A new report is calling on Congress to intervene and force a taxpayer-funded scientific body to pull a biased climate chapter from the judicial Reference Manual of Scientific Evidence, warning that undisclosed conflicts of interest and dark money-backed advocacy networks remain embedded in guidance still being circulated to judges, even after the judiciary itself backed away.
From Removal to Standoff
Last month, the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) quietly removed the climate science chapter from its version of the Manual after criticism that it presented disputed and biased theories central to climate lawsuits as settled fact.
But as previously documented on EID, the taxpayer-funded National Academies of Sciences (NAS), which oversaw the process, review, publication, and is the copyright holder of the Manual, has refused to follow suit. Instead, NAS continues to host the full version online, preserving the chapter under the Manual’s official branding and keeping it accessible to judges nationwide.
Unsettled Science Risks Biasing Judges
The new report from the American Energy Institute (AEI) argues the risk of judicial capture presented by the Manual goes well beyond a single chapter, pointing to a broader effort to influence judicial guidance behind the scenes.
According to the report, the Manual’s climate section treats attribution science, a speculative field heavily reliant on unreliable data, as effectively settled science:
“The Fourth Edition represents a sharp break from the Manual’s historical role as a neutral guide to scientific methodology. It introduces a new Reference Guide on Climate Science that treats disputed theories central to ongoing climate litigation as settled fact, endorses probabilistic and event-attribution frameworks explicitly developed for courtroom use, and repeatedly frames skepticism of climate claims as bad faith or strategic manipulation. These positions are advanced without meaningful disclosure of the authors’ and cited experts’ direct ties to climate plaintiffs and plaintiff-side law firms.”
Most concerningly, the chapter repeatedly cites the work of Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and a central figure in the climate litigation campaign. Burger currently represents Honolulu in its climate lawsuit and is of counsel at Sher Edling, the firm representing most of the plaintiffs in these climate cases:
“Burger’s work is cited at footnotes 77, 182, 295, and 308 of the Manual, yet judges are never informed of his role as a practicing plaintiffs’ lawyer.”
Additional evidence has emerged that the chapter itself appears to be significantly derived from a 2020 paper authored by Burger himself. Two other co-authors of the 2020 paper are listed as authors of the contested Climate Science chapter in the Manual, while Burger is only credited as a reviewer, not an author.
The result, AEI argues, is a judicial resource that risks seriously biasing how judges evaluate causation and liability before cases are decided:
“Judicial education plays an important role in helping judges understand complex technical issues. That role depends entirely on neutrality, transparency, and restraint. When judicial education crosses the line into advocacy, it threatens the legitimacy of the courts and undermines public confidence in the rule of law.”
Dark Money and Activist Funding in the Mix
Beyond the Manual itself, the report raises broader concerns about the funding ecosystem surrounding the NAS.
According to AEI, NAS has received funding from left-wing foundations and dark money networks tied to climate advocacy and litigation, including groups connected to efforts targeting U.S. energy producers. This includes funding linked to Arabella Advisors’ network (via the New Venture Fund), as well as support from major climate-focused philanthropies such as the Hewlett Foundation, Moore Foundation, and entities backed by Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss, all of which have been connected to climate policy and litigation initiatives.
The report notes NAS receives over $200 million annually from federal agencies, accounting for roughly 74 percent of its external funding. Foundations tied to climate litigation efforts, meanwhile, have also supported work connected to NAS, and the Manual itself was also developed with taxpayer resources at the FJC.
Congress Now in the Middle
Pressure is already building for Congress to intervene.
Republican state attorneys general have called on NAS to remove the chapter, and Congress has begun examining related efforts to influence judicial decision-making in climate cases.
The AEI report goes further, urging lawmakers to rescind the current edition of the Manual and condition federal funding of NAS on stricter neutrality requirements to prevent the organization from abusing their federally chartered status to pursue their own political agenda:
“Congress should condition appropriations to the Federal Judicial Center and the National Academies on strict neutrality requirements, mandate full transparency regarding external collaborations and contributors, require clear disclosure of litigation affiliations and conflicts of interest in all judicial education materials, and commission an independent review of the Fourth Edition’s development, authorship, and use of plaintiff-affiliated sources.”
Bottom Line: The FJC has already stepped back. Now Congress faces a stark choice: allow the taxpayer-funded NAS – also backed by left-wing dark money groups – to shape the scientific framework of active litigation, or step in and stop it.
