Climate Science Erased from Judicial Guide: A Troubling Trend
A recent development reveals a concerning trend: the removal of a climate science chapter from a reference guide used by the Federal Judicial Center (FJC). This decision, spurred by objections from several state attorneys general, highlights a growing resistance to acknowledging established climate science, even within the legal system. The chapter, which accurately reflected the scientific consensus on climate change, has been deleted, despite remaining mentioned in the foreword by Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan. The full text is still available via the RealClimate blog.
The Core of the Dispute: Facts as Contested Positions
The attorneys general’ primary objection wasn’t based on scientific inaccuracies, but rather on the guide’s presentation of established facts. They argued that statements like “human activities have ‘unequivocally warmed the climate’” were treating “contested litigation positions as settled fact.” This suggests a desire to keep climate science open for debate, even in cases where the science is overwhelmingly clear. Essentially, the argument implies that if someone chooses to dispute well-established science in a lawsuit, the judicial system should accommodate that dispute by not acknowledging the science itself.
Further fueling the controversy, the attorneys general criticized the guide’s recognition of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as an “authoritative science body,” citing a conservative think tank with differing views. This demonstrates a selective approach to sourcing information, prioritizing viewpoints that align with pre-existing skepticism over the consensus of the scientific community.
Beyond Reasonable Revisions: A Demand for Erasure
While some of the complaints raised by the attorneys general touched on potentially reasonable points – such as the demand for validation of recent studies – their ultimate demand was disproportionate. Rather than seeking revisions to address specific concerns, they called for the complete removal of the chapter. This suggests a broader agenda of dismissing climate science altogether, rather than ensuring the accuracy and nuance of its presentation.
Michigan’s Legal Battles and the “Cartel” Allegations
This incident occurs alongside ongoing legal challenges related to climate change. For example, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel recently filed a lawsuit against major oil companies, alleging a “cartel-like plot” to suppress clean energy technologies. (Bridge Michigan, The New York Times). These lawsuits, and the resistance to acknowledging the underlying science, demonstrate a complex interplay between legal challenges, political agendas, and scientific consensus.
The Retreat of Exxon’s Legal Team
Adding another layer to this narrative, longtime lawyers representing Exxon in climate cases are reportedly retreating. (E&E News by POLITICO). While the reasons for this shift are not fully clear, it could indicate a changing legal landscape and a reassessment of strategies in the face of mounting pressure.
State Attorneys General and Environmental Agendas
The actions of these state attorneys general are part of a broader trend of active environmental agendas being pursued by state-level officials. (State Court Report). This highlights the increasing role of states in addressing environmental issues, particularly in the absence of consistent federal action.
FAQ
Q: Why was the climate science chapter removed?
A: The chapter was removed due to objections from state attorneys general who argued that presenting established scientific facts as such was inappropriate, as those facts have been contested in litigation.
Q: What is the significance of the Michigan lawsuit against oil companies?
A: The lawsuit alleges that oil companies colluded to suppress clean energy technologies, representing a significant legal challenge to the fossil fuel industry.
Q: Is there still access to the removed chapter?
A: Yes, the full text of the chapter is available on the RealClimate blog: https://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/Reference_Guide_on_Climate_Science_RMSE_4th_Ed.pdf
Q: What does the retreat of Exxon’s lawyers suggest?
A: It suggests a potential shift in legal strategies as climate litigation evolves.
Did you know? The IPCC, despite criticism from some groups, represents the consensus view of thousands of scientists worldwide.
Pro Tip: Stay informed about climate litigation and policy changes by following reputable news sources and scientific organizations.
Explore more articles on environmental law and climate science to deepen your understanding of these critical issues. Read our latest analysis here.
