From Lawrence Solomon at the Financial Post:
A cross examination of global warming science conducted by the University of Pennsylvania’s Institute for Law and Economics has concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming proponents fail to stand up to scrutiny.
He found that the climate establishment does not follow the scientific method. Instead, it “seems overall to comprise an effort to marshal evidence in favor of a predetermined policy preference.”
The cross-examination, carried out by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, found that “on virtually every major issue in climate change science, the [reports of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and other summarizing work by leading climate establishment scientists have adopted various rhetorical strategies that seem to systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties or even disagreements.”
Professor Johnson, who expressed surprise that the case for global warming was so weak, systematically examined the claims made in IPCC publications and other similar work by leading climate establishment scientists and compared them with what is found in the peer-edited climate science literature. He found that the climate establishment does not follow the scientific method. Instead, it “seems overall to comprise an effort to marshal evidence in favor of a predetermined policy preference.”
Financial Post
Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe the author of The Deniers.
The 79-page document, which effectively eviscerates the case for man-made global warming, can be found here:
Global Warming Advocacy Science: A Cross Examination
U of Penn, Inst for Law & Econ Research Paper No. 10-08
University of Pennsylvania – Law School
Date Posted: May 22, 2010
Last Revised: May 24, 2010
Working Paper Series
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Those pesky lawyers and their habit of investigating consistency and causation, what a nuisance they are. Oh, sorry, I’m one. Scrub that.
This is not a surprising conclusion for the WUWT-readers.
The Question is: why so many politicians still don’t believe “there is no climate crisis!”? It’s something social and psychological!
Welcome to the club Larry. Prepare to be slimed.
Tell us something we didn’t already know.
The analysis makes much of the fact that daily max surface air temperatures are more representative of average temperature through the troposphere than the daily min temperatures are. This strikes me as totally irrelevant. If we choose to define the mean surface temperature as the average of the max and min, that is likely reasonable for several of the purposes to which it will be put: comparing with tree-ring data; comparing with ice core proxies; glacial/icecap melt; maybe even sea warming. The difference in mixing does have to be considered when trying to figure out where all the extra heat (as implied by the satellite measurements) is going. And I’m sure it is.
Climategate the gift that keeps on giving.By Christmas 2010 the lawsuits and criminal investigation will be raging. And politicos running for cover has already started.2010 is a good year for truth and salvaging the scientific method.I wonder when schools will teach the concept again.
Emotional AGW-ers will not be swayed by logic, facts, and reason, BUT debating these matters in a court of law (requiring evidence, substantiation, and cross-examination) has tremendous merit. Most folk know smoke-and-mirrors when they are shown other plausible/credible explanations.
The blogosphere and reports in the traditional media both suffer from lack of accountability. No penalty for fudging, cherry-picking, or outright lying. Standards of the courts are useful, important, and generally understood by all.
So BRING IT ON! Let the best facts/forecasts/interpretations carry the day!
I can just hear the wails now…
“But he’s not a Climaneuralscrambolologist!”
^
Heh, I’m really not a prick!!! But…….”Professor Johnson, who expressed surprise……”, is that “The cross-examination, carried out by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor” ‘s brother? ‘Cause if that’s not the same person, we probably should know more about Professor Johnson. If it is the same guy, tell him to quit changing his name!……must be a mood I’m in. 🙂
Peace?(stated sheepishly)
Hope I’m wrong, but I think his career will quietly wind down over the next couple of years… dying belief systems always lash out harder near the end, the last gasps always aim for revenge and punishment.
various rhetorical strategies
boy, you’re telling me
It might already be happening, his website is down…
Dollars to doughnuts that somebody will Ad-Hom the author of the article.
“Marshalling in evidence…”
That’s well said. And the marshalled evidence was often times phoney or based on non-peer reviewed literature (not that peer-reviewed literature says anything about its quality).
this group of activist scientists – what may be called the climate establishment
sweeeet!
But he doesn’t have a degree in climatology! He doesn’t have the knowledge or training to understand how the climate works! He was obviously not smart enough to comprehend the established theories and data proving climate change is real and dangerous! HE’S A LAWYER, HE IS NOT A SCIENTIST!!
As a service freely provided to this blog, I have now put forth the expected argument(s) of the (C)AGW proponents in advance, saving them the effort. They may now concentrate on arguing the merits of the paper. Have a nice day.
This should be one huge story: Isn’t Michael Mann at Penn State? Could you imagine how this story would run if the MSM would even pretending to be fair?
I have been trying to find the time needed to read through Johnston’s paper since mid morning with little success. Not the paper’s fault but mine. So far I found it informative and apparently well researched. It looks like the comment about evisceration is perhaps mild. It seems well worth the read and I will continue and digest, before I make any final judgments.
mbabbitt said on June 8, 2010 at 10:19 pm
Two separate institutions involved there, University of Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania State University. With a certain amount of mutual irritation -slash- rivalry over the similarity of names and somewhat-often confusion over which is which. Which will likely be attributed as “motivation” for this paper.
This is why it might not be a bad thing for one of these climate-related suits to get its day in court so that some “experts” could be called and carefully cross-examined. With the right counsel, it could be a disaster for the CAGW camp.
A lawyer is trained to take a side and present an argument that supports it. So I wasn’t surprised that Research Paper No. 10-08 takes a side.
I was a surprised that the author has given so little thought to evaluating predictions. The Paper concludes with the following sentence:
“Policy carrying potential costs in the trillions of dollars ought not to be based on stories and photos confirming faith in models, but rather on precise and replicable testing of the models’ predictions against solid observational
data.”
If the author wants to evaluate whether a model’s forecasts are good or bad as a policy guide, he needs to ask good or bad compared to what ? For example, have Hansen’s 1988-2020 projections of global temperature turned out to be not as good as someone else’s projections or no projections at all?
“I reject your reality and substitute my own.”
-Adam Savage, Mythbusters
Legal opinion forms a powerful voice in the corridors of power. I think tis will ripple outwards. Once the politicos get the message that they will be overturned by legal challenges to policy they will bend with the wind.
Fred says: June 8, 2010 at 9:52 pm
“Hope I’m wrong, but I think his career will quietly wind down over the next couple of years”
Have you ever tried to dismiss a University Program Director?
Have you ever tried to dismiss a University Professor?
Have you ever tried to dismiss a Lawyer?
How about all three at once, for less than 25 million dolars?
I expect he knows Exactly what he wrote, and Exactly what it means, and Exactly what the possible raminficatons could be.
Wren: June 8, 2010 at 11:05 pm
I was a surprised that the author has given so little thought to evaluating predictions.
“Policy carrying potential costs in the trillions of dollars ought not to be based on stories and photos confirming faith in models, but rather on precise and replicable testing of the models’ predictions against solid observational data.”
If the author wants to evaluate whether a model’s forecasts are good or bad as a policy guide, he needs to ask good or bad compared to what ?
He didn’t say the forecasts needed to be evaluated as “good or bad” — he said the forecasts needed to be evaluated against the observed data.