Thanks for exposing the malfeasance behind the FJC manual.
Isn't the greater underlying problem the fact that the National Academies depend on private funding for essentially all of their activities? Doesn't this mean that the National Academies' reports are necessarily the product of (potentially) motivated funders, who can influence the makeup of the groups that gather the material and write the reports? And that the funders (can) seek to use the Academies' prestige and authority to advance their own agendas?
Is a potential solution to forbid the National Academies from authoring, sponsoring, or publishing any material except when specifically requested and funded by Congress, as allowed in the legislation that established the Academies?
Roger, the Wall Street Journal carried a letter from Marcia McNutt, NAS president, in today's weekend edition (WSJ Sat/Sun March 7-8, p. A14), claiming the climate chapter is absolutely as pure as driven snow, unbiased, peer-reviewed up one side and down the other to the point that it cannot be questioned. And "...is consistent with the current scientific understanding reflected in the broader peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Is there such a thing as an ante-rebuttal, or pre-debunking? Your March 5th post disproves all the points Madam McNutt attempts to make even before her letter hit the news stands.
Thank you for this expose'. I can't say I'm surprised. Everything in the climate change world seems to be rife with corruption to the point where it is actually cathartic when someone speaks on the topic and does not lie.
I urge you to consider publishing your own manual for considering scientific evidence in climate litigation, regulatory rule-making, law-making, and other public policy-making endeavors. Here are some thoughts on that idea.
The challenge of proving harm in climate litigation, etc., should be the extended chain of cause and effect that must be proven and quantified. For example, (1) GHG emissions increase the atmospheric concentration of CO2, CH4, etc. (and how much by the defendant?). (2) The concentration changes global temperature (and by how much by the defendant?). (3) The global temperature change causes changes in weather and sea level (how much by the defendant?). (4) Changes in weather and sea level damage people and property (how much by the defendant?).
The courts and litigants also need to understand that most of the evidence currently available at each step is scientific theory (postulates quantified by climate and economic models) that has not been confirmed by correlating theoretical predictions with scientific observations with reasonable certainty -- i.e., by the classic scientific method and statistical analysis. The role of the scientific method is crucial to considering scientific evidence.
Courts and litigants should also be aware of the many natural influences that make quantification and scientific proof so difficult -- e.g., cloud cover, movements of the earth relative to the sun, thermodynamically driven movements of the oceans and atmosphere, economic changes, CO2 storage and release by the earth, etc. Such factors make it difficult to isolate cause and effect, a necessity in validating scientific theories with observed data.
Let us write to the WSJ en masse by all means. But first, I intend to print this post and send copies to my congressman and both my senators. I recommend that everyone who follows this site do the same. Pound for pound, an enraged senator can make more trouble than just about any other critter in the zoo, and an irritated congressman is not far behind. Call me naive, but this country is supposed to be a representative republic. We cannot complain about the flaws in the system unless we first attempt to use the system as designed.
🔥, Roger! How does one get this analysis up on a bigger platform for the light of day to shine more brightly on this issue? Suggest contacting The Free Press, maybe 60 Minutes, now under Bari Weiss at CBS News.
NASEM’s capture is an old story. Decades ago I was in the middle of a bureaucratic fight to the death over methymercury. It had to be settled by the White House. So EPA lobbied to send the issue to its captive NASEM community. FDA wanted to send it to its captive NASEM committee. The choice of NASEM committee was understood by all (except the White House) as determining the outcome. EPA prevailed. Its captive committee issued an EPA report.
Roger, this is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of (taxpayer supported in the sense of reduced taxes) foundation and NGO influence over institutions.. media, universities, and so on. A difficulty is that they honestly believe that they are right, and have tons of bucks. And folks in those institutions agree, so it’s not like they’re being co-opted. This is a very challenging problem and some institutions will have to stand up for incorporating scientific viewpoint diversity and say adios to megabucks.
Thanks for exposing the malfeasance behind the FJC manual.
Isn't the greater underlying problem the fact that the National Academies depend on private funding for essentially all of their activities? Doesn't this mean that the National Academies' reports are necessarily the product of (potentially) motivated funders, who can influence the makeup of the groups that gather the material and write the reports? And that the funders (can) seek to use the Academies' prestige and authority to advance their own agendas?
Is a potential solution to forbid the National Academies from authoring, sponsoring, or publishing any material except when specifically requested and funded by Congress, as allowed in the legislation that established the Academies?
