For the first time, the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) commissioned a chapter on climate science for the manual they put out (with the NASEM) for judges, the Reference on Scientific Evidence (4th Edition). This week, a month after it was published, they pulled the chapter out after being pressured by 27 Republican Attorneys General. You can nonetheless read it here.
Some background. The FJC is “the research and education agency of the judicial branch of the United States Government”. As one of its roles, it is tasked to provide educational materials to judges and other court workers about issues that might come up in court, and in particular, on scientific matters that one might not expect judges or lawyers to be expert in. They have codified this information in the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, which is now in it’s Fourth Edition. (Previous editions were issued in 1994, 2000, and 2011).
The 4th Edition had its genesis in a workshop in 2021, and was finally published (after extensive peer review) on Dec 31st 2025. It covers legal scholarship on the use of expert testimony in court cases (noting the Supreme Court’s Daubert standard), as well as primers in the current state of the science across multiple fields (forensics, DNA evidence, mental health, neurology, epidemiology, exposure, statistics, regression, eye witnesses, engineering, computer science, AI, etc.). Notably, it included a chapter on climate science, covering topics such as the greenhouse effect, atmospheric circulation, detection and attribution, and the issues being raised in an increasing number of climate-related cases in the courts. The authors, Jessica Wentz and Radley Horton are a respected and mainstream lawyer/scientist team and the resulting chapter is a clear and concise summary of the topic. So far so good.
Of course, there are groups that would rather not have climate change discussed knowledgeably in the courts, and after the publication of the 4th Edition of the manual, the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee started sending threatening letters to all involved (FN – sorry!) (Jan 16th). Additionally, a group of 27 Republican Attorneys General (led by West Virginia) sent a letter (Jan 29) to the FJC claiming that Wentz and Horton were biased because they have (correctly) stated that the “political sphere in the United States continues to be clouded with false debates over the validity of climate change”. Additionally, they were upset that there are no references to the recent DOE CWG report (Lol).
The real target of the AGs ire is the discussion of attribution, and the notion that there is an emerging consensus that partial attribution of climate damages can be assessed on emitters. This line of thinking is exemplified by recent papers (such as Callahan and Mankin (2025), but is based on more than a decade of work on this topic, and of course is a direct threat to the fossil fuel companies that the WV AG is trying to protect.
The Republican AGs demanded that the FJC remove the chapter, arguing that any official acknowledgement of the science in the Manual would prejudice their cases that are based on, let’s say, “contrary” interpretations of the scientific evidence (or no evidence at all). And without much ado, or even consultation, the FJC did exactly that, putting out an amended Manual on Feb 6th. The only note to mark the deletion is:
No explanation or excuse was noted.
As stated above, this chapter is actually well-written, appropriately peer-reviewed, and deserves a far better fate than to be cowardly disappeared into a memory hole for being inconvenient, so you can download it here. The nice thing about science is that it doesn’t change based on whether a report is published here or there, so feel free to share.
Update (March 4): An excellent response to the criticisms from the Republican AGs from Wentz and Horton has been posted, and a letter from the other authors decrying political interference in the manual has also appeared. The Republican AGs have also written to the National Academies to demand that they take down the chapter too. (Note that no-one has emailed us!).
Further update (March 8): The authors have a blog post at the Sabin Center website.
Another update (March 17): Apparently the NASEM told the AGs to pound sand.
References
- C.W. Callahan, and J.S. Mankin, "Carbon majors and the scientific case for climate liability", Nature, vol. 640, pp. 893-901, 2025. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08751-3
I’m not atheistic but I’ve always been puzzled by the fact that Republicans loudly proclaim that earth is “God’s Glorious Creation!” when trying to push creationism on students in public schools but have such disdain for protecting that creation. Maybe someone on that side can clear this up for me.
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/08/republicans-environment-hate-polarization/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0049089X1400132X
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0262018276?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0262018276&linkCode=xm2&tag=thenewatl-20
They don’t have disdain for protecting creation. Their faith charges them with being stewards of creation. They do have disdain for climate science and the scientists who claim that the use of coal, oil and gas is damaging the creation. This is an important distinction. It suggests that bridge-building, education and non-prideful communication can bear fruit. Politicians represent constituencies, and more effective outreach to the constituencies is needed.
Hmm, well it’s not just climate science they dislike, they, or more exactly, their fundamentalist/evangelical component, which seem to have a special ear of right-wing politicians, dislike other areas of environmentalism too. They interpret all scriptures literally and emphasize certain areas of the bible (but are strangely silent about others).
For example, their interpretation of Genesis 1:28,
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Subdue the earth. Have dominion over all the other species. This literalism causes them to think that that must mean that they are naturally the dominant species. All the others exist at our pleasure. At our whims.
Then there’s their interpretation of 2 Peter 3:10,
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
So hmm, if the earth is destined to be burned up anyways, and we know it’s at our disposal to use as we want till then, WELL HECK! lets just use it up! It was made for us!
Why though do they want to emphasize certain scriptures but ignore almost as non-existant other scriptures? For example Revelation 11:18,
The nations were angry, and Your wrath has come, And the time of the dead, that they should be judged, And that You should reward Your servants the prophets and the saints, And those who fear Your name, small and great, And should destroy those who destroy the earth.
Destroy those who destroy the earth. How often do you hear that one from fundamentalists? How about this one. From Ecclesiastes 1:4,
One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth forever.
I am aware of at least 3 other times the Bible says that the earth lasts forever.
“Perhaps most importantly, concludes Pogue, as conservative evangelicals found their place almost exclusively in the Republican Party, they made their peace with the pro-growth, less regulation, free enterprise outlook of their political allies and associated think tanks. Thus, to give just two examples, praise for John Muir disappeared from Abeka’s textbooks, and a Southern Baptist Convention official quickly repudiated his own 1991 analysis of global warming.” from Why did conservative evangelicals turn against the environment? https://www.christiancentury.org/books/why-did-conservative-evangelicals-turn-against-environment
Since Reagan especially, it seems, Republicans have been anti-environmental. He (and gingrinch) replaced the red scare with the green scare, as they say.. I remember VP candidate Sarah Palin’s, as governor of Alaska, bounty on wolves legs. Yeah. That’s stewardship. That’s respect for God’s Creation. And each republican candidate seems to try to outdo the other now to show how anti-environmental they are – culminating in the current ******* in office.
Again, I’m not atheistic or opposed to belief in a loving God. I’m just opposed to blatant hypocrisy, and insulting the intelligence of the average person when all this anti-environmentalism and love of them is REALLY about is helping out
Big Business., the environment be damned.
—
“We will mine more, drill more, cut more timber” – James Watt
“If the [spotted] owl can’t adapt to the superiority of humans, screw it.” – Rush Limbaugh
—
(sorry, I hate politics, but this is a sore area.)
The Bible is so lacking in clarity and precision and is so full of contradictions and is so open to interpretation you can read anything you want into it. That’s the problem.
To be clear, I don’t quote the Bible because I’m a believer in it, but to point out contradictions in the world view of fundamentalists who profess to accept all of it and its admonitions as “The Word of God”. There maybe some of them reading my posts. As I’ve said before, I’m agnostic and have been for a long time.
I am somewhat at interested in NDEs though.
Ron R: “To be clear, I don’t quote the Bible because I’m a believer in it, but to point out contradictions in the world view of fundamentalists who profess to accept all of it and its admonitions as “The Word of God”. ”
Understood. I was just having a bit of a rant expressing my annoyance with the lack of clarity in parts of the bible and the actual contradictions in the bible easily googled. For example:
https://www.bartehrman.com/contradictions-in-the-bible/
I confess to having very atheist leanings but I see how christianity has its positive side and serves various useful purposes. And I know theres a possibility my atheist leanings could be wrong. But I tend to go where the “weight of evidence” points…..
