The document released July 29 outlines the Trump administration's rationale for revoking a foundational scientific ruling that underpins the government's authority to combat climate change.

The paper was written by a working group including John Christy and Judith Curry, who have both in the past been linked to The Heartland Institute, an advocacy group that frequently pushes back against the scientific consensus on climate change.

It "completely misrepresents my work," Benjamin Santer, atmospheric scientist and honorary professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia in Britain, told AFP.

Santer said a section of the report on "stratospheric cooling" contradicted his findings while citing his research on climate "fingerprinting," a scientific method that seeks to separate human and natural climate change, as evidence for its analysis.

AFP and other media, including NOTUS, a US digital news website affiliated with the nonprofit Allbritton Journalism Institute, found inaccurate citations, flawed analysis and editorial errors across the document.

This is the third time since January, when Donald Trump took office, that scientists have told AFP a government agency has misrepresented academic work to defend their policies.

Previous instances included made up citations in the government's "Make America Healthy Again" report, which the administration then rushed to edit.

"I am concerned that a government agency has published a report, which is intended to inform the public and guide policy, without undergoing a rigorous peer?review process, while misinterpreting many studies that have been peer?reviewed," Bor-Ting Jong, an assistant professor at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in the Netherlands, told AFP.

Jong said the paper made false statements about the climate model her team examined and used different terminology that led to a flawed analysis of her findings.

On Bluesky, the budding social media platform favored by academics, other researchers in atmospheric and extreme weather fields also deplored that the DoE document cherry-picked data and omitted or plainly distorted their academic findings.

James Rae, a climate researcher at the University of St Andrews in Scotland, who said his work is also misrepresented in the report, told AFP the shift in how the department uses scientific research "is really chilling."

"DoE was at the forefront of science for decades. Whereas this report reads like an undergraduate exercise in misrepresenting climate science," he said.

Contacted by AFP, a DoE spokesperson said the report was reviewed internally by a group of scientific researchers and policy experts from the Office of Science and National Labs.

The public will now have the opportunity to comment on the document before it is finalized for the Federal Register.

"The Climate Working Group and the Energy Department look forward to engaging with substantive comments following the conclusion of the 30-day comment period," the department added.