A recent study published in the academic journal Nature has been making headlines, claiming that if it were not for major oil and gas companies producing energy between 1991 and 2020, the world would be $28 trillion richer.

Study authors Christopher Callahan, a Stanford University postdoctoral scientist, and Justin Mankin, a Dartmouth College geography professor, authored the study, which was never peer-reviewed and uses a laughably absurd methodology developed by activists whose goal is to do the pseudo-science grunt work for climate change lawsuits against energy producers.

Single events cannot be attributed to climate change. Nevertheless, the study goes far beyond the ridiculous in its attempt not only to pin blame solely on individual energy producers but to attach a specific dollar amount to each company. Using dubious assumptions and their unsound “end-to-end” methodology, the authors cooked up an implausible correlation between individual companies and singular weather events alleged to have been caused or exacerbated by global warming. The bogus conclusions are then broken up into specific price tags and assigned to various energy producers.

Chevron, for example, is accused of being responsible for “heat-related losses” totaling $3.6 trillion from 1991 to 2020. Damages assigned to ExxonMobil amounted to $1.91 trillion during the same period, while the tally for Saudi Aramco came to $2.05 trillion. Together, the study blames the world’s energy producers for $28 trillion in damages. It would be an understatement to say that neither the study, nor its underlying assumptions, nor its conclusions should be accorded any credibility.

Given the elaborate contortions necessary to arrive at the study’s obviously preconceived conclusions, one might wonder what the motivation was to concoct it in the first place. The authors leave an enormous clue in their acknowledgements, in which they lavish praise upon individuals associated with the notorious law firm Sher Edling LLP for their help with the study. Sher Edling was created for the sole purpose of waging lawfare with the intent to financially destroy energy companies. While Sher Edling has worked with states and municipalities in initiating dozens of lawsuits attempting to set climate policy in courtrooms, none to date have been successful.

If just one of the firm’s lawsuits succeeds, it is expected to take up to a 30% chunk of an award estimated to be in the billions of dollars. Because the firm is bankrolled by millions of dollars in dark money funneled through far-Left organizations, its attacks are limitless — and so is its ability to buy studies supporting its conclusions and the fat payday they covet. Sher Edling has acknowledged commissioning made-for-litigation studies before. Named partner Vic Sher described working with scientist-for-hire Richard Heede during a 2017 talk at UCLA. That study, much like the new Nature research, purports to connect major energy providers with specific emissions activity.

A more honest study would have acknowledged the truly beneficial role that energy plays in our economy and everyday lives. We depend on fossil fuel energy for everything from the quality of our lives to our national security. It is so dependable that we rarely even consider that everything we eat, wear, buy, or sell depends on energy. It’s there to take us places and to cool and heat our homes. Smart devices, paint, asphalt, and plastic containers are just a few objects in our daily lives made from petroleum. The study would be more credible if it concluded the truth: that fossil fuels have contributed trillions of dollars in value and made human flourishing possible.

Several legacy news outlets — many of which accept funds from anti-fossil fuel advocacy organizations to write about global warming — reported on the Nature study while failing to note its utterly discrediting connection to Sher Edling. As we move into the warmer summer weather, we can expect more such studies and uncritical news stories.

Studies lacking basic integrity like the one published in Nature are why President Trump’s recent executive order “Restoring Gold Standard Science” is so timely and important. That standard holds that reproducibility, rigor, and unbiased peer review must be maintained. It demands that federal decisions be informed by only the most credible, reliable, and impartial scientific evidence available. Absolutely nothing about the Nature study meets the gold standard of science.

* * *

The Honorable Jason Isaac is the Founder and CEO of the American Energy Institute, a trade organization that unapologetically champions free markets and American energy. Previously, he served four terms in the Texas House of Representatives.

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Gift Dad an All Access Membership. Use code DAD40 at checkout to save 40%!

In a state initiative with potential national implications, school districts across California are navigating the complexities of meeting the state’s looming Ethnic Studies requirement. This mandate, based on Assembly Bill 101 (AB 101) signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom in October 2021, stipulates that students graduating during the 2029–2030 school year must complete at least one semester of Ethnic Studies. California stands as the first state to enact such a requirement, aiming to ostensibly foster cultural understanding through core concepts of equality, equity, justice, and the study of race and ethnicity, as outlined in the California Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum.