I do agree with all the concerns and points you made in your original lengthy post. Including that the fundamentalists do seem to emphasize certain parts of the bible against others, generally preferring those parts implying we can do anything we like with the natural environment.
The fundamentalists also seem interpret the word dominion to mean control over any aspect of nature, when in the context of the time it clearly meant control of animals for farming etc,etc. The concepts of pollution were probably largely irrelevant then because there werent enough people or industry. So its absurd to believe it means we can completely alter the face of the planet regardless of consequences.
RR: “I am somewhat at interested in NDEs though.”
Hallucinations perhaps? In such situations the mind is very anxious and perhaps its chemistry goes crazy and so it mixes together a whole lot of ideas and it hallucinates.
Nigelj says 11 Feb 2026 at 12:34 AM
The Bible is so lacking in clarity and precision and is so full of contradictions and is so open to interpretation you can read anything you want into it. That’s the problem.
Data: Ha. Climate Scientists do the same thing with Climate Models. So lacking in clarity and precision, so full of contradictions and extreme variations from one to the next using the same inputs, they end up being so open to interpretation you can read anything you want into them.
Example 1 The Hausfather Schmidt et al 2019 review of the forty plus models does not say what you think it says. The graph Dessler uses here proves it
ref Powering the Future: A Look at Key Findings in the DoE Climate Report https://youtu.be/yTYLswTEVS8?si=Bxl2SRfzI_xkBUCX&t=2157
Nor does it offer credible scientific support the AR6/CMIP6 modelling is correct, reliable, predictable nor useful.
Example 2 https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/predicted-arctic-sea-ice-trends-over-time/
Example 3 While Dessler falsely claims: ” the climate models which have a track record of correctly predicting the temperature” and ” we can predict the temperature in 100 years.” That’s not science, and it is not true.
ref Powering the Future: A Look at Key Findings in the DoE Climate Report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTYLswTEVS8&t=3660s
Maybe if the Bible authors had chosen to just present the Average Gospel Mean of what was written originally in Greek, it’d been more believable today?
Ron R. says 11 Feb 2026 at 1:12 PM
[bible] its admonitions as “The Word of God”.
Data: Religionists are similar Scientists … they end taking their own opinions literally as The Gospel. I recommend my several posts about Feynman Sagan et al … Richard Feynman warned us: “the first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool”
So one of the errors made was wrongly assuming “word” meant like you know, speaking words. In the beginning was The Word … isn’t a word. https://innersonickey.org/2016/06/22/what-is-it/ Go do some research.
Ron R. says: I am somewhat at interested in NDEs though.
Data: Please ignore Nigel, on any topic he’s like a virgin telling you what having sex feels like. I recommend you go do your own research on NDEs / OOBEs (out of body experiences) https://iands.org and info on historical groups https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPZk9ZQ1BCaVNlWnM/view?resourcekey=0-p_dLckF9eFiPrs1djum4fQ
http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Mysteries-of-the-Mind/ESP-Researchers-Out-of-body-experience-obe.html
Mohammed’s OOBEs to Jerusalem etc are recounted in the Koran etc. Much more common that you may have heard about. Scientology also taught OOBE techniques, especially in early 50s-60s period.
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=_Xg7AAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=snippet&q=body&f=false
a very good summary extracts on OOBEs etc
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPTmwzWlB6QVJZS28/view?resourcekey=0-AP0cMphJasysBUS85XzEUg
The world abounds in little known experiential knowledge Ron. “Ask, and it shall be given you” and “Seek, and ye shall find” is the Law.
N: The Bible is so lacking in clarity and precision and is so full of contradictions and is so open to interpretation you can read anything you want into it.
BPL: The central message of the Bible is quite clear, and most of the “contradictions” aren’t. For further information, try here:
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/85-myths-about-the-bible-with-85-christian-answers-barton-paul-levenson/1115288401?ean=2940016787442
D: Scientists do the same thing with Climate Models. So lacking in clarity and precision, so full of contradictions and extreme variations from one to the next using the same inputs, they end up being so open to interpretation you can read anything you want into them.
BPL: And yet they all give similar answers. Funny how that works.
D: : Please ignore Nigel, on any topic he’s like a virgin telling you what having sex feels like.
BPL: Projection.
Nigel, I’ve never been atheist. To be an atheist you are saying that you know do happen. About 20% of people have them. Say it feels realer than real. They come back changed. This site seems to be the main one:
https://nderf.me/
I respect those who believe, though I have problems with that myself. History is chalk full of things done in the name of religion that were horrible. Anti-environmentalism is just one. Using religion to suit one’s real ends. Killing, or scaring the hell into them, is another. But there’s good believers of any faith too and in this world of pain I have no interest in making them doubt.
I am a firm believer in evolution though, though. It happens. Period. But acceptance of that is not mutually exclusive with a belief in God
Sorry, this site cut out a lot of my original comment for some reason so I’m posting it again. But sorry for getting off topic.
—-
Nigel, I’ve never been atheist. To be an atheist you are saying that you know do happen. About 20% of people have them. Say it feels realer than real. They come back changed. This site seems to be the main one:
https://nderf.me/
I respect those who believe, though I have problems with that myself. History is chalk full of things done in the name of religion that were horrible. Anti-environmentalism is just one. Using religion to suit one’s real ends. Killing, or scaring the hell into them, is another. But there’s good believers of any faith too and in this world of pain I have no interest in making them doubt.
I am a firm believer in evolution though, though. It happens. Period. But acceptance of that is not mutually exclusive with a belief in God
It did it again. How weird. I’m going to post just the missing parts. Perhaps a coding error. You can piece it together if you want.
—-
Nigel, I’ve never been atheist. To be an atheist you are saying that you know do happen
Ok, forget it.
It did it again. How weird. I’m going to post just the missing parts. Perhaps a coding error.
Hmm, I see an “i” missing in the emphasis if the word “know”. Trying one more time. Perhaps the mods will fix my original post and delete the duplicates. My apologies. The hazards of using a tiny phone.
—-
Nigel, I’ve never been atheist. To be an atheist you are saying that you know that God doesn’t exist. This is a big universe and full of mysteries that we are just beginning to understand. I’m not someone to claim to know it all (unlike a certain person we all know ;) .
I won’t get into NDEs too much except to say that I believe that I witnessed one once in an animal. A sea bird that was injured on the beach and dying. Can’t remember if he was a seagull or a grebe. I used to walk on the beach with a dog I had and saw him/her by himself back near the dunes. I felt bad for him and carried him back the four blocks to the house. I intended to call the wildlife rehab people to help him (but I think I secretly wanted them to tell me how to treat him myself so I could have a bird friend).
His head has been hanging the whole time. Half a block from home he suddenly lifted his head, his eyes dilated, and he began earnestly to flap his wings. He was going somewhere and wanted to get there now. Then, just as suddenly, he dropped his head and died.
I’m not claiming that his or any NDEs are supernatural. But I’m sure it was an NDE. There’s all kinds of theories about why they happen but I think it’s pretty well acknowledged that they do happen
Ron R: “Nigel, I’ve never been atheist. To be an atheist you are saying that you know do happen. About 20% of people have them. Say it feels realer than real. They come back changed. This site seems to be the main one:”
I cant understand what you mean by “know do happen”.
I accept people do have near death experiences where they feel united with loved ones, see pearly gates and bright lights etc, etc all seeming to support ideas of heaven and other religious views.
I was just suggesting entirely off the top of my head, they might be hallucinations resulting from the stress of being near death or having literally clinically died but been resuscitated. I have since googled NDEs, and hallucinations are one of the main scientific theory for NDEs but they are not considered a strong theory. There appear to be many theories of what causes NDEs, but there is no scientific consensus on it.
Just wanted to clarify where I was coming from. Not going to go into it further its OT. Thanks for the links. Will definitely have a read of them.
