A recent decision by a U.S. court has prompted the removal of a significant climate research chapter from a crucial legal resource, the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, utilized by judges in complex scientific litigation. This change, spurred by complaints from a coalition of Republican state attorneys, means that judges will no longer have guidance on climate-related cases, a field deeply informed by substantial scientific consensus.
The controversial chapter, originally crafted by Columbia University researchers, asserted that human activities are a primary driver of climate change. This assertion contradicted the views of the state attorneys, who expressed concern over the document’s characterization of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as an “authoritative science body,” a claim they contested based on findings from a Canadian conservative think tank.
Key points from the controversy include:
– The removal followed a formal request from GOP attorneys, who demanded the entire climate science chapter be eliminated, claiming bias and partiality.
– The Reference Manual, nearly 2,000 pages long, covers various subjects, yet this chapter was singled out for deletion.
– The decision allows judges to approach climate-related cases with diminished scientific context, potentially affecting legal outcomes in environmental regulations.
Interestingly, the introduction of the manual, written by Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, still references the now-removed chapter, indicating a potential oversight in updating the document. For those interested, the complete text of the deleted chapter is available on RealClimate for review.
This incident underscores a growing trend in the integration of scientific evidence within the judiciary and raises questions about the influence of political perspectives on legal interpretations of climate science, where over 99.9% of peer-reviewed studies affirm that climate change is human-induced.
