Conservative Group Calls for Investigation into Climate Advocacy Practices
A conservative climate policy organization is advocating for a review of the records concerning the Climate Justice Project managed by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan. This comes amid an ongoing examination into how climate advocacy groups influence climate-related litigation.
Jason Isaac, the CEO of the American Energy Institute, reached out to Jordan recently, referencing evidence tied to a court case from September involving Multnomah County and ExxonMobil. Isaac pointed out that the court filing indicates potential “secret adjustments and judicial manipulation.”
“This new evidence raises serious concerns about the reliability of both the claimed science in climate lawsuits and the judicial training program in place,” Isaac shared with a news outlet.
He indicated that a document filed by Chevron earlier this month revealed that a leading lawyer for the plaintiffs, Roger Worthington, had private involvement in at least two studies that the county presented as impartial and peer-reviewed.
Isaac noted that one of these studies accepted funding from an earlier draft version of the Climate Justice Project, which was suspiciously omitted from its final version.
A draft labeled “Do Not Distribute” was discovered on Worthington’s law firm’s website.
The American Energy Institute claims that this study aimed to trace “global economic losses from climate change back to specific oil companies.” The website also included a draft of the CJP Judicial Training Module with internal editorial notes.
Isaac conveyed to Jordan that the materials suggested troubling questions about how plaintiffs’ lawyers had early access to information presented to judges as “neutral” science, potentially influencing the outcomes.
Another module seems to aim at educating judges on applying “attribution science” in legal contexts. This emerging field attempts to measure how much specific human activities are responsible for climate change linked to extreme weather events.
Isaac argued that the Institute of Environmental Law claims to be neutral, but their materials hint at collusion with plaintiffs’ lawyers who stand to gain from the findings. “If lawyers suing energy companies are shaping research and instructing judges, it’s not about justice; it’s an operation,” he asserted.
He requested that Jordan officially seek “communications, draft documents, funding agreements and internal editorial notes related to the scientific research and CJP curriculum.”
While praising Jordan’s leadership, Isaac emphasized that the public has a right to know if court proceedings are being discreetly influenced by coordinated climate advocacy disguised as neutral expertise.
He called for the Environmental Law Institute and Worthington to clarify their roles in this research, particularly regarding the teaching module on attribution science.
In response, Environmental Law Institute spokesperson Nick Collins stated that Eli does not fund nature research or coordinate with Worthington’s Climate Justice Project. He argued that the CJP’s purpose is to offer evidence-based education on climate science to judges through a rigorous peer review process, ensuring high academic standards.
Collins noted that last month, 23 Republican state attorneys general urged the head of the Environmental Protection Agency to halt funding for the Environmental Law Institute, asserting that the Climate Judicial Project’s activities are not extreme.
Collins remarked, “The initiatives that the Climate Justice Project is involved in are comparable to other judicial education programs, focusing on evidence-based training regarding legal and scientific topics that judges voluntarily attend.”
Fox News Digital reached out to Jordan and Worthington for their thoughts on the letter, but they did not respond promptly.
