Full-Service Law Firm solving complex challenges through bold thinking, precise execution, and shared purpose.

Full Service Law Firm | Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Specializing in the Intersection of Business &amp; Government

Meet our team of trusted advisors, strategic thinkers, and community builders dedicated to client success.

Learn about our full-service legal and business solutions, designed to address complex challenges for leading organizations across industries.

Access thought leadership, news, and resources to stay informed about the latest trends, legal developments, and industry innovations.

Discover how partnership, bold thinking, and precise execution drive results for clients nationwide.

Explore how our national reach and local expertise support clients across the United States and beyond.

Grow at a firm designed to bring out your best.

<div>The Federal Judicial Center’s newly released Fourth Edition of its <a href="https://www.nationalacademies.org/publications/26919" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence</a> includes—for the first time—a comprehensive Reference Guide on Climate Science. The guide is intended to help judges understand climate systems, attribution science, and methodologies used to link greenhouse gas emissions to specific impacts. For companies facing climate‑related litigation or regulatory scrutiny, this development is worth watching closely.The new climate chapter has drawn significant attention. While some consider it a useful primer to help courts navigate increasingly technical scientific disputes, a coalition of state attorneys general has raised concerns that parts of the chapter may frame disputed issues as settled science. Their <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=&amp;ved=2ahUKEwi7j4LP-r-SAxWq4ckDHfiJO_oQFnoECCAQAQ&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fago.wv.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F2026-01%2F2026.01.29%2520--%2520AG%2520Climate%2520Science%2520Manual%2520Letter.pdf&amp;usg=AOvVaw0XumTxUyPOzcIudsOZbqIJ&amp;opi=89978449" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">recent letter</a> argues that the guide risks placing the judiciary’s institutional weight behind particular scientific perspectives at a time when attribution theories are central to active litigation.For businesses—including energy producers, manufacturers, transportation companies, financial institutions, and others drawn into climate‑related claims—the discussion matters. As climate attribution science becomes more prominent in lawsuits, the tools courts rely on to evaluate expert testimony can meaningfully shape how liability theories are presented and assessed.The debate surrounding the Manual’s climate chapter underscores a broader trend: Courts are increasingly engaging with complex scientific and technical material in cases involving environmental impacts, emissions, and climate‑related damages. As this space evolves, companies benefit from understanding how scientific narratives—and challenges to them—are developing within the judiciary.If your organization is monitoring climate‑related litigation risk or preparing for possible challenges involving environmental science, it’s important to stay informed about these shifts and their implications for future disputes.</div><blockquote class="wp-block-quote passle-quote ">the Fourth Edition places the judiciary firmly on one side of some of the most hotly disputed questions in current litigation: climate-related science and “attribution.” Such work undermines the judiciary’s impartiality and places a thumb on one side of the scale.</blockquote>

core/freeform

Judges Get New Climate Science Guidance—Here’s Why Industry Is Paying Attention

Related People

Related Capabilities

You may also be interested in these

Michael Best Welcomes Dana Bell as Senior Counsel in Intellectual Property Practice

Copyright or Trade Secret? How Software Companies Should Decide What to Protect—and How

Seventh Circuit Grapples with BIPA Amendment.