English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Global climate change is one of the most serious challenges humans currently face. The US courts have been called upon to adjudicate disputes concerning the proper way to confront this challenge. Most recently, the US Supreme Court faced one such dispute in  Massachusetts  v . E.P.A.  Faced with a question of what to do, and the legal mandate of a federal agency, with a question of natural background rates of warming, the Court decided the issue upon narrow constitutional grounds. In so doing, the authors contend that the Court sidestepped a significant issue of how the US Courts understand and handle important questions of statistical evidence. Repeatedly, disputes are brought to court that are questions to be resolved by determining nothing more that the difference between a base rate and another rate. Yet, the authors’ research has shown this simple principle is addressed rarely, and sometimes not appropriately. The authors call for more education in math and statistics for the legal profession.

Statistical base and background rates: the silent issue not addressed in Massachusetts v. EPA