Science should not be co-opted by climate activism. It should be maintained as unbiased as possible. That issue has been front and center lately as the National Academy of Sciences decides to remove a climate chapter after credible allegations of advocacy and biased science. Neil Shubin is the President of the National Academy of Sciences. He is an evolutionary biologist and veteran of many paleontology expeditions. I got to see him speak in the 2010s when he was on a speaking tour touting his discovery of transition fossils between fish and amphibians on a remote Arctic island. He was then known as “Darwin’s bulldog” for being a fierce advocate for evolutionary science. Being an advocate for science is not a political position, but being an advocate for policy may be a political position. Shubin suggested it was in a recent interview and, of course, with the decision to pull the chapter, a month before that.
In an interview with Science
Magazine Editor-in-Chief Holden Thorp, Shubin noted:
“You can’t remove partisanship from things entirely and
you can’t remove policy from things entirely. These aren’t clean lines.”
“The perception surrounding the climate chapter
warranted a new examination and that the Academy needed to take a "new
fresh look" at the process behind it, Shubin said during the interview.”
The idea was to pull it, review
the process, and look at biases and whether the chapter constitutes advocacy.
The climate report chapter was entitled “Attribution of Extreme Weather and
Climate Events and Their Impacts 2026.” American Energy Institute CEO and
founder Jason Isaac and others see it as vindication that science is
compromised by activists, but that is a bit extreme in my view. I will also
include Roger Pielke Jr.’s analysis of the situation as well.
"Neil Shubin just admitted that the National
Academies' climate chapter in the 'Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence,
Fourth Edition,' was never impartial science," American Energy Institute
CEO and founder Jason Isaac, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.”
"It was litigation strategy dressed up in a lab
coat. In his own words, the authors were 'associated more with the plaintiffs'
side than with the defense side,' and the chapter skipped the
conflict-of-interest review NASEM [National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine] claims makes its work credible in the first place," Isaac
continued.
The issue was brought to light by
the conservative watchdog organization, The Oversight Project. They noted that
sections closely resembled a 2020 climate attribution paper co-authored by
Columbia Law professor Michael Burger. Burger serves as executive director of
Columbia University's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and as counsel at
Sher Edling, a law firm representing state and local governments in climate
litigation against major energy companies. He is acknowledged as a source for
the report. So, this lawyer is suing energy companies and writing chapters for
NAS? Is that advocacy? I would say it depends on how they are connected, what
is written, and the details of the lawsuits. At the very least, it seems to be
a clear conflict of interest. Burger is not the only one being put in the
spotlight, as Daily Caller notes:
“Notably, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan had written
the foreward to the fourth edition of the manual, prompting calls to recuse
from hearing the Suncor Energy v. Boulder County climate litigation with the
rest of the high court. The Judicial Crisis Network called on Kagan in July to
recuse herself from the case, arguing that her foreword to the manual raised
questions about her impartiality.”
The main issue is so-called
attribution science, which is laden with uncertainties and more easily
manipulated into policy positions. The ubiquitous attributions of everything to
climate change we often see in the media illustrate this. Robert Pielke Jr.
offers expert analysis of the topics here: attribution science, climate change
economics and impacts, and science integrity.
The manual was developed by NASEM.
NASEM is a private, nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization operating
under the congressionally chartered National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Pielke
Jr. defends issue advocacy among scientists, saying that it is fundamental to a
healthy democracy. However, in this case he argues that NASEM was designed to
not be affected by issue advocacy. He cites NASEM’s own policy on advocacy:
“We will NOT undertake work that is inconsistent
with scientific evidence, for which an evidence base is insufficient, or that
appears to be advocacy or have a foregone conclusion. We will avoid projects
that would require us to make value judgments or that would be viewed as
advocacy for specific policy or social outcomes, and we will avoid sponsors
that may be viewed as advocates for such outcomes. Partaking in such work would
serve to undermine our credibility.”
