{"id":420308,"date":"2026-01-07T14:23:13","date_gmt":"2026-01-07T13:23:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=420308"},"modified":"2026-01-07T14:23:16","modified_gmt":"2026-01-07T13:23:16","slug":"science-without-skepticism-is-just-politics-in-a-lab-coat","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=420308","title":{"rendered":"Science Without Skepticism Is Just Politics in a Lab Coat"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That’s a sharp and provocative statement- one that captures a growing concern about the intersection of science and ideology.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scientific skepticism is the engine of genuine scientific progress. It’s the commitment to questioning claims, demanding reproducible evidence, and remaining open to falsification, no matter how inconvenient or unpopular. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As Carl Sagan put it, science is “a way of thinking” rooted in skeptically interrogating ideas while understanding human fallibility. Without that rigorous doubt- organized through peer review, replication, and debate science risks becoming dogmatic.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When skepticism erodes and scientific authority aligns too closely with political agendas, advocacy can masquerade as objectivity. Scientists are experts in their domains, but expertise doesn’t confer moral or policy infallibility.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"A<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

_____________________________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Charles Rotter<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

How Conflating Advocacy with Evidence Undermines Science and Self-Government<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Screenshot
https:\/\/esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/10.1002\/eas2.70032<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The perspective paper \u201cScientists as Policymakers: Greenlighting Restoration and Climate Action\u201d<\/a><\/em> is presented as a sober reflection on how scientists might better \u201cengage\u201d with public decision-making. What it actually offers is something far more radical and far more dangerous: a blueprint for erasing the institutional boundary between science and political power, while insisting that this collapse somehow strengthens objectivity rather than destroying it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors do not hedge their ambitions. After lamenting that elected officials rarely read peer-reviewed literature, they arrive at what they clearly regard as the logical conclusion:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cIf we want ecology to help fight climate change, we need to create a direct line of communication between scientists and policymakers. Better yet, we need scientists who are policymakers themselves.<\/strong>\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

That sentence should stop any serious reader cold. It is not an argument for better advisory mechanisms or clearer translation of research. It is an argument for scientists to occupy positions of coercive authority while retaining the cultural prestige of scientific neutrality. History suggests this combination rarely ends well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From the outset, the paper frames political disagreement as a moral and epistemic failure rather than a legitimate feature of democratic governance. The authors describe policy decisions they oppose as \u201canti-science,\u201d a term they deploy repeatedly but never define with precision. For example, the catalyst for the lead author\u2019s entry into politics is described this way:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cShe was becoming more concerned with each new anti-science action<\/strong>, and one event convinced her to act.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This framing does enormous rhetorical work. Once policy disagreement is labeled \u201canti-science,\u201d the debate is effectively over. Opponents are no longer citizens weighing costs, risks, and priorities; they are enemies of knowledge itself. Under those conditions, advocacy is not merely permitted\u2014it becomes morally mandatory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors acknowledge that scientists have traditionally worried about exactly this problem. They note that many researchers have argued that political advocacy risks destroying public trust and scientific credibility:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThey argued that scientists\u2019 roles should be limited to communicating objective facts, leaving policy recommendations to others.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

