Science Panel Endorses Extreme Weather-Climate Change Link

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine released a landmark report on July 16, 2026, providing its strongest endorsement yet of extreme event attribution science — the field that determines whether and to what extent human-caused climate change influences individual extreme weather events. The report, titled “Attribution of Extreme Weather and Climate Events and Their Impacts,” finds that scientific methods have advanced “considerably” over the past decade, increasing confidence in results for many types of extreme weather.

What the Report Found

The new report updates and expands upon the National Academies’ landmark 2016 assessment, reflecting a decade of rapid progress in climate modeling, observational capabilities, and statistical techniques. According to the National Academies news release, the highest confidence is associated with findings for extreme heat and cold events, as well as large-scale heavy rainfall events — phenomena strongly influenced by a warming atmosphere.

Confidence remains lowest for severe convective storms such as thunderstorms and tornadoes, where small-scale dynamic processes are inadequately reflected in global climate models, and for events in data-limited regions, particularly the Global South.

“Significant progress has been made over the last decade, with major advancements in methods and modeling that allow for more robust assessments of extreme events,” said James Hurrell, committee chair and Scott Presidential Chair of Environmental Science and Engineering at Colorado State University. “But the field still faces challenges, and addressing them is necessary to fully realize the value of attribution science.”

The Science Behind Attribution

Extreme event attribution (EEA) allows scientists to move beyond detecting broad climate trends and instead investigate how climate change influences individual extreme events. Researchers compare an observed event’s characteristics — its likelihood and intensity in the current climate — with a “counterfactual” world without human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, using a combination of observational data, climate models, and statistical methods.

As Bloomberg reported via the Insurance Journal, the field has matured significantly. “This is a very mature science now,” said Mingfang Ting, professor of climate science at Columbia University. “How likely an event would be to happen in a world without fossil fuels, versus with fossil fuels? We run models with those two conditions and then get a probability of the event happening.”

The report also highlights the emerging field of Extreme Event Impact Attribution (EEIA), which quantifies how climate change contributes to specific harms such as human mortality and economic losses — a development with significant implications for both litigation and insurance.

Legal and Political Stakes

The report’s release arrives amid intense political controversy. According to an investigation by the Eastern Herald (based on reporting by Politico/E&E News), an opposition research firm called Argus Insight — founded by former Trump White House aides — filed at least nine open records requests with public universities targeting scientists connected to the NAS report, seeking to mine their emails for material to discredit the findings before release.

Alice Hill, a former federal prosecutor and Obama White House climate policy official, told E&E News that the goal of the campaign is “to keep attribution science out of court and shield fossil fuel companies from liability.” She noted that a National Academies endorsement could be a huge factor in liability lawsuits precisely because judges respect the institution.

The stakes are enormous. Attribution science serves as the load-bearing evidence in a fast-growing class of lawsuits seeking to charge fossil fuel companies for climate damages. The clearest test case is Multnomah County, Oregon, which is seeking $51.5 billion from oil and coal companies over the 2021 heat dome that killed 69 people. A 2022 analysis put the industry’s total litigation exposure at more than $100 billion.

Political Pressure and Congressional Action

The campaign against the report has moved on multiple fronts. In April 2026, House Science Committee Chair Brian Babin (R-TX) demanded the Academies turn over all records on how the panel was created and members selected, warning the report would likely influence litigation. Separately, Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Representative Harriet Hageman (R-WY) introduced a bill offering sweeping immunity from liability to major fossil fuel companies.

The pressure has already affected the panel. Georgetown law professor Monica Sanders resigned in November 2024, citing targeted records requests. Delta Merner of the Union of Concerned Scientists was removed from the committee in January 2025, the same day an industry-funded website published an attack naming her.

Response from Scientists

Dr. Carly Phillips, senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said: “Attribution science confirms what billions of people around the world have experienced firsthand — deadly events like extreme heatwaves are occurring more often and tropical cyclones are more intense due to climate change. Despite efforts by the fossil fuel industry and its cronies to intimidate panelists and misrepresent the research, the Academies’ report affirms the scientific consensus.”

Michael Mann, the University of Pennsylvania climate scientist who spent a decade in litigation over attacks on his own work, told E&E News that the objective of the campaign is “to intimidate, discredit and set an example for other scientists who might speak up about what the science implies.”

What Comes Next

The report recommends developing a common framework with best practices for attribution research, applying higher-resolution global climate models, expanding impact attribution studies — especially for the Global South — and fostering collaborations with stakeholders to co-develop studies that meet local needs.

As attribution science becomes more precise, its influence is expected to grow across multiple domains. Insurers like Swiss Re already use similar modeling approaches to price climate risk and set premiums. In the legal arena, the report’s endorsement under the Daubert standard — where U.S. judges weigh whether a scientific method enjoys “broad acceptance” — could prove decisive in determining whether attribution evidence reaches juries in climate liability cases.

The first major test of the report’s legal impact will likely come in the Multnomah County case, where a judge must decide whether to admit attribution science as evidence. The outcome could set a precedent that shapes climate litigation for years to come.