Judges Get a Climate‑Science Showdown at Nashville

In the midst of a growing legal showdown over climate damages, two sharply contrasting programs are shaping how judges think about science.

1. Nashville Symposium: A Fossil‑Fuel Backed “Judicial Education”

• Hosted by George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School
• Target audience: 150 judges
• Key speakers: Amicus brief writers for oil firms, climate‑science skeptics
• Funding sources: ExxonMobil and other free‑market donors
• Agenda highlights:
• Critiques of climate‑science tools
• Arguments for excluding certain evidence from cases
• Criticism:
• Accused of pushing a political viewpoint under the guise of education
• Past fundraising letters tout “exposing judges to capitalism and limited government”

2. Climate Judiciary Project: A “Neutral” Educational Initiative

• Mission: Teach judges how climate science works and its legal relevance
• Supporters’ claim: A neutral resource, not a lobbying effort
• Accusations:
• Bias and conspiracy allegations from lawmakers
• Questions over financial stakes of training material creators
• Legal pressure: Conservative attorneys general are demanding documents proving secrecy and lobbying ties

5. Takeaway

The debate over these programs illustrates a larger trend: the judiciary is becoming a front line in the fight over climate policy and the role of science in law. As judges grapple with these competing viewpoints, their decisions could shape the future of climate litigation and regulatory reform.