The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine just released a major report on extreme event attribution science, the increasingly trendy climate alarmism field that tries to pin specific hurricanes, heat waves, or floods on human-caused climate change and, more importantly, on the oil and gas companies activists love to sue.
The headlines from the usual media suspects will predictably claim the science has “advanced.” What they won’t emphasize is the report’s own admission that the field still faces “significant challenges,” or the roster of climate litigation partisans who helped shape it.
President Donald Trump immediately questioned the report’s legitimacy, and the reason why is pretty simple: The report was heavily influenced by academics and activists with apparent conflicts of interest.
One example is Michael Burger of Columbia’s Sabin Center, who also serves as of counsel to the Sher Edling firm in Honolulu’s climate lawfare effort targeting the oil and gas industry. In that role, Burger could benefit if courts start accepting these studies as proof of liability. The report’s acknowledgments thank him anyway while making no meaningful disclosure of his conflicts.
Oh.
But wait, there are more! Delta Merner of the Union of Concerned Scientists, who runs their Climate Accountability Campaign and Science Hub for — guess what? — Climate Litigation, served on the committee itself into early 2025.
Jessica Wentz, another Sabin Center figure previously tied to a now-rescinded Federal Judicial Center climate chapter written by litigation advocates, shows up in the acknowledgments.
So does Michael Wehner, linked to the Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project, which trains judges on these very issues. One of the report’s own authors, Joyce Kimutai, has publicly argued that the “bar is too high” for using attribution in court and that the burden of proof should flip to the defendants. That’s not science talking. That’s advocacy.
The National Academies’ own conflict-of-interest policy demands advice “free from undue influence” from interested parties. This lineup makes a mockery of that standard.
Yet even with all that help from the climate lawfare complex, the NAS could not bring itself to declare victory for attribution science. Committee chair James Hurrell noted that the field “still faces challenges, and addressing them is necessary to fully realize the value of attribution science.”
Confidence in results “varies significantly across different types of extremes.” In other words, the science remains uneven, incomplete, and not ready to play the primetime role in the courtroom sought by activists for years.
That quest dates back at least to the 2012 Rockefeller-funded La Jolla conference, where participants openly discussed using attribution to link emissions to specific harms for litigation purposes.
Even then, they admitted “many challenges” in getting the science right. By 2021, researchers including Friederike Otto were conceding that plaintiffs were failing to overcome causation hurdles in court because the evidence simply didn’t connect individual emitters to specific losses. Five years later, after relentless pressure and Biden-era institutional capture, the NAS is still saying the same thing: significant challenges remain.
Attribution science was never pure science-based inquiry. It was purpose-built to support a coordinated campaign of lawsuits aimed at extracting settlements, driving up energy costs, and ultimately bankrupting or nationalizing parts of the fossil fuel industry.
Courts have mostly resisted so far because judges still require actual evidence of causation, not probabilistic storytelling disguised as settled science. The NAS report unintentionally underscores why those lawsuits keep stumbling.
Americans should pay attention. When activists capture scientific bodies, the product is not better science.
Instead, what we get for our taxpayer dollars are better press releases and stronger talking points for trial lawyers. The real-world energy system still runs on oil, natural gas, and coal because those fuels deliver affordable, reliable power.
Efforts to litigate them out of existence based on incomplete attribution models will inevitably produce the results that are impacting our pocketbooks in real time: higher energy costs, weakened reliability, all with zero impact on global temperatures.
The NAS had a chance to produce a clear-eyed assessment. Instead, it produced a document that both acknowledges the science’s limits and carries the fingerprints of the very people hoping to use it as a legal weapon.
That’s not how independent science works. It’s how lawfare works.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
(DCNF)