————————
BPL, thanks for the reference to your e book. I may read it. However the fact remains that certain bible verses seem to contradict themselves. I mean I have read these things with my own eyes, although it was ages ago. It seems indisputable, but of course perhaps there are explanations why.
Ron R : “To be an atheist you are saying that you know that God doesn’t exist. This is a big universe and full of mysteries that we are just beginning to understand. I’m not someone to claim to know it all (unlike a certain person we all know ;) .”
Ok I just spotted your clarification. I’m not saying that I know God doesn’t exist. I just believe God doesn’t exist based on the preponderance of evidence. The dictionary definition of atheist is “a person who disbelieves in the existence of God or gods”.
RR: “This is a big universe and full of mysteries that we are just beginning to understand. I’m not someone to claim to know it all (unlike a certain person we all know ;) .”
I like the atheist Richard Dawkins view that there may be a god in the sense of some great power behind the universe that we don’t understand, but there is not a god as portrayed in the bible, a patriarchal god that created the Earth and so on. Thats what I meant by being an atheist.
Nigel, I cant understand what you mean by “know do happen”.
:D I laughed. It was a coding error combined with using a little phone. I hoped the mods wouldn’t post all those comments but they did. I know, makes no sense. Anyway…
Nigel, “I was just suggesting entirely off the top of my head, they might be hallucinations resulting from the stress of being near death or having literally clinically died but been resuscitated. I have since googled NDEs, and hallucinations are one of the main scientific theory for NDEs but they are not considered a strong theory. There appear to be many theories of what causes NDEs, but there is no scientific consensus on it.”
Remember the distinction, Nigel. It’s correct that It’s not a strong thought that they are supernatural, but they clearly do happen. There are lots of studies of this. It may be for one of the reasons you mention. It may not. But about 20% of people have them. Even atheists. 20% is actually quite a lot. Pearly gates though? I don’t know. :D
“Somewhat surprisingly, religious people don’t seem to be more inclined toward NDEs.” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lifting-the-veil-on-near-death-experiences/
As far as whether the Bible is true and whether a God of some sort exists (or were we possibly seeded by space aliens, a version of panspermia, as I bring out in my story The Last Option?) the New Testament is about 2,000 old and the Old like 6,000. People, Homo sapiens, though, have been here for about 300,000 years. What did they believe before 6,000 years ago? Were they as responsible for good and bad before there was a Bible to steer them right? I often wonder. Lots of questions.
Ron R. @12 Feb 2026 at 10:57 PM
RR: “As far as whether the Bible is true and whether a God of some sort exists (or were we possibly seeded by space aliens, a version of panspermia, as I bring out in my story The Last Option?) the New Testament is about 2,000 old and the Old like 6,000. People, Homo sapiens, though, have been here for about 300,000 years. What did they believe before 6,000 years ago? Were they as responsible for good and bad before there was a Bible to steer them right? I often wonder. Lots of questions.”
Yes lots of questions. Did some reading up on those issues in the late 1990s. Ancient Egyptian, Greek and Chinese societies that predate the birth of christ had gods but Chinese society didnt. They all had quite complex moral and ethical codes with several similar teachings to the bible. Ancient Chinese society developed independently from the middle east so cant have known of the bible and couldnt have copied it.
So large societies developed moral and ethical codes regardless of whether they had a god, or several gods, (Greek society) or no gods (as with Chinese society). And they appear to have developed such codes independently.
So I think such codes are a product of people and their circumstances and are not supplied by a god. Gods were inventions, that were used to give the codes power and legitimacy.
Ron R.,
Well, I’ve asked that question regarding Jesus and being “saved.” The responses I got were that people somehow knew by some kind of visitation or revelation. No surprise that such questions will be met with glib rationalizations, easiest things in the world to conjure up. If that’s not bad enough, this kind of ideation diffuses out into the broader culture. IOW the crazy is viral.
BTW, fundies are likely to tell you that there were no people before 6,000 years ago.
In other news, Amanpour & Co. had this interview on last night, which I thought was timely given this thread..
https://www.pbs.org/wnet/amanpour-and-company/video/echoes-of-conspiracy-from-ruby-ridge-to-today-s6uhgw/
And this. Because the press apparently hasn’t learned much from it’s failures during the Bush administration, or it’s past reporting on climate. That and consumers still seem happy to just passively follow along.
https://newrepublic.com/article/205913/media-malpractice-trumpism-project-2025
N: Gods were inventions, that were used to give the codes power and legitimacy.
BPL: The conspiracy theory of Biblical inspiration.
RH: [What did they believe before 6,000 years ago? Were they as responsible for good and bad before there was a Bible to steer them right? I often wonder. Lots of questions.]
Well, I’ve asked that question regarding Jesus and being “saved.” The responses I got were that people somehow knew by some kind of visitation or revelation. No surprise that such questions will be met with glib rationalizations, easiest things in the world to conjure up. If that’s not bad enough, this kind of ideation diffuses out into the broader culture. IOW the crazy is viral.
BPL: Christians (and, most likely, Jews and Muslims) believe that there is a moral code which people know, or should know, instinctively. The codes are attempts to pin it down, but no believer thinks people knew nothing about good and evil before the codes were written down. For a more detailed explanation, see Lewis’s “Mere Christianity.”
Radge Havers, “ BTW, fundies are likely to tell you that there were no people before 6,000 years ago.”.
Yeah. Remembering from my fundy days in 4004 bc at precisely 9:00 in the morning. Bishop Usher. All those “begats”. I was speaking of the theistic evolutionists.
Watched the video. I think Ruby Ridge was, if I remember right, an tragic example of government overreach.
Read some of the second article. Yeah, they had a plan. Devious .Calculating. I think Gingrinch is behind a lot of it. Truthfully though, I can’t help thinking that the left let themselves be pushed by them, calculatedly, into extremism. Things that the average voting person finds ludicrous. I won’t mention examples because some still defend those things. But they were warned that they were stupidly letting themselves be manipulated further and further left. Now we have Mussolini.. But remember how he died?
BPL,
Broadly speaking you are obviously correct. I was referring to conversations I’ve had with individuals who you might consider outliers. OTOH, it’s possible that there is a greater variety and amount of ignorant weirdness out in the wild than you realize. I honestly can’t say. It’s probably a question for sociologists.
Ron R.
Indeed, there’s a longer, nuanced interview about Christopher Jenning’s book on NPR. It’s more focused on Ruby Ridge itself than the echoes of it that we’re seeing today.
If I linked correctly, the second link was about the press’s current failure to do their job and used reporting on Project 2025 as an example. Apologies if I botched it.
Earlier I mentioned reaction on the right to the loss in Viet Nam. The planning at that point was more of a movement than a document so far as I know. Gingrich was certainly a part of that downstream. But generally it involved development in things like propaganda (they placed a lot of the blame for the loss on the press), ALEC, the Federalist Society and so on.
The days of the style of journalism of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite are pretty much dead and buried in the MSM now.
Radge Havers, I totally agree with what you’re saying. No, you didn’t botch it.
I say Gingrinch on purpose because the man’s such a Grinch.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R6bqbPdGOZk
And, yeah. I remember Walter Cronkite. A good man. Integrity. We need more like him these days. Can’t believe how far we’ve fallen. But maybe dignity will circle back around again.
BPL: Christians (and, most likely, Jews and Muslims) believe that there is a moral code which people know, or should know, instinctively. The codes are attempts to pin it down, but no believer thinks people knew nothing about good and evil before the codes were written down. For a more detailed explanation, see Lewis’s “Mere Christianity.”
I’ve read it (along with the Bible 5 times). But that was many years ago. Honestly I thought it was kind of weird. But it was about the time I read The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe, and The Phantom Tollbooth, so maybe some of that influenced me.
I also read, A Wrinkle in Time. Liked that.
