The Climate Science reference they don't want Judges to read

[muriel_volestrangler]

For the first time, the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) commissioned a chapter on climate science for the manual they put out (with the NASEM) for judges, the Reference on Scientific Evidence (4th Edition). This week, a month after it was published, they pulled the chapter out after being pressured by 27 Republican Attorneys General. You can nonetheless read it here.
...
The 4th Edition had its genesis in a workshop in 2021, and was finally published (after extensive peer review) on Dec 31st 2025. It covers legal scholarship on the use of expert testimony in court cases (noting the Supreme Court’s Daubert standard), as well as primers in the current state of the science across multiple fields (forensics, DNA evidence, mental health, neurology, epidemiology, exposure, statistics, regression, eye witnesses, engineering, computer science, AI, etc.). Notably, it included a chapter on climate science, covering topics such as the greenhouse effect, atmospheric circulation, detection and attribution, and the issues being raised in an increasing number of climate-related cases in the courts. The authors, Jessica Wentz and Radley Horton are a respected and mainstream lawyer/scientist team and the resulting chapter is a clear and concise summary of the topic. So far so good.
...
Of course, there are groups that would rather not have climate change discussed knowledgeably in the courts, and after the publication of the 4th Edition of the manual, the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee started sending threatening letters to all involved (FN – sorry!) (Jan 16th). Additionally, a group of 27 Republican Attorneys General (led by West Virginia) sent a letter (Jan 29) to the FJC claiming that Wentz and Horton were biased because they have (correctly) stated that the “political sphere in the United States continues to be clouded with false debates over the validity of climate change”. Additionally, they were upset that there are no references to the recent DOE CWG report (Lol).
...
The Republican AGs demanded that the FJC remove the chapter, arguing that any official acknowledgement of the science in the Manual would prejudice their cases that are based on, let’s say, “contrary” interpretations of the scientific evidence (or no evidence at all). And without much ado, or even consultation, the FJC did exactly that, putting out an amended Manual on Feb 6th. The only note to mark the deletion is:

No explanation or excuse was noted.

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/02/the-climate-science-reference-they-dont-want-judges-to-read/

[OKIsItJustMe]

1. "... 27 Republican Attorneys General ..."

https://ago.wv.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/2026.01.29%20--%20AG%20Climate%20Science%20Manual%20Letter.pdf

…

Dear Judge Rosenberg:

For decades, litigants and judges alike have used the Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. The U.S. Supreme Court has cited it more than once to explain foundational principles in science and math.¹ And that Court isn’t alone. The Manual “has been provided to more than 3,000 federal judges and even more state court judges and others and has been cited in over 1,700 opinions.”² So accuracy and impartiality in the Manual is vital.

At least up to this point, the Center has been careful to stress that the Manual merely “describes basic principles of major scientific fields.”³ It was “not intended to instruct judges concerning what evidence should be admissible or establish minimum standards for acceptable scientific testimony.”⁴ Rather, the Center chiefly intended that the Manual would “open legal institutional channels.”⁵

Whatever one might say about past editions, the recently issued Fourth Edition cannot claim such restraint. It does more than address undisputed scientific principles. Instead, the Fourth Edition places the judiciary firmly on one side of some of the most hotly disputed questions in current litigation: climate-related science and “attribution.” Such work undermines the judiciary’s impartiality and places a thumb on one side of the scale. It does so even as these issues are pending before the Supreme Court and other parts of the federal judiciary.

…

The problems in the climate reference section seem to have started in selecting its authors. Jessica Wentz and Radley Horton are both connected with climate studies programs at Columbia University. And Columbia and its research partners have long viewed lawsuits against States, traditional energy producers,⁶ and others as “opportunities” to “resolve” what they see as “the pressing dangers created by climate change.”⁷ Wentz and Horton themselves have applauded litigation as a tool to advance their preferred political objectives, complaining that the “political sphere in the United States continues to be clouded with false debates over the validity of climate change.”⁸ As they see it, the courtroom provides a better venue.⁹

…

[eppur_se_muova]

2. How DARE they choose experts with experience in the field to write on the subject !!

There are plenty of GW deniers in important positions in the climate science community (at least in red states). If only they had picked some of those !

Maybe they didn't because they're a 1% (or so) minority.

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. Well, scarcity is a challenge.

However, they charge good money to compromise their integrity.

I wonder if lying in a judicial reference could lead to charges of perjury?