As I reported previously here and here, the Northern California Pajaro Valley Unified School District (PVUSD) took an ambitious approach to implementing this requirement, going beyond the basic framework typically adopted by other districts, incorporating content in English (multiple years across 9th through 12th grades), History, and Art classes. With grant funding, PVUSD hired Allyson Tintiangco-Cubales, Founder and Co-Director of Community Responsive Education (CRE), whose controversial model curriculum had previously been rejected by the state for being excessively divisive and antisemitic. Despite public outcry — particularly from the Jewish community — over the district’s reliance on the rejected curriculum, PVUSD persisted through two rounds of consultation with CRE. The third round, however, stalled amidst growing dissent.

In 2024, the Pajaro Valley Federation of Teachers, including supporters of CRE, mobilized to change the composition of the school board in the November elections. They successfully unseated three incumbents, replacing them with challengers ready to renew the contract with CRE. By April, the new board approved the final contract, signaling a shift toward dismissing community concerns. This change was epitomized by radical activist board member Gabriel Medina, who labeled opposition to the curriculum as “propaganda” and accused dissenters of being “segregationists” intent on undermining marginalized communities. Listening to Medina’s characterizations of America in both March and April meetings, one would think we currently live under the rule of the Antebellum South.

Conversely, the Glendora Unified School District (GUSD) in Southern California adopted a more cautious strategy. District staff proposed an Ethnic Studies pilot course outline for the 2025–2026 school year, leveraging the state-approved model curriculum which focuses on four historically marginalized groups: African Americans, Chicano/Latinos, Native Americans, and Asian American/Pacific Islanders. Presented in February by the history and social science representatives, the pilot course adhered to the one-semester requirement.

However, the proposal faced scrutiny from the board for its lack of detailed content and transparency regarding implementation. At the May school board meeting, board members raised concerns about community opposition to perceived influences of Critical Race Theory (CRT) within the curriculum’s theoretical frameworks. While Assistant Superintendent Jennifer Prince emphasized that CRT was not the course’s focus, the board remained wary of its potential influence. Respecting community input, the board voted 3–2 against moving forward with the pilot course, citing the unfunded mandate of AB 101 as well as the need for further clarity and safeguards.

Unlike PVUSD, GUSD’s board demonstrated respect for all viewpoints, emphasizing the importance of community concerns alongside the practicalities of Ethnic Studies implementation. They expressed openness to revisiting the curriculum once AB 101 funding is secured and a more detailed outline addressing community hesitations is developed.

Even though local districts are not required to do so, GUSD leveraged the state’s model curriculum, which explicitly encourages educators adopt a CRT lens as follows: “Teachers and administrators… should familiarize themselves with current scholarly research around ethnic studies instruction, such as critically and culturally or community relevant and responsive pedagogies, critical race theory, and intersectionality, which are key theoretical frameworks and pedagogies that can be used in ethnic studies research and instruction.”

This stance from the state model curriculum highlights the ongoing tension between ideological and non-ideological approaches to the subject. During public commentary, one speaker recommended the Independent Institute’s Comparative Cultures Ethnic Studies Curriculum as a viable alternative. Unlike the state framework, this curriculum examines the diverse tapestry of American history, portraying both its challenges and triumphs to emphasize unity over division.

Although the Comparative curriculum was unavailable at the outset of GUSD’s Ethnic Studies journey, it remains an option worth considering for the district moving forward. As a panelist at its launch last year, I can attest to its efficacy as a balanced, non-partisan resource that aims to foster inclusivity without isolating specific groups. While it may be too late for PVUSD to revise its course, GUSD still can chart a different path — one that prioritizes connection and collective growth over ideological division.

The contrasting approaches taken by PVUSD and GUSD illustrate the complexities of implementing California’s Ethnic Studies mandate. While PVUSD’s path has fueled divisiveness and polarized community relations, GUSD’s measured approach reflects a willingness to adapt and address concerns thoughtfully. As school districts across the state grapple with fulfilling AB 101, GUSD’s restraint and respect for diverse perspectives offer a model for navigating this challenging — but vital — initiative.

* * *

Walter Myers III is a Senior Fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute and an adjunct faculty member at Biola University’s Talbot School of Theology.

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.