I agree with you that good people were (and are) guided by an internal code to do what’s right.
I think I destroyed this thread. Sorry RC.
I recently read a book “Star-Spangle Jesus” by April Ajoy, about Christian Nationalism – it’s a particularly interesting and informative perspective because she grew up in and as a part of that culture. I got the impression that the Christian-nationalist support of Trump was a large factor in causing her to start questioning things more (she didn’t like Trump) and learning more about reality, coming to realizations about things Christian-nationalists are getting wrong.
Note that April Ajoy is still a Christian, so she may be a more appealing source for some people than Kristi Burke, who became an atheist (but is also agnostic* – there is some overlap between the two categories AIUI) – who’s channel’s content overlaps with the above.
(Kristi Burke: https://jezebelvibes.com/ , https://jezebelvibes.com/aboutme ,
“Evangelical Persecution is Self-Fulfilling Prophecy” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtrcVZBz1yQ
“The Biggest Announcement I Never Thought I’d Make” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3K6QsZhudg (She’s running for congress! Yay! :) )
Another great source of information is Dan Mclellan: https://www.youtube.com/@maklelan (some of the following is from there)
It’s important to note that the morality (of God?) was getting better in Judaism before Jesus, so it’s not as simple as Old vs. New Testament God = bad vs. good. Important because that view could feed into antisemitism. Of course the morality of the faithful of all the Abrahamic religions has (I presume) continued to evolve since then (well, one didn’t exist yet at that time, but anyway)…
Actually, in the beginning, there were El, and his female partner Ashera ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah ), … and a bunch of other gods, and Yahweh was brought in from elsewhere but eventually became one of the many 2nd-tier gods who ruled over various territories/peoples; Yahweh got Israel/the Israelites. YHWH (double no-vowels – license to smite) was (at least at times) a total a-hole. It’s been argued that he demanded child sacrifice (1st born sons), but in the Bible he amends his demands in other places and then eventually denies he made that demand. Yahweh was a murderer (I’m not even talking about the Flood) and approved of slavery. ( “4 MORE Bible Passages That Caused Me to Lose My Faith” ”5 Bible Passages That Caused Me To Lose My Faith” ) I’m guessing he wasn’t much worse or better than the other 2nd-tier gods(?). Now I’m not clear on the order of events, but at some point Yahweh was conflated and merged with El (and then/also Ashera??), (which may have led to some moral growth(?)), and then after Babylonian exhile, Yahweh became the God of all. link text But the biblical God still (?) seemed to support (?) (or at least allow?) slavery up until the last few hundred years, until some caring, enlightened human folks forced him to change his mind on that (some of what Jesus *is said to have* said would certainly seem to imply that slavery is bad, but wherever slavery is addressed in the Bible, including in the post-Jesus part, it is accepted).
This all makes sense, of course, knowing the Bible was compiled from writings of multiple people from different times with different attitudes/etc.
I think my version of a loving, just (and albeit likely imaginary) God was perhaps based not so much on biblical texts but on the idea that God is good, and, well, I knew what good meant (eg. of course God wouldn’t punish people just for not believing in God (seems a bit self-centered to do that)). And that’s a key point. I wonder if part of the problem is that many Christians are taught that, being sinners, humans shouldn’t trust their own moral judgement or reasoning. I have read that in Christian-nationalist (and other some Christian) culture, questioning(/thinking?) is only okay up to a point, because too much of that risks being influenced by Satan. Loving one’s enemies is the hardest of Jesus’s recommendations, but I find I can do it to some extent: being angry with this part of MAGA but also feeling bad for them, because they actually do care about people, but they’ve been led to being ~mean/harsh/tough – to themselves – and others – by fear of Hell, etc.
PS see also ”I read a book on “godly masculinity” and it was honestly so funny” – Psychology with Dr. Ana
”Is Male Dominance in our DNA?” – Breaking Down Patriarchy
”The Scientific Lie That Damaged Generations of Men” – Be Smart
Po27: Actually, in the beginning, there were El, and his female partner Ashera ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah ), … and a bunch of other gods, and Yahweh was brought in from elsewhere but eventually became one of the many 2nd-tier gods who ruled over various territories/peoples;
BPL: [CITATION NEEDED] This sounds more like neo-pagan propaganda than archaeology.
Po27: Yahweh got Israel/the Israelites. YHWH (double no-vowels – license to smite) was (at least at times) a total a-hole. It’s been argued that he demanded child sacrifice (1st born sons),
BPL: It’s been argued by whom? Academics, or atheists with an axe to grind?
Po27: but in the Bible he amends his demands in other places and then eventually denies he made that demand. Yahweh was a murderer (I’m not even talking about the Flood) and approved of slavery.
BPL: See what Jesus said about the Mosaic code. BTW, there were at least six (6) different ways for slaves to be freed in that code, including the Year of Jubilee when all slaves were supposed to be freed, period.
Devout atheist here, so I really don’t have a dog in this fight. However:
I think that there is a tendency to misunderstand the God of the oldest part of the Old Testament–and as a result, I think we also often misunderstand the originators (note: not writers–it wasn’t written down for centuries) of that work. Yes the God of the Old Testament does come across as capricious, if not petty. And he must have surely seemed so to the people of the time. But the wisdom of the originators of the story is that they are saying, “Whether God seems capricious or not, he is still God, and we should not presume to substitute our understanding for God’s understanding.”
Life is harsh. It is not fair. It was even more so back then. To an atheist, this is all falls under the heading of “Shit happens”. But if you are going to be a believer, then somehow you must confront the problem of evil. And reminding people that they don’t see the whole picture is really the only way to do that. The God of the Old Testament is meant to emphasize that to people experiencing misfortune and unfairness.
Ray, “Shit happens”
Man it really can, Ray. In our transit around the galaxy I sometimes feel like we’ve come near a black hole or something.
re BPL: [CITATION NEEDED] : 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8
Ron,
Some more Bible verses about the environment are:
Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
Psalm 24:1 The earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.
Ezekiel 34:18 Seemeth it a small thing unto you to have eaten up the good pasture, but ye must tread down with your feet the residue of your pastures? and to have drunk of the deep waters, but ye must foul the residue with your feet? 19 And as for my flock, they eat that which ye have trodden with your feet; and they drink that which ye have fouled with your feet.
1 Corinthians 10:26 For the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof.
Thanks BPL.
Yeah, I think there are some very good things in the New Testament. I do have an issue with “faith” however, as you can just as easily have faith in something bad as you can in something good.
Consider that the Bible itself is treated as a holy object. It has cachet, vibe, mystery, ultimate truth, etc. etc. In Super Bowl terms, it’s like a holy football, and whoever controls it is the sanctified quarterback. Yea team! For instance, if your quarterback is a slave owner, expect that it will used to justify slavery… OK the analogy isn’t perfect, but you get the idea. Expecting reasoned exegesis from blockheads, especially those with ulterior motives, is a losing proposition.
replaced the red scare with the green scare
Disagree. IMHO it was always fundamentally (pardon the double-entendre there) the non-white scare.
Ron R.,
My apologies, I see that I misread your question. I thought you were asking about certain Christian perspectives about the roll of religion. Like the idea that America is falling apart because liberals took God out of public schools, or the extreme view that says everyone everywhere went to hell before Jesus came along.
I pretty much agree with what Nigelj said. The invention of a surveillance god seems likely to have arisen with agrarian society where a rapidly increasing population posed a management problem for elites who positioned themselves as ruling by Devine right.
That said, a basic sense of right and wrong is a byproduct of biological evolution as seen, for instance, in studies of primate behavior.
I sometimes wonder if the Bible was codified and the idea of Hell promulgated to try to stop the horrendous things that some people were doing to others. Give them something to think about. Worry about.
Since we now know that none of those things exist we’re back at having to deal with it again.