But this concern is quickly dismissed as outdated squeamishness. Urgency replaces restraint.<\/strong> The possibility that advocacy might corrupt scientific judgment is treated as a secondary issue, outweighed by the need for action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That logic is repeated throughout the paper. Climate change is described as an \u201cexistential threat,\u201d a \u201ccode red,\u201d and a crisis demanding immediate intervention. Yet nowhere do the authors grapple seriously with uncertainty ranges, competing risk assessments, or the track record of prior large-scale environmental interventions. Urgency becomes a solvent that dissolves skepticism.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors formalize this worldview in what they present as a helpful engagement model: research, outreach, and policymaking. They explain:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cEssentially, research provides critical knowledge; outreach communicates the knowledge to officials and the public; and policymaking uses this knowledge to develop laws, allocate funds, perform casework, etc.<\/strong>\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This model assumes that once \u201cthe knowledge\u201d exists, policy decisions follow naturally, almost mechanically. Missing entirely is any serious acknowledgment that policy choices involve value judgments, trade-offs, and opportunity costs that cannot be resolved by data alone. Science can inform decisions; it cannot make them.\u00a0Pretending otherwise is not evidence- based governance- it is technocracy.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The central case study of the paper illustrates this problem in concrete terms. The authors celebrate the allocation of roughly $100 million in public funds for a restoration project justified in part by climate mitigation goals. The language used to support this decision is revealingly speculative:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cOpen spaces could potentially be managed to increase soil carbon storage and offset these sources.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\u201cCould potentially\u201d is doing heavy lifting here. This is a hypothesis, layered atop several others: assumptions about wildfire frequency, carbon permanence, ecological response, and long-term management success. Yet these uncertainties are never quantified in a way that would allow comparison with alternative uses of the funds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead, possibility is quietly converted into justification.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The paper repeatedly relies on conditional claims\u2014\u201ccould,\u201d \u201cmight,\u201d \u201ccan be accelerated\u201d\u2014while treating the resulting policies as self-evidently necessary. This is not how scientific reasoning is supposed to work. Hypotheses are meant to be stress-tested, not fast-tracked into budget line items.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even more troubling is the paper\u2019s explicit endorsement of emotional persuasion as a scientific communication strategy. The authors argue that traditional scientific modes of explanation are ineffective with the public and should be replaced with storytelling:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cScientists are trained to focus on data and information\u2026 Yet, telling stories can be more successful with members of the public<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

They elaborate approvingly:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cTo ask for climate action, a speaker might tell a story about someone evacuating from a wildfire\u2026 the focus would be more on emotions than facts.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This is not a minor stylistic recommendation. It is a wholesale abandonment of the norms that distinguish science from propaganda.<\/strong> Emotional narratives are powerful precisely because they bypass analytical scrutiny. Encouraging scientists to rely on them while retaining the authority of science is an invitation to manipulate trust rather than earn it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors are clearly aware that trust is central to their project. They emphasize that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe public tends to trust scientists more than close family, neighbors, coworkers, religious leaders, and the President of the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This fact is presented not as a reason for caution, but as a strategic advantage. Trust becomes a resource to be leveraged in pursuit of policy goals.<\/strong> Once scientists openly adopt advocacy, however, that trust becomes fragile. It is far easier to spend credibility than to rebuild it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Throughout the paper, the authors describe \u201cearth stewardship\u201d as the deliberate reshaping of both ecological and social systems:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cEarth stewardship is the deliberate shaping of biological and social systems<\/strong> to sustain important earth system services.