Prosecutor: Your honor, members of the jury, we have a guy with an IQ here. An expert witness. He knows all kinds of things about climate change. After I ask him a few questions you jury members will be asked to decide whether climate change is guilty of being man made and what everyone ought to have to do to keep it from happening. Professor Honest-to-Goodness, have you compiled data and examined it enough to form an opinion that climate change is happening?
Honest-to-goodness no-shit scientist: Yes. Climate change appears to be happening.
Prosecutor: Have you created any hypothesis to explain why this might be happening?
Honest-to-goodness no-shit scientist: Of course I have. Hundreds, thousands of hypotheses are possible to explain ever piece of that data leading me to conclude climate change is happening.
Prosecutor: Have you tested those hypotheses?
Honest-to-goodness no-shit scientist: Um, well, I’ve tested one of them. It would take forever to test all of them, and every time one’s tested the additional data the testing provides brings in more hypotheses to explain the data.
Prosecutor: And did you reach any conclusions from the hypothesis you tested.
Honest-to-goodness no-shit scientist: Well, it’s entirely possible man is contributing to the current climate changes, though it’s not absolutely certain what those climate changes actually are. Climate change isn’t fully understood at this time.
Prosecutor: Ah ha. So your test of the hypothesis did show beyond a reasonable doubt that climate change is happening? And a preponderance of the part of the evidence you believe you understand supports the hypothesis might be contributing to that climate change?
Honest-to-goodness no-shit scientist: Um. There’s a strong possibility that might explain the parts we do understand about it.
Prosecutor: Thank you Professor Honest-to-goodness no-shit scientist. Your honor, members of the jury, I rest my case. What we have here is prima faci evidence man is contributing to devastating climate change. I suggest we dismiss this expert and call in some social engineers to recommend the appropriate penalties we can’t enforce in order to make the weather better.
Judge: Members of the jury, you’ve heard the evidence. Now I instruct you to go to the jury room and decide the case based only on the evidence before you. Decide whether we have a preponderance of evidence [somewhat bad], or beyond a reasonable doubt [a lot worse]. Afterward you’ll all be asked to give television interviews explaining how you arrived at your verdict.