This battle goes both ways. Although much has been written on how to defend one's opinions under oath and will be a brief part of the presentation, my focus will be on the "attack" side. Based on over 20 active years in forensic meteorology, I will discuss some basic errors, misconceptions and, sometimes, possible fabrications that can occur in weather analyses, reports and testimony, as well as how to assist an attorney client in the "attack" against the opposing expert. The overall goal is that the trier of fact (jury or judge) receive an accurate account of the weather events.
In a few matters, a weather expert might have to defend his/her opinions to the attorney client, who might have been expecting or hoping for a different result. This can happen when weather opinions have previously been formulated by a non-meteorological expert (e.g., an engineer or accident reconstructionist) and presented to the client, who adopts the opinions in support of a working theory of the case. I will offer some examples in which I have been retained "late in the game", only to find the other expert's opinions regarding the weather are incorrect and indefensible.
Working through these and other "battles" are all elements of the complicated world of forensic meteorology. Identification of the cases, parties, attorneys and experts will be withheld throughout the presentation.