Standing in front of Ottawa’s Parliament Hill, Ross McKitrick appears unassuming—a mild-mannered economics professor who speaks in measured tones about carbon taxes and environmental regulations. But in Washington’s polarized climate wars, the University of Guelph economist has become something else entirely: a prized intellectual asset for the Trump administration’s rollback of climate initiatives.
“The economic impacts of these regulations are severe and immediate, while the climate benefits are theoretical and distant,” McKitrick told me during an interview at a downtown Ottawa café last week. “Someone needs to challenge the consensus.”
That’s precisely what McKitrick has been doing for nearly two decades. While mainstream climate scientists warn of accelerating dangers, McKitrick has built a career challenging the underlying data, methodologies, and economic assumptions behind climate policy. His work has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, been cited in congressional testimonies, and influenced policy decisions worth billions of dollars.
“Ross brings rigorous economic analysis to questions that are too often driven by emotion and politics,” says Myron Ebell, who led Trump’s EPA transition team. “His statistical critique of temperature records changed how we look at the entire climate debate.”
But mainstream climate scientists view McKitrick’s work very differently. Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, calls McKitrick’s statistical analyses “fundamentally flawed” and notes that they’ve been repeatedly debunked in peer-reviewed literature. The World Meteorological Organization maintains that McKitrick’s alternative temperature reconstructions ignore crucial satellite and ocean data.
McKitrick’s influence extends beyond academic disputes. In 2017, he co-authored a paper arguing that climate models had systematically overestimated warming, which became a cornerstone document in the EPA’s justification for replacing the Clean Power Plan. The United Nations Environment Programme and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change both published detailed refutations, but by then, the policy damage was done.
For his part, McKitrick seems comfortable in his contrarian role. “I’m not denying climate change—I’m questioning how we measure it and how we respond to it,” he insists, sipping coffee near Parliament. “The difference between a 1.5-degree and 2-degree warming scenario may not justify economic sacrifices in the trillions.”
McKitrick’s most controversial work stems from his collaboration with mining executive Stephen McIntyre. Together they published papers claiming to identify statistical flaws in climate scientist Michael Mann‘s famous “hockey stick” graph showing sharp modern temperature increases. Though their critiques were largely rejected by multiple scientific bodies, including the National Academy of Sciences, they fueled years of political attacks on climate science.
Mann doesn’t mince words about McKitrick’s influence. “He provides intellectual cover for dangerous delay on climate action,” Mann told me via email. “His economic arguments ignore the catastrophic costs of inaction that we’re already seeing worldwide.”
Indeed, while McKitrick focuses on the costs of carbon regulations, the Canadian government’s own analysis shows climate impacts already cost the economy billions annually through intensified wildfires, floods, and agricultural disruption. The Bank of Canada has identified climate change as a major financial stability risk, while the Insurance Bureau of Canada reports weather damage claims have doubled every five to ten years since the 1980s.
“McKitrick represents a sophisticated form of delay tactics,” explains Catherine Abreu of Climate Action Network Canada. “Rather than outright denial, he creates uncertainty about climate economics while ignoring the social cost of carbon, which includes displacement, health impacts, and infrastructure damage.”
What makes McKitrick particularly effective is his academic credentials and calm demeanor. Unlike some climate skeptics, he publishes in peer-reviewed journals and maintains professional relationships across the political spectrum. His position at a respected Canadian university lends credibility to his Congressional testimonies and media appearances.
During the first Trump administration, McKitrick’s influence reached its peak. His economic analyses featured prominently in EPA regulatory impact assessments and Department of Energy policy papers. Former EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler cited McKitrick’s work when justifying the rollback of methane emissions standards in 2020.
With Trump poised to return to office, McKitrick’s phone has been ringing. Sources close to the transition team confirm he’s already being consulted on plans to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement and dismantle Biden-era climate regulations.
“What Trump understands is that voters care more about energy prices than distant climate scenarios,” McKitrick explains. “The economic math simply doesn’t support these aggressive decarbonization timetables.”
Environmental economists disagree sharply with this assessment. Nicholas Stern of the London School of Economics argues that McKitrick’s analyses systematically undervalue future climate damages while overestimating mitigation costs. The International Monetary Fund has published research showing that properly designed climate policies can deliver economic benefits through innovation, reduced pollution, and avoided disaster costs.
Back in Ottawa, McKitrick seems unfazed by criticism. He’s been called everything from a scientific hero to a dangerous influence. He prefers to see himself as simply following the data where it leads.
“In twenty years, we’ll have better climate models and economic assessments,” he says as our interview concludes. “I suspect they’ll show we’ve been overreacting.”
Whether McKitrick is right or wrong, his influence on climate policy is undeniable. As one former EPA official told me, “When you need intellectual firepower against climate regulations, McKitrick delivers the economic ammunition.”
With climate scientists warning that the window for effective action is rapidly closing, the consequences of that ammunition could reverberate for generations.
