The states’ AGs argue that its preparation was funded by groups that support climate-related litigation, written by scholars who reportedly lack strong expertise in climate science and have connections to advocacy groups involved in such cases, and was influenced by a lawyer representing climate plaintiffs. possible” through a grant from a Sher Edling climate litigation funder;13 (ii) was designed with input from people associated with the Climate Judiciary Project (“CJP”),14 which has the stated goal to develop “a body of law that supports climate action;”15 (iii) was crafted to influence judges who might otherwise be “skeptical” of plaintiffs’ climate science;16 (iv) was authored by two academics employed by Columbia climate centers funded by Sher Edling’s climate litigation funders17 (with one author supervised by Michael Burger, a Sher Edling attorney actively leading pending climate-change cases);18 and (v) pending climate-change cases)…. It must be noted that an earlier letter from Knudsen as part of a 21-state AG coalition informed the National Academies that “The Chapter” in Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Fourth Edition is biased, politically motivated, and written by advocates involved in climate litigation, so it should be removed from all versions just as the Federal Judicial Center has already done.
Author: Leslie Eastman
Published at: 2026-03-13 23:00:26
Still want to read the full version? Full article