Pielke Jr. also cites a “smoking
gun” in the form of letters from former NAS president Marcia McNutt to and from
a prominent funding donor. McNutt’s term ended June 30, 2026, and Shubin’s
began. They had a fairly clear stated goal of attempting to impede the ability
of the Trump administration to rescind the Endangerment Finding for regulating
carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Toward that end, the climate report was
fast-tracked. Pielke Jr. and I also agree that rescinding the finding is not
necessary. However, that is no excuse to “cook the books,” as it were. House
Oversight Committee chairman James Comer summarized the implications:
“Read together, this evidence suggests NAS’ intent to
salt the scientific battlefield against EPA’s proposed action for purposes of
both litigation challenging any EPA rescission of the Endangerment Finding and
other policy efforts aimed at undoing a rescission.”
Pielke Jr. notes that NAS is relying less on government funding and more on funding from private donors and organizations. This includes philanthropic organizations and organizations with political aims. Below, he shows that federal funding for NAS has dropped from 85.1% in 2011 to 59.8% or 69.1% in 2023, depending on whether Gulf Research funding is included. Total government funding dropped from a peak of $277.1 million in 2011 to $200.6 million in 2023, before inflation.
This, he says, has
resulted in NAS seeking more private funding, which potentially opens it up to
funding by biased groups and has led to what he calls “mission creep.” He
suggests that NAS is getting closer to advocacy groups like the Union of
Concerned Scientists on the left and the Heartland Institute on the right.
Below, he notes that the fast-tracked report may have led to the EPA’s
announcement that rescinding the Endangerment Finding would not rely on
scientific claims (as the climate report attempted to supply), but on statutory
interpretation.
“As I have argued, justifying the rescission of the
Endangerment Finding on scientific claims would have been deeply flawed — if
the NASEM fast-track study did contribute in some way to the elimination of
scientific claims from the rescission rule, it just may have made the arguments
more likely to survive judicial review.”
Pielke Jr. closes with some
recommendations for NAS:
“The National Academy of Sciences should function as a
very special organization — one of the very few that can truly serve as an
honest broker. Much reform is needed, but an important and straightforward
first step would be for Congress to amend the Federal Charter for the NAS to
prohibit funding from non-governmental organizations and require that all
studies be requested by federal agencies or Congressional committees.”
On August 27, 25 state attorneys general penned a letter to “Cabinet Secretaries, Administrators, and Directors” at the Federal level, asking them to stop funding the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (“NASEM”).
Fierce fossil fuel advocate
Thomas Shepstone stated that climate-litigation supporters funded, led, and
provided input on the Report, which is true. Regarding attribution science, he
cites the IPCC:
“[s]cientists cannot answer directly whether a
particular event was caused by climate change.”
Shepstone goes on to show that the
attribution science in the chapter was definitely designed to aid litigation
cases against fossil fuel companies and that the chapter’s review process
lacked transparency and was not up to standards.
Shepstone also gives the following
quote:
“Organizations that abuse taxpayer money to prop up
political causes for the benefit of donors should not receive federal agency
grants…”
I can agree with that statement in general, but we need the NAS, which was established by Abraham Lincoln’s administration, and which actually needs to be funded federally to keep advocacy groups from funding it with their own agendas of policy influence. Thus, defunding NASEM is not a good idea. Pielke Jr.’s idea of prohibiting funding from NGOs and requiring reports to be requested by government agencies is a much better and more practical idea than pulling government funding.
References:
National
Academy of Sciences president acknowledges climate guide authors' ties to
plaintiffs. Paris Apodaca. Daily Caller. September 6, 2026. National Academy of Sciences
president acknowledges climate guide authors' ties to plaintiffs
The
National Academy of Advocacy: A growing climate scandal at the US National
Academy of Sciences. Roger Pielke Jr. September 1, 2026. The National Academy of Advocacy - by
Roger Pielke Jr.
Half
of the State Attorneys General in America Have Called Out the National
Academies As A Sham That Shouldn’t Be Funded! Thomas J Shepstone. September 10,
2026. Half of the State Attorneys General
in America Have Called Out the National Academies As A Sham That Shouldn’t Be
Funded!
The
challenges and plans ahead for a major scientific institution. Science Magazine
Podcast. Interview with Neil Shubin. September 3, 2026. The challenges
and plans ahead for a major scientific institution
Principles
and Practices That Guide Our Work: The following statements reaffirm the
principles and practices that guide our work to support our vision, values, and
mission. National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine. Principles
and Practices That Guide Our Work
No comments:
Post a Comment