Tag: speculation

Another Climate Activist Trojan Horse Gets Exposed

A new edition of a science education manual for judges departs “sharply” from a “longstanding tradition of neutrality,” say three of America’s most distinguished physicists in a letter to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

From CO2 Coalition

By Angela Wheeler

A new edition of a science education manual for judges departs “sharply” from a “longstanding tradition of neutrality,” say three of America’s most distinguished physicists in a letter to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

Writing in an open letter to Justice Roberts were Drs. Richard Lindzen of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, William Happer of Princeton University and Steven Koonin of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. Roberts is chairman of the Federal Judicial Center, publisher of the Fourth Edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, whose new chapter on “How Science Works” the letter writers want to be removed.

For decades, the Reference Manual has served as an essential guide for more than 3,000 federal judges and countless state jurists. Cited in over 1,700 judicial opinions, it has helped courts distinguish reliable science from speculation. Its strength has been a commitment to describing how science operates according to the tenets of the 300-year-old scientific method, avoiding political considerations and a drift into pseudoscience.

The letter’s authors, with more than 600 peer-reviewed publications among them, bring unparalleled expertise to the issue. Their concern centers on the replacement of the late David Goodstein’s respected chapter with an overwritten, intellectually deficient 65-page version.

The new chapter’s lead author is philosopher Michael Weisberg, who had a prominent role as a diplomat at United Nations climate proceedings, where he advocated financial payments to small island nations purportedly threatened by a warming planet. The appearance of conflict with his authoring supposedly neutral guidance on scientific evidence is unmistakable—especially in the context of climate litigation involving trillions of dollars in potential liabilities.

The substantive problems are even more serious. Where Goodstein, once a California Institute of Technology physics professor, emphasized the scientific method—generating hypotheses and testing them with data—the new chapter dismisses the scientific method as a “myth.” It elevates “scientific consensus” and “widespread acceptance” as the highest form of certainty, transforming inquiry into a popularity contest.

This inverts the traditional practice of science. As Nobel laureate Richard Feynman observed, the key to science is comparing predictions directly with observation: “If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.”

In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993), the Supreme Court made the same point: Scientific knowledge must be derived by testing hypotheses against reality. Goodstein’s earlier edition said, “Data are the coin of the realm in science,” and theories must make new predictions that can be falsified or verified. Consensus, by contrast, is a sociological phenomenon.

As Michael Crichton famously warned, “If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus.” History bears this out. Popular “consensus” on plate tectonics, causes of disease and 20th-century fears of global cooling were overturned by evidence, not votes.

Further revealing the chapter’s activist inclinations is its opening citation of Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway’s Merchants of Doubt, a book that insists there is “zero argument among actual scientists” about catastrophic climate change—a claim countered  by mountains of real-world data.

Labeling credentialed dissenters as outside “actual science” has no place in an educational document for judges. Science advances by challenging prevailing views with data, not by enforcing community norms.

The Federal Judicial Center wisely withdrew a chapter on climate science from the manual after 28 state attorneys general documented its conflicts and unsupported claims. Yet the “How Science Works” chapter, written largely to support that now-removed material, remains.

With more than 1,000 climate-related cases pending in state and federal courts, judges deserve guidance rooted in empirical rigor. Lindzen, Happer and Koonin are correct. The Center should promptly withdraw the new chapter and restore Goodstein’s earlier version, which captured the essence of scientific reasoning in language accessible to readers without the scientific background that most jurists lack.

They should also direct the National Academy of Sciences to withdraw both chapters from its version of the Manual. Maintaining the integrity of judicial guidance on science is not a partisan issue.

Justice Roberts and the Federal Judicial Center have an opportunity to reaffirm their commitment to neutrality and restore confidence in the Manual. In an age when science is increasingly politicized, maintaining rigorous standards for what counts as scientific evidence in court is vital. The credibility of the American judicial system requires nothing less.

Originally published on Daily Caller on April 27, 2026.

Angela Wheeler is executive director of the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. She is a cum laude graduate of Emporia State University, Kansas, where she studied communication, with additional biology and pre-medicine coursework.

No, NYT, ‘Climate Tipping Points’ are Not in Our Near Future

The New York Times (NYT) recently published a special Sunday feature titled, “How Close Are the Planet’s Climate Tipping Points?”

The article, which is heavy on infographics and short on actual references or facts tackles several topics about Earth’s features that may be “in danger of collapse.”

