{"id":468652,"date":"2026-09-06T04:43:17","date_gmt":"2026-09-06T11:43:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=468652"},"modified":"2026-09-06T04:43:19","modified_gmt":"2026-09-06T11:43:19","slug":"manual-for-judges-saying-how-science-works-is-very-wrong-on-climate-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=468652","title":{"rendered":"Manual for judges saying \u201cHow Science Works\u201d is very wrong on climate science"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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

By David Wojick<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The new \u201cReference Manual on Scientific Evidence: 4th Edition\u201d from the Federal Judicial Center has a chapter \u201cHow Science Works\u201d that was written by a climate alarmist, and it shows. It is trying to sell the nonsense that science is all about consensus, when it is really all about debate. Nor is there a consensus supporting climate alarmism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another chapter \u2014 \u201cReference Guide on Climate Science\u201d \u2014 was withdrawn after a letter from 27 state attorneys general pointed out that it was pure alarmist advocacy. The \u201cHow Science Works\u201d chapter should be withdrawn for the same reason.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Manual is here.<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u201cHow Science Works\u201d chapter is pages 47 to 111 in Volume one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the two authors, Professor Michael Weisberg <\/strong><\/a>is a leading alarmist activist. His university website calls him a \u201cclimate diplomat\u201d because he is active in UN climate negotiations including the infamous \u201closs and damage\u201d reparations funding scheme.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cHow Science Works\u201d gets off to a quick bad start. The very first paragraph contains this gem of alarmism: \u201c\u2026. public relations campaigns have misled the public about the true state of scientific consensus regarding certain scientific issues.\u201d Citation: Naomi Oreskes & Erik  M. Conway, \u201cMerchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming\u201d (2010)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This ridiculous Oreskes book is a pillar of climate alarmism. So, the bogus thrust of the chapter is that climate alarmism is a consensus and skepticism is a public relations stunt. This is pure advocacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most of the rest of the chapter is a long, false claim that science works by consensus. It mostly works by debate, as scientists struggle to explain how the natural world works. These proposed explanations are debated by the scientific community, sometimes in complex ways and often for a long time without resolution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consensus does have a very long-term role to play because science is an ever-growing body of knowledge. But scientific activity is mostly a lively marketplace of argument.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fundamental scientific method is very simple. Given some observations people propose various hypotheses to explain them. These hypotheses are then tested against additional observations. In theory, if the testing observations do not support the hypothesis, it is rejected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In modern science, this seemingly simple process can become very complex, especially when trying to explain complex natural systems. For example, individual scientists may perform just part of process. Then, too, observations are often \u201ctheory laden,\u201d so they can be challenged. In addition, hypotheses can be very complex, making it hard to know where the error lies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not only are hypotheses and observations often debated, but these debates can also last a long time. In major cases, they lead to alternative schools of thought (which is where human caused climate change is today).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, the hot debate between particle and wave theories of light lasted over 200 years. The climate change debate is now well over 40 years old.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Note that you cannot see the debates using the journal literature because criticizing or disagreeing with another scientist is generally not allowed in journal articles. Articles just report specific research results. Of the 3 million or so articles published a year very few are likely to refer to the ongoing debates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It used to be that the widespread debates were publicly invisible. They mostly occurred during conference presentation question periods or via personal correspondence. The rise of online debating of science has changed this a lot. Chatbots might be useful for finding these debates. For example, there are hundreds of distinct controversies in climate change science, many of which are publicly debated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The unscientific term \u201cconsensus\u201d occurs over 70 times in \u201cHow science works.\u201d The key word \u201cdebate\u201d occurs just four times near the end. Ironically, one of these is a statement that \u201cin science, debates relating to scientific evidence generally play out over many years\u2026.\u201d. Max Planck put it very nicely: \u201cYour ideas will (only) be accepted when your students become journal editors.\u201d The climate science debate has lasted even longer, so the claim of consensus is wildly false.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This chapter on \u201cHow science works\u201d is basically a misleading attempt to advance the false claim that there is a consensus supporting climate alarmism. As such, it is political advocacy, not sound judicial guidance. The chapter should be removed just as the advocacy chapter on climate science has been removed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The new \u201cReference Manual on Scientific Evidence: 4th Edition\u201d from the Federal Judicial Center has a chapter \u201cHow Science Works\u201d that was written by a climate alarmist, and it shows. <\/p>\n

