The Climate Science reference they don't want Judges to read

[OKIsItJustMe]

1. "... 27 Republican Attorneys General ..."

https://ago.wv.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/2026.01.29%20--%20AG%20Climate%20Science%20Manual%20Letter.pdf

…

Dear Judge Rosenberg:

For decades, litigants and judges alike have used the Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. The U.S. Supreme Court has cited it more than once to explain foundational principles in science and math.¹ And that Court isn’t alone. The Manual “has been provided to more than 3,000 federal judges and even more state court judges and others and has been cited in over 1,700 opinions.”² So accuracy and impartiality in the Manual is vital.

At least up to this point, the Center has been careful to stress that the Manual merely “describes basic principles of major scientific fields.”³ It was “not intended to instruct judges concerning what evidence should be admissible or establish minimum standards for acceptable scientific testimony.”⁴ Rather, the Center chiefly intended that the Manual would “open legal institutional channels.”⁵

Whatever one might say about past editions, the recently issued Fourth Edition cannot claim such restraint. It does more than address undisputed scientific principles. Instead, the Fourth Edition places the judiciary firmly on one side of some of the most hotly disputed questions in current litigation: climate-related science and “attribution.” Such work undermines the judiciary’s impartiality and places a thumb on one side of the scale. It does so even as these issues are pending before the Supreme Court and other parts of the federal judiciary.

…

The problems in the climate reference section seem to have started in selecting its authors. Jessica Wentz and Radley Horton are both connected with climate studies programs at Columbia University. And Columbia and its research partners have long viewed lawsuits against States, traditional energy producers,⁶ and others as “opportunities” to “resolve” what they see as “the pressing dangers created by climate change.”⁷ Wentz and Horton themselves have applauded litigation as a tool to advance their preferred political objectives, complaining that the “political sphere in the United States continues to be clouded with false debates over the validity of climate change.”⁸ As they see it, the courtroom provides a better venue.⁹

…