ENVIRONMENTALLY SPEAKING

Podcast: Environmentally Speaking

Host: Marisa Desautel

Guest/Co-host: Clarice Parsons

In this episode of Environmentally Speaking, Marissa Desautels and Clarice Parsons unpack a recent article raising concerns about the removal of climate change content from a scientific reference manual intended for judges. What starts as a reaction to a strange and troubling article quickly becomes a larger conversation about climate science denial, the role of expertise in the courtroom, and how recent changes in judicial deference may shift scientific decision-making away from agencies and toward judges.

The conversation explores the legal, political, and practical consequences of sidelining climate science in judicial and regulatory spaces. Marissa and Clarice question whether static reference materials can ever substitute for expert testimony, especially in fields like climate science that evolve rapidly. They also connect the issue to the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision, arguing that reducing deference to agencies may not eliminate bias, but instead transfer power to judges who may lack technical expertise.

• What the judges’ reference manual on scientific evidence appears to be

• Why removing climate change material from that manual is so concerning

• How the issue relates to the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision

• Why agency expertise still matters in environmental decision-making

• The limits of judges and reference manuals in evaluating evolving science

• How climate denial continues to shape policy and public discourse

• Why symbolic climate commitments often fall short of meaningful action

• A broader question: what can actually be done when consensus is no longer realistic?

Email: marisa@desautelbrowning.com

Phone: 401-477-0023

Website: desautelbrowning.com

Reference:  https://earth.org/political-attack-scientists-condemn-removal-of-climate-chapter-from-us-judges-reference-manual/