA’s proposal. After a lawsuit over Federal Advisory Committee procedures, the responsible team was dissolved, but the report was neither withdrawn nor corrected.
Why this climate signature matters
The vertical structure of the atmosphere helps scientists differentiate natural variations from changes associated with human action. When the troposphere warms and the stratosphere cools, the pattern becomes relevant evidence because it combines satellite observations with climate model results.
This type of analysis is important in public and regulatory debates, as decisions about emissions depend on the quality of the evidence used. In the case at hand, the dispute involves not just academic interpretation, but the use of an official report in processes related to climate policy.
