Richard Lindzen, Emeritus Professor of Physics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said on April 10 that 'consensus is not the test in science' in a statement addressing how federal judges evaluate scientific evidence.
The issue arises as more than 1,000 climate-related cases are moving through state and federal courts, with significant implications for environmental regulations and energy policy. The Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence is provided to over 6,000 judges across America, many of whom lack specialized scientific training and rely on the manual for objective guidance in technical matters. These cases often involve substantial economic stakes, according to the CO2 Coalition's published open letter.
Lindzen co-signed an open letter dated April 1, 2026 with William Happer and Steven Koonin to Chief Justice John Roberts as chair of the Federal Judicial Center. The letter raises concerns about deficiencies in the fourth edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence used by more than 3,000 federal judges and cited in over 1,700 judicial opinions. The Federal Judicial Center serves as the primary research and education agency for United States federal courts established by Congress in 1967, according to the document itself.
The Supreme Court recently overturned long-standing Chevron deference in its Loper Bright decision. Judges now independently interpret ambiguous statutes instead of deferring to federal agency views. This shift increases the need for reliable scientific evidence in regulatory challenges and affects ongoing litigation over rules involving fossil fuels and consumer energy costs, according to the Supreme Court opinion.
Lindzen said, 'This framing is inappropriate for a judicial reference text. In matters of science, the authority of thousands is not worth the humble reasoning of one single person. The essence of science is the scientific method.' According to his faculty profile at MIT, Lindzen has published extensively on atmospheric dynamics, radiative transfer and climate modeling and brings decades of peer-reviewed expertise to questions of scientific methodology in public policy contexts.
