{"id":459365,"date":"2026-07-31T08:28:25","date_gmt":"2026-07-31T15:28:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=459365"},"modified":"2026-07-31T08:28:27","modified_gmt":"2026-07-31T15:28:27","slug":"the-blaze-is-right-justice-kagan-was-careless-endorsing-bad-climate-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=459365","title":{"rendered":"The Blaze is Right, Justice Kagan Was Careless Endorsing Bad Climate Science"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

From ClimateRealism<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Linnea Lueken<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A recent article at The Blaze, \u201cElena Kagan gave bogus science a blind endorsement<\/a>,\u201d says Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan\u2019s glowing forward endorsing the Federal Judicial Center\u2019s (FJC) \u201cReference Manual on Scientific Evidence<\/a>\u00a0(RMSE)\u201d was inappropriate and careless, since she has subsequently said she hadn\u2019t read the document. The RMSE is biased, giving undo weight to so-called \u201cscientific consensus\u201d<\/strong> over empirical data<\/strong>. At least one of the chapters was written in large part by plaintiffs\u2019 advocates and supporters in ongoing climate litigation, including a case soon to be argued before the Supreme Court. The Blaze\u2019s recommended fixes, rewriting the document to restore neutrality and restoring an emphasis on data and evidence, as well as its suggestion that judges be cautious in relying on such manuals, are on the mark. In addition, Kagan shouldrecuse herself from the pending climate case, since her claimed uninformed endorsement of one side of the argument in advance gives the appearance of impropriety.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The post, written by the CO2 Coalition\u2019s executive director Angela Wheeler, describes how at a recent Senate hearing Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan admitted that she never actually read the FJC manual that she wrote a forward for. Her forward, troublingly, describes the manual as objective and neutral, and suggests that it would be a reliable resource \u201cfor judges handling cases involving complex scientific evidence,\u201d including climate related litigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wheeler examined previous editions of the manual, finding them scientifically rigorous. Those earlier editions stressed the need to rely on hard science, data, and the scientific method. By contrast, the recent edition that Kagan signed off on had multiple chapters that placed emphasis on \u201csocial considerations and consensus among experts while giving less attention to the rigorous testing that separates science from assertion.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is an issue previously raised at Climate Realism and<\/em> discussed here and <\/a>here.<\/a> Climate Change Weekly<\/em> raised concerns about problems with the RMSE here<\/a>, here<\/a>, and here<\/a>. The fourth edition of the FJC manual originally had an entire chapter devoted to climate change, which alarmingly was penned by activists and climate-plaintiff lawyers who were involved in ongoing climate lawsuits filed against energy companies. Those authors and contributors have clear interests in the science being interpreted their way to produce the outcomes they desire. Objective discussion of climate data had no place in the manual.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Attribution studies claiming that individual weather events could be attributed at least in part to specific emissions are unscientific, based on notably flawed and inadequate computer models that have consistently produced inaccurate forecasts. Climate Realism<\/em> has discussed the myriad problems with attribution \u201cscience\u201d here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Models, of course, aren\u2019t data, and neither is scientific consensus. Wheeler explains that consensus and collaboration matter and can lead to useful evidence, \u201c[b]ut \u2018widespread agreement\u2019 cannot substitute for disciplined scrutiny, especially in court.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the case of the so-called \u201cclimate consensus,\u201d there is a lot less consensus than activists would have us believe. The actual areas of scientific agreement<\/a> are much more nuanced. Few scientists believe in anything like a \u201cclimate catastrophe,\u201d or that individual storms can be blamed on any particular oil and gas company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most egregious chapter of the FJC manual was removed after public outcry, but the consensus narrative and subtle pushes towards activist-driven science remain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wheeler suggests that it is not too late for FJC to restore trust. To do so, the manual needs to emphasize data and \u201cempirical verification, seek broader input from experts without policy entanglements, and reaffirm the manual\u2019s limited role as a procedural guide rather than an arbiter of scientific truth.\u201d She goes on to say that manuals like this shouldn\u2019t be used as shortcuts or substitutes for research, but as mere \u201cstarting points.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These steps are likely to help FJC look more trustworthy. However, it is still a problem that Justice Kagan was so negligent in praising a manual she now claims to have not read, especially when it addressed how to interpret science matters pending to a case before the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With a major climate litigation case coming up in October, it is more important than ever that judges are not tricked into accepting overstated and politicized climate attribution studies, among other theoretical model-based presentations, as evidence. The standard for science, whether inside or outside the courtroom, should never be mere speculation, but solid proof.