State AGs Expose National Science Group in Massive Climate Lawsuit Scheme

Liberty Check

• Coalition of state attorneys general accuses prestigious science organization of producing biased climate report designed to fuel lawsuits against American energy companies
• Review allegedly conducted in secrecy to support predetermined legal outcomes rather than objective scientific inquiry
• Investigation reveals disturbing pattern of weaponizing ‘science’ to advance radical environmental litigation targeting fossil fuel industry

A coalition of state attorneys general is calling out what they describe as a coordinated scheme to use biased science as ammunition in climate lawsuits against American energy companies. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine stands accused of producing a politically-motivated report disguised as objective research.

According to a Thursday letter obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation, NASEM’s July report on attributing extreme weather events to climate change wasn’t the product of independent scientific inquiry. Instead, state legal officials allege the review was crafted specifically to bolster ongoing lawsuits targeting fossil fuel companies — the backbone of American energy independence.

The attorneys general didn’t mince words about the alleged deception. They claim the entire process was shrouded in secrecy, raising serious questions about transparency and scientific integrity. When a supposedly impartial scientific body produces research behind closed doors that conveniently aligns with activist legal strategies, Americans have every right to be skeptical.

This revelation exposes a troubling trend: the weaponization of scientific institutions to advance a radical environmental agenda. Rather than pursuing objective truth, these organizations appear increasingly willing to serve as intellectual cover for lawsuits designed to cripple the American energy sector.

The fossil fuel industry has long been a target of climate activists and their allies in government. These companies power our economy, heat our homes, and fuel the vehicles that transport goods across the nation. Yet instead of acknowledging their essential role, environmental extremists have launched a coordinated legal assault designed to extract billions in damages and force dramatic changes in American energy policy.

What makes this situation particularly egregious is the involvement of NASEM, an institution that receives federal funding and operates under a congressional charter. When taxpayer-supported organizations abandon scientific objectivity to support partisan litigation, they betray the public trust and undermine their own credibility.

The attorneys general’s letter represents a critical pushback against the politicization of science. For too long, activist organizations have hidden behind the veneer of scientific authority while advancing nakedly political objectives. This investigation shines a light on those tactics and demands accountability.

State legal officials are now demanding answers about how the review was conducted, who participated in the process, and what connections exist between NASEM and the plaintiffs in climate lawsuits. The American people deserve to know whether their scientific institutions are serving the pursuit of knowledge or functioning as arms of ideological warfare.

The implications extend far beyond climate litigation. When supposedly neutral scientific bodies can be co-opted to serve legal strategies, the entire foundation of evidence-based policy crumbles. Courts rely on expert testimony and authoritative reviews to make decisions affecting billions of dollars and millions of lives. If that expertise is contaminated by bias and predetermined conclusions, justice itself is compromised.

Energy companies targeted by these lawsuits employ hundreds of thousands of Americans and contribute trillions to the economy. The radical environmental movement’s ultimate goal isn’t cleaner energy or better environmental stewardship — it’s the wholesale destruction of an industry they ideologically oppose, regardless of the economic devastation that would follow.

This investigation also raises questions about the broader scientific establishment’s commitment to objectivity. Climate science has become increasingly politicized, with researchers who question prevailing narratives often facing professional ostracism and funding challenges. When scientific consensus is enforced through intimidation rather than evidence, the entire enterprise suffers.

Americans deserve better than politically-motivated science masquerading as objective research. The Constitution must be defended against those who would weaponize our institutions for partisan gain.