Barton Paul Levenson says
12 Feb 2026 at 9:55 AM
Data: Scientists do the same thing with Climate Models. So lacking in clarity and precision, so full of contradictions and extreme variations from one to the next using the same inputs, they end up being so open to interpretation you can read anything you want into them.
BPL: And yet they all give similar answers. Funny how that works.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/02/the-climate-science-reference-they-dont-want-judges-to-read/#comment-845024
DATA: It’s to be expected actually, it’s embedded into the system.
CMIP climate model ensembles are often presented as probabilistic forecasts validated by reality, but in practice the ensemble mean is a statistically smoothed construct that benefits from error cancellation, historical tuning, and structural correlation.
This creates a circular validation loop where agreement with observations is partly engineered by design rather than independently predicted.
Climate scientists run many models, each with different assumptions and tuning choices.
When you average them together, random errors cancel out, so the average often looks close to reality—even if no individual model is particularly accurate.
Because models are tuned to match the 20th-century climate, the ensemble mean is implicitly fitted to the past, then presented as if it predicted the future independently. This makes the ensemble mean look like strong evidence, even though it is partly a mathematical artifact.
Short-term temperature swings are often attributed to internal variability such as ENSO, volcanoes, and ocean dynamics. ENSO and volcanic effects are strongly supported by observations and physics. However, longer-term variability is largely inferred statistically, using models to estimate the forced signal and assigning the residual to natural variability. This makes attribution partially model-conditioned rather than fully independent.
Ensemble as Evidence Fallacy
Agreement of the ensemble mean with reality is treated as independent confirmation, but the ensemble is constructed from assumptions already calibrated to reality…. including most recent observational data records, after each new CMIP version step
CMIP ensembles are powerful tools for exploring climate physics, but their apparent predictive success partly arises from averaging, tuning, and correlated assumptions. Treating ensemble means as independent probabilistic forecasts is an epistemic inflation that obscures deep structural uncertainty.
The models are informative. The ensemble mean is persuasive. The rhetoric is overconfident. Just like that from Barton. Overstating what is scientifically valid and exaggerating what is supportable.
Unfortunately the reality has been well communicated to the policy makers nor the public. Climate model ensembles are often communicated as probabilistic forecasts, but they are not. Observations falling inside the ensemble spread is a weak, a near-tautological test that does not validate the model class.
Climate models are run many times by many groups. Using the same assumptions, parameters and tuned to recent past updated observational data. Scientists plot all runs, draw a shaded band covering most models, and show the average line. When real temperatures fall inside the band, they say: The models are validated. But the band is defined by the models themselves.
Reality almost has to fall inside it unless the models are catastrophically wrong. This is model democracy, not calibrated probability.
It’s why Barton can compress the methodology and still say “And yet they all give similar answers. Funny how that works.” He’s right, but not for the reason you may assume why.
Is the real problem the models or the narrative? Mostly the narrative. Models are imperfect but useful scientific instruments. The epistemic inflation happens in communication, policy rhetoric, and media framing. What Barton just did. Ensembles are presented as calibrated forecasts when they are ONLY exploratory simulations. Like economic models they too are just made up. The models are not a Map that represent reality.
To summarise: Climate Models constrain physically possible futures; they do not predict real-world outcomes. To be clear: Models explore conditional possibilities; they do not, can not predict what will happen. A model cannot rule out reality. Reality rules out models.
“A hundred wrong clocks averaged will not tell you the right time.”
D: This creates a circular validation loop where agreement with observations is partly engineered by design rather than independently predicted.
BPL: Nope. The only improvements that are ever made to GCMs are improvements in representing the physics. You’re portraying it as if it were a statistical fit.
BPL, what I don’t understand is why this Data character, who thinks climate change is anthropogenic and deadly serious, and who idolizes J Hansen, spends so many millions of words criticising scientists in general and harshly criticising climate models in a general sense. It’s like an act of complete stupidity. It completely undermines his own climate concerns. It is self defeating. It is incompetence. It feeds the denialists. He does the denialists job better than the denialists! Its insanity.
Nigelj, “Data” isn’t trying to make any real sense. It’s trying to keep you unhappily engaged in an endless spew of verbiage. Trolls gotta troll, troll, troll.
Nigelj: Thanks, you put it quite clearly. “Data” appears eager to side with science deniers here at RC, maybe thinking the enemy of my enemy is my friend? He’s veering over towards supporting big fossil, which as you say doesn’t fit with he devotion to Hansen. A large majority of Democrats are in favor of climate action, weak sauce at times, but at least an effort, constrained by the necessities of real life negotiation and compromise and being in the minority. He champions those who promote lies. I’m pretty sure Hansen would not approve.
Making things less bad is not nearly enough, but it’s way more than making things worse/worst.
Patrick, I just think asking people to love their enemies expects too much and isnt right, but presumably the underlying intent is that it is encouraging people to be forgiving and not excessively vindictive. But unfortunately the Bible doesnt elaborate. Its teachings are well meant and of some use, but inadequate and “half baked”.
Nigel, sounds corny, but don’t under estimate the power of love and non-resistance. Christianity took over half the world. Gandhi won a country. Martin Luther King won the civil rights struggle in the US and abroad (remember there was a time not long before when African Americans were enslaved).
https://www.biography.com/activists/martin-luther-king-jr-gandhi-nonviolence-inspiration
The Bible and the Tao te Ching say virtually the same thing on this point, and it’s logical. Fighting creates more opposition. Resistance creates counter-resistance. Yielding can dissolve force (like water wearing down rock). Don’t mirror their hatred. The words are in chapter 63 報怨以德 Bào yuàn yǐ dé “Return hated with virtue”.
Fighting and wars, OTOH, just go on and on and on.
You likely can’t use that in cases where you are a beneficent upper dog (as in climate science) struggling against the vicious and surging dogs of denial. I don’t know. But it’s a valid stratagem
Nigel et al: Love might be a bridge too far, but as Ron R points out, it is effective. See Bad Bunny: “the only thing more powerful than hate is love”. James Talarico* has been making sense on the subject too. This is the radical change which illuminates the Bible with the appearance of Jesus. [Atheist here, but I appreciate the teachings about radical kindness introduced in the gospels (setting aside the provenance of the actual document).]
For healing oneself (never mind others), accepting the equal humanity of others can be quite helpful.
This is one reason I label Trump evil. He lives by harm, as represented, for example, by Milton: Evil, be thou my good, Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven; and Virgil, the road downwards is easy. If one embraces full psychopathy (as, sadly, do also some of our most wealthy fellow humans), it greases one’s path to power and wealth. Leading people to ‘believe in’ the worst of which they are capable is infinitely harmful. Intelligence/wisdom forces us to see others are our equals. He has none of that.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiTJ7Pz_59A [Colbert Talarico] “how we’re going to be saved. By feeding the hungry, by healing the sick, by welcoming the stranger. Nothing about going to church. Nothing about voting Republican. It was all about how you treat other people. … don’t tell me what you believe. Show me how you treat other people. …. Christianity is a simple religion. Not an easy religion … because Jesus gave us two commandments. Love God and love neighbor. And there was no exception to that second commandment. Love thy neighbor regardless of race or gender or s_xual orientation or immigration status or religious affiliation. And it’s why I have fought so hard for the separation of church and state” [I don’t aspire to this, but I appreciate it.]
S.B. Ripman wrote: “Their faith charges them with being stewards of creation.”
Nonsense. The Republicans openly and PROUDLY reject the idea of stewardship of “creation” which they consistently refer to as “natural resources”. Their “faith” charges them with maximizing short term profits at any cost. The name of that “faith” is GREED.
S.B. Ripman wrote: “Politicians represent constituencies”
The particular politicians in question represent ONE constituency: the billionaire fossil fuel oligarchs who have been systematically LYING about global warming for 70 YEARS while using their wealth and power to obstruct and delay the phase-out of fossil fuels.
