After nearly six months of scrutiny, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) announced in a press release on Friday that it is temporarily removing the controversial chapter on climate science from the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, while it investigates the processes used to develop the chapter.
The “processes” in question allowed the chapter to be written and reviewed by climate litigation supporters, including at least one attorney who represents states and local governments in climate lawsuits against energy companies – a clear violation of the NAS’s own conflict of interest policies.
It’s a much-needed review, especially as NAS faces a parallel scandal regarding its attribution science report. It’s clear that climate plaintiffs and their supporters will continue their long march through the institutions, absent a serious investigation and accountability for the players involved.
How We Got Here
The Federal Judicial Center (FJC), which serves to educate federal judges across the country, published its fourth edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence in late 2025, in collaboration with the NAS. The reference manual is meant to provide objective scientific guidance for judges on issues like human DNA, advanced statistical models, and epidemiology.
But the reference manual didn’t stop there. For the first time, this edition included a chapter on climate science. The source of the controversy? The chapter was written and reviewed by several individuals that have clear interests in advancing climate lawsuits.
Michael Burger, Executive Director of the Sabin Center and Of Counsel to Sher Edling, the firm representing more than two dozen states and municipalities in climate lawsuits, was found to have ghost-written entire sections of the chapter, and also listed as an official reviewer.
Sher Edling operates largely under contingency fee agreements, meaning the firm stands to rake in millions of dollars if climate lawsuits are successful. At the same time, Sher Edling has received millions in grants from dark-money pass through groups – a fact that has been independently investigated by Congress.
For months, the NAS has refused to remove the chapter, even as President Trump, 27 state attorneys general, and others have called for them to follow the FJC’s decision to take down the chapter. Even Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote the foreword to the Reference Manual distanced herself from the climate science chapter, telling a Congressional panel that she never even read it.
Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Alliance, pointed out why the stakes were so high:
“Federal judges rely on this manual to decide cases […] When activists capture the process used to write it, they capture the courts themselves.” Now, the NAS has agreed to temporarily remove the chapter while it undergoes an “independent review” of how activists were allowed to infiltrate the chapter’s development, writing in a press release:
“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.”
In a post on X, Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Network, also criticized the “biased climate science chapter” and she called for it to be permanently removed:
“We already know that this entire process was improper. Those who produced the climate science chapter are involved in climate litigation. Without question, that alone warrants that NASEM and the FJC never reinstate this chapter in its reference manual.”
A Pattern of Activists Influencing the NAS
Why might NAS choose this moment to review the climate science chapter? Perhaps because it is facing similar criticism over a new climate science report that involves many of the same players supporting climate plaintiffs.
In July, NAS released a new report on climate attribution – the science underpinning all of the climate lawsuits and climate superfund efforts. That report was also influenced by Burger, among other activists.
In November 2024, the NAS Attribution Committee heard a presentation titled “Use of Attribution Science in Legal Contexts” from Burger. During his presentation, Burger disclosed that he was “actively involved” in Sher Edling’s cases.
Yet none of the authors or others in the room raised concerns that Burger’s participation, which is noted in the report’s acknowledgements, violated NAS’s stated conflict of interest policies to offer advice “free from undue influence from sponsors, donors, or other interested parties.”
The published report on climate attribution also neglects to mention that Delta Merner served on the report’s authorship committee until January 2025. Merner simultaneously led the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Climate Accountability Campaign which touts attribution science as a tool for litigation.
The House Science, Space, and Technology Committee has taken notice, with Chairman Brian Babin and Subcommittee Chairman Rich McCormick already investigating the NAS. Congressional oversight is a necessary step, given flagrant violations of the NAS’s own policies, but questions remain.
Why remove the FJC chapter while the “processes” are being investigated, while leaving the climate attribution report, developed with the same processes and the same plaintiff lawyer’s input, published on the NAS’s website?
BOTTOM LINE: Withdrawing the controversial climate science chapter is a good, albeit very late, first step but it does not answer how Burger was allowed to present in front of the climate attribution report authors as well. How was Burger and other climate litigation activists able to get so embedded into NAS?
