Climate attribution science matures, triggering fossil fuel liability fears and political backlash

The US National Academies of Science released a report on Thursday concluding that climate attribution science has matured significantly over the past decade, allowing researchers to link extreme weather events to climate change with greater confidence. The assessment notes that advances in physical understanding, numerical models, and statistical techniques have strengthened the foundation for attributing events such as heatwaves and excessive precipitation to human-induced greenhouse gas emissions.

Attribution science operates by comparing climate model runs with and without greenhouse gas emissions to determine how human activity alters the odds or characteristics of specific weather events. The report outlines two primary frameworks used in the field: probabilistic analysis, which assesses changes in the likelihood of an event occurring, and storyline analysis, which examines specific atmospheric conditions. These methods are increasingly being applied to inform infrastructure standards and disaster preparedness, as historical weather patterns become less reliable indicators of future risks.

Despite these advancements, the report identifies substantial limitations that prevent universal application. Significant gaps remain in historical data, particularly in the global south, where pre-satellite era monitoring was inconsistent. Furthermore, current climate models utilise grid resolutions of 50 to 100 kilometres, which are too coarse to accurately capture small-scale phenomena such as thunderstorms or tornadoes. Consequently, confidence levels remain lower for wildfires, severe storms, and compound events, such as fires occurring during prolonged dry periods.

The findings have drawn intense scrutiny from the fossil fuel industry, which views the maturation of attribution science as a direct liability risk. As courts increasingly consider scientific evidence in lawsuits alleging fraud or responsibility for weather-related damages, the report’s conclusions could provide a stronger evidentiary basis for holding energy companies accountable. This perception of threat has catalysed a political backlash, with Republicans in Congress and state governments threatening the National Academies’ funding and launching a Freedom of Information Act campaign against authors at public universities.

In response to the identified limitations, the report recommends higher-resolution modelling at a 1-kilometre scale, the use of non-instrument records such as geological evidence, and greater consideration of non-greenhouse gas factors like aerosols and land-use changes. It also highlights the uneven maturity of extreme event impact attribution, noting that tools for quantifying damages are more developed in North America and Europe than in regions like Papua-New Guinea. The Academies urge researchers to maintain transparency regarding uncertainties while developing tools that are directly useful for disaster preparedness.