{"id":425574,"date":"2026-02-10T17:29:18","date_gmt":"2026-02-10T16:29:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=425574"},"modified":"2026-02-10T17:29:21","modified_gmt":"2026-02-10T16:29:21","slug":"federal-reference-manual-on-scientific-evidence-climate-science-chapter-withdrawn","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=425574","title":{"rendered":"Federal Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Climate Science Chapter – Withdrawn!"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"Interior<\/figure>\n\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\n\n\n

Here at Manhattan Contrarian, we get results. After my last three posts harshly critiquing the Federal Judicial Center\u2019s newly revised Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, and particularly its chapter on Climate Science, suddenly on Friday the Center\u2019s Director sent a letter<\/a> stating that the Center has now \u201comitted\u201d that chapter!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, OK, I was not the only one objecting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Here is a link to the AGs\u2019 letter.<\/a> McCuskey had rounded up signatures of AGs of some 26 other states in support of the demand for withdrawal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Judge Rosenberg addressed her letter disclosing the withdrawal to McCuskey. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

McCuskey posted a tweet announcing the withdrawal <\/a>and attaching Judge Rosenberg\u2019s letter at 7:07 PM on Friday evening (February 6). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

No surprise that this kind of thing would get issued at or about the close of business on a Friday. Charles Rotter of Watts Up With That<\/a> put up a post about the withdrawal on Saturday. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board posted an editorial<\/a> on the subject late this afternoon, and presumably that editorial will appear in tomorrow\u2019s print edition. So far, I can find no mention of this embarrassing incident in the MSM.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Judge Rosenberg is the only signatory to her letter, and the letter is a one-liner that gives no explanation for the withdrawal:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

In response to your letter dated January 29, 2026, I write to inform you that the Federal Judicial Center has omitted the climate science chapter from the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Fourth Edition (RMSE).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

However, you have to think that Judge Rosenberg did not just do this on her own authority. McCuskey had copied the full Board of the FJC on the AGs\u2019 letter. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Chair of that Board is Chief Justice John Roberts. It is hard to imagine that Roberts was not involved in the decision to pull this chapter, let alone other members of the Board, all of whom are federal judges. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

And then there\u2019s Justice Elena Kagan, who is not a member of the FJC Board, but had put her name on a Foreword to the new Manual. It would not surprise me if all of the justices of the Supreme Court had a role.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although Judge Rosenberg\u2019s letter leaves us guessing at the rationale for the withdrawal, I would like to think that my posts made some contribution. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The AGs\u2019 letter is a good one, but the rationale put forth for the withdrawal is a limited one. Basically, the position taken by the AGs is that the Climate Science chapter went beyond the mission of the Manual of giving neutral advice to the judiciary and veered into taking a substantive position on one of the most contested litigation issues of recent times. Here is an excerpt from the AGs\u2019 letter:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

[T]he Fourth Edition [of the Reference Manual] places the judiciary firmly on one side of some of the most hotly disputed questions in current litigation: climate-related science and \u201cattribution.\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Such work undermines the judiciary\u2019s impartiality and places a thumb on one side of the scale. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It does so even as these issues are pending before the Supreme Court and other parts of the federal judiciary. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We ask that the Center immediately withdraw the inappropriate \u201cReference Manual on Climate Science\u201d included in the Fourth Edition.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Judges should resolve these issues through the ordinary processes of litigation\u2014not by way of a judicially driven, committee-led, quasi-amicus brief. . . . [T]he authors offer unsolicited, ex parte expert opinions on matters that they recognize are directly at issue in ongoing suits.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s good as far as it goes; but they never quite get to saying explicitly that the \u201cattribution\u201d studies endorsed by the chapter are logically incorrect pseudoscience. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The studies are pseudoscience because they talk around in circles to evade ever being subject to a test of falsifiability. The Federal Judiciary just came within a hair of endorsing what Richard Feynman famously called \u201ccargo cult science.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a great illustration of the problem of non- falsifiability of attribution of weather events to fossil-fuel driven climate change, a reader sends along to me screenshots of two articles from the New York Times, one from two years ago and the other from yesterday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Article<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"People<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Over at the New York Times, they don\u2019t have anybody smart enough to realize that this sort of evasion of the principle of falsifiability undermines the whole game of \u201cattribution.\u201d But maybe some of the people who count in the federal judiciary have figured it out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now let\u2019s see if we can get some results on the Endangerment Finding.<\/p>\n\n\n

