It only took the NAS eight months to finally take it down.

The nation’s top scientific body has removed a chapter on climate science from a reference manual for judges after an outcry from critics on the right, including President Trump.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine said Friday that it had “determined that questions about the processes used to develop the chapter warrant an independent review, and the chapter will not appear on our website while that review is underway.”

The chapter appeared in the fourth edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, which was produced in partnership with the Federal Judicial Center and was released last year. The 1,700-page manual covers many different topics and is intended to help judges understand science and technology that might come up in cases. Other subjects covered in the manual include eyewitness identification, toxicology and neuroscience.

The Federal Judicial Center, which is a government agency, removed the chapter from its website in February after criticism from Republican attorneys general and other officials. The National Academies, which operates as a private scientific advisory body under a congressional charter, declined to do so at the time.

Critics (notably the Oversight Project) said the chapter presented contested climate-attribution science—linking specific emitters or companies to specific harms—as settled fact, which matters for lawsuits against energy companies.

The NAS report claimed ~33% of the chapter overlapped prior writing, including ~23% from a 2020 paper co-authored by Columbia Law professor Michael Burger. As it turns out, Burger is counsel at Sher Edling (which sues fossil-fuel firms for governments) and has worked on related cases and briefs; the chapter only thanked him for insights and helpful feedback.

The chapter faced criticism over concerns that it could shape how federal judges handle lawsuits targeting energy firms.

The climate agenda is struggling at the ballot box because of its high costs and lack of practicality in daily life. In response, its supporters are turning to the courts, using lawsuits and data from agencies, like NAS, to undermine fossil fuel companies that will drive up the price of essential energy sources leading to dramatic reductions in out quality of life. Groups such as the Climate Judiciary Project (CJP) and the Environmental Law Institute are working to shape—or even bias—judges with skewed climate claims so rulings favor their side; this must be halted and proof is cherry picked from manuscripts to support them.

This chapter that was at NAS’s website are an extension of or to compliment the CJP’s efforts. This is not the legitimate legal process but lawfare. Judges should stay neutral, not become activists and scientific groups, like NAS, should publish unbiased research and not propaganda. Neutrality in the justice system is essential—once it is lost, everyone suffers.