New Report on Extreme Event Attribution Science Raises Questions
A major report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has come out recently, focusing on extreme event attribution science. This field attempts to link specific climate events like hurricanes and floods to human-induced climate change. It’s become quite a hot topic, especially with activists targeting oil and gas companies through lawsuits.
Headlines from the media often suggest that this science has made significant progress. However, the report itself acknowledges that there are still “significant challenges” ahead. Interestingly, those involved in shaping the report have ties to climate litigation, which isn’t highlighted as much.
Former President Donald Trump wasted no time calling into question the report’s credibility. His skepticism is understandable, considering the influence of academics and activists with potential conflicts of interest. For example, Michael Burger from Columbia’s Sabin Center plays a role in legal efforts against the oil and gas sector. If the studies are accepted as proof in court, he could stand to gain. Notably, the report acknowledges him but fails to adequately disclose his potential conflicts.
But there’s more to this. Delta Merner from the Union of Concerned Scientists, who leads a Climate Accountability Campaign, was also part of the committee until early 2025. Jessica Wentz, another associate from the Sabin Center, and Michael Wehner, linked to the Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project, show up in the acknowledgments too. One of the authors, Joyce Kimutai, has even argued that the “bar is too high” to use attribution in court and suggested shifting the burden of proof to defendants. This isn’t about science—it feels more like advocacy.
The National Academies have a conflict-of-interest policy intended to ensure their work is free from outside influence. Given the individuals involved, it’s hard to see how they can uphold that standard.
Despite all this backing from the climate litigation community, the NAS hasn’t firmly declared attribution science a success. Committee chair James Hurrell emphasized that there are still hurdles to overcome to realize the full potential of this science. Confidence in the findings varies widely across different types of climate extremes, indicating that this field is still uneven and incomplete.
The push for using attribution science in court isn’t new; it traces back to a 2012 conference funded by Rockefeller, where attendees discussed how to link emissions to specific damages for legal action. Even back then, they noted multiple “challenges” in getting the science to hold up. By 2021, researchers like Friederike Otto recognized that plaintiffs were struggling to prove causation in court because the evidence simply wasn’t strong enough to connect emissions to specific outcomes. Five years later, amidst political pressures, the NAS is echoing the same message: significant challenges remain.
This field was never just an objective scientific endeavor. It seems designed to support a concerted effort aimed at litigation, which could lead to settlements, increased energy costs, and potentially dismantling parts of the fossil fuel industry. So far, courts have been cautious, insisting on solid evidence of causation over speculative narratives masquerading as established science. The NAS report inadvertently highlights the reasons these lawsuits often fail.
It’s essential for the public to remain vigilant. When scientific bodies are swayed by activists, the outcome often isn’t improved science. Instead, we end up with stronger rhetoric for trial lawyers, while the fundamental energy system continues to rely on oil, natural gas, and coal for affordable, reliable power.
Lawsuits aiming to eliminate these energy sources, based on incomplete attribution studies, could lead to real consequences: rising energy costs and diminished reliability, all without any real effect on global temperatures.
The NAS had an opportunity to provide a straightforward assessment but ended up delivering a document that recognizes the limitations of the science while also reflecting the interests of those hoping to leverage it legally. That doesn’t align with the principles of independent science; it leans more toward legal maneuvering.
