Paper short abstract:

Major energy companies are no longer denying climate change, but are rejecting responsibility for its impacts in their defences against climate justice lawsuits. Large emitters shift blame to broader economic forces and seek to invalidate scientific evidence to evade legal liability.

Paper long abstract:

In recent litigation against major greenhouse gas emitters over their contribution to climate change, fossil fuel companies are no longer denying anthropogenic climate change. Rather, they question the validity of climate science for establishing legal responsibility. This article contributes an in-depth analysis of corporate defendants’ evidentiary arguments in four climate change lawsuits. Through a comparative study, I trace how normative understandings come to bear on epistemological disputes about causality. Linking the cases to theoretical discussions about legal evidentiary standards and the use of climate science in the courtroom, I examine the defendants’ efforts to invalidate scientific proof and attack researchers’ credibility. My analysis indicates that the interpretation of evidentiary standards will likely shape the outcome of climate litigation going forward. I find that plaintiffs’ and defendants’ legal narratives and factual claims are linked to broader concerns about who should take responsibility for climate change. Like all knowledge, climate science is inherently value-imbued, emerging in relation to policymakers’ demands, public concerns and researchers’ own worries about global warming. While we must recognise its relational nature and underlying uncertainties, I argue that climate science is a crucial tool for addressing legal and political questions about responsibility and justice in a warming world.