From ClimateRealism

By Anthony Watts

The New York Times (NYT) recently published a special Sunday feature titled, “How Close Are the Planet’s Climate Tipping Points?”

The article, which is heavy on infographics and short on actual references or facts tackles several topics about Earth’s features that may be “in danger of collapse.” The entire article is nothing more than speculation with pretty graphics and doesn’t offer any evidence whatsoever that Earth is close to these so-called “tipping points.” The article heavily hedges its bets with weasel-words such as, could, may, might, and possibly but doesn’t make a single solid prediction.

Here’s a summary of the NYT article claims, plus the prediction of “When it might happen,” which follows each topic.

For the past two decades, scientists have been raising alarms about great systems in the natural world that warming, caused by carbon emissions, might be pushing toward collapse. These systems are so vast that they can stay somewhat in balance even as temperatures rise. But only to a point.

Once we warm the planet beyond certain levels, this balance might be lost, scientists say. The effects would be sweeping and hard to reverse. Not like the turning of a dial, but the flipping of a switch. One that wouldn’t be easily flipped back.

Mass Death of Coral Reefs

In time, the reefs can bounce back. As the world gets warmer, though, occasional bleaching is becoming regular bleaching. Mild bleaching is becoming severe bleaching. When it might happen: It could already be underway.

Collapse of Greenland Ice and Breakup of West Antarctic Ice

The collapse of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could become more likely at 1.5°C. When it might happen: The timing will vary place to place. The effects on global warming could accumulate over a century or more. Irreversible melting could begin this century and unfold over hundreds, even thousands, of years.

Abrupt Thawing of Permafrost

The localized thaw of permafrost could become more likely at 1.5°C. When it might happen: The timing will vary place to place. The effects on global warming could accumulate over a century or more.

Sudden Shift in the West African Monsoon

Monsoons may be disrupted. When it might happen: Hard to predict.

Loss of Amazon Rainforest

By 2050, as much as half of today’s Amazon forest could be at risk. When it might happen: Will depend on how rapidly people clear, or protect, the remaining forest.

Shutdown of Atlantic Currents

The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC may slow down, changing the weather. When it might happen: Very hard to predict.

As you can see for yourself, the NYT didn’t have a single definitive answer for “When it might happen.” This is not at all surprising as every one of these predictions about tipping points is based on computerized climate models which we know to be faulty and have a tendency to be running overly hot with no scientific justification other than built-in bias.

Here is what we know based on actual data and measurements.

  • Coral Reefs are doing very well. Despite over hyped media claims, such as the poster child for this issue, the Great Barrier Reef in Australia it is actually doing quite well and has reached its largest range of expansion in 2024 ever recorded. It has been steadily improving.
  • The Abrupt Thawing of Permafrost is a summer phenomenon. While there is a few instances of this happening in winter, this is due to changes in weather patterns, not climate. Permafrost records are so short in duration, we don’t have any idea if this has also happened in the past. Arctic regions have high natural temperature variability. For example, in some regions of Siberia, average January temperatures are lower than -40 °C (-40 °F). In the summer, the long days of sunshine thaw the top layer of frozen ground and bring average temperatures above 10 °C (50 °F). At some weather stations in the interior, summer temperatures can reach 30 °C (86 °F) or more.
  • Greenland Ice is melting, but the melt is miniscule compared to the entire ice mass. It also refreezes every winter.
  • The breakup of West Antarctic Ice due to melting has been theorized for decades but hasn’t happened. Again, like Greenland Ice, the melt is minuscule compared to the total ice in Antarctica.
  • No shift in the West African Monsoon has been observed. Science shows us that the West African Summer Monsoon rainfall exhibits large variability at interannual and decadal timescales, causing droughts and floods in many years.
  • The loss of Amazon Rainforest is mostly about clearing of lands for agriculture and mining, not climate change. The NYT article even mentions this even though they still insist climate change will have a role.
  • There’s been no evidence of shutdown of Atlantic Currents like the AMOC. Science shows it not slowing at all. In fact climate science can’t actually decide from year to year whether it is speeding up or slowing down. The last sentence of the NYT section on Atlantic currents says, “When it might happen: Very hard to predict.” Is accurate, yet they still list it as a concern.

In summary, this NYT article is nothing but fear-mongering with a razor-thin veneer of science to back it up. Every one of the “predictions” is so open-ended that they have the same probability of a coin-toss. However, based on the physical evidence and data we have so far, which suggest none of these tipping points will occur, even 50-50 odds are unlikely to be representative of the future. The NYT did their readers a huge disservice with this article.