{"id":442049,"date":"2026-04-30T09:28:41","date_gmt":"2026-04-30T16:28:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=442049"},"modified":"2026-04-30T09:28:43","modified_gmt":"2026-04-30T16:28:43","slug":"another-climate-activist-trojan-horse-gets-exposed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=442049","title":{"rendered":"Another Climate Activist Trojan Horse Gets Exposed"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

From CO2 Coalition<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Angela Wheeler<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A new edition of a science education manual for judges departs \u201csharply\u201d from a \u201clongstanding tradition of neutrality,\u201d say three of America\u2019s most distinguished physicists in a letter to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Writing in an open letter to Justice Roberts<\/a> were Drs. Richard Lindzen of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, William Happer of Princeton University and Steven Koonin of Stanford University\u2019s Hoover Institution. Roberts is chairman of the Federal Judicial Center, publisher of the Fourth Edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence<\/em>, whose new chapter on \u201cHow Science Works\u201d the letter writers want to be removed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For decades, the Reference Manual<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The letter\u2019s 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\u2019s respected chapter with an overwritten, intellectually deficient 65-page version.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The new chapter\u2019s 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\u2014especially in the context of climate litigation involving trillions of dollars in potential liabilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The substantive problems are even more serious. Where Goodstein, once a California Institute of Technology physics professor, emphasized the scientific method\u2014generating hypotheses and testing them with data\u2014the new chapter dismisses the scientific method as a \u201cmyth.\u201d It elevates \u201cscientific consensus\u201d and \u201cwidespread acceptance\u201d as the highest form of certainty, transforming inquiry into a popularity contest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This inverts the traditional practice of science. As Nobel laureate Richard Feynman observed, the key to science is comparing predictions directly with observation: \u201cIf it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s earlier edition said, \u201cData are the coin of the realm in science,\u201d and theories must make new predictions that can be falsified or verified. Consensus, by contrast, is a sociological phenomenon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As Michael Crichton famously warned, \u201cIf it\u2019s consensus, it isn\u2019t science. If it\u2019s science, it isn\u2019t consensus.\u201d History bears this out. Popular \u201cconsensus\u201d on plate tectonics, causes of disease and 20th-century fears of global cooling were overturned by evidence, not votes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Further revealing the chapter\u2019s activist inclinations is its opening citation of Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway\u2019s Merchants of Doubt<\/em>, a book that insists there is \u201czero argument among actual scientists\u201d about catastrophic climate change\u2014a claim countered  by mountains of real-world data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Labeling credentialed dissenters as outside \u201cactual science\u201d has no place in an educational document for judges. Science advances by challenging prevailing views with data, not by enforcing community norms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201cHow Science Works\u201d chapter, written largely to support that now-removed material, remains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s earlier version, which captured the essence of scientific reasoning in language accessible to readers without the scientific background that most jurists lack.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Justice Roberts and the Federal Judicial Center have an opportunity to reaffirm their commitment to neutrality and restore confidence in the Manual<\/em>. 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Originally published on Daily Caller<\/em><\/a> on April 27, 2026.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Angela Wheeler<\/a> is executive director of the <\/em>CO2<\/sub><\/em> Coalition<\/em><\/a>, Fairfax, Virginia. She is a cum laude graduate of Emporia State University, Kansas, where she studied communication, with additional biology and pre-medicine coursework.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A new edition of a science education manual for judges departs \u201csharply\u201d from a \u201clongstanding tradition of neutrality,\u201d say three of America\u2019s most distinguished physicists in a letter to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":442050,"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":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","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":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691842674,691842348,691842675,691841155,691842673,691818426,691830178,691818670],"class_list":["post-442049","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-300-year-old-scientific-method","tag-scientific-consensus-2","tag-widespread-acceptance","tag-federal-judicial-center","tag-national-academies-of-science-nas","tag-science","tag-speculation","tag-supreme-court","fallback-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/AQM46O8mvpTFWUXTvUYan_7-yEDVDtlBfAtSZOKF4CLjsRmx_LbS_yp3O6YKZDXe8Amh90UB8bERggl87h3cMpVY0GXejKeKCgs8MLC5XCIQ0w7oopBgJ7A-ljM8qybY.jpeg?fit=1385%2C916&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1QZP","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":440411,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=440411","url_meta":{"origin":442049,"position":0},"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":439470,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=439470","url_meta":{"origin":442049,"position":1},"title":"Happer, Lindzen, Koonin Letter to the Federal Judicial Center","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"04\/14\/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":449200,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=449200","url_meta":{"origin":442049,"position":2},"title":"A Quiet Rewrite That Could Shape a Thousand Climate Cases","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/08\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"The timing could not be more consequential. The letter from the scientists points out that more than 1,000 climate-related cases are now working through state and federal courts, many pursuing damages from energy producers under theories that require attributing specific harms to specific emissions.","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\/06\/00-A-Quiet-Rewrite-That-Could-Shape-a-Thousand-Climate-Cases.jpg?fit=1168%2C784&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/00-A-Quiet-Rewrite-That-Could-Shape-a-Thousand-Climate-Cases.jpg?fit=1168%2C784&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/00-A-Quiet-Rewrite-That-Could-Shape-a-Thousand-Climate-Cases.jpg?fit=1168%2C784&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/00-A-Quiet-Rewrite-That-Could-Shape-a-Thousand-Climate-Cases.jpg?fit=1168%2C784&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/00-A-Quiet-Rewrite-That-Could-Shape-a-Thousand-Climate-Cases.jpg?fit=1168%2C784&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":426035,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=426035","url_meta":{"origin":442049,"position":3},"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":442049,"position":4},"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":426787,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=426787","url_meta":{"origin":442049,"position":5},"title":"Judge Rejects Climate Dogma, Begins to Restore Integrity","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/17\/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":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/442049","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=442049"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/442049\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":442054,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/442049\/revisions\/442054"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/442050"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=442049"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=442049"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=442049"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}