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.
The AGW crowd spends alot of time “debunking” the claims of the sceptics. Unfortunately, most of the “debunking” that I have read is aimed at strawman arguments. Johnson’s article collects in one place what I view as the best of the serious sceptical arguments. As a sceptic who is open to persuasion, I would likely switch camps if someone at RealClimate would go through this article with a fine-toothed comb and show me where Johnson is wrong.
OT but the above quote about Obama trying to find out who’s ass to kick, I can tell him. I voted for him and he is kicking MY ass!
—–
You can’t reason with someone that doesn’t want to be reasoned with. Your point illustrates why whenever AGW goes to court it falls to its knees.
Mann, Hansen, Romm, are not lawyers. What they offer as evidence will never pass the initial court rules as evidence.
Romm for example demand we accept his forecasts and extrapolations of 2050 and 2100 weather as valid evidence and proof. Mann peddles his proxies or actually his personal take on proxies as evidence. (I am not sure he was at the crime scene and observed the actuall tree cuttings and the locked vault they went into and the armed guards that protected the tree rings from being switched.)
Anthony Watts debunks the accuracy of the data gathering stations. You can’t take the station data to court when so much data is corrupted. All the posturing pretend scientists I read of indicate they have no clue of what court rooms call rules of evidence.
this group of activist scientists – what may be called the climate establishment
Stephen Schneider a leader among them
This is interesting:
Dan Cole Professor of Law at the Indiana University School of Law comments on Jason Scott Johnston “Cross-Examines” Climate Science
He states:
“….Finally, from a legal-policy perspective Johnston’s presumption that advocacy-based, “establishment” climate models are leading to overly ambitious and expensive climate policies seems to conflate the climate-policy rhetoric of 50-80 percent reductions in GHG emissions by 2050 with the reality of very modest – arguably insignificant – climate policies that have so far been adopted or are presently being contemplated for near-term adoption. His concern about “expensive, immediate and irreversible policy commitments” is, at least so far, unwarranted. Over-commitment to avoiding climate change hardly seems to be the problem right now. Rather, the immediate problem seems to be either no or too little climate policy. Before we concern ourselves with attaining (but not exceeding) some “optimal” level of GHG control, it would be nice if we could at least get the direction right.
UPDATE: I’ve asked Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA, and contributor to the highly respected RealClimate website for his opinion of Professor Johnston’s “cross-examination” of climate science. If he e-mails me or posts about it, I will let you know. ”
There is a place to leave comments. It will be interesting to see if he gets an answer from Gavin Schmidt.
And yet while balanced ‘reviews’ like this are being published … the AGW catastrophe juggernaut just keeps ploughing ahead … fresh from the BBC, this article on the latest “meeting” in Bonn…..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10276225.stm
Love the comment from the Bangladeshi rep … Quamrul Chowdhury,
“At Bali, we had the mandate to complete our task at Copenhagen. Unfortunately, we couldn’t deliver at Copenhagen; and if we can’t deliver at Cancun… it will be unfortunate, it will be tragic, it will be a holocaust.”
I’m speechless.
DirkH says:
June 9, 2010 at 7:06 am
Anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge about AGW could tear this to shreds, but it’s 82 pages long. It also introduces no new arguments whatsoever, but is simply a rehash of I-don’t-want-it-to-be-true talking points. You really expect me to waste my time doing so in a series of blog comments?
Basil says:
June 9, 2010 at 6:10 am
The fact is that this itself is one long appeal to authority. “He’s a lawyer, so he must know logic better than the rest of us, and look, he disagrees with AGW. Case closed, nothing to see, everyone can go home.”
A lawyer said it, and everyone knows how trustworthy and truthful lawyers are, so we can all stop thinking here. Check your own brain at the door, and trust this authority.
Meanwhile, there is no opposing argument in the document. It’s a “cross examination” that presents only one side of the debate.
Disingenuous and misleading. Just because it says what you want it to say doesn’t make it right. Imagine if this was done on the AGW side, how you’d be howling.
” David L. says:
[…]
crisis: “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before. “……like tax the air, or energy, etc.”
…or live rent-free.
