Today, the American Tort Reform Association submitted comments to the U.S. Department of Energy related to a draft report by the Climate Working Group, titled “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate.”
In its comments, ATRA noted that some available studies may not be entirely reliable given the plaintiff bar’s role in manufacturing research aligned with their litigation goals.
“While we do not claim to be expert climate scientists, we do know the trial lawyer playbook, and unfortunately, creating junk science is an oft-utilized tool,” said Tiger Joyce, ATRA president.
ATRA’s comments outline the processes that have allowed junk science evidence in climate litigation, and how that junk science may now be included as evidence in additional reports, including the DOE’s latest climate report.
Climate lawsuits typically rely on novel legal and scientific theories, including efforts to expand state liability law beyond any recognizable boundaries. The Association urged the DOE and others to ensure they are citing objective research rather than “science” developed to support the litigation goals of political, profit-motivated contingency-fee lawyers.
“We respectfully suggest that in finalizing this report, that DOE officials review the scientific integrity of any cited studies,” Joyce said. “While global climate change is a concern for us all, any policy setting must follow sound science — not a predisposed litigation goal.”
