NAS backs controversial extreme-event attribution despite longstanding scientific doubts
The National Academy of Sciences released a report endorsing extreme event attribution, a method many scientists say cannot definitively link single weather events to climate change.
A new report from the National Academy of Sciences endorses extreme event attribution, a field that attempts to gauge how much human-caused climate change contributed to particular extreme weather events, claiming advances in data and modeling. The author points out that the Academy previously concluded in 2016 that definitive, deterministic attribution of single events is not feasible. The critique underscores that climate models still overestimate temperature trends and struggle to separate natural from anthropogenic influences.
The report’s political dimension is emphasized, noting Michael Burger’s involvement and his connections to climate-litigation firms, which were not disclosed. The analysis suggests the document reflects ongoing climate-policy activism rather than a scientific breakthrough, and it warns that such advocacy could expand governmental control over many aspects of daily life.
Why it matters
The endorsement may shape climate policy and funding despite scientific uncertainty about attributing single events.
In this story