Can Americans still trust their “neutral” institutions? As radical activists increasingly capture the levers of power in government, media, and academia, a disturbing pattern has emerged. Seemingly objective organizations now serve as Trojan horses for partisan agendas, eroding the foundations of our republic while claiming to strengthen them. One particularly alarming example is unfolding in our courts, where those sworn to impartial justice are being systematically fed one-sided information.

Behind closed doors, a sophisticated operation is targeting the judicial system itself – potentially impacting rulings that will affect every American household’s economic future. While claiming to offer “objective education,” this effort follows a familiar playbook: present ideology as fact, exclude dissenting voices, and position activists as neutral experts.

From Just the News:

The Climate Judiciary Project claims to provide “judges with authoritative, objective, and trusted education on climate science, the impacts of climate change, and the ways climate science is arising in the law.” Critics say its curriculum focuses exclusively on the most alarmist positions in climate science and lacks any presentation of disagreements or uncertainties that exist within the research.

“ It’s all very lopsided in one direction,” Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, told Just the News.

The Environmental Law Institute stood by the information the project provides judges. In a statement, the institute said the modules are “fact-based and science-first.”

Judges Caught Coordinating Behind the Scenes

The troubling agenda became even clearer when Fox News uncovered private email exchanges between judges involved with the project. In 2022, Judge Travis Laster, vice chancellor of the Delaware Court of Chancery, shared a climate presentation video with colleagues, specifically instructing them not to distribute it widely, noting that “the powers that be will be happier that I said” not to share it.

The presentation, featuring Michael Gerrard from Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center, discussed how climate lawsuits could potentially bankrupt energy companies – hardly a neutral educational perspective for judges who might preside over such cases. Even more concerning, multiple judges responded with enthusiastic praise for the presentation.

“Thank you, and this is great work!” replied Judge Thomas Harmon of Nebraska’s County Court Fourth Judicial District. Justice Rebecca Duncan of the Oregon Supreme Court added that the presentation would be “an excellent model for the rest of us who will be speaking to our state colleagues.”

This private coordination raises serious questions about judicial impartiality in climate litigation cases. Can we really expect fair trials when judges are secretly sharing materials about bankrupting the defendants? These cases could extract billions from energy companies – costs that would ultimately come straight out of your pocket through higher energy prices.

False Claims and Missing Evidence

The Climate Judiciary Project’s curriculum makes numerous claims contradicted by scientific evidence but presents them as unquestioned facts. For example, it states that climate change has “already impacted the production of food and food security” – while omitting that multiple staple crops are experiencing record-high yields worldwide, including wheat, barley, corn, rice, and soybeans.

Similarly, the materials cite a Delaware official’s claim that “once in a lifetime” flooding events will become more frequent due to climate change. Yet the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) itself states there is “low confidence in the human influence on the changes in high river flows on the global scale.” Funny how that inconvenient truth didn’t make it into their “objective” materials!

Perhaps most revealing is the project’s reliance on a study funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, which actively advocates for eliminating fossil fuels. This “groundbreaking” study claims just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions – a claim so misleading that even the liberal fact-checking site Snopes has debunked it. (Yes, you read that right – even Snopes couldn’t swallow this one.)

Key Takeaways

• Climate Judiciary Project claims neutrality while feeding judges one-sided climate alarmism that ignores contradictory scientific evidence
• Uncovered emails show judges privately coordinating on climate messaging that discusses bankrupting energy companies
• Judicial training materials cite studies funded by anti-fossil fuel groups while omitting record crop yields and other positive data
• Americans will face higher energy costs if these influenced judges rule in favor of the wave of climate litigation targeting energy companies

Sources: Just The News