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

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

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. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":425468,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"Discover how the Federal Judicial Center withdrew its Climate Science chapter after widespread criticism from state Attorneys General and experts.","jetpack_seo_html_title":"Federal Judicial Center Withdraws Controversial Climate Chapter","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_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":"eyJpbWciOiJodHRwczpcL1wvY2xpbWF0ZS1zY2llbmNlLnByZXNzXC93cC1jb250ZW50XC91cGxvYWRzXC8yMDI2XC8wMlwvMEFRTVZnT3VxdTEyaXliTmJONmZZTlJudlcyVU5zaVJzeno0andfSFVWMkc0aExTWUVYZndtY1h1WEh2a2FRX0hpaVJwUFBzUmN5amVOVXlIOUpHd1NrSlFrY3A0bkJ4TmJ4RmZkYThDYmw2NllucjJqLWNtYnZIY1Z4Ny1HdFY1LTEtMTAyNHg0ODEuanBlZyIsInR4dCI6IkZlZGVyYWwgUmVmZXJlbmNlIE1hbnVhbCBvbiBTY2llbnRpZmljIEV2aWRlbmNlLCBDbGltYXRlIFNjaWVuY2UgQ2hhcHRlciAmIzgyMTE7IFdpdGhkcmF3biEiLCJ0ZW1wbGF0ZSI6ImhpZ2h3YXkiLCJmb250IjoiIiwiYmxvZ19pZCI6MTU1ODEyNDQ5fQ.vx4SeoBNSceOd_gzABDENfXSPcIwTClm0eOQz5iErEQMQ"},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691818056,691829604,691841311,691841228,691841322,691841312],"class_list":{"0":"post-425574","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-climate-change","9":"tag-climate-lawsuits","10":"tag-federal-judicial-center-fjc","11":"tag-fourth-edition","12":"tag-judge-robin-rosenberg","13":"tag-reference-manual-on-scientific-evidence-fourth-edition","15":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0AQMVgOuqu12iybNbN6fYNRnvW2UNsiRszz4jw_HUV2G4hLSYEXfwmcXuXHvkaQ_HiiRpPPsRcyjeNUyH9JGwSkJQkcp4nBxNbxFfda8Cbl66Ynr2j-cmbvHcVx7-GtV5-1.jpeg?fit=1789%2C841&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1MI6","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":425456,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=425456","url_meta":{"origin":425574,"position":0},"title":"Process Wins One: Federal Judicial Center Deletes Climate Chapter from Judicial Manual","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"10\/02\/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":426787,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=426787","url_meta":{"origin":425574,"position":1},"title":"Judge Rejects Climate Dogma, Begins to Restore Integrity","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"17\/02\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"In a bold stroke against the pseudoscience of climate alarmism, U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg has removed a deeply flawed discussion on climate change from the fourth edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence.","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\/2026\/02\/0-Federal-Reference-Manual-on-Scientific-Evidence1.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0-Federal-Reference-Manual-on-Scientific-Evidence1.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0-Federal-Reference-Manual-on-Scientific-Evidence1.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0-Federal-Reference-Manual-on-Scientific-Evidence1.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":429638,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=429638","url_meta":{"origin":425574,"position":2},"title":"Muddling the Judiciary\u2019s Understanding of Science","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"05\/03\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"While an educational manual for federal judges was improved when a biased representation of climate change was removed, a remaining chapter on the fundamentals of science would poison the judiciary with quackery.","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate Alarmists\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate Alarmists","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-alarmists"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/02a8bce31-97cb-452a-b3d2-3f3a84bd77ce_1280x853.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/02a8bce31-97cb-452a-b3d2-3f3a84bd77ce_1280x853.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/02a8bce31-97cb-452a-b3d2-3f3a84bd77ce_1280x853.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/02a8bce31-97cb-452a-b3d2-3f3a84bd77ce_1280x853.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/02a8bce31-97cb-452a-b3d2-3f3a84bd77ce_1280x853.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":439470,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=439470","url_meta":{"origin":425574,"position":3},"title":"Happer, Lindzen, Koonin Letter to the Federal Judicial Center","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"14\/04\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"The Happer, Lindzen, and Koonin letter (dated April 1, 2026) is an open letter addressed to Chief Justice John G. Roberts in his role as Chair of the Federal Judicial Center (FJC). It critiques aspects of the Fourth Edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, a long-standing resource used\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"climate lawsuits\"","block_context":{"text":"climate lawsuits","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-lawsuits"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-Happer-Lindzen-Koonin-Letter-to-the-Federal-Judicial-Center-1.jpg?fit=800%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-Happer-Lindzen-Koonin-Letter-to-the-Federal-Judicial-Center-1.jpg?fit=800%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-Happer-Lindzen-Koonin-Letter-to-the-Federal-Judicial-Center-1.jpg?fit=800%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-Happer-Lindzen-Koonin-Letter-to-the-Federal-Judicial-Center-1.jpg?fit=800%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":440411,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=440411","url_meta":{"origin":425574,"position":4},"title":"The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court must act to restore real science to judicial oversight","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"19\/04\/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":434217,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=434217","url_meta":{"origin":425574,"position":5},"title":"Climate Science Is Creeping Into Courtrooms","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"26\/03\/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 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\/A-Turning-Point-for-Litigation-Campaig-SCOTUS-Takes-Up-Boulder-Climate-Lawsuit.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/A-Turning-Point-for-Litigation-Campaig-SCOTUS-Takes-Up-Boulder-Climate-Lawsuit.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/A-Turning-Point-for-Litigation-Campaig-SCOTUS-Takes-Up-Boulder-Climate-Lawsuit.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/A-Turning-Point-for-Litigation-Campaig-SCOTUS-Takes-Up-Boulder-Climate-Lawsuit.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/425574","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=425574"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/425574\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":425587,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/425574\/revisions\/425587"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/425468"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=425574"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=425574"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=425574"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}