US judiciary scraps climate chapter from scientific evidence manual
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
The chapter was removed after US Republican state attorneys-general argued it was biased against fossil fuel companies.
PHOTO: AFP
WASHINGTON - The US federal judiciary has withdrawn a chapter from the newest edition of its reference manual on scientific evidence that addressed climate change after Republican state attorneys-general argued it was biased against fossil fuel companies.
The Federal Judicial Center, the judiciary’s research arm, incorporated a chapter addressing climate change as part of a long-planned update of the manual, the fourth edition of which was released in December. The manual is a go-to for judges grappling with issues involving scientific testimony.
But in a brief letter on Feb 6 addressed to West Virginia Attorney-General JB McCuskey; the FJC’s director; and US District Judge Robin Rosenberg, said it had decided to remove the climate science chapter.
Mr McCuskey, a Republican, in a statement hailed the decision, saying “Bias towards left-leaning climate policies would have absolutely tipped the scales in many cases.”
A spokesperson for the FJC declined to comment on Feb 9. The chapter’s authors did not respond to requests for comment. The section at issue in the fourth edition of the FJC’s Reference Manual for Scientific Evidence was authored by Jessica Wentz and Radley Horton of Columbia Law School and was drafted to “help judges evaluate the admissibility and weight of expert testimony and documentary evidence involving climate science.”
The authors noted that climate change was contributing to a growing body of lawsuits, including cases over the legal obligations of governments to control greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for the effects of a changing climate.
But in a Jan 29 letter, 27 Republican state attorneys-general led by Mr McCuskey argued the chapter “places the judiciary firmly on one side of some of the most hotly disputed questions in current litigation: climate-related science and ‘attribution.’“
It argued that the section was “rife with methodology issues”, the authors and Columbia were supportive of climate-related litigation, and that the chapter “seems intended to ensure that the judiciary will continue to accept their views uncritically.”
Those Republican-led states have opposed lawsuits filed by Democratic-led states and municipal governments accusing oil and gas companies of deceiving the public about the role fossil fuels have played in causing climate change.
While the climate chapter was removed, a foreword to the manual authored by liberal US Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan appears to still nod to the now-excised section.
“We live in an era of science and technology, with legal controversies reflecting that fact,” she wrote. “And no sooner does one scientific field begin to become accessible to judges than another one emerges or fundamentally evolves. In the coming years, judges will confront lawsuits relating, for example, to artificial intelligence, climate science, and epidemiology.” REUTERS
