The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) removed a hotly debated chapter on climate science from its website. [some emphasis, links added]
NAS pulled the climate science section, which appeared in the fourth edition of the “Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence,” as it reviews the process used to develop the guidance, following scrutiny over the chapter’s contents and the involvement of a lawyer connected to climate litigation against energy companies.
The chapter, which critics liken to “left-wing plaintiff propaganda,” claims climate attribution — “climate change” linked to human activity and specific companies — is established science.
“The chapter treated contested climate attribution science as settled. Climate attribution—the methodology used to link specific emissions sources to specific harms, and therefore central to establishing causation and damages in climate liability suits—remains a subject of genuine scientific debate,” the Oversight Government project reported.
The National Academies manual was produced in partnership with the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) and assists federal judges in evaluating scientific and technical evidence that arises in litigation.
Although the exact number of judges who use the reference manuals isn’t known, the fourth edition is publicly available online. Reuters reported that since 1994, the reference guide has been cited by over 1,300 judges.
“The chapter has received considerable scrutiny, and the FJC has removed it,” the National Academies said in a statement. “The NAS has determined that questions about the processes used to develop the chapter warrant an independent review, and the chapter will not appear on our website while that review is underway.”
The removal comes months after the Oversight Project published an April report alleging that portions of the chapter closely resembled a 2020 climate attribution paper co-authored by Columbia Law professor Michael Burger.
Burger is counsel at Sher Edling, a law firm representing state and local governments in climate litigation against major energy companies. His name appears on climate-related complaints brought on behalf of Honolulu, Delaware, and New York City.
Alongside other Sher Edling Counsel, Burger has also filed an amicus brief on the Suncor Energy v. Boulder County Supreme Court case.
The Suncor Energy v. Boulder County case could allow state tort lawsuits against fossil fuel companies to shape national energy and climate policy. The national implications are huge, as green policies can be forced on conservative states regardless of jurisdiction.
Burger did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation.
“A foundational pillar of the American judicial system is that litigants trust that they will be given a fair shake when they enter the courtroom. The Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence serves as a quasi-authoritative guide for judges as they assess complex problems in the cases they hear,” Oversight Project General Counsel Kyle Brosnan said in a press release.
“The climate science chapter of the Reference Manual was nothing short of left-wing climate plaintiff propaganda that tipped the scales of justice in their favor. The Federal Judicial Center and National Academies never should have published it in the first place, but the removal of the chapter is welcomed news. We thank President Trump for his efforts to remove this biased propaganda from important legal guides,” Brosnan concluded.
The Oversight Project analysis found that 33% of the FJC chapter matched previously published material, with Burger’s 2020 paper alone accounting for 23% of the match.
The chapter’s acknowledgments credited Burger with providing “insights and helpful feedback,” according to the Oversight Project’s report. The conservative watchdog argued that the extent of the alleged textual overlap raised questions about whether that description adequately represented Burger’s contribution to the chapter.
The Oversight Project celebrated the chapter’s removal Friday, arguing that material intended to help federal judges evaluate climate science should not have been influenced by attorneys involved in climate litigation.
“A foundational pillar of the American judicial system is that litigants trust that they will be given a fair shake when they enter the courtroom,” Oversight Project General Counsel Kyle Brosnan said in a statement.
“The Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence serves as a quasi-authoritative guide for judges as they assess complex problems in the cases they hear,” Brosnan continued. “The climate science chapter of the Reference Manual was nothing short of left-wing climate plaintiff propaganda that tipped the scales of justice in their favor.”
President Donald Trump had also criticized the climate science section before its removal, arguing that the material contained faulty information and should not be supported by taxpayers.
“Climate alarmism is trying to deindustrialize our country and leave young adults and future generations to inherit a ruined economy,” Vice President of Litigation of the Oversight Project Jeff Clark said.
“The President was right to put a stop to attempts to corrupt and bias the science to pervert the judicial system. We do not need judicial fingers put on the scales of justice, and especially not to destroy our industrial might.”
Read more at Daily Caller
