This article will consider the case for instituting a domestic agency that would evaluate the findings from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments to improve the credibility and legitimacy of those claims and conclusions for multiple purposes. The proposed agency would consider the robustness of an assessment's conclusions by construing the evidence through the lens of Daubert rather than Frye. Part I will outline the public debate about climate science-what the debate is about and why it exists. Part II will examine the current role of the IPCC-what it is and why it has not been successful in legitimating U.S. policies responding to the potential risks posed by climate change. Part III will review the Court's approaches to the understanding of science in the context of the admissibility of scientific evidence. Part IV will suggest a new framework for reviewing the IPCC's assessments based on those standards, and will analyze how that new framework has the potential to change the public's view about climate science.
Michelle S. Simon & William Pentland, Reliable Science: Overcoming Public Doubts in the Climate Change Debate, 37 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 219 (2012)