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.
RDCII says:
June 9, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Correct, when performed in a court of law, which is an interactive setting, where the participants have been forced to view and hopefully understand all of the proceedings from beginning to end.
But this isn’t a court of law, it’s a written document, and people aren’t going to go do all of the necessary research to see what the other side really presented as their case, so if there are untruths, misrepresentations, or anything else, it will slip by and seem perfectly reasonable. The author basically gets to present both sides, then focus only on his own arguments. He gets to cherry pick and plea and rant and rave, without the other side ever having gotten their day in court.
Because this isn’t Colonel Mustard in the Conservatory with the Wrench. It’s far, far more complex than that. Understanding climate science means understanding physics, chemistry, scientific method, and a million other things. People here already talk like they understand, when they really, really don’t. It’s like listening to grade school kids talk about how cool it would be to build a rocket to go to Saturn.
So no, this isn’t the forum, and a “cross”/”redirect” is not the proper approach… and people here are very, very unlikely to be reasonable about any arguments to the contrary anyway. They’ll behave like Smokey and Bart and Richard S. Courtney.
If anyone wants to see how this “cross” is easily refuted, their best approach is to do the work themselves. Study. Learn. Be truly, truly skeptical, instead of looking for things that satisfy the answer you’d like to have. And go to sites that actually offer information, instead of the pseudo-science flavor of the week.
Bruce Cobb says:
June 9, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Ha, ha!
sphaerica says:
June 9, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Wow! You don’t get out much, do you?
RDCII says:
June 9, 2010 at 2:47 pm Bravo! I anxiously await a competent re-direct. I will refrain from editorial comments on the quality of the direct.
RDCII says:
June 9, 2010 at 2:47 pm
I think this is the first time I have seen the IPCC arguments exposed in such a calm and reasoned manner in one place. I agree with some commentators (although my level of expertise is far lower than theirs or the author) that the author may have missed some points. At least he is clear in the introduction that this may be the case. Having said that, the grasp of the science seems commendable, as are the ‘lay’ explanations of the science and the various conclusions. A thoroughly informative and educational read.
I also think that the mechanism of ‘reinforcement’ of the IPCC position is described here very well. Those without any real proof are making wild accusations, and that makes the IPCC look reasonable and assured. It could not be further from reality, as most of us here are fully aware. The whole business of supporting a group of models that fit your argument and rejecting outright other sets, when both are equally based on assumptions, is very telling indeed. The discussion on models itself is damming too.
I would very much welcome this as a ‘real’ court case, with an appropriate and balance jury. If anyone has a few million ‘Big Oil’ dollars kicking around in need of some exercise, this would be a fantastic use for it.
As it is, I welcome it and will spread it far and wide to all those who still have ‘faith’ in the IPCC and their increasingly biased and unfounded predictions.
Smokey says:
June 9, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Wren says:
1. AWG is largely the cause since the last Century. No other non-cylical drivers have been found.
2. No harm so far, but potential for harm in the future.
Your #1 is a classic example of argumentum ad ignorantiam: the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it has not been proven false.
#2 is its corollary.
When you start with a fallacy the result is a false conclusion.
======
Nah, I believe something is likely if the evidence for it is compelling. I believe something is unlikely if the evidence for it is weak or non-existent.
If you like the absolute certainty of “true” or “false,” you may find science disappointing.
David L. says:
June 9, 2010 at 6:52 am
“Pete Hayes says:
June 9, 2010 at 5:14 am
Is this the same Pen State?
He’s from University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Mike Mann is at State Penn in State College PA.
Thanks David, I should have looked closer! To many Penns in the U.S. ! 😉
Sapherica wrote : “I already have… because a paper by a lawyer, fabricating the illusion of a fair judicial setting while arguing only one side of an issue, against prefabricated and pre-structured “witness testimony”, with no opportunity for rebuttal or true adversarial judicial process, is itself a misleading hoax.”
First, the author of the article makes no claim that he is trying to be neutral. He state flat out: “My strategy in this paper is to adopt
the approach that would be taken by a non-scientist attorney deposing global warming
scientist.”
You are quite obviously not a lawyer, because no lawyer would ever think that a law review article was intended “to create an illusion of a fair judicial setting.” Law review articles are written to advocate a position and they are rarely intended to be neutral summaries of a particular controversy. Law review articles by their nature have none of the safeguards of a “fair judicial” setting and to suggest that they could is just silly.
You spend a lot of time suggesting that the points made in the article can be easily rebutted. I would be more convinced if you took just one point in the article and demonstrate how it can be easily rebutted.
Thanks for info, this article give me good information.
But Could you tell me more…
Professor Johnston’s Research Paper contains some excellent points, but it must be remembered that the style and goal of a paper such as this is not the same as more rigorous documents produced by attorneys, such as a law review article, or a memorandum of points and authorities prepared for a court. The style of this paper strikes me as more of a document to inform, which it does quite well, and its audience appears to be much broader than merely other attorneys.
The overall goal, in my estimation, is to point out the contrary views on many points of the CAGW position, with those contrary views limited to credible scientists published in top peer-reviewed journals. This is done so as to reduce the self-proclaimed certainty of the IPCC reports.
Professor Johnston’s field, or at least one of his fields, is Law and Economics. This field attempts to define, or at a minimum to shape, laws so that there is some balance obtained between legal requirements and the economic and social consequences of those laws.
The term “cross examination” is perhaps not quite accurate, as to me what he has presented is more in the form of a rebuttal witness. Many of the topics in the research paper could very well be part of a cross-examination, however, but a cross-examination is generally limited to the scope of the direct testimony. Direct testimony is what the witness testified to when asked questions by the attorney for his side. This paper would appear to bring up topics the AGW proponents would rather not see the light of day, and thus not available on cross-examination.
Therefore