Google News, “Rahm Emanuel BP”:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/06/rahm-emanuel-bp-gul-oil-spill.html
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 9, 2010 at 12:12 am
“…Smokey Bait
It’s obvious someone is fishing for some contentious replies, as the Hansen stuff has been brought up and replied to several times lately, yet keeps showing up like some brand-new thing deserving of brand-new discussion.
Strange, after all those broken lines and snapped poles, you’d think they’d finally show up with some stronger tackle…”
______________________________________________________________________
They have not put any new AGW arguments up on the iphones.
It is bad enough that Obama fumbles without his teleprompter but now the activists have to have one too. Isn’t it about time the puppet master behind the curtain showed his face….
Guess not. He knows if the activist actually saw who was really pulling their strings the would scream in horror.
mjk says: June 9, 2010 at 6:03 am
“…join the class action climate change litigation against big oil [BP (assuming it is not already bankrupt), Shell, Exxon et al…”
Did you not get the memo?
British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell have been funding the Climate Research Unit since it first opened in 1974.
Bottom of this page from the Climate Research Units web site.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
You will also find the Nuclear, Food to Ethanol, International Insurance and Finance companies in the list; and of course Greenpeace and the World Wildfire Fund.
“Unlike you –I am pretty sure we have a good case”
You know there are people who might actually believe you know what is actually going on.
This, unfortunately, will not stop the continuous promotion through ads in newspapers, tv, the web, etc., through all the media, in favor of Global Warming/Climate Change, which is echoed by innocent and good hearted people who are thus constantly scared about the inminent armageddon.
This obeys to the same tactics applied on other issues, equally logical sophisms.
I have an open mind on AGW.
But I must agree with the person who commented that a cross-examination without the witness being present is problematical.
If these lawyers are actually searching for the truth rather than just making a point, or mounting a prosecution case, how come they didn’t submit their paper to the IPCC for comment? They have had plenty of time to do so – apparently this is a 2010 version of a paper first prepared in 2008.
“”Pamela Gray says:
June 9, 2010 at 7:01 am
“The greenhouse affect is warming the oceans!” In fact, they have said that. They just can’t find the warming that should be there and have said, oh so scientifically, that it is hiding.””
Pamela, this, and so many other things they have claimed, was my tipping point.
How can they make the claim that they know what’s going on, can predict the future, and not know something as basic as this?
Admiting that they don’t know where the heat is? can’t find it?
The 7th Cavalry has arrived in the nick of time!
Several comments about the failure to allow the ‘defendants’ the right of reply, but that is exactly the problem – they have consistently refused open debate with experts who disagree.
No doubt they will be able to put forward their evidence and rebuttals when they take Prof. Johnston to court to seek huge damages for their ruined reputations.
Probably Michael Mann will be the first to sue.
JudyS says:
June 9, 2010 at 8:06 am
I have an open mind on AGW.
But I must agree with the person who commented that a cross-examination without the witness being present is problematical
Hey, do you want their confession under oath?
That would be great. We do not ask for so much, we just ask for the prophet to reappear, he is so cool and nice and so helpful to their cause!
” sphaerica says:
[…]
Anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge about AGW could tear this to shreds, but it’s 82 pages long. It also introduces no new arguments whatsoever, but is simply a rehash of I-don’t-want-it-to-be-true talking points. You really expect me to waste my time doing so in a series of blog comments?”
It sounds like it should be easy to do for someone of your knowledge, so please, yes, go ahead, i’d love to hear a factual argument. Consider your time not wasted; WUWT has a large audience eager to hear you.
The shock and horror that someone, anyone, proposing to analyze the vast lump of non-scientific garbage that is AGW would come to the conclusion that the whole thing is fictional, I’m speechless. Imagine that. Someone read the documents, examined the statements and found them lacking, however could that be? The science is settled. And he’s not a scientist, he’s a lawyer. And, and, and… he’s supposed to be on our side.
/sarc
I think that it would be very interesting to know the scholarly opinion of historians and economists, on the past and future of this fraudulent scheme.(Not even a Ponzi one, because it will profit by continuously pouring the empty into the void. A big achievement indeed.)
