The study acknowledges individuals affiliated with Sher Edling LLP, a law firm representing over two dozen plaintiffs in climate lawsuits.
Left-wing law firms and activist groups known for engaging in climate lawfare have ties to a widely circulated study claiming the world would be $28 trillion richer without carbon emissions produced by major fossil fuel companies between 1991 and 2020.
The study, published in the journal Nature last month, acknowledges the contributions of individuals who are affiliated with Sher Edling LLP, a law firm representing over two dozen plaintiffs in climate lawsuits, and the Climate Judiciary Project, a left-wing legal forum that holds discussions on environmental law.
Nature, a prestigious, peer-reviewed scientific journal previously endorsed former President Joe Biden and published op-eds praising failed 2024 Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris. Numerous mainstream outlets covered the Nature study and its potential impact on the ongoing legal campaign to win climate-change damages from fossil fuel companies.
Nature put the study under its Perspectives section, which the journal uses to give authors the opportunity to provide personal viewpoints. When reached for comment, Nature pointed to the Perspective designation to justify the conflicted status of the authors.
“The Nature study has no basis in science. It is scientifically impossible to attribute any natural disasters and/or related damages to emissions, let alone specific emitters. The study is nothing more than part of a desperate and transparent attempt by radical climate activists, blue states and municipalities, and unscrupulous trial lawyers to shake-down oil companies,” said Steve Milloy, senior fellow at the energy and environment legal institute and leading skeptic of apocalyptic narratives about climate change.
Sher Edling attorney Michael Burger and Benjamin Franta, who the firm previously listed as a climate-plaintiff adviser, are both acknowledged in the study. Franta is an anti-fossil fuel activist and climate litigation professor at Oxford University whose research has been cited by Sher Edling in litigation.
The study also acknowledges Climate Judiciary Project faculty members Jessica Wentz, a climate researcher, and Yale Law School professor Douglas Kysar. The Climate Judiciary Project is an offshoot of the Environmental Law Institute, a left-wing legal research organization at the forefront of the climate litigation movement.
Stanford University postdoctoral scientist Christopher Callahan and Dartmouth College geography professor Justin Mankin authored the study. The paper accuses Chevron of causing $3.6 trillion in heat-related losses, particularly in tropical regions that have relatively low levels of carbon emission. Callahan and Mankin used the “end-to-end” method of linking fossil fuel companies to specific environmental damages. Both have made their research publicly available.
The end-to-end approach links specific carbon emitters to particular climate impacts on the basis of dubious scientific assumptions. Based on those assumed links, damages are charged to the various fossil fuel companies.
American taxpayers helped fund Callahan and Mankin’s paper through the National Science Foundation’s Graduate Research Fellowship, as disclosed in the acknowledgements.
Seeking to guide journalists, Mankin participated in an “explainer” for reporters about what journalists should be asking about climate data. For the “explainer,” he attributed the recent wildfires in the Los Angeles area to climate change rather than poor policy decisions and mismanagement from California governor Gavin Newsom (D) and LA mayor Karen Bass (D). At the end of the “explainer,” reporters are recommended to read Callahan and Mankin’s latest study.
“This is climate lawfare masquerading as science. The Nature article is just the latest attempt by climate activists to launder political advocacy through academic journals,” said Jason Isaac, CEO of the pro-fossil fuel American Energy Institute.
“When researchers claim the world would be $28 trillion richer without fossil fuels—while ignoring the life-saving prosperity, sanitation, refrigeration, and mobility those fuels delivered—they aren’t doing science, they’re writing scripts for trial lawyers and activist judges. This is a disinformation campaign cloaked in peer review.”
The Trump administration is actively fighting blue state efforts to gain climate-related damages from oil companies through litigation and state-level laws. Michigan and Hawaii have filed lawsuits against oil companies seeking damages from companies for their alleged role in causing climate damage to their respective states. The lawsuits are part of the environmental movement’s broader strategy of attempting to change federal policy through endless litigation and maximalist state laws.
In a similar fashion, New York and Vermont have passed laws seeking to impose retroactive penalties on oil companies for alleged disproportionate contributions to global greenhouse gas emissions. The Trump administration is contesting the laws in accordance with President Trump’s executive order signed in April targeting blue-state climate regulations.