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.
I wish the folks at NPR’s Marketplace would read the cross examination.
They need it to challenge their little mutual admiration symposium that is going on right now.
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/features/moving-by-degrees/
Excerpted from: Wren on June 9, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Minority report: 50 year warming due to natural causes
If cyclical drivers can account for the warming, then non-cyclical drivers need not be found as there is nothing for them to account for. BTW, nice nuance on your statement!
Averting potential harm in the future is a major goal of the fight against carbon taxes, although noticeable harm by the (forced) deployment of immature “green” technologies has already been noted.
And lawyers en bloc are well noted for their ability to argue for actions to be implemented and damages be awarded now to mitigate or eliminate potential future harm.
sphaerica says:June 9, 2010 at 11:45 am
For every Smokey that sees what he wants to see, there are a thousand thinking people who can see through the “Smoke.”
As evidenced by the number of people who visit here relative to RC, Romm, etc.
Wren says:
June 9, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Wren do you agree with the following: All atmospheric gases dissipate heat. If not why not.
Smokey says:
June 9, 2010 at 11:54 am
Okay, a simple misunderstanding then. What I’m saying about debates is that a formal debate in a “theatrical setting”, involving some small number of “experts” on an issue as complex as climate change would be misleading. The idea of a having a formal debate, with a winner and a loser, to settle an issue once and for all is actually absurd, and would only serve to confuse people. In particular, a debate is not aimed at education and clarity, but rather the participants (much as in a legal trial) are instead using every trick in the book simply to win, no matter what the facts and the truth may be.
Debates among people (as in discussions like these) are healthy, and very obviously necessary.
The two are different.
Bruce Cobb says:
June 9, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Ah, a very useful tactic. Simply declare yourself “the winner” and “in the right.” I’ve actually seen that happen a lot on these pages. In the end the argument is “I’m right and you’re wrong.”
See the above comment on debates.
P Walker says:
June 9, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Attack people that don’t agree with you. Belittle them. Smear them. Be nasty.
All part of the WUWT mystique.
Does this mean I have to take back all those lawyer jokes I’ve been telling?
Damn. There goes most of my repertoire.
mpaul says:
June 9, 2010 at 12:17 pm
The satellite adjustments are numerous and complicated and the methods lack adequate disclosure. Adjustments are made to compensate for the variety of sensor types of the different satellites, for *assumed* drift in calibration, for orbital decay and asymmetries, for changes in equatorial crossing times, and a whole host of non-disclosed adjustments (like the 1992 adjustment).
But….but….that’s data !
Good ole, rock solid data.
Not like that GISS interpolation stuff in the Arctic. GISS actually tries to extrapolate from and interpolate between the closest measured temperature anomalies, if they are less than 1200 km away, rather than apply the global average for unmeasured grid cells, which is the approach of HadCrut. Who can trust anyone (such as Dr. Hansen) who interpolates measurements and passes them off as data ?
So, how much is the famous UAH satellite “data” interpolated ?
Over a section of the globe 1556 kilometers in diameter.
At both poles.
sphaerica
Are you getting paid to be here?
Comment from your blog:
On April 11, 2010 at 9:37 pm Susan Anderson Said:
Forgot to say, via RealClimate (your #240, which unfortunately did not close the subject) and DotEarth, which is struggling with the usual cloaca of denial. I love the idiot savants … and appreciate your hard work on WUWT.
I must say, this has been an interesting discussion so far, as far as observing the participants goes.
The “opposition” is complaining this is not a balanced presentation, it is too one-sided. Fine then, let’s see their complaints about the heavily-moderated (actually heavily-filtered) Real Climate and their treatment of dissenting views, as they have posted them at Real Climate. Screenshots would be appreciated.
There are also complaints about this being done by a lawyer, with lawyers working in an adversarial system, and how can science be presented and performed in an adversarial system? Insight Of The Day: The Socratic Method, aka Socratic Debate, used in both the scientific and legal professions. Read up on it, then wonder if those complaints make sense at all.
@sphaerica
‘By presenting it as a cross-examination, the authors get to cherry pick the arguments, and their presentation, to give the illusion of something that is fair, when it patently is not.’
Really? Hmm, isn’t it true that the whole point of a cross-examination is to cherry pick you’re arguments against a hostile witness. And as to the fairness of it all, of course it’s fair to listen to all sides, however if another side has something to say they can write their own cross and present it when it’s their bloody turn. But of course if IPCC could open up for the inclusion of skeptics’ arguments in the next IPCC report, now that’d be fair, wouldn’t you say?
I believe that those who have expressed the idea that the “witnesses” haven’t been allowed to speak are missing the point.
In Johnston’s cross-examination, the “witnesses” are the peer-reviewed papers and they speak volumes.
And yes, I would love to see this debated in court where the true witnesses, the authors behind these peer-reviewed papers on both sides of the argument, are called to the stand and the jury gets to decide who is most credible and whose story best matches reality.
Work day over gotta leave. Wren as I have not heard I’ll give you days to figure out how to answer the question.
sphaerica as I heard not a yes I take it then no. So sorry. If debate is healthy you could have lowered your blood pressure or something.
G’day.
Easy. The world snake oil reserves have been much depleted lately, we have reached “peak snake oil”.
Sphaerica –
You’re missing the point, and missing a huge opportunity for you.
The IPCC and other papers have already done the “Direct Examination”. The paper in question in this article is the “Cross Examination”. You complain that this Cross is a process where there is no “defendent” allowed to answer; ironically, you’ve failed to recognize that your complaint actually is the valid complaint of skeptics, who have until now experienced years of a “Direct Examination” when any attempts at “Cross Examination” was actively discouraged.
