Overview
- A coalition of 22 state attorneys general sent a 12-page letter Thursday accusing the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine of producing a biased July climate-attribution report and running an opaque, inadequate internal review.
- The AGs allege the report contained misquotations and contradictions, that parts were substantially drafted by climate plaintiffs’ attorney Michael Burger, and that funders such as the Bezos Earth Fund, Robert Litterman, and the Heising-Simons Foundation had ties to advocacy groups involved in related litigation.
- They say the report’s July release advantaged plaintiffs in the pending Suncor v. Boulder County Supreme Court case by allowing plaintiff-side amici to cite the work after defendants’ filing deadlines had passed.
- The letter asks federal agencies and Congress to consider cutting NASEM’s federal funding, pursuing suspension or debarment, or revoking the academy’s 1863 charter if the organization continues to lend its official weight to what the AGs call litigation-driven analysis.
- The dispute highlights how attribution science—which links specific extreme weather events to human-caused climate change—is now being used as courtroom evidence and could prompt increased congressional oversight, agency grant reviews, and broader debate over the independence of scientific advisers.