US Chamber of commerce wants trial on global warming issue. Reader poll inside

Cases involving legal decisions about matters of science are routine. (E.g., about dangers of various medicines, the validity of patents, etc.) Saying that science shouldn’t be decided by the courts is a non-starter–they’re already involved. Eliminating the courts would not eliminate non-scientific rulings on the topic, it would just shift non-scientific decision-making by default to the legislature and/or the executive agencies. And they make their decisions based on testimony given to them, similar to what goes on in a trial.
Second, a legal decision would not foreclose scientific research and publication on the topic. IOW, the judiciary wouldn’t be intruding into science or shutting it up. There’s no analogy to the Galileo situation.
Third, there’s no need for a “trial” to be a legally binding trial. What the CoC seems to be calling for, or anyway ought to be calling for, is a more elaborate form of a “hearing,” one that merely mimics the features of a trial in order to enable a fairer and fuller consideration of the evidence. In particular these features are: a neutral (non-agency) judge/overseer, cross-examination of scientists, and document “discovery.”
Fourth, there’s no need for the judge to be the detailed examiner of the evidence. In patent cases brought before the International Trade Commission, for instance, there are professional panels of examiners who hear the arguments and then make a recommendation to the judge. This format could be adopted here, with the panels being made up of distinguished retired scientists from various disciplines.
Fifth, there’s no need for the judge to be a scientific illiterate, if the “trial” format is merely an ad hoc device to enable a more disinterested and detailed examination of the evidence and arguments. He/she could be a scientist with some legal training, or real-time legal backup by an aide. And the judge needn’t be a single individual, but could be a multi-member group, like an appeals court.
Sixth, the “decision” handed down needn’t be black/white, but instead could be couched in probabilistic terms (shades of gray). Or, better, the trial could be set up to have multiple outcomes, with the third outcome being, “Given the costs involved, and the irrevocable nature of a treaty commitment to such spending, would it be wise to wait two (say) years while additional skeptical research is funded and additional scrutiny is performed on the current consensus?” If Yes is the answer—which seems as though it would be a nice face-saving outcome—that’s great.
If No is the outcome, that wouldn’t be a loss for the skeptical side, because if the trial were not held, No would be the outcome from Congress or the EPA anyway. Long-term a No would be a Win for skepticism because, if the world fails to warm over the next decades, Establishment science and Establishment political structures and procedures would lose legitimacy, and more decentralized scientific and political organizational structures would gain in contrast.
(For instance, I think it would be good if there were seven funding agencies in place of the NSF, whose budgets would rise and fall depending on the impofrtance of the research they had funded. This would encourage more funding of far-out ideas, such as DARPA does. DARPA’s research provides much more bang for the buck than the NSF’s.)
Seventh, in addition to making an overall AGW ruling (Yes, No, or Delay), the judges and examiners could make lots of sub-rulings, or anyway offer tentative opinions, on the 101 contested claims in this dispute, listing them in order from strongest to weakest. Or they could instead, or in addition, point out areas where the evidence needs to be re-examined or firmed up or made congruent with some other line of evidence.
Eighth, the risk of getting a biased judge or panel of judges could be reduced by splitting the trial into different sub-trials on disputed topic-areas, with separate judge-panels and examiner-panels for each. (In addition, each side could be allowed to appoint one of the judges to the panel, to ensure that its arguments got a hearing during judicial head-scratching conferences.) For instance, there could be one topic-panel for sea level rise, one for positive/negative CO2 feedbacks, one for solar effects, one for glaciers, etc. There could be as many as 20 of these. This would greatly speed things up and add to the depth of the examinations.
Ninth, regardless of the outcome, it would be a great contribution to future disputants to have all the arguments and citations and evidence put “on the record” in a centralized location, and to have lots of “myths” debunked or at least crippled during cross-examination. Cross-examination and formal “debates” by disputants (which should be part of these procedures) would force both sides to confront each others’ best points, instead of talking past each other. The issues involved would thereby be sharpened and clarified. This alone justifies this format.

Roger Knights (07:09:52) :
Cases involving legal decisions about matters of science are routine. (E.g., about dangers of various medicines, the validity of patents, etc.) Saying that science shouldn’t be decided by the courts is a non-starter–they’re already involved. Eliminating the courts would not eliminate non-scientific rulings on the topic, it would just shift non-scientific decision-making by default to the legislature and/or the executive agencies. And they make their decisions based on testimony given to them, similar to what goes on in a trial.
Second, a legal decision would not foreclose scientific research and publication on the topic. IOW, the judiciary wouldn’t be intruding into science or shutting it up. There’s no analogy to the Galileo situation. . .

Excellent analysis, including the suggestions how to structure such a proceeding. I would add that while cases “involving matters of science” are common, they are perhaps better characterized as “matters of science as they affect policy or applications,” well illustrated in Roger Knights’ paragraph 6.
The essential question is whether there is a clear-enough understanding of climate dynamics (from prehistory through the present) to justify the alarming predictions and draconian policies that the AGW ideologues want to foist upon us. A ruling that these issues are not in fact ‘settled’ would go a long way toward stopping the rush to the cliff.

. . . Third, there’s no need for a “trial” to be a legally binding trial. What the CoC seems to be calling for, or anyway ought to be calling for, is a more elaborate form of a “hearing,” one that merely mimics the features of a trial in order to enable a fairer and fuller consideration of the evidence. In particular these features are: a neutral (non-agency) judge/overseer, cross-examination of scientists, and document “discovery.”

According to the LA Times article linked in the post up top, the Chamber expects the request for an enhanced hearing to be denied, whereupon they plan to go to court:

. . . The goal of the chamber, which represents 3 million large and small businesses, is to fend off potential emissions regulations by undercutting the scientific consensus over climate change. If the EPA denies the request, as expected, the chamber plans to take the fight to federal court.

The reporter’s use of the word “undercutting” displays an unfortunate bias; better would be ‘challenging’.
It will be interesting to see if the EPA will agree to a hearing. If they’re smart they will, as that will more easily enable them to stack the deck with their own ‘experts’. Once it gets to the courts, the EPA (i.e. the Obama administration) could have less control of the outcome.
/Mr Lynn