Federal Judge Rejects Climate Dogma In Court Science Guide

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. [some emphasis, links added]

Supposedly the gold standard in science education for the federal judiciary, the reference manual is a joint product of the Federal Judicial Center – overseen by Judge Rosenberg – and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

Its stated purpose is to assist judges in managing cases involving complex scientific evidence and distinguishing between sound science and speculation.

Yet the fourth edition’s chapter on climate change was closer to lead than gold, drawing objections from state attorneys general and others. It was a manifesto of bias, drafted by a panel of alarmists who treated computer models as gospel and disregarded empirical reality.

The Model-Reality Divergence

The core problem with the now-deleted chapter – and indeed with the scientific approach of the climate lobby – is a reliance on the flawed assumptions of models over empirical observation of reality.

Data analyzed by Dr. Roy Spencer, covering the period from 1979 through early 2025, exposes an epic failure of these models.

Satellite readings measuring the actual temperature of the troposphere differ sharply from the outputs of computer simulations, the former a modest temperature rise and the latter predicting runaway warming.

The gap is not a margin of error, but a chasm.

For decades, computer models of the climate have been used to justify draconian regulations, most notably an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finding that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant.

This underpins claims of climate alarmists that CO2 emissions of fossil fuels threaten to overheat the planet and cause all manner of deadly weather events.

However, no trends of increasing weather severity are in the historical data, and the risk of dying from a climate-related catastrophe – floods, droughts, storms, wildfires, extreme temperatures – has plummeted by 98% since the 1920s.

In the early 20th century, millions perished worldwide from climate disasters. Today, despite a global population that has quadrupled, the number of victims is a tiny fraction of the past.

Fossil fuels have provided the cheap energy necessary to build sturdy infrastructure, heat and cool homes, mechanize agriculture, and develop early warning systems. Coal, oil, and natural gas have helped humankind manage the environment, not destroy it.

Judicial Line Of Defense

Nowhere is this understanding more critical than in the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts. The federal judiciary has become a focal point of the legal war between those promoting alarmism and those defending realism and modern lifestyles.

Activists know they are losing the public debate. Ordinary families, struggling with inflation and energy costs, are not interested in sacrificing standards of living for a theoretical crisis.

So, activists have turned to “lawfare.” They sue oil companies, car manufacturers, and utilities, hoping to bypass the legislative process and impose “green” policies through judicial fiat.

These lawsuits rely entirely on the premise that there is an “existential” crisis. If the judge’s own handbook says the crisis is scientifically proven, the defense stands no chance. By purging the biased chapter, the Federal Judicial Center has acted to level the playing field.

America Leads, The World Follows

The implications of this decision extend far beyond American borders. The United States is not just another country in the global environmental debate; it is the trendsetter.

Policies and legal standards established in the U.S. ripple outward, influencing legislation and court rulings in Europe, Asia, and the Global South.

The U.S. light-duty vehicle emission programs are among the main sets of standards globally. The Federal Test Procedure is used to certify cars for the North American market, effectively globalizing the EPA’s methodology.

In the realm of ambient air quality, the U.S. National Ambient Air Quality Standards serve as a model framework for nations developing their own environmental laws.

If the U.S. judiciary and the EPA were to fully embrace the alarmist narrative – legally codifying the absurd notion that CO2 and other greenhouse gases threaten life – this stance would be exported worldwide.

Conversely, the U.S. sends a powerful signal when it taps the brakes on lunacy.

By removing this horribly flawed climate section, the judiciary has signaled that it will not be a rubber stamp for political activism masquerading as science. Science is a process of constant inquiry, skepticism, and testing.

The attempt to codify an ideologically driven and scientifically unsupported viewpoint into a manual for judges was an affront to the hundreds-year-old scientific method.

We are not facing a climactic apocalypse. We are confronted with a crisis of competence and integrity in our elite institutions. The removal of this chapter is an initial step in restoring these much-needed qualities.

Read more at CO2 Coalition