The Real Climate blog has a different take:
"The Climate Science reference they don’t want Judges to read"
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/02/the-climate-science-reference-they-dont-want-judges-to-read/#comments
In the Real Climate comments so far, I couldn't find a reference to either this article, nor the WSJ op-ed referred to by Richard Batey.
And now the WSJ has published an editorial describing the judicial scandal uncovered by entrepid detective, Roger Pielke.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/fe deral-judicial-center-climate-manual-michael-burger-jessica-wentz-marcia-mcnutt-37f3eb86?st=CTx7Qd&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Roger, the Wall Street Journal carried a letter from Marcia McNutt, NAS president, in today's weekend edition (WSJ Sat/Sun March 7-8, p. A14), claiming the climate chapter is absolutely as pure as driven snow, unbiased, peer-reviewed up one side and down the other to the point that it cannot be questioned. And "...is consistent with the current scientific understanding reflected in the broader peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Is there such a thing as an ante-rebuttal, or pre-debunking? Your March 5th post disproves all the points Madam McNutt attempts to make even before her letter hit the news stands.
Wow, I’ll track it down … thank you!
I just Tweeted on this, thanks
Great analysis of a complex issue, which you explained well to your readers. Thanks for your investigative efforts.
Roger is Diogenes with his lantern looking for wise and honest men in climate science and finding few. Thanks for this. Scandalous indeed.
Thank you for this expose'. I can't say I'm surprised. Everything in the climate change world seems to be rife with corruption to the point where it is actually cathartic when someone speaks on the topic and does not lie.
Well done, Detective Pielke.
I urge you to consider publishing your own manual for considering scientific evidence in climate litigation, regulatory rule-making, law-making, and other public policy-making endeavors. Here are some thoughts on that idea.
The challenge of proving harm in climate litigation, etc., should be the extended chain of cause and effect that must be proven and quantified. For example, (1) GHG emissions increase the atmospheric concentration of CO2, CH4, etc. (and how much by the defendant?). (2) The concentration changes global temperature (and by how much by the defendant?). (3) The global temperature change causes changes in weather and sea level (how much by the defendant?). (4) Changes in weather and sea level damage people and property (how much by the defendant?).
The courts and litigants also need to understand that most of the evidence currently available at each step is scientific theory (postulates quantified by climate and economic models) that has not been confirmed by correlating theoretical predictions with scientific observations with reasonable certainty -- i.e., by the classic scientific method and statistical analysis. The role of the scientific method is crucial to considering scientific evidence.
Courts and litigants should also be aware of the many natural influences that make quantification and scientific proof so difficult -- e.g., cloud cover, movements of the earth relative to the sun, thermodynamically driven movements of the oceans and atmosphere, economic changes, CO2 storage and release by the earth, etc. Such factors make it difficult to isolate cause and effect, a necessity in validating scientific theories with observed data.
Let us write to the WSJ en masse by all means. But first, I intend to print this post and send copies to my congressman and both my senators. I recommend that everyone who follows this site do the same. Pound for pound, an enraged senator can make more trouble than just about any other critter in the zoo, and an irritated congressman is not far behind. Call me naive, but this country is supposed to be a representative republic. We cannot complain about the flaws in the system unless we first attempt to use the system as designed.
I think Trump needs to create some sort of science oversight position for you, you can volunteer some time to maintain an ethical distance.
But then you’d be called something worse than a climate confusionist.
Decision based evidence making, from top to bottom.
How can this not be fraud?
🔥, Roger! How does one get this analysis up on a bigger platform for the light of day to shine more brightly on this issue? Suggest contacting The Free Press, maybe 60 Minutes, now under Bari Weiss at CBS News.
A great question! The WSJ has published a few commentaries on the FJC manual.
NASEM’s capture is an old story. Decades ago I was in the middle of a bureaucratic fight to the death over methymercury. It had to be settled by the White House. So EPA lobbied to send the issue to its captive NASEM community. FDA wanted to send it to its captive NASEM committee. The choice of NASEM committee was understood by all (except the White House) as determining the outcome. EPA prevailed. Its captive committee issued an EPA report.
You are letting NSF off the hook.
Roger, this is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of (taxpayer supported in the sense of reduced taxes) foundation and NGO influence over institutions.. media, universities, and so on. A difficulty is that they honestly believe that they are right, and have tons of bucks. And folks in those institutions agree, so it’s not like they’re being co-opted. This is a very challenging problem and some institutions will have to stand up for incorporating scientific viewpoint diversity and say adios to megabucks.
All the authors and reviewers, ghost and otherwise, should have been required to attend your recent talks at Columbia and UW Madison.
Thanks for coming!