{"id":424976,"date":"2026-02-06T19:42:58","date_gmt":"2026-02-06T18:42:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=424976"},"modified":"2026-02-06T19:43:01","modified_gmt":"2026-02-06T18:43:01","slug":"more-on-the-federal-judicial-center-and-the-attribution-scam","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=424976","title":{"rendered":"More On the Federal Judicial Center and the Attribution Scam"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"Group<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

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

From Manhattan Contrarian<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Francis Menton<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

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

As discussed in the previous post<\/a>, the Federal Judicial Center\u2019s recently- updated Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence<\/a> contains a new chapter on Climate Science. That chapter focuses on the promoting the hocus pocus of \u201cattribution\u201d studies that seek to blame every latest hurricane or flood or drought on human emissions of CO2, and thus on fossil fuel producers in particular.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In my post, I characterized the authors\u2019 write-up of the methodology of these attribution studies as relying on \u201clogical fallacy,\u201d and as \u201cdouble-talk and bafflegab.\u201d But I think that I inadequately articulated the nature of the fallacy. So, I will try to correct that here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The heart of the problem is that science is all about hypotheses being subject to empirical test against real world evidence. But the \u201cattribution\u201d studies and their methodology seek to evade that necessary step. Instead, these studies claim to validate their attributions by reference to things like \u201cphysical understanding\u201d and models that have not been empirically validated. In other words, rather than using empirical evidence to validate a hypothesis, they use one hypothesis supposedly to validate another hypothesis. They have assumed the conclusion they want to reach. This process is sometimes called circular reasoning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To be fair, when buried in the midst of enough confusing verbiage, circular reasoning can often be difficult to detect. That is not an excuse for the fancily- credentialed pooh-bahs who have signed off on this Manual. If you aren\u2019t up to the job of detecting circular reasoning, you are not qualified to contribute to a Manual like this one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here is the central portion of the key language in the new Manual chapter, as quoted from my previous post, with important words highlighted:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

[A]ttribution involves sifting through a range of possi\u00adble causative \u00ad factors to determine the role of one or more \u00ad drivers with re\u00adspect to the detected change. This is typically accomplished by using <\/em>physical understanding<\/em><\/strong>, as well as <\/em>climate models<\/em><\/strong> and\/or <\/em>statistical analy\u00adsis<\/em><\/strong>, to compare how the variable responds when certain \u00addrivers are changed or eliminated entirely.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

