2026-08-11 · contested story
National Academy of Sciences pulls key climate science chapter from website amid massive backlash
In December 2025, the fourth edition of the 'Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence' — a guide produced by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) alongside the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) to help judges evaluate scientific evidence — included a new chapter on climate science authored by Columbia University's Jessica Wentz and Radley Horton. After a January 2026 letter from Republican state attorneys general led by West Virginia's JB McCuskey objected that the chapter treated human-driven climate change as settled fact, the FJC removed the climate chapter in February. The National Academies initially declined to remove it from its own website but, after President Trump amplified the complaints and threatened federal funding, announced in August 2026 that it would conduct a process review and pull the chapter offline during that review. This unfolded against a broader backdrop of Trump-administration efforts targeting climate science, including the EPA's proposed revocation of the 2009 endangerment finding and a competing DOE report questioning climate impacts.
How each side frames it
left
"The political attack by the attorneys general on a carefully and rigorously prepared scientific publication should concern us all"
"censorship of scientific information undermines the key role of this non-partisan guidance"
"they’re arguing that, if someone is ignorant enough to start a suit based on ignorance of well-established science, then the Federal Judicial Center should join them in their ignorance"
"It’s just garbage... It’s like somebody took all the bullshit from 10 years ago, didn’t refrigerate it and has now regurgitated it."
"The fact that this administration has buried the gold standard for climate science — the National Climate Assessments — while lifting up a report filled with misrepresentations and half-truths is a grim historical marker"
center
"long-term observations "confirm unequivocally that greenhouse gas emissions are warming Earth's surface and changing Earth's climate.""
"the assessment "is about the process used to produce the chapter and not about the validity of climate science.""
"the FJC on February 6 informed 27 Republican state attorneys general led by West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey that it would omit the climate chapter"
"The Trump administration maintains that while climate change is real, its future effects are unclear and likely weaker than projected by many mainstream scientists."
"The draft chapter was reviewed by an oversight committee that included judges and scientists and was further evaluated by a different group of judges and scientists serving as anonymous, expert peer reviewers."
right
"The climate science chapter of the Reference Manual was nothing short of left-wing climate plaintiff propaganda that tipped the scales of justice in their favor."
"taxpayer dollars should not be used by the National Academy of Sciences to push a woke agenda, yet that is exactly what the organization is doing."
"Climate alarmism is trying to deindustrialize our country and leave young adults and future generations to inherit a ruined economy"
"Burger is a Counsel at Sher Edling, a law firm representing state and local governments in climate litigation against major energy companies."
"The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) retracted a “biased” judicial guide on Friday that was designed to influence federal judges in cases involving so-called “climate science.”"
What each side left out
The left left out — covered by the Daily Caller & Bizpac Review
- The specific plagiarism/textual-overlap allegation that 33% of the chapter matched prior material and 23% matched Burger's 2020 paper
- Author Michael Burger's employment at climate-litigation firm Sher Edling
The left left out — covered by the E&E News by Politico & The Federalist
- NASEM's own framing that the review 'is about the process used to produce the chapter and not about the validity of climate science'
The right left out — covered by the The Wall Street Journal & Reuters
- The NAS's own statement that the chapter reflects 'the current scientific understanding reflected in the broader peer-reviewed scientific literature' and underwent oversight-committee and anonymous peer review
- The co-authors' and 28 contributors' defense of the chapter's rigor
The right left out — covered by the CBS News & Reuters & Pioneer Press
- The separate National Academies September 2025 report concluding climate evidence is 'beyond scientific dispute'
- Democratic lawmakers' characterization of the removal as 'censorship'
The center left out — covered by the Bizpac Review & The Damage Report / Fox Business Clips
- The economic/deindustrialization argument made by Oversight Project figures against climate alarmism
- Details of the Nature retraction of the $38 trillion / 60% GDP study
What's actually true?
[verified] The Federal Judicial Center removed the climate science chapter from the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence in February 2026 following a letter from Republican state attorneys general.
[verified] The National Academies initially declined to remove the chapter from its website but later pulled it during a process review after Trump threatened federal funding.
[verified] NASEM stated its review 'is about the process used to produce the chapter and not about the validity of climate science.'
[verified] The disputed climate chapter was co-authored by Jessica Wentz and Radley Horton of Columbia University.
[verified] Since first being published in 1994, the manual has been cited by more than 1,300 judges.
[verified] A separate National Academies report in September 2025 concluded that evidence climate change harms public health is 'beyond scientific dispute.'
[contested] The Oversight Project analysis found 33% of the FJC chapter matched previously published material, with Michael Burger's 2020 paper accounting for a 23% match.
[verified] Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote the foreword to the manual, testified she had not read the disputed climate chapter.
The narrative clash
Whether climate attribution science is settled or contested
Left: The Fourth Edition places the judiciary firmly on one side of some of the most hotly disputed questions in current litigation... In short, the state attorneys general object to the document treating facts as facts
Right: Climate attribution—the methodology used to link specific emissions sources to specific harms... remains a subject of genuine scientific debate
Whether the chapter was rigorously and independently prepared or biased
Left: The draft chapter was reviewed by an oversight committee that included judges and scientists and was further evaluated by a different group of judges and scientists serving as anonymous, expert peer reviewers.
Right: the climate chapter violated “Gold Standard Science” by not including a “fully independent, meaningful peer review from scientists with differing views on climate science.”
Whether removing the chapter protects or corrupts judicial integrity
Left: The integrity of the process by which judges evaluate scientific evidence should not be subject to political interference or veto
Right: When biased theories are presented to judges as fact and neutral reference tools, it compromises judicial impartiality and can tip the scale on pending litigation
23 sources analyzed
Politico CNN PBS NewsHour USA Today NPR CBS News The Wall Street Journal MSN (UK) Ars Technica The Damage Report Google Search Reuters Pioneer Press Yahoo! Search The Center Square Just The News The Federalist Bizpac Review Charlie Kirk Daily Caller National Review Washington Examiner Fox News