ABSTRACT
The nonphenomenon of “downwind drought” mentioned by Dr. Kahan is illustration of the lawyer’s generalizing habits: lawyers are taught to recognize certain impacts as legally actionable. Further, lawyers are taught that laws should promote social stability, and will therefore strain existing law to cover new factual situations before yielding to the creation of new law. The extrapolation process is really one of opinion molding; opinion molding involves politics; and in politics there is advocacy, by scientists and nonscientists. As scholars working to build a law system relating to weather modification, the basic problems between lawyers and scientists are caused by poor communication; and these are resolved by reaching across the interface: by defining terms and educating one another as objectively as possible. The mingling of scientists and judges has become more pronounced as courts have been increasingly called upon to regulate technology through statutes such as those dealing with atomic energy and environmental issues.