So, to make an \u201cattribution,\u201d we compare the event that just happened against our \u201cphysical understanding\u201d and against our \u201cclimate models.\u201d Both of those things are our assumptions or hypotheses, not our proof. (The category of \u201cstatistical analysis\u201d cannot be evaluated without more information. \u201cStatistical analysis\u201d of what? If it\u2019s statistical analysis of our current hypothesis against our previous assumptions, then it\u2019s another example of circular reasoning.) Thus, we have compared our new hypothesis to our pre-existing hypotheses, and they match! Therefore, we claim that the new hypothesis must be correct!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The missing piece is some kind of empirical study that establishes a definitive relationship between rising global temperatures and the type of event that you are seeking to blame on CO2 emissions. Remarkably, that does not exist for any form of extreme weather event, whether it be hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, or anything else. A good compilation of studies failing to show any relationship between global temperatures and extreme weather events can be found in Steven Koonin\u2019s book Unsettled<\/a>. Anyway, you know that there is no such demonstrated empirical connection, because if there were the \u201cattribution\u201d advocates would cite those studies instead of trying to prove attribution with their own a priori assumptions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As discussed in the previous post, the Federal Judicial Center\u2019s recently- updated Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence contains a new chapter on Climate Science. That chapter focuses on the promoting the hocus pocus of \u201cattribution\u201d studies that seek to blame every latest hurricane or flood or drought on human emissions of CO2, and thus on fossil fuel producers in particular.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":424983,"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":"Discover the flawed logic behind climate change attribution studies and their lack of empirical evidence, challenging mainstream scientific narratives.","jetpack_seo_html_title":"Debunking Climate Attribution Studies: Circular Reasoning Exposed","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":"eyJpbWciOiJodHRwczpcL1wvY2xpbWF0ZS1zY2llbmNlLnByZXNzXC93cC1jb250ZW50XC91cGxvYWRzXC8yMDI2XC8wMlwvMC1GZWRlcmFsLUp1ZGljaWFsLUNlbnRlci1BbmQtVGhlLUF0dHJpYnV0aW9uLVNjYW0tMS02ODd4MTAyNC5qcGciLCJ0eHQiOiJNb3JlIE9uIHRoZSBGZWRlcmFsIEp1ZGljaWFsIENlbnRlciBhbmQgdGhlIEF0dHJpYnV0aW9uIFNjYW0iLCJ0ZW1wbGF0ZSI6ImhpZ2h3YXkiLCJmb250IjoiIiwiYmxvZ19pZCI6MTU1ODEyNDQ5fQ.lrjZoMULDKoesEFrQ6GRS4RuNM3id5e6Fzvx_Nn_TqYMQ"},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691829997,691829604,691818153,691841234,691841232,691841233,691841235],"class_list":["post-424976","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-carbon-dioxide-co","tag-climate-lawsuits","tag-climate-models","tag-climate-science-chapter","tag-federal-judicial-centers-fjc","tag-reference-manual-on-scientific-evidence","tag-statistical-analysis","fallback-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0-Federal-Judicial-Center-And-The-Attribution-Scam-1.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1Mys","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":425456,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=425456","url_meta":{"origin":424976,"position":0},"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":[]},{"id":426035,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=426035","url_meta":{"origin":424976,"position":1},"title":"U.S. judges saved from alarmist tome","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/13\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Quick action by a coalition of States has saved the American judicial system from being presented with a huge hunk of climate alarmism in the guise of guidance. Sounds like a lot and it is. The story starts with a massive judicial tome called the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"climate alarmism\"","block_context":{"text":"climate alarmism","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-alarmism"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Climate-justice-paint-mural.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Climate-justice-paint-mural.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Climate-justice-paint-mural.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Climate-justice-paint-mural.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Climate-justice-paint-mural.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":425574,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=425574","url_meta":{"origin":424976,"position":2},"title":"Federal Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Climate Science Chapter – Withdrawn!","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/10\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"On January 29, a coalition of state Attorneys General from red states, led by the AG of West Virginia (JB McCuskey), had sent a letter to Judge Robin Rosenberg, the Director of the Center, asking for immediate withdrawal of the offending chapter.","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":[]},{"id":430017,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=430017","url_meta":{"origin":424976,"position":3},"title":"Ghostwriters for the Courts: The Climate Litigation Network Behind a Withdrawn Judicial Manual","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"03\/07\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Late last year the federal judiciary quietly released a document that almost nobody outside legal circles normally notices: the fourth edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. Within weeks one section of that manual vanished. The reason it vanished reveals something deeply troubling about how climate science, academic institutions,\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\/2026\/03\/AQOtPlj-twVkVNbjMFxg1FfGA2qhjRHqHhEv1jkG_xP2c3_Q-pJlBktiaHEfpipmIiMwHUIqTP_zFBNrxftyKPXc_AXVTtgjjcEcgwOylKHQSRMrkZg9UjlFnntzFx5aUuNQdF0qrxWoVMEYa8D25eVwetWT.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/AQOtPlj-twVkVNbjMFxg1FfGA2qhjRHqHhEv1jkG_xP2c3_Q-pJlBktiaHEfpipmIiMwHUIqTP_zFBNrxftyKPXc_AXVTtgjjcEcgwOylKHQSRMrkZg9UjlFnntzFx5aUuNQdF0qrxWoVMEYa8D25eVwetWT.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/AQOtPlj-twVkVNbjMFxg1FfGA2qhjRHqHhEv1jkG_xP2c3_Q-pJlBktiaHEfpipmIiMwHUIqTP_zFBNrxftyKPXc_AXVTtgjjcEcgwOylKHQSRMrkZg9UjlFnntzFx5aUuNQdF0qrxWoVMEYa8D25eVwetWT.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/AQOtPlj-twVkVNbjMFxg1FfGA2qhjRHqHhEv1jkG_xP2c3_Q-pJlBktiaHEfpipmIiMwHUIqTP_zFBNrxftyKPXc_AXVTtgjjcEcgwOylKHQSRMrkZg9UjlFnntzFx5aUuNQdF0qrxWoVMEYa8D25eVwetWT.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/AQOtPlj-twVkVNbjMFxg1FfGA2qhjRHqHhEv1jkG_xP2c3_Q-pJlBktiaHEfpipmIiMwHUIqTP_zFBNrxftyKPXc_AXVTtgjjcEcgwOylKHQSRMrkZg9UjlFnntzFx5aUuNQdF0qrxWoVMEYa8D25eVwetWT.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":440411,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=440411","url_meta":{"origin":424976,"position":4},"title":"The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court must act to restore real science to judicial oversight","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"04\/19\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Judges are not scientists, and the Supreme Court has never claimed they should resolve scientific debates. Their role is procedural and evidentiary: to demand that proffered \u201cscience\u201d in court meets basic standards of reliability before it influences outcomes in toxic torts, regulatory challenges, or mass litigation. Post-Loper Bright, this gatekeeping\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"\u201cScientific consensus\u201d\"","block_context":{"text":"\u201cScientific consensus\u201d","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=scientific-consensus-2"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-The-Chief-Justice-of-the-Supreme-Court-must-act-to-restore-real-science-to-judicial-oversight.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-The-Chief-Justice-of-the-Supreme-Court-must-act-to-restore-real-science-to-judicial-oversight.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-The-Chief-Justice-of-the-Supreme-Court-must-act-to-restore-real-science-to-judicial-oversight.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-The-Chief-Justice-of-the-Supreme-Court-must-act-to-restore-real-science-to-judicial-oversight.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":441979,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=441979","url_meta":{"origin":424976,"position":5},"title":"[COPY] Climate Science Is Creeping Into Courtrooms","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"04\/30\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"The inadequacies of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (Fourth Edition) extend far beyond the chapter on climate science you discuss in your editorial \u201cA Judicial Climate Science Scandal\u201d (Review & Outlook, March 14). Another chapter, \u201cHow Science Works,\u201d has earned sharp criticism from Jessica Weinkle, an associate professor of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"climate activists\"","block_context":{"text":"climate activists","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-activists"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Climate-Charlatans.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Climate-Charlatans.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Climate-Charlatans.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Climate-Charlatans.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/424976","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=424976"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/424976\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":424985,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/424976\/revisions\/424985"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/424983"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=424976"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=424976"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=424976"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}