The National Academy of Sciences temporarily removed a climate science chapter from its judicial evidence manual after questions were raised about how the chapter was developed, including allegations of textual overlap with prior work by a lawyer involved in climate litigation.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The National Academy of Sciences has removed a disputed climate science chapter from the online version of its “Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence” while an independent review examines the process used to develop the material.
The National Academies announced the decision after the chapter received scrutiny over its treatment of climate attribution science and the involvement of Columbia Law professor Michael Burger, an attorney who has participated in climate litigation against energy companies.
“The chapter has received considerable scrutiny, and the FJC has removed it,” the National Academies said. “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 manual is produced by the National Academies in partnership with the Federal Judicial Center and is intended to help federal judges evaluate scientific and technical evidence presented in litigation.
The precise number of judges who use the manual is not known, although the fourth edition is publicly accessible online. Reuters reported that editions of the reference manual have been cited by more than 1,300 judges since 1994.
The Oversight Project, a conservative watchdog organization, had challenged the climate chapter’s presentation of attribution science and its development process.
Climate attribution seeks to connect human activity or particular sources of emissions with specific climate effects and alleged damages. The Oversight Project argued that the chapter presented contested attribution questions as settled.
“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 organization said in its report.
The removal follows an April Oversight Project report alleging that substantial portions of the chapter resembled previously published material, including a 2020 climate attribution paper co-authored by Burger.
According to the group’s analysis, 33% of the Federal Judicial Center chapter matched previously published material, with Burger’s 2020 paper accounting for a 23% match.
The chapter’s acknowledgments credited Burger with providing “insights and helpful feedback.” The Oversight Project argued that the alleged extent of the overlap raised questions about whether that description fully reflected his contribution.
Burger is a counsel at Sher Edling, a law firm representing state and local governments in climate-related lawsuits against major energy companies.
His name appears on climate complaints filed on behalf of Honolulu, Delaware and New York City.
Burger, alongside other Sher Edling attorneys, has also filed an amicus brief in Suncor Energy v. Boulder County before the Supreme Court.
That case involves whether state tort litigation against fossil fuel companies can proceed in a way that could have broader effects on national energy and climate policy. Critics contend that such litigation could allow policies originating in one jurisdiction to affect energy practices beyond that jurisdiction.
Burger did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation.
The Oversight Project welcomed the chapter’s removal and argued that a manual used to guide federal judges should remain insulated from attorneys actively involved in litigation involving the same subject matter.
“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 said.
The organization again characterized the removal as a victory, maintaining that materials intended to assist judges evaluating climate evidence should not be influenced by attorneys involved in related lawsuits.
President Donald Trump had also criticized the climate chapter before it was removed, arguing that it contained inaccurate information and should not receive taxpayer support.
Jeff Clark, vice president of litigation for the Oversight Project, similarly praised the decision.
“Climate alarmism is trying to deindustrialize our country and leave young adults and future generations to inherit a ruined economy,” 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.”
The National Academy of Sciences has not said when its review will be completed. For now, the chapter will remain off its website while the organization examines the procedures used to develop and publish it.
Original article
Comments