“Alan the Brit says:
June 9, 2010 at 7:12 am
Apologies, my bile got the better of me. That should have read “I have NEVER known a broke one” referring to lawyers”
I’ve known lots who went bankrupt because the cost of providing the service exceeded the revenue being generated. Admittedly that is in the UK and not USA.
sphaerica says: Anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge about AGW could tear this to shreds, but it’s 82 pages long. It also introduces no new arguments whatsoever, but is simply a rehash of I-don’t-want-it-to-be-true talking points. You really expect me to waste my time doing so in a series of blog comments?
If you are so conversant with the AGW science then why not debate someone from this blog. (not Anthony, Steve or Willis) I don’t know you from Adam, but I would accept as would others. I am sure voluteers are available. Do it here with agreed guidelines.
As Willis’ guideline from the other day, let’s have numbers, facts, hard evidence. Not your can’t “waste my time” words.
Dr T G Watkins says:
June 9, 2010 at 8:25 am
The amount of information available on the subject lays bare this lie. The debate is ongoing, and there is a wealth of information available. The fact is, however, that debates rarely expose the truth. They instead present a theatrical forum where style wins over substance, and in fact false, weak arguments can carry more weight with an observer than true and necessarily complex arguments. Similarly, complex yet wildly fabricated or false arguments can sway many by appearing valid and even damning to the uncritical eye.
[Yes, this applies to both sides of any argument. The point is that debates are useless.]
If you want to reach a viable conclusion, the information is out there. You may need to study hard. You may need to extend your background knowledge and learn new, difficult to understand things about chemistry, physics, and statistics (but not too much statistics… laymen get oh so carried away with proving bizarre correlations, with absolutely no substance behind them, and then believe they’ve found the holy climate grail).
But the information is available to anyone who is truly skeptical, with an open mind, and seeks to understand and resolve before they seek to prove, and who asks questions looking for answers rather than confirmation.
For a more extensive examination of Johnston’s lengthy paper, see my article on ICECAP:
“Could Climate Science Survive a Legal Cross Examination?”
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/could_climate_science_survive_a_legal_cross_examination1/
AND
“A Lawyer’s Examination of the IPCC “Evidence” for Man-made Global Warming” by Dennis Ambler
http://sppiblog.org/news/a-lawyers-examination-of-the-ipcc-evidence-for-man-made-global-warming#more-1868
Then I will dedicate the following facts to you:
mkelly says:
June 9, 2010 at 9:20 am
Facts about CO2:
CO2 it is not black, but trasparent and invisible
CO2 is the gas you exhale. You exhale about 900 grams a day of CO2
CO2 that you exhale is what plants breath to give you back O2 (oxygen) for you to breath.
CO2 is heavier than air, it doesn´t fly up, up and away CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere, it is the 0.038 per cent of it, or 3.8 parts per ten thousand.
The atmosphere, the air you know, does not have the capacity to “hold” enough heat, it only “saves” 0.001297 joules per cubic centimeter, while water , the sea you know, has 3227 times that capacity (4.186 joules).
Would you warm your feet with a bottle filled with air or filled with hot water?
The so called “Greenhouse effect” does not exist, see:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28018819/Greenhouse-Niels-Bohr
But if you have been cheated to the core and still believe in it, think the following:
Svante Arrhenius, the guy of the greenhouse effect, said he thought CO2 acted as the “window panes” of a green-house, but as its concentration in atmosphere it is just 3.8 per ten thousand, you would have a greenhouse with 3.8 window panes and 9996.2 empty holes
Let me get this straight …
So any “policy maker” is supposed to be able to fully grasp what IPCC puts out and use it as a basis for their policy but only highly qualified individuals with doctorate degrees would be able to fully grasp any criticism or even question the IPCC conclusions?
This “you are too stupid to disagree” is part of the entire problem. It is how they quash any criticism.
It is actually quite simple: The temperature data used to show current warming is bad and has been manipulated in such a way as to bias it warm. Paleoclimatological proxies have been cherry picked in order to provide the desired outcome for data going back before the invention of the modern thermometer. Conditions predicted by climatological models have not been empirically observed by physical measurement.
That is pretty much it in a nutshell. Garbage in, garbage out. You don’t need to be a rocket surgeon to figure that out.