Secular Animist says 11 Feb 2026 at 2:51 PM
Nonsense. The Republicans openly and PROUDLY reject the idea of stewardship of “creation” which they consistently refer to as “natural resources”. Their “faith” charges them with maximizing short term profits at any cost. The name of that “faith” is GREED.
Does nuance live where you live? The Ph.D. climate scientist and global climate modeller Dr. James Hansen is/was a Republican.
They believe that god is not just money, but *only their own extremely holy money*. They have only disdain for anything that according to their “belief” isn’t created by their money. Can one call this nihilistic version of presbyterian nonsense emanating from the chief mafioso-oligarch Trump and his ilk a belief? I don’t think so. It’s just a kind of fascist demagoguery aimed at hiding pure instrumental manipulation and decadance for the sake of private enrichment. It’s rotten to the core, as shown by the Epstein files. It can also be seen as the US monopoly capitalist version of stalinism, shown by the propagandistic method.
The origins of presbyterianism has upper class hypocrisy at it’s core. Inspired by Calvin’s smart “idea” that god has predestined the moneyed classes to be saved in the heavenly kingdom simply because god has decided to show how much he loves them by giving them a lot of money here on earth from the moment they are born (or maybe even before?) Of course Calvin knew that this smart idea would predestine his version of christian dogma to be loved by the moneyed classes. But could it prevail in the harshly warring competition against the papal slogan “when the money goes to the church, the soul is saved”? Calvinism had the advantage of being cheaper than papism, seen from the bourgeois point of view. But this seemingly so deeply important “discussion” is still “open” in our “freedom of speech” etc. together with all the other satanistic nonsense produced by religious sects of all kinds. Now they even pretend it to be science, following the goebbelsian credo: “The masses will only belive in a lie, if the lie is big enough”.
Yes, as a rule I agree if you’re saying that the leaders of Christian (and non Christian religions) are corrupt. But the commoners, those who actually believe in the Bible and are trying to live decent lives, need a pass on the scathing assessment of their organizations, imo.
KVJ: The origins of presbyterianism has upper class hypocrisy at it’s core. Inspired by Calvin’s smart “idea” that god has predestined the moneyed classes to be saved in the heavenly kingdom simply because god has decided to show how much he loves them by giving them a lot of money here on earth from the moment they are born (or maybe even before?) Of course Calvin knew that this smart idea would predestine his version of christian dogma to be loved by the moneyed classes.
BPL: This is all nonsense. Calvin had no particular brief for the upper classes, and in fact often criticized them and what they were doing. He once gave a sermon which included the line, ‘The nobles are mad to join land to land, forgetting that in the end, all they will need is six feet of earth.” Hardly the admonition of a man trying to suck up to the upper classes.
I don’t know where you’re getting your false ideas of Calvinism. There are plenty of objections to it, but the one you raise is not one of them. Remedy your ignorance. You can start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Christianity
Ok, so I’m not on that side. My 2 cents anyway.
Creationists tend to be a fundamentalist subset of Christianity. They don’t believe that God would give us the Earth and then let it be destroyed (unless maybe there was a lack of faith among the righteous). Keep in mind that In terms of earth science, they believe that there was an actual flood covering the earth, and that Noah saved all the critters in a boat.
More broadly there’s a belief that education should come from the Christian church, partly because of the literalism of the fundies, but also because secular education makes people hard to manage. (Trump “loves” the uneducated!) All this takes place in a framework of old notions of manifest destiny and American exceptionalism. Along with that go a lot of remnants of old attitudes about the exploitation of people and resources that have evolved maybe a bit in the relatively brief span of a couple of centuries.
For perspective, In my Grandfather’s lifetime, the late 1800s, America was still grabbing land and trying to exterminate Native Americans. Depending on who you ask, those wars didn’t end until around 1924, within the lifetime of both my parents, and in fact within the lifetime of anyone over 102.
This is to say that there is an underbelly of culture and beliefs in American society that tend to be glossed over if not ignored completely. The signs have been pretty much out in the open. Just for a lark, look up televangelist Pat Robertson and dig around. I used to check in on on the 700 Club from time to time… Hard to believe that a guy who thought he could stop hurricanes with is mind was a Republican candidate for president in 1988. By the way, he was always railing about how conservative Christians had to take over the Godless Supreme Court. Well, here we are.
I laughed at that hurricane thing.
My dad was very conservative. Came from the Latter Day Saint persuasion. But he was also an environmentalist. Not in the activist sense, just valued the earth. I think all conservatives did at one time. Then Big Business, feeling the heat from a growing environmental movement, somehow created (fake) concern for the common man. Started raving about regulation. They wanted that anti-environmental vote because environmentalism was becoming strong. Rachel Carson, Dave Brower and others were bringing the public’s attention to the travesties they were causing. Anniston Alabama is one example. Nobody told the residents.
“They also know that for nearly 40 years, while producing the now-banned industrial coolants known as PCBs at a local factory, Monsanto Co. routinely discharged toxic waste into a west Anniston creek and dumped millions of pounds of PCBs into oozing open-pit landfills. And thousands of pages of Monsanto documents — many emblazoned with warnings such as “CONFIDENTIAL: Read and Destroy” — show that for decades, the corporate giant concealed what it did and what it knew. In 1966, Monsanto managers discovered that fish submerged in that creek turned belly-up within 10 seconds, spurting blood and shedding skin as if dunked into boiling water. They told no one. In 1969, they found fish in another creek with 7,500 times the legal PCB levels. They decided “there is little object in going to expensive extremes in limiting discharges.”
https://www.iatp.org/news/monsanto-hid-decades-of-pollution-pcbs-drenched-ala-town-but-no-one-was-ever-told
They took over the Republican party, (was it around the 30s and 40s that a switch came and the Democrats became Republicans and visa versa?) created “think tanks” like CATO, The American Enterprise Institute and Competitive Enterprise Institute. They created Warren Brooks and Rush Limbaugh and James Inhofe.
Republicans, i.e. Big Business, are just using the common man and woman to weaken or eliminate environmental regulations. That’s what it’s all about.
When it comes to politics, there’s a tendency to bundle issues in a way that can be flexible, even contradictory. (Lincoln’s vice president was a supporter of manifest destiny and was also a racist who crippled reconstruction.)
For sure there’s a straight line from McCarthyism to Trump via Roy Cohn, and it goes right through Nixon’s southern strategy, and Reagan’s snotty, smart-alecky attitude to the environment. Partly driving that through-line was not just revulsion over Roosevelt’s New Deal, but the sixties. There was a bigly-yuge reaction on the right to that and everything about it including the new environmentalism. However, I think where we are now was largely driven by the loss in Viet Nam, which lead to a decades-long program dedicated to creating a permanent right-wing takeover of America, something Democrats just weren’t able to handle.
Funny that the Repubs don’t like Rosevelt’s New Deal but they care an awful lot for Social Security.
I can understand their dislike of the 60s. But I suspect that a lot of those involved in its counter revolutionism were only there for faddist reasons and went on to become the very same people who they previously despised.
Ron R. Sorry about that. I was able to get through. Maybe it’s blocked for you. Here’s another: The Lawyer Who Became DuPont’s Worst Nightmare. Rob Bilott was a corporate defense attorney for eight years. Then he took on an environmental suit that would upend his entire career — and expose a brazen, decades-long history of chemical pollution.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html – again using archive.ph, sorry if this too fails for you: https://archive.ph/z7gOk [Robert Bilott – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bilott & https://www.taftlaw.com/people/robert-a-bilott/
You can look up issues like this on sites like ProPublica and InsideClimateNews, along with other activist organizations which try to fight ignorance and toxic wealth/power. A simple search will turn up tons of material.