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A recent article at The Blaze, \u201cElena Kagan gave bogus science a blind endorsement,\u201d says Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan\u2019s glowing forward endorsing the Federal Judicial Center\u2019s (FJC) \u201cReference Manual on Scientific Evidence (RMSE)\u201d was inappropriate and careless, since she has subsequently said she hadn\u2019t read the document. The RMSE is biased, giving undo weight to so-called \u201cscientific consensus\u201d over empirical data.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":459367,"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_seo_schema_type":"","_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_wpcom_ai_launchpad_first_post":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":[691841355,691823626,691842348,691844206,691844364,691844365,691844363],"class_list":["post-459365","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-angela-wheeler","tag-attribution-studies","tag-scientific-consensus-2","tag-empirical-data","tag-federal-judicial-centers-fjc-2","tag-reference-manual-on-scientific-evidence-rmse","tag-supreme-court-justice-elena-kagan","fallback-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1Vv7","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":458601,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=458601","url_meta":{"origin":459365,"position":0},"title":"Elena Kagan Gave Bogus Science a Blind Endorsement","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"07\/28\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"The broader controversy concerns the Federal Judicial Center's fourth edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. The climate chapter was withdrawn in early 2026 following criticism from Republican attorneys general and conservative organizations. Separately, some conservative legal groups have argued that Kagan's foreword raises questions about whether she should\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Chief Justice John Roberts\"","block_context":{"text":"Chief Justice John Roberts","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=chief-justice-john-roberts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/0-ChatGPT-Image-28.-Juli-2026-20_36_22.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/0-ChatGPT-Image-28.-Juli-2026-20_36_22.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/0-ChatGPT-Image-28.-Juli-2026-20_36_22.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/0-ChatGPT-Image-28.-Juli-2026-20_36_22.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/0-ChatGPT-Image-28.-Juli-2026-20_36_22.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":425574,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=425574","url_meta":{"origin":459365,"position":1},"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":457900,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=457900","url_meta":{"origin":459365,"position":2},"title":"The hidden rule change that could spike your energy bills","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"07\/26\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"A single, obscure handbook sitting on federal judges\u2019 desks could help decide whether your energy bills skyrocket \u2014 and President Trump just moved to do something about it. On July 19, President Trump called for a review of the Federal Judicial Center and the scientific reference manual it publishes because\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"\u201cRadical Left Dumocrats\u201d\"","block_context":{"text":"\u201cRadical Left Dumocrats\u201d","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=radical-left-dumocrats"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/0-The-hidden-rule-change-that-could-spike-your-energy-bills.jpg?fit=1168%2C784&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/0-The-hidden-rule-change-that-could-spike-your-energy-bills.jpg?fit=1168%2C784&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/0-The-hidden-rule-change-that-could-spike-your-energy-bills.jpg?fit=1168%2C784&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/0-The-hidden-rule-change-that-could-spike-your-energy-bills.jpg?fit=1168%2C784&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/0-The-hidden-rule-change-that-could-spike-your-energy-bills.jpg?fit=1168%2C784&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":440411,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=440411","url_meta":{"origin":459365,"position":3},"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":449200,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=449200","url_meta":{"origin":459365,"position":4},"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":425456,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=425456","url_meta":{"origin":459365,"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":[]}],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/0-ChatGPT-The-Blaze-is-Right-Justice-Kagan-Was-Careless-Endorsing-Bad-Climate-Science.png?fit=1536%2C1024&ssl=1","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/459365","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=459365"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/459365\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":459372,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/459365\/revisions\/459372"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/459367"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=459365"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=459365"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=459365"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}