A Cross is not the unfair one-sided evalution you’ve implied; instead, it is the necessary balancing step to the existing Direct. I would have expected that someone for whom fairness is clearly of such importance would appreciate that.
Moreover, if you know court procedure, you know that the Cross is only another stepping stone in the process. Next comes the “Redirect”.
So, why are you complaining about this incredible opportunity that’s been dropped right into your lap? The legal process, the process designed to ferret out truth from two potentially biased and self-serving sides, cries out now for the Redirect. You seem to have the knowledge (since you aver that anyone with any AGW knowledge could rip the paper to shreds), you have the self-confidence to speak up, you obviously have the passion, and you have an attentive audience. Opportunities this good come only once in a lifetime.
You can continue complaining that someone dared do a Cross, which, honestly, is truly a waste of everyone’s time on a blog like this where Contentless complaining is clearly seen for what it is, or you can accept this chance to shine. You would be doing yourself and everyone on any side, and especially no side, an enormous service by dissecting the Cross in your “Redirect”.
Please.
An earlier commenter wrote: “Based upon a review of several but not all sections, it looks like Johnston has produced a thorough summary and shows an excellent grasp of the key scientific issues and highlights and criticizes the unscientific approach of the AGW advocates.”
I can hardly agree. Professor Johnston has misunderstood several sections of the IPCC reports, and has demonstrated a lack of understanding of the issues being discussed in the peer reviewed literature. His endorsement of McLean et al. (2009) is a prime example, as is his lack of awareness of the issues being discussed in the literature about TSI.
I have yet to be convinced by his argument that climate scientists are, on the whole or in part, failing in their practice of the rigors of scientific research and practice.
An earlier commenter wrote: “Based upon a review of several but not all sections, it looks like Johnston has produced a thorough summary and shows an excellent grasp of the key scientific issues and highlights and criticizes the unscientific approach of the AGW advocates.”
I can hardly agree. Professor Johnston has misunderstood several sections of the IPCC reports, and has demonstrated a lack of understanding of the issues being discussed in the peer reviewed literature. His endorsement of McLean et al. (2009) is a prime example, as is his lack of awareness of the issues being discussed in the literature about TSI. I suspect many of his points will be rebutted in the not-too-distant future.
I have yet to be convinced by his argument that climate scientists are, on the whole or in part, failing in their practice of the rigors of scientific research and practice.
Don’t feed the trolls. Just let them see that they can post here without censorship. At some point, there’s a chance, however slim, that they will draw an appropriate conclusion from that.
This comment from sphaerica says it all…”The contents of the paper are irrelevant,”
It all boils down to this: If CO2 is going to tip the earth’s climate upsidedown, it would have done so long before now. Nothing in the current levels of CO2 in unprecedented; nothing we see climate-wise is even remotely convincing. So it doesn’t matter if there are those unwilling to debate; it doesn’t matter if satellites vs land-based temperatures are equivalent or unadjusted or whatever, and it doesn’t matter if there are some that are absolutely convinced there’s hidden heat lurking in the system somewhere just waiting to pounce. The hysteria, invented for whatever reason, isn’t going to change the weather. No amount of argument or government funding or modeling or pontificating or carbon capping is going to change the climate one iota. But perhaps running this whole sordid mess through the rigors of the legal system will cause enough people to realize my initial statement regarding lack of a tipping point is true and we can abandon this rat’s nest and start to address far more pressing problems. Certainly there are enough of those.
sphaerica says (June 9, 2010 at 9:36 am) : “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.”
Whoa! That’s a darn good description of Michael Mann et al. Good one!
‘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.”’
Well, it seems NASA have taken the same wrong route. The tone of the article on NASA’s ice monitoring expedition seems to indicate what they are expecting:
“Researchers from the space agency hope to provide the most detailed research yet on how global warming is devastating the ocean’s ecosystem. ”
See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7814345/Nasa-launches-its-first-ever-global-warming-investigation-to-the-Arctic.html
Ed
DirkH says:
June 9, 2010 at 7:06 am
DirkH, I had to go back and re-read sphaerica’s comment when I saw that. In skimming, I thought it had read “This entire AGW argument is appalling. It’s another parlor trick, and it’s shameful.”
Now, THAT I would have agreed with 😉
sphaerica says:
June 9, 2010 at 7:38 am
It is not supposed to propose new arguments. It is supposed to examine existing ones. It does just that, while you do not seem to be doing so.
As far as I can see, this is exactly what is happening in the AGW argument all the time. There is never ‘room for debate’ and the ‘science’ is represented as ‘settled’. This paper attempts to examine the ‘settled’ nature of the science, and seems to do it rather well. An that makes you howl. Go figure!
sphaerica says:
June 9, 2010 at 9:36 am
That is quite funny: Consider that prominent actual statisticians can expose the amateur mathematical fumbles of climate scientists for what they are, and you then feel justified in making the sweeping statement that you do not need to study statistics!
I’m afraid you do need to study statistic, so that you can see when the wool is being pulled over your eyes. It is one of the most important areas of mathematics that laymen can get most benefit from at a superficial level to allow them to see bogus arguments for what they are. Trust me, bogus arguments supported by dodgy statistics are absolutely everywhere, and terribly abundant in climate ‘science’.
As my statistics teacher used to say: “Figures never lie, but lies often figure.”
sphaerica says:
June 9, 2010 at 10:50 am
This is an amazing circular argument. You refuse to discuss this paper’s argument. Your reasons are EXACTLY the reasons you incorrectly accuse your critics of.
You do remind me of the entire (Hidden)AGW argument itself, in fact.
I could not say it better that you yourself did: “if you don’t want to look, if you’ve made up your mind as to what you believe, and want to cover your eyes and look only at those things that agree with your predetermined position, then nothing I write is going to change your mind, because you are already lost…”