The data on toxic water is staggering. “the nonprofit Environmental Working Group analyzed two years of E.P.A. survey data to find that this threshold had been exceeded — in some cases by factors of 100 or more — in 94 water systems across 27 states. Below, the estimated number of people in each state whose drinking water is affected.” [table not copied here, numbers in millions
That’s SA. Isn’t it something when people can be so brazen?
” But PCBs are now found everywhere and in everyone [30] and are virtually indestructible. They travel freely on wind and water and right on up the food chain … Indeed in Our Stolen Future, Dr. Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski and John Peterson Myers note that PCBs “might be found virtually anywhere imaginable: in the sperm of a man tested at a fertility clinic in upstate New York, in the finest caviar, in the fat of a newborn baby in Michigan, in penguins in Antarctica, in the bluefin tuna served in a sushi bar in Tokyo, in the monsoon rains falling in Calcutta, in the milk of a nursing mother in France, in the blubber of a sperm whale cruising in the South Pacific, in a wheel of ripe brie cheese, in a handsome striped bass landed off Martha’s Vineyard on a summer weekend. Like most persistent synthetic chemicals, PCB’s are world travelers.”
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto%27s_Global_Pollution_Legacy
By the way, if anyone doubts the unbelievable paragraph I quote here about what Monsanto did, here it’s the original Washington Post article (though it’s behind an annoying paywall), and remember, Anniston is but one example.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2002/01/01/monsanto-hid-decades-of-pollution/244d1820-d49d-4145-9913-35644a734936/
This article documents some of it.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto%27s_Global_Pollution_Legacy
Lest we forget
Ron R & others interested in Monsanto’s toxic history: Here’s a paywall free version:
https://archive.ph/qugOi Monsanto Hid Decades Of Pollution [you might like to save this site]
SA, that comes up as about:blank, then “this site can’t be reached” for me.
in Re to Susan Anderson, 16 Feb 2026 at 11:51 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/02/the-climate-science-reference-they-dont-want-judges-to-read/#comment-845274
Dear Susan,
Thank you very much for the provided link.
A realy impressive story, and a good journalism.
Regards
Tomáš
Some believe that the Earth was created for the use of Man and that any side effects of that use are unimportant. Some believe, further, that there’s no point in taking pains to preserve “nature” or the “environment” because the End Times are coming soon and it will all be destroyed anyway, while the “good” folks are sucked up into Heaven. (The arguments are more complicated, but this is the gist.)
Thanks for informing the public about this. When I read “they pulled the chapter out after being pressured by 27 Republican Attorneys General” I groaned to myself, ‘of course those AG’s did this’. They are nothing if not predictable. The nice thing about the US courts is there are rules about what type of evidence can be used, and much of the politically/philosophically motivated falsehoods won’t be admitted at all or will be outweighed by accurate information.
For the Trump regime, there are no rules. They have made the president de facto dictator. This has been easy, since the US constitution from the very beginning had this element of deep hypocrisy hidden in plain sight for everyone not impressed by religious theatricals. If it could be translated into english, the satirical song about America written in 1837 by Hans Christian Andersen “Brothers, very far away/across the salty ocean/America rise with it’s golden beaches./It’s there the Phoenix bird lives/gold and silver is growiing in the fields/and in the shadows of the wood/steaked pigeons are building their nests!/By God how lovely!/By God how wonderful!/Unfortunate that America/Should be so far away!” Etc. The irony here (in the danish original) is so subtly stinging that I think it’s almost completely impossible for most now living people to grasp how it was possible for the “romantic” Andersen to see so clearly the immense hypocrisy and stupidity of the american dream – the modern dream of the ultimate money paradise – “communism” – “the land of milk and honey” – far back in 1837. Andersen is the poet with the famous tale about “The little mermaid” etc. – completely misunderstood by american moneyed and hypocritical sentimentalism. How on Earth could it be, that Andersen saw the same deep illusionism and hypocrisy in the american dream as George Carlin more than 200 years later? Carlin is known for saying: “It’s called the american dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it!”
After the bitter awakening follows anger and hatred. That happened in Germany after WWI in the fascist counterrevolution, in the stalinist counterrevolution after 1921 in the Soviet Union, and since Nixon and Reagan’s vietnam revanchism it has been roaring away in the US.
Trump and Clinton are both typically pompous and psychopatological narcissists from the 1968 fake “revolution”s included counterrevolution, as Xi is the revival of the (maoist) stalinism = state capitalism presented as (fake and feudal) “socialism”. Their self-admiration is without limits. Hillary Clinton began her career as fan of Barry Goldwater 1964…
Trumpism is classical fascism in a mafioso version, as is the Putin regime, the Netanyahu regime, the Xi regime, the north korean regime, the iranian regime etc. etc.
Climate denialism at it’s core is driven by pure hatred to anything that reveals the limits to the capitalist/communist etc. utopia of endless economic growth.
At the core of the modern utopian ideas we find the illusion of endless energy resources that can be used without any costs whatsoever. This illusion arises from the facts that 1) you can’t simply see in the oil, coal etc. that their seemingly enormous energy density is the result of processes running through hundreds of millions of years (especially you can’t see it if you believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old…) and 2) CO2, methane etc. are gasses you can’t see and can’t smell.
*The scientific understanding of the nature of fossil fuels is *counterintuitive*, while the trumpian-putinist- etc. misunderstanding and fakery seems intuitive, especially to people born into families in the oligarchy with vast and ever growing fortunes. That’s our problem as scientists. As long as fossil fuels seem cheaper, they will be preferred. We have to put a scientifically calculated price on fossil fuels, and make that socially right. Carbon fee and dividend solves that problem. Why on Earth even Bernie Sanders can’t understand that, is beyond me.
Reply to Karsten V. Johansen
+1
what happened in Germany after WWI in the fascist counterrevolution – little known history
True Origin of WWII: What Historians Get Wrong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjI72hWMk8U
the notion that there is an emerging consensus that partial attribution of climate damages can be assessed on emitters.
If you’re claiming the notion is “scientific” in nature then it’s a spurious unscientific notion.
One might well apply some level of “moral attribution” but then it would follow that such damages would not be limited to only fossil fuel companies but would apply to ALL known emitters.
That includes you Gavin. The Government. The NAS. US Steel. Tesla. Dept of War. Everyone. I’m so sorry but institutional “scientist’s opinions” do not rise to the level of Legal Infrastructure.
This is another desperate Nothing-Burger going no where fast. Instead DO better science and then DO better public outreach communicating that to those who matter.
Gavin: “The real target of the [27 Republican] AGs ire is the discussion of attribution, and the notion that there is an emerging consensus that partial attribution of climate damages can be assessed on emitters. This line of thinking is exemplified by recent papers (such as Callahan and Mankin (2025), but is based on more than a decade of work on this topic, and of course is a direct threat to the fossil fuel companies that the WV AG is trying to protect.”
Data: “ If you’re claiming the notion is “scientific” in nature then it’s a spurious unscientific notion.”
Yawn. A Doomer, portraying himself as so concerned about the future, willingly jumps into bed with 27 Republican deniers, helping them to defend the socializing the cost of the profits of the fossil-fuel industrial complex , and therefore helping them to bring about the worst of possible futures. So, ehem, “unexpected” that it borders on a psychological/sociological cliche….
If multitroll “Data” wasn’t a real boy, the American FF industrial complex would have to order him out of the catalogue of the Russian troll-farm of the late Yevgeny Prigozhin at Olgino.
And probably they would get a significant discount – since doomers attacks on climate science align so well with the Russia’s interests – if the world moved away from fossil fuels – Russia’s economy would have cratered and with it – Russia’s ability to wage genocidal war on Ukraine and the hybrid wars against the West.
By their fruits you shall know them…
Your assertion something does not make it so. So, if indeed there is an “emerging consensus”, your dissent with it does not make it go away.
