The American Meteorological Society (AMS), accompanied by prominent scientific organizations including the Ecological Society of America, the American Statistical Association, the Woodwell Climate Research Center, and the American Institute of Biological Sciences, has issued a forceful statement concerning the recent removal of the climate science chapter from the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Fourth Edition. This decision, enacted by the Federal Judiciary Center (FJC), alongside a coordinated letter from 21 state attorneys general to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), represents a significant challenge to the accessibility of authoritative scientific knowledge on climate change within judicial and governmental processes.
The omitted chapter has long served as an authoritative consolidation of climate science, reflecting decades of rigorous research, synthesis, and consensus-building among thousands of scientists worldwide. The AMS and its allies emphasize that this body of work embodies the consensus conclusions derived from comprehensive evaluations of diverse evidentiary streams across multiple scientific disciplines. Its removal raises concerns not only about limiting access to the most current scientific understanding but also about potentially undermining the role of science in public policy and legal decision-making.
The statement robustly underscores that the scientific foundations detailed in the excised chapter are consistent with the output of hundreds of comprehensive assessments conducted by expert panels and scientific institutions motivated by rigorous standards of accuracy and integrity. Such extensive evaluations have concluded, with overwhelming consensus, that human-driven climate change is occurring at an unprecedented rate and scale, posing severe and escalating risks to ecological systems, economies, and public health worldwide.
The American Meteorological Society’s declaration highlights two primary concerns arising from the FJC’s decision and the attorneys general’s letter. Firstly, by removing this guiding chapter, public officials—including judges, policymakers, and litigators—may be deprived of vital, evidence-based understandings critical for informed decision-making. Secondly, this act could discourage scientists from engaging with public institutions, thereby weakening the interface between scientific expertise and societal governance just when such dialogue is most imperative.
The significance of the excised chapter lies in its role as a judicial reference, offering courts and legal practitioners comprehensible yet scientifically rigorous guidance on the nature and evidence of climate change. The chapter bridges the complex, interdisciplinary realities of climate science—spanning atmospheric physics, chemistry, oceanography, cryology, biology, and numerous other fields—making cutting-edge scientific consensus accessible to non-specialists in judicial contexts.
By removing this resource, there emerges a risk that legal evaluations of climate-related cases may proceed without a firm grounding in the latest scientific consensus, leading to decisions that could insufficiently address the multifaceted realities of climate science. Such gaps in understanding could have broad implications for environmental regulation, climate policy enforcement, and litigation concerning climate impacts and mitigation responsibilities.
The AMS and co-signatories assert that the wealth of scientific evidence compiled in the removed chapter stands on a foundation of objective, independent research conducted by thousands of scientists across myriad disciplines. These scientists adhere to stringent peer review processes and methodological rigor that ensure the reliability of their conclusions. The decision to exclude such a vital resource appears disconnected from the established norms and robust scientific scrutiny that characterize climate research.
Importantly, the scientific disciplines involved in comprehensively understanding climate change are extraordinarily broad. They include atmospheric and physical sciences that unravel the fundamental processes driving climate systems, biological sciences assessing ecological consequences, and social sciences examining human impacts and policy responses. This extensive scope has been meticulously reflected in the chapter, making its removal a significant forfeiture of interdisciplinary knowledge essential for legal adjudication and policymaking.
The AMS reiterates the imperative of reinstating the climate science chapter, urging both the Federal Judiciary Center and the National Academies to restore this resource promptly. The restoration would reaffirm the commitment to integrating trustworthy scientific insight into the judiciary and public service frameworks, promoting legal outcomes and policy decisions grounded in empirical evidence and consensus science.
Furthermore, the statement serves as a clarion call affirming that climate science, underpinned by transparent data, reproducible methodologies, and cross-disciplinary validation, is vital for society’s navigation of one of the most pressing challenges of our time. The scientific community’s unified voice seeks to safeguard the integrity of science’s contribution to public discourse and institutional functions amid escalating geopolitical and ideological pressures.
The AMS’s advocacy reflects a broader scientific consensus that human activities—particularly the combustion of fossil fuels and land-use changes—are the primary drivers of recent climate changes. The consequences documented include rising global temperatures, increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, sea-level rise due to melting ice and thermal expansion, and resultant threats to biodiversity, economies, and human health.
In conclusion, the removal of the climate science chapter from a revered judicial manual represents not merely a procedural alteration but a potentially detrimental step in the intersection of science and policy. The American Meteorological Society and its partner organizations emphasize the paramount importance of maintaining open and accurate scientific communication channels within all branches of government. They reaffirm their readiness to support public officials in accessing and applying the best available knowledge to foster responsible, equitable, and forward-thinking responses to climate change.
Subject of Research:
Climate Science and its Accessibility in Judicial and Public Policy Contexts
Article Title:
American Meteorological Society Condemns Removal of Climate Science Chapter from Judicial Reference Manual
News Publication Date:
February 2026
Web References:
https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/statement-on-public-availability-of-scientific-information-and-scientific-evidence-on-climate-change/
References:
Federal Judiciary Center Letter (2026)
Letter from 21 State Attorneys General to NASEM (2026)
Keywords:
Climate change, scientific consensus, Federal Judiciary Center, American Meteorological Society, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, climate science chapter removal, public policy, scientific evidence, climate litigation, interdisciplinary science, scientific organizations, climate impacts
