On Friday, a body that advises US judges revised the document it created to help judges grapple with scientific issues. The move came after a group of Republican state attorneys general wrote a letter to complain about the document’s chapter on climate change, with one of the letter’s criticisms being that it treated human influence on climate as a fact. In response to the letter, the Federal Judicial Center has now deleted the entire chapter.
The Federal Judicial Center has been established by statute as the “research and education agency of the judicial branch of the United States Government.” As part of that role, it prepares documents that can serve as reference material for judges unfamiliar with topics that find their way into the courtroom. Among those projects is the “Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence,” now in its fourth edition. Prepared in collaboration with the National Academies of Science, the document covers the process of science and specific topics that regularly appear before the courts, like statistical techniques, DNA-based identification, and chemical exposures.
When initially released in December, the fourth edition included material on climate change prepared by two authors at Columbia University. But a group of attorneys general from Republican-leaning states objected to this content. At the end of January, they sent a letter to the leadership of the Federal Judicial Center outlining their issues. Many of them focus on the text that accepts the reality of human-driven climate change as a fact.
“Nothing is ‘independent’ or ‘impartial’ in issuing a document on behalf of America’s judges declaring that only one preferred view is ‘within the boundaries of scientifically sound knowledge,’” the letter complains, while ignoring many topics where the document does exactly that. But the objections are only about one specific area of science: “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.’”
In short, the state attorneys general object to the document treating facts as facts, as there have been lawsuits that contested them. “Among other things, the Manual states that human activities have ‘unequivocally warmed the climate,’ that it is ‘extremely likely’ human influence drives ocean warming, and that researchers are ‘virtually certain’ about ocean acidification,” their letter states, “treating contested litigation positions as settled fact.” In other words, they’re arguing that, if someone is ignorant enough to start a suit based on ignorance of well-established science, then the Federal Judicial Center should join them in their ignorance.
The attorneys general also complain that the report calls the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change an “authoritative science body,” citing a conservative Canadian public policy think tank that disagreed with that assessment.
These complaints were mixed in with some more potentially reasonable complaints about how the climate chapter gave specific suggestions on how to legally approach some issues, and assigned significance to one or two recent studies that haven’t yet been validated by follow-on work. But the letter’s authors would not settle for revisions based on a few reasonable complaints; instead, they demand the entire chapter be removed because it accurately reflects the status of climate science.
Naturally, the Federal Judicial Center has agreed. We have confirmed that the current version of the document no longer includes a chapter on climate science, even though the foreword by Supreme Court Justice Elana Kagan still mentions it.
HoYoverse takes legal action to shut down major Genshin Impact wiki over leaks