You seem to be trying to make the claim that the “notion” is a categorical error. But there is no reason to believe a priori that it’s impossible to find convincing causal relationships between particular harms and particular emitters.
West Virginia, a coal state, has an AG that objected to a section on “attribution” with respect to climate science. Twenty-seven other AGS of his party affiliation joined his cause. He mistakenly asserted that “Wentz and Horton were biased because they have (correctly) stated that the “political sphere in the United States continues to be clouded with false debates over the validity of climate change”. Why then remove the entire chapter examining thirty plus years of IPCC and climate science evidence? Isotopes do not lie, revealing the sources of heat trapping emissions in the oceans and atmosphere. Courts are bound by treaties to which the country has signed and the Senate ratified. Some judges are astute to the point of understanding legal liability where it may or may not conflict with the 10/7/1992 ratification of the Climate Treaty. Suppressing data from review by the judiciary does not change the inexorably rapid rise in levels of carbon unequaled in concentration for two million years.
The White House “Champion of Coal” event. February 12, 2026
Photo Op — https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/opt-P20260211MR-0491.jpg
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin standing proudly to the left of President Trump as he signed an Executive Order directing the Department of War to purchase coal power, celebrated the Tennessee Valley Authority’s recommitment to coal, and was honored by coal miners as the “Undisputed Champion of Beautiful, Clean Coal” for his tireless leadership in ending the Radical Left’s war on the industry.
This event underscored President Trump’s unwavering support for beautiful, clean coal — supporting workers, delivering affordable and dependable energy to Americans, creating high-paying jobs in rural communities, and enhancing our national security through American energy dominance.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2026/02/champion-of-beautiful-clean-coal-president-trump-celebrates-industry-revival/
I think I know where this heading. Don’t you?
EVERYONE:
The topic here is: The Climate Science reference they don’t want Judges to read
I think y’all have milked religion for all it’s worth. Please stop.
And for anyone wanting to read or download (or buy paper copy for $112.50 – no thanks) it’s online also at the National Academies.
If you’re logged on to that site (free account), here’s the chapter on Climate Science
https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/26919/chapter/21
Otherwise, read or download the whole thing at:: https://www.nationalacademies.org/publications/26919
Their suggested citation:
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and Federal Judicial Center. 2025. Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Fourth Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
And their blurb:
“The 4th edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence updates the topics covered in the 2011 3rd Edition with the latest science and expands to discuss many new topics, identifying issues that will be useful to judges and others in the legal profession. This valuable reference examines pivotal issues in the areas of science most often subject to dispute, discussing assessment of a case’s needs and evaluating experts and data. The Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence will support judges and other legal professions to ensure that science presented in the courtroom can be understood in the lens of the scientific method and reasoning.
First published in 1994 by the Federal Judicial Center, the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence has been relied upon in the legal and academic communities and is often cited by various courts and others. Judges faced with disputes over the admissibility of scientific and technical evidence refer to the manual to help them better understand and evaluate the relevance, reliability, and usefulness of the evidence being proffered. The manual is not intended to tell judges what is good science and what is not. Instead, it serves to help judges identify issues on which experts are likely to differ and to guide the inquiry of the court in seeking an informed resolution of the conflict.”
Roger Pielke, Jr. recently posted on Substack about this:
Who Actually Wrote the Climate Manual for Federal Judges
https://substack.com/@rogerpielkejr/p-189872400
Pielke claims a significant[1] part in the Detection & Attribution Methods and Extreme Event Attribution sections of the chapter was copied verbatim or only slightly altered from a 2020 article by Michael Burger, the Executive Director of the Sabin Centre. There’s a figure in the Substack post and an Excel file is attached showing raw data of the text analysis.
Pielke further writes: “This brings us to NASEM, which is where the failures of scientific integrity described above should have been identified and mitigated, long before the FJC Manual was written and distributed to federal judges. However, the evidence suggests that the NASEM review process was not adequate to identify these issues.”
In the comments section of the post there is: “And now the WSJ has published an editorial describing the judicial scandal uncovered by entrepid detective, Roger Pielke.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/federal-judicial-center-climate-manual-michael-burger-jessica-wentz-marcia-mcnutt-37f3eb86?st=CTx7Qd&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink”
https://open.substack.com/pub/rogerpielkejr/p/who-actually-wrote-the-climate-manual?utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=227582565
[1] significant means “Burger’s role as a ghost author of the FJC climate chapter is a sufficient basis for its retraction.”
Agreed. Read it, checked it, and Pielke makes a strong case. That’s precisely why the thing got retracted.
A consensus view of a minority does not reality make for the majority such a view affects. Secret forces should not rule a nation be they cabals of billionaires or small cliques of academics and scientists. Because democracy dies in darkness, and in case you haven’t noticed yet it’s already a corpse all over the world now but especially inside the USA. At GISS or ICE or the White House or at Texas A&M University it makes little difference.
Oh please. Not Pielke Jr. again. Highly paid for his clever disinformation. His degrees are in political science. Pielke Sr. is not always terrible, but family loyalty … the son should be ashamed of his usefulness to Trump’s liars, conmen, and bullies.
https://www.desmog.com/roger-pielke-jr/
It’s not new: https://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/12/pielkes-all-way-down.html
Roger Pielke Jr.’s Appallingly Bad Analysis of Billion Dollar Disasters – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-euBlLXRobM
It is an insult to RealClimate to use it as a platform for this dangerous deception.
I signed on here to post a reference to John Timmer’s coverage of the National Academies’ response to the letter from the Attorneys General, and saw that you’d seen that and added it as the update: “Another update (March 17): Apparently the NASEM told the AGs to pound sand.”
https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/03/national-academies-of-sciences-resisting-pressure-to-pull-climate-info/
Yes.
Anyone who wants to enjoy the welcome brevity of the dignified response from Marcia McNutt at NAS, take a couple of minutes to read the absurd letter a bunch of elected officials actually signed their names to, and then the last page will be a welcome return to objective reality.
https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/MTAG/2026/03/10/file_attachments/3579240/2026-03-11%20AGs%27%20Ltr%20to%20Agencies%20re%20NASEM_ex%20A.pdf
I read all the citations in the A.G. letter and it’s completely unsurprising they complained nobody from Sec. Wright’s D.O.E. denier gang were invited to participate in reviewing the NAS document’s climate chapter.
Also unsurprising is that the letter, pretending to promote science, failed to EVEN ONCE reference any of the National Climate Assessment reports that taxpayers have been funding for decades under Congressional mandate, with the specific intent of informing policy in the United States.
And I would like these Attorneys General to explain to their constituents why the cost of fossil energy has been rising so rapidly since the letter was written, while the price of wind and solar power are not rising.
PS – nobody, not even a college fraternity pledge, would be safe making a drinking game based on every time a normal phrase in the A.G. letter is placed in scare quotes. Hospitals have enough work to do without dealing with acute alcohol poisoning. The letter looks like it had been written by an over-dramatic middle school kid.
Thanks. After meeting RPJR – again! ugh! – this is a tonic. Best go to the link, but if you won’t, here’s the opening:
” National Academies of Sciences says no to demands it remove climate info
State attorneys general won’t get climate chapter removed from a legal manual.
“Judges are frequently confronted with cases that hinge upon scientific information that their educational backgrounds may leave them ill-equipped to manage. Because of this challenge, the Federal Judicial Center, a group within the judicial branch of the government, has collaborated with the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) to produce a reference manual that provides background on a range of scientific and medical issues that frequently confront the court system. The Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence is currently on its fourth edition, and it has turned out to be an unexpectedly controversial one.
“For the first time, this edition of the Reference Manual has included a chapter on climate change, meant to prepare judges to manage and potentially decide cases focused on everything from federal environmental rules to charges that fossil fuel producers engaged in fraud by ignoring the many warnings of harms caused by their products. That didn’t sit well with Republican politicians” {well, d’oh