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This is an extraordinary claim, offered with no apparent awareness of its historical baggage. The deliberate reshaping of social systems by credentialed experts has been attempted many times before. The results are rarely as tidy as the models predicted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The technocratic impulse is unmistakable.<\/strong> Scientists, we are told, should \u201cprovide a vision for a sustainable world,\u201d \u201cincentivize sustainable consumption,\u201d and help place \u201ceconomic value on earth system services.\u201d The public\u2019s role in this vision is largely passive: to be informed, persuaded, and guided toward preferred behaviors by those who \u201cknow better.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The paper\u2019s final sections make explicit what has been implicit all along. The authors openly identify themselves as political actors with defined ideological commitments:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cShe identifies as a progressive Democrat, climate change scientist, academic, researcher, and local decision-maker.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This transparency is commendable, but it fatally undermines the paper\u2019s claim to be offering a general model for science in society. What is being proposed is not \u201cscientists as policymakers\u201d in the abstract, but scientists who share a specific political worldview using scientific authority to advance it.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is advocacy, not objectivity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The danger here is not that scientists lack intelligence or good intentions. It is that complex systems do not yield to centralized design, no matter how well credentialed the designers may be. When scientists become politicians, storytellers, and moral advocates, the incentives that safeguard scientific skepticism begin to erode. Dissent becomes denial. Uncertainty becomes obstruction. Alternative priorities become \u201canti-science.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A society that values both knowledge and liberty must resist this convergence of expertise and power. Scientists play a vital role in informing public debate. They do not acquire special moral authority to govern simply by virtue of publishing papers. The moment science becomes indistinguishable from political advocacy, it forfeits the very credibility that made it valuable in the first place.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This paper does not defend science. It repurposes it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And that should concern anyone who still believes that skepticism is a virtue rather than an obstacle.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Addendum: Earth Stewardship<\/a> is a new journal, and likely to provide endless fodder for posts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Earth Stewardship<\/em> serves as a forum for the cultural exchange of diverse knowledge systems and collective understanding on how we can protect our planet. Earth Stewardship<\/em> calls for a broad spectrum of scientifically and technologically innovative and groundbreaking contributions including cross-cultural perspectives from leading researchers, policymakers, traditional custodians of land and sea and indigenous communities. Earth Stewardship<\/em> publishes applied and theoretical articles to promote a broad, intercultural, and participatory foundation for earth stewardship.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\"A<\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

That’s a sharp and provocative statement- one that captures a growing concern about the intersection of science and ideology.
\nScientific skepticism is the engine of genuine scientific progress. It’s the commitment to questioning claims, demanding reproducible evidence, and remaining open to falsification, no matter how inconvenient or unpopular.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":420321,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","advanced_seo_description":"Explore how the merging of science and advocacy threatens objectivity and scientific integrity in today's political landscape.","jetpack_seo_html_title":"Science and Politics: The Risk of Losing Skepticism","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":true,"token":"eyJpbWciOiJodHRwczpcL1wvY2xpbWF0ZS1zY2llbmNlLnByZXNzXC93cC1jb250ZW50XC91cGxvYWRzXC8yMDI2XC8wMVwvMEFRTUF1R2w4d3U3ODZWVWpnSUkwUlI4bmhWMjVhSTg5OXY3cGdTX2U2OXVzQk5XMlY4S1g0cm1teTZZQkhFcmsxNC1TOUJab2dvajE3eWNDaUlET1JEQ2Rtb2hhVmlxaEdxNmRTaXh1Y1FkYUpvLXI1QXBJR1Y0NzdlRGtlZkgzLTEtMTAyNHg1MTIuanBlZyIsInR4dCI6IlNjaWVuY2UgV2l0aG91dCBTa2VwdGljaXNtIElzIEp1c3QgUG9saXRpY3MgaW4gYSBMYWIgQ29hdCIsInRlbXBsYXRlIjoiaGlnaHdheSIsImZvbnQiOiIiLCJibG9nX2lkIjoxNTU4MTI0NDl9.0r4y2bb3xwqlVsSc67fzuJNCUCQJstp8B0dZ9iKvLVEMQ"},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691840569,691818169,691818994,691818056,691821042,691826367,691819379,691840568,691818950],"class_list":["post-420308","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-anti-science-action","tag-bad-science","tag-climate-action","tag-climate-change","tag-paris-climate-agreement","tag-policymakers","tag-propaganda","tag-radical-and-dangerous","tag-scientists","fallback-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/0AQMAuGl8wu786VUjgII0RR8nhV25aI899v7pgS_e69usBNW2V8KX4rmmy6YBHErk14-S9BZogoj17ycCiIDORDCdmohaViqhGq6dSixucQdaJo-r5ApIGV477eDkefH3-1.jpeg?fit=1520%2C760&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1Lla","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":380479,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=380479","url_meta":{"origin":420308,"position":0},"title":"A