Another chapter \u2014 \u201cReference Guide on Climate Science\u201d \u2014 was withdrawn after a letter from 27 state attorneys general pointed out that it was pure alarmist advocacy. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":468653,"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":"The new \"Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: 4th Edition\" from the Federal Judicial Center has a chapter \"How Science Works\" that was written by a climate alarmist, and it shows.\n\nAnother chapter \u2014 \"Reference Guide on Climate Science\" \u2014 was withdrawn after a letter from 27 state attorneys general pointed out that it was pure alarmist advocacy.","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":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691845175,691845178,691819134,691818244,691841155,691845177,691845176,691845174,691833141],"class_list":["post-468652","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-27-state-attorneys-general","tag-how-science-works-2","tag-climate-alarmism","tag-climate-alarmist","tag-federal-judicial-center","tag-professor-michael-weisberg","tag-pure-alarmist-advocacy","tag-reference-manual-on-scientific-evidence-4th-edition","tag-un-climate-negotiations","fallback-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1XUU","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":442049,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=442049","url_meta":{"origin":468652,"position":0},"title":"Another Climate Activist Trojan Horse Gets Exposed","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"04\/30\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"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.","rel":"","context":"In \"300-year-old scientific method\"","block_context":{"text":"300-year-old scientific method","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=300-year-old-scientific-method"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/AQM46O8mvpTFWUXTvUYan_7-yEDVDtlBfAtSZOKF4CLjsRmx_LbS_yp3O6YKZDXe8Amh90UB8bERggl87h3cMpVY0GXejKeKCgs8MLC5XCIQ0w7oopBgJ7A-ljM8qybY.jpeg?fit=1200%2C794&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/AQM46O8mvpTFWUXTvUYan_7-yEDVDtlBfAtSZOKF4CLjsRmx_LbS_yp3O6YKZDXe8Amh90UB8bERggl87h3cMpVY0GXejKeKCgs8MLC5XCIQ0w7oopBgJ7A-ljM8qybY.jpeg?fit=1200%2C794&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/AQM46O8mvpTFWUXTvUYan_7-yEDVDtlBfAtSZOKF4CLjsRmx_LbS_yp3O6YKZDXe8Amh90UB8bERggl87h3cMpVY0GXejKeKCgs8MLC5XCIQ0w7oopBgJ7A-ljM8qybY.jpeg?fit=1200%2C794&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/AQM46O8mvpTFWUXTvUYan_7-yEDVDtlBfAtSZOKF4CLjsRmx_LbS_yp3O6YKZDXe8Amh90UB8bERggl87h3cMpVY0GXejKeKCgs8MLC5XCIQ0w7oopBgJ7A-ljM8qybY.jpeg?fit=1200%2C794&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/AQM46O8mvpTFWUXTvUYan_7-yEDVDtlBfAtSZOKF4CLjsRmx_LbS_yp3O6YKZDXe8Amh90UB8bERggl87h3cMpVY0GXejKeKCgs8MLC5XCIQ0w7oopBgJ7A-ljM8qybY.jpeg?fit=1200%2C794&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":451408,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=451408","url_meta":{"origin":468652,"position":1},"title":"NASEM and \u201cIndependent Science\u201d","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/21\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"There is a word that does a lot of heavy lifting in American public life, and the word is \u201cindependent.\u201d When an organization describes itself as an independent, nonpartisan, evidence-based source of scientific advice, what it is really telling you is that you are supposed to stop checking. The brand\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Bias\"","block_context":{"text":"Bias","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=bias"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/0-Screenshot-2026-06-21-152043.png?fit=1200%2C633&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/0-Screenshot-2026-06-21-152043.png?fit=1200%2C633&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/0-Screenshot-2026-06-21-152043.png?fit=1200%2C633&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/0-Screenshot-2026-06-21-152043.png?fit=1200%2C633&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/0-Screenshot-2026-06-21-152043.png?fit=1200%2C633&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":441979,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=441979","url_meta":{"origin":468652,"position":2},"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":[]},{"id":426035,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=426035","url_meta":{"origin":468652,"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":434217,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=434217","url_meta":{"origin":468652,"position":4},"title":"Climate Science Is Creeping Into Courtrooms","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"03\/26\/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":[]},{"id":429638,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=429638","url_meta":{"origin":468652,"position":5},"title":"Muddling the Judiciary\u2019s Understanding of Science","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"03\/05\/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":[]}],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/0-ChatGPT-Manual-for-judges-saying-How-Science-Works-is-very-wrong-on-climate-science.png?fit=1536%2C1024&ssl=1","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/468652","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=468652"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/468652\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":468658,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/468652\/revisions\/468658"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/468653"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=468652"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=468652"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=468652"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}