by Charles Battig
The inadequacies of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (Fourth Edition) extend far beyond the chapter on climate science you discuss in your editorial “A Judicial Climate Science Scandal” (Review & Outlook, March 14). Another chapter, “How Science Works,” has earned sharp criticism from Jessica Weinkle, an associate professor of public and international affairs at University of North Carolina, Wilmington, and from legal expert Nathan Schachtman. The latter also critiqued the chapter “The Admissibility of Expert Testimony.”
But there is a wider problem. As the National Association of Scholars will soon publish in a comprehensive piece by S. Stanley Young and Warren Kindzierski, the Reference Manual pervasively scants the effects of modern science’s irreproducibility crisis. Thanks to a combination of sloppy procedures and groupthink—often driven by politics—we’ve seen the vast production of research that isn’t reproduced or can’t be. This in turn has facilitated scientific misconduct by a smaller number of scientists untrue to their calling.
Though the Federal Judicial Center has withdrawn the climate science chapter, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine hasn’t.
Both entities should review the entire Reference Manual for errors. They also should begin now to revise their procedures for the Fifth Edition—above all by commissioning a chapter on the irreproducibility crisis.
Peter Wood and David Randall
National Association of Scholars
New York
You’re right to highlight the difficulty of getting truly unbiased and scientifically accurate background information to judges tasked with adjudicating cases involving climate change. Judges aren’t usually trained in the multiple disciplines lumped together under the term “climate science” and instead have to rely on neutral, accurate and up-to-date scientific reference material.
There’s another means progressive climate activists use to provide prejudicial information to judges. Much like the high-pressure tactics of the timeshare salesmen of old, the Climate Judiciary Project—a project of the Environmental Law Institute—reportedly offers state and federal judges and their families free multiday training sessions at traditional vacation spots such as Napa Valley, Palm Beach and Hawaii. The Washington Free Beacon reports that these seminars present the viewpoint that the science is settled on points that are still contested and that judges are expected to commit to a year of CJP events—as well as enlist other judges to the cause. Such one-sided presentations bring into question the organization’s claims of nonpartisanship, and the impartiality of any resulting court rulings.
Originally published in Wall Street Journal on March 24, 2026.
Dr. Charles Battig, is a CO2 Coalition Member, retired physician, and electrical engineer.