There are a LOT of problems with *some* aspects of this proposal, but I’ll just mention three:
1) Probably the biggest difficultly in improving the peer review process in general is finding competent reviewers: people well enough versed in any specialty to perform effective review of new findings usually prefer to be doing something more immediately relevant to their own careers - it’s *really* tough to put together “blue ribbon” panels to investigate *specific* subsets of results.
2)And even then, if you don’t like the results of (say) the NRC’s analysis of Mann’s “Hockey Stick”, you get someone who is highly credentialed, like Edward Wegman, to set up another group, which reaches a different conclusion.
And then who you do get to arbitrate THAT dispute?
God?
3) Even assuming that you *could* set up such a vetting process in the US, science is an *international* effort, and scientists in other countries, their non Governmental organizations, and their Governments are *highly* unlikely to recognize the authority of any such nationally based “legal system” to vet scientific effort, instead they will regard it generally as an attempt to “politicize” science, and specifically as an attempt to intimidate scientists into avoiding lines of inquiry likely to become politically “incorrect” depending on the political party in power at the moment.
Thanks for commenting,.