A taxpayer-funded institution declines requests to withdraw disputed material as attorneys general and policy groups raise concerns over authorship and neutrality.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has declined to remove a chapter on climate science from a widely distributed judicial reference manual, despite objections from state officials and policy organizations regarding the material’s authorship and potential bias.
According to a report by Just the News, the manual is designed to provide judges with foundational scientific knowledge relevant to complex cases. The publication, titled the “Reference Manual on Science,” is co-produced with the Federal Judicial Center and has been cited in more than 1,700 legal opinions.
Concerns about the climate science chapter were detailed in a report issued by the American Energy Institute, which states that contributors to the chapter were not identified and had connections to climate advocacy and litigation. The report alleges that the undisclosed affiliations could influence how judges interpret climate-related cases.
Aei Captured Courts Report Final by yourNEWS Media
Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, said, “The National Academies of Science have become completely corrupted by leftists,” adding that the organization receives significant federal funding and distributes grants to groups he described as politically aligned.
In response to earlier objections, the Federal Judicial Center removed the climate chapter from its version of the manual. However, the National Academies has retained the content in its own edition. Correspondence from NASEM President Marcia McNutt, included in a response letter, declined to make changes or address concerns raised about the chapter’s authorship.
A coalition of attorneys general, led by Austin Knudson, sent a letter to federal agency heads arguing that the chapter does not meet standards of objectivity. The letter states that because the material was developed by individuals involved in climate litigation and advocacy, federal funding for the organization should be reconsidered.
The chapter, titled “Reference Guide on Climate Science,” lists Jessica Wentz and Radley Horton as authors. Both are affiliated with Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, which outlines its core mission as developing legal strategies to address climate issues.
The guide also references work by Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center and counsel to a law firm involved in climate-related cases. An analysis by Roger Pielke Jr., described in this review, concluded that portions of the chapter closely reflect Burger’s published material.
The American Energy Institute report further states that the chapter cites numerous individuals involved in climate advocacy, including experts who have testified on behalf of plaintiffs in litigation. It also references Michael Mann, who has publicly criticized opposing views on climate science.
In a written defense, Wentz and Horton stated that the chapter represents established scientific consensus and defended the exclusion of research they deemed not credible. Among those excluded were researchers including Judith Curry, John Christy, Steven Koonin, Roy Spencer, and Ross McKitrick.
The report also examines funding sources tied to the National Academies. It states that federal grants accounted for approximately 70 percent of the organization’s budget in 2024, with additional contributions from philanthropic and advocacy groups, including organizations such as ClimateWorks Foundation and Tides Foundation.
Additional scrutiny has been directed at broader efforts to provide climate-related training to judges. Programs such as those associated with the Environmental Law Institute have drawn attention from lawmakers, who have questioned whether materials used in judicial education reflect a balanced presentation of scientific perspectives.
Isaac summarized the concerns raised in the report, stating, “The climate fox is guarding the judicial hen house.”
The National Academies did not respond to requests for comment regarding the allegations or the recommendations outlined by critics.