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

Climate change is often perceived as a firmly politicized issue, particularly in countries with stark ideological divides over environmental regulation. This polarization complicates public outreach efforts, as messages emphasizing scientific facts or global urgency frequently encounter resistance or skepticism from those whose political identities are tightly bound to climate skepticism. Wu’s study delves into this phenomenon by examining how messages from co-partisan elected officials—politicians who share political affiliation with constituents—impact both climate-related beliefs and behavioral intentions.

The key finding of the research lies in differentiating between beliefs and intentions. The study shows that while messages from co-partisan politicians did not noticeably alter the recipients’ beliefs about climate change—that is, their acceptance of climate science or acknowledgment of its severity—such communications nevertheless increased the recipients’ stated intentions to mitigate climate impact through personal or collective action. This dissociation underlines a critical insight: changing deeply held ideological beliefs may be less necessary than previously assumed for motivating climate action, as behavioral intentions can be shifted through trusted political voices.

Methodologically, Wu designed an experimental framework where participants were exposed to climate messages attributed to elected officials either aligned or not aligned with the participants’ partisan affiliations. By using carefully controlled messaging content, the research isolated the effect of source-party congruence on responses. Data collection included surveys measuring baseline and post-exposure beliefs about climate change, alongside expressed intentions around climate mitigation behaviors such as energy conservation, policy support, or lifestyle adjustments.

The results challenge the simplistic assumption that belief change is a prerequisite for action. Instead, the research suggests that co-partisan cues serve as social endorsements that empower individuals to engage in climate mitigation behaviors consistent with their political identity, even if their cognitive acceptance of climate science remains unchanged. This phenomenon aligns with theories of motivated reasoning and social identity, where trust and acceptance of information are intricately tied to group membership.

Further analysis revealed that the effect was specific to co-partisan communication. Messages from officials belonging to opposing political parties did not increase behavioral intentions and sometimes even reinforced resistance. This finding underscores the importance of messenger credibility in politicized contexts, highlighting the limits of bipartisan appeals in shifting behavioral intentions at the individual level.

The implications for grassroots climate advocacy and policymaking are profound. Campaigns that harness co-partisan elected officials as vocal advocates may stimulate personal and community-level engagement in climate mitigation more efficiently than those relying solely on cross-partisan scientific persuasion. Such a strategy could unlock latent willingness to act among skeptical populations without engaging in the polarizing and often unproductive effort to change beliefs.

Wu also notes that the separation between beliefs and intentions reflects a strategic opportunity and a psychological complexity. The willingness to act despite incomplete belief acceptance indicates that behavior change can emerge from pragmatic considerations or social signaling rather than fully internalized conviction. This opens up new questions about how sustained and consistent climate behavior can be encouraged even when belief systems remain heterogeneous.

From a science communication perspective, these findings urge a recalibration of messaging tactics. Instead of focusing exclusively on normatively “correcting” misinformation or deeply held doubts, communicators might prioritize engaging trusted political figures to frame climate action as aligned with group identity and values. This approach more effectively reduces resistance rooted in identity threats, enabling incremental progress towards mitigation goals.

Technically, the study’s robust experimental design involved randomized controlled trials with diverse participant samples representative of the U.S. electorate’s partisan composition. This comprehensive methodology strengthens the external validity of Wu’s conclusions, providing compelling evidence for real-world applicability. The measurement instruments captured both attitudinal and behavioral intention dimensions, allowing a granular understanding of co-partisan influence dynamics.

Importantly, while behavioral intentions increased, future research is needed to determine whether these intentions translate into sustained climate-positive behaviors over time. The gap between intention and action is well-recognized in psychological and environmental research, so follow-up longitudinal studies could elucidate long-term effects of co-partisan messaging on concrete behavioral changes like energy use reduction or political activism.

Additionally, the study acknowledges potential boundary conditions. The effect of co-partisan messaging may vary depending on the political context, issue salience, or the perceived authenticity of the political messenger. Further exploration into how such variables moderate influence could refine targeting strategies and improve campaign efficacy.

This research complements a growing body of literature emphasizing the role of social and political identity in shaping environmental attitudes and behaviors. It bridges political psychology and climate communication disciplines, offering actionable insights that pragmatically engage polarized publics without demanding immediate belief conformity. Wu’s work thus contributes both theoretically and practically to accelerating climate mitigation through strategic messaging.

In conclusion, the discovery that messages from co-partisan elected officials can increase climate mitigation intentions without altering fundamental climate beliefs provides a hopeful avenue for advancing environmental action amid political polarization. By leveraging trusted political identities, advocates may better connect with hesitant segments of the population, enhancing willingness to adopt mitigation measures incrementally. As climate challenges intensify, understanding and operationalizing the psychosocial levers of action intention could equip societies with more effective tools to combat the climate crisis.

The nexus of political identity and climate communication uncovered in this study offers a promising roadmap for future intervention designs that move beyond information deficits towards a sophisticated recognition of human social dynamics. Such insights are invaluable for policymakers, grassroots leaders, and scientists striving to mobilize climate action in a fractured world. This profound yet practical understanding transforms the landscape of climate advocacy, encouraging a focus on messenger credibility and partisan affiliation as crucial vectors for change.

Subject of Research:
Messages from co-partisan elected officials and their impact on climate change mitigation intentions and beliefs.

Article Title:
Messages from co-partisan elected officials can increase climate mitigation intentions without changing climate beliefs.

Article References:
Wu, V.Y. Messages from co-partisan elected officials can increase climate mitigation intentions without changing climate beliefs. Nat Commun 16, 9675 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-64678-3

Image Credits:
AI Generated

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-64678-3