Tales of Our Times
for Clean Air & Water
Look Beyond Politics Into Climate, Science, Inquiry By Trial
Climate change has been a powerful issue in our country for decades. The 116th Congress now proposes to expand the struggle. Over the decades, the issue has been muddled in the public arena, which talks less about the science than about kinds of people who pervert the science. This new normal for public discourse has clouded the “climate of science” in our democracy.
- Each side often says the opposing side is afraid to answer questions about weak points in its case.
- Each side often says its foes distort how science advances by constant questioning.
- Each side often says its foes’ energy ambitions corrupt its science.
To find answers, a trial has set procedures, each step of which is infixed in all participants by the judge and the force of law. The familiar term “contempt of court” means someone ignored a required procedure. Specified steps include:
- The question to be decided is defined for the trial and cannot wander.
- Names of witnesses and evidence they will present must be sent to the opposing side well before the trial.
- Jurors are screened to avoid prejudgers.
- Jurors weigh competing evidence that meets the time-tested rules of evidence. The rules work to distinguish opinion from fact and sort hearsay (heard in passing) from firsthand knowledge.
- Jurors are stopped from using outside information, as from news commentary.
- Anyone who testifies is subject to cross-examination. That is, witnesses must answer, if they can, every specific question the trial lawyers ask about their testimony.
A mock trial instead would display for all to see the discipline of seeking truth, striving to be certain. The topic would be climate change; on display, however, would be the rigors of inquiry, as applied in science and in trials. Experts brought in by each side would testify on the science. Lawyers for each side would ask their hard questions of the experts, bringing answers. Data would be questioned. Other experts could give rebuttal evidence. The full jury would listen throughout.
The subject would not wander, as it does in the streets and media briefs. The strong points for each side would be visible and also the weaker points of each. A leading university could relight our nation’s fundamentals in a mock trial. Or the test run could be done by PBS, the National Geographic Channel or Discovery Channel.
The earnest methods of science and a jury trial are worlds different from frothy talk shows and press statements. Watching the processes at work has national value far beyond the climate change dispute.
The origins of inquiry must be taught.
