Warmists want courts to settle climate debate – But ‘When You Need Courts to Settle Science, Then Science Isn’t On Your Side’
“The most important thing the courts could do,” he said, was to hold a top-level “finding of fact”, to settle these “scientific disputes” once and for all: so that it could then be made illegal for any government, corporation (or presumably individual scientist) ever to question the agreed “science” again. Furthermore, he went on, once “the scientific evidence” thus has the force of binding international law, it could be used to compel all governments to make “the emissions reductions that are needed”, including the phasing out of fossil fuels, to halt global warming in its tracks.
Courts can use scientific evidence to make a decision in a case, but courts don’t define scientific facts. A judicial conference which calls on courts to settle a scientific debate is troubling.