State attorneys general claim NASEM climate report was engineered to support fossil-fuel lawsuits
A group of state attorneys general says the National Academies’ July climate-attribution report was biased, funded by litigation interests and backed by a secretive internal review.
In a 12-page letter, a coalition of state attorneys general accuses the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine of releasing a July climate-attribution report that was crafted to aid climate-change lawsuits, notably the Suncor Energy case slated for Supreme Court argument. The letter points to funders such as the Bezos Earth Fund, the Heising-Simons Foundation and Robert Litterman, all linked to plaintiff-side litigation, and highlights contributions from Michael Burger, who also serves as counsel for a climate-law firm.
The attorneys general argue the Academies’ subsequent internal review lacks independence, offering no external panel or public disclosure of its process. They call on agencies to examine whether these issues justify suspending or revoking federal support for the Academies. The critique has also drawn attention from the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, which previously raised concerns about the Academies’ conflict-of-interest policies.
Why it matters
The allegations could undermine confidence in a key scientific authority that shapes climate litigation and federal funding decisions.
In this story