New Era for American Science: The Gold Standard is Back","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"05\/28\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"On May 23, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed a landmark executive order:\u00a0Restoring Gold Standard Science. This order marks a major turning point in how scientific information is produced, evaluated, and applied across the federal government. It sets a clear and uncompromising standard\u2014scientific integrity is no longer optional. It is\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"COVID-19 guidance\"","block_context":{"text":"COVID-19 guidance","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=covid-19-guidance"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/0ChatGPT-Image-28.-Mai-2025-09_53_55.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/0ChatGPT-Image-28.-Mai-2025-09_53_55.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/0ChatGPT-Image-28.-Mai-2025-09_53_55.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/0ChatGPT-Image-28.-Mai-2025-09_53_55.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/0ChatGPT-Image-28.-Mai-2025-09_53_55.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":391908,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=391908","url_meta":{"origin":420308,"position":1},"title":"Skeptics Win, Endangerment Finding Axed \u2013 Truth Finally Prevails in The Climate Wars","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"07\/31\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Today\u2019s decision by the Environmental Protection Agency to remove the Carbon Dioxide Endangerment Finding represents a pivotal shift in America\u2019s approach to climate policy\u2014one rooted in evidence, not ideology. For years, this \u201cfinding\u201d has served as the legal justification for an array of costly, far-reaching regulations targeting everything from our\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)\"","block_context":{"text":"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-dioxide-co%e2%82%82"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/5839337e-edec-4399-8a92-1a599a731f97-2.png?fit=800%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/5839337e-edec-4399-8a92-1a599a731f97-2.png?fit=800%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/5839337e-edec-4399-8a92-1a599a731f97-2.png?fit=800%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/5839337e-edec-4399-8a92-1a599a731f97-2.png?fit=800%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":384185,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=384185","url_meta":{"origin":420308,"position":2},"title":"Why Trump\u2018s \u2018Gold Standard\u2019 Executive Order is Essential to Restoring Truth in Science","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/22\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled \u2018Restoring Gold Standard Science\u2019 on May 23rd, 2025, aiming to overhaul research-integrity policies and ensure that federal government-sponsored science is \u201ctransparent, rigorous and impactful\u201d. The order sparked concern among scientists who fear it could lead to political interference in scientific research and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Big Pharma\"","block_context":{"text":"Big Pharma","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=big-pharma"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/0Screenshot-2025-06-19-161206.jpeg?fit=1183%2C621&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/0Screenshot-2025-06-19-161206.jpeg?fit=1183%2C621&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/0Screenshot-2025-06-19-161206.jpeg?fit=1183%2C621&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/0Screenshot-2025-06-19-161206.jpeg?fit=1183%2C621&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/0Screenshot-2025-06-19-161206.jpeg?fit=1183%2C621&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":330708,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=330708","url_meta":{"origin":420308,"position":3},"title":"Hypocrisy, Thy Name is Ulf B\u00fcntgen","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"05\/31\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"A few weeks ago, an article by Professor Ulf B\u00fcntgen titled The Importance of Distinguishing Climate Science from Climate Activism created a significant