2 hours ago, mikebike said:

So then your assertion seems to be that no court should ever be able to adjudicate on scientific matters because it is impossible for them to do so. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

 

What would be the best way to decide these matters when there is conflicting evidence.

 

And please don't start with "the evil environmentalists have rigged the game". Governments, corporations AND environmentalists all attempt to use the system to their advantage... so how do we get the "best science" outcome, in your opinion?

That is absolutely not what I am saying. I am saying that sometimes the judge doesn't understand the science. Period. Eventually the best science will come out, but I wouldn't wait around reading legal proceedings and hoping to find it. 

On a separate note I was involved in environmental protection in the USA for nearly a decade. This included one case that was won by us at the supreme court and another that was settled out of court (because we were not likely to win the case). We settled out the one case because the judge absolutely did not understand the science, if he had we would have likely won. Also in that case the DOJ lawyers were ignorant of the nuanced scientific details in the case and did not adequately counter the litigants arguments that were not supported by the science. It is complex and many times the lawyers at organizations such as Earth Justice stretch the truth and are very good at it.