Last week I wrote about an unusual if unsurprising foray by Judge Jed Rakoff of Manhattan into the ongoing dispute over the Federal Judicial Center (FJC)’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence and its now completely withdrawn chapter on “Climate Science.”
I noted that it was odd that His Honor was defending the sordid process by which the abortive chapter was conceived given that the new president of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) had that same week admitted that the chapter didn’t meet NASEM’s process standards and had therefore been withdrawn so the process could be reviewed.
The trouble is that Neil Shubin, while admitting that the FJC chapter was flawed, stood by NASEM’s similarly problematic and political “Attribution of Extreme Weather and Climate Events and Their Impacts.” So-called attribution theory was at the heart of the most lopsided and flawed content in the FJC report, with much of it having been cribbed from a paper by climate plaintiff Michael Burger of Columbia University and the Sher Edling law firm. Indeed, Burger is acknowledged in the front of the Attribution Report, so what gives?
According to Shubin, the problem with the FJC report is that it wasn’t held to the same standards as the Attribution Report. As he argued, “It turns out this was a book chapter that followed a very different process from the reports we do.” That’s why it’s being pulled and reexamined while the Attribution Report stands. In the end, according to Shubin, “We want to elevate the review of that chapter to that of a report. The idea is that it should match the quality level we seek for reports; it did not receive that because it was a chapter.” They need to have the same “quality level.” In other words, they both need to meet the same scientific standards.
The problem with this is that the announced scientific standard in both cases was the same.
Here’s what it says in the FJC report:
This Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each publication as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the statement of task. [Emphasis added.]
Now look at the Attribution Report:
This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. [Emphasis added.]
Huh.
Well what about the review of the final product? What was the process standard employed there?
Here’s the FJC:
The review of this edition was overseen by Judge Jed S. Rakoff, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and Judge Kathleen M. O’Malley (retired), Kate O’Malley LLC. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of the manual was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. [Emphasis added.]
Here’s the Attribution Report:
The review of this report was overseen by George M. Hornberger (NAE), Vanderbilt University and William B. Gail, Global Weather Corporation (retired). They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. [Emphasis added.]
Nearly word for word, the announced standards in both cases were identical. Perhaps this is just a delay tactic? If so, comparing two identical standards to identify differences is a one straight out of The Office. It’s the same picture! They may think their federal funders are Creed Bratton.
The fact is that, per NASEM’s front matter in both documents, the same “institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness” applied to each, under which they evaluated the same issue, after which they reached materially identical results.
NASEM seems to have admitted that the standards were breached in one of them, so simply logic implies that it was breached in the other as well. Their federal funders shouldn’t fall for their tricks.