stir when it was published in Nature\u2019s npj Climate Action. B\u00fcntgen\u2019s commentary was lauded in climate-skeptic circles for calling out the growing trend of scientists blurring the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/0Screenshot-2024-05-31-191210.png?fit=1112%2C574&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/0Screenshot-2024-05-31-191210.png?fit=1112%2C574&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/0Screenshot-2024-05-31-191210.png?fit=1112%2C574&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/0Screenshot-2024-05-31-191210.png?fit=1112%2C574&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/0Screenshot-2024-05-31-191210.png?fit=1112%2C574&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":398457,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=398457","url_meta":{"origin":420308,"position":4},"title":"The National Academies are politically corrupted \u2013 \u2018Has dived head-first into many progressive policy priorities\u2019","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"08\/28\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine were congressionally chartered in 1863 to do just that. However, as with so many of our venerated institutions in recent years, it has dived head-first into many progressive policy priorities and fallen prey to other destructive influences.","rel":"","context":"In \"2009 Clean Air Act Endangerment Finding\"","block_context":{"text":"2009 Clean Air Act Endangerment Finding","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=2009-clean-air-act-endangerment-finding"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/AQMJyT9ttt2TxAAhND_zo4ixEwz_gJ0O5DAzksp89XBkZoTi7bgAooP4sIhUJiBvg8PTGmfh46nT-Le30WLS5TjSgo5Go5TugWL6wgmT53Oh8kl9_yPAXq9jK-0KzhyG7FnEs8Xrd5ARFm4AURL8BP55R0rT3Q.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/AQMJyT9ttt2TxAAhND_zo4ixEwz_gJ0O5DAzksp89XBkZoTi7bgAooP4sIhUJiBvg8PTGmfh46nT-Le30WLS5TjSgo5Go5TugWL6wgmT53Oh8kl9_yPAXq9jK-0KzhyG7FnEs8Xrd5ARFm4AURL8BP55R0rT3Q.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/AQMJyT9ttt2TxAAhND_zo4ixEwz_gJ0O5DAzksp89XBkZoTi7bgAooP4sIhUJiBvg8PTGmfh46nT-Le30WLS5TjSgo5Go5TugWL6wgmT53Oh8kl9_yPAXq9jK-0KzhyG7FnEs8Xrd5ARFm4AURL8BP55R0rT3Q.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/AQMJyT9ttt2TxAAhND_zo4ixEwz_gJ0O5DAzksp89XBkZoTi7bgAooP4sIhUJiBvg8PTGmfh46nT-Le30WLS5TjSgo5Go5TugWL6wgmT53Oh8kl9_yPAXq9jK-0KzhyG7FnEs8Xrd5ARFm4AURL8BP55R0rT3Q.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/AQMJyT9ttt2TxAAhND_zo4ixEwz_gJ0O5DAzksp89XBkZoTi7bgAooP4sIhUJiBvg8PTGmfh46nT-Le30WLS5TjSgo5Go5TugWL6wgmT53Oh8kl9_yPAXq9jK-0KzhyG7FnEs8Xrd5ARFm4AURL8BP55R0rT3Q.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":425456,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=425456","url_meta":{"origin":420308,"position":5},"title":"Process Wins One: Federal Judicial Center Deletes Climate Chapter from Judicial Manual","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/10\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"The Federal Judicial Center (FJC), the research and education arm of the U.S. federal judiciary, has removed a chapter on climate science from the fourth edition of its Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence.","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0AQMVgOuqu12iybNbN6fYNRnvW2UNsiRszz4jw_HUV2G4hLSYEXfwmcXuXHvkaQ_HiiRpPPsRcyjeNUyH9JGwSkJQkcp4nBxNbxFfda8Cbl66Ynr2j-cmbvHcVx7-GtV5-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C564&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0AQMVgOuqu12iybNbN6fYNRnvW2UNsiRszz4jw_HUV2G4hLSYEXfwmcXuXHvkaQ_HiiRpPPsRcyjeNUyH9JGwSkJQkcp4nBxNbxFfda8Cbl66Ynr2j-cmbvHcVx7-GtV5-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C564&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0AQMVgOuqu12iybNbN6fYNRnvW2UNsiRszz4jw_HUV2G4hLSYEXfwmcXuXHvkaQ_HiiRpPPsRcyjeNUyH9JGwSkJQkcp4nBxNbxFfda8Cbl66Ynr2j-cmbvHcVx7-GtV5-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C564&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0AQMVgOuqu12iybNbN6fYNRnvW2UNsiRszz4jw_HUV2G4hLSYEXfwmcXuXHvkaQ_HiiRpPPsRcyjeNUyH9JGwSkJQkcp4nBxNbxFfda8Cbl66Ynr2j-cmbvHcVx7-GtV5-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C564&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0AQMVgOuqu12iybNbN6fYNRnvW2UNsiRszz4jw_HUV2G4hLSYEXfwmcXuXHvkaQ_HiiRpPPsRcyjeNUyH9JGwSkJQkcp4nBxNbxFfda8Cbl66Ynr2j-cmbvHcVx7-GtV5-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C564&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/420308","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=420308"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/420308\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":420325,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/420308\/revisions\/420325"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/420321"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=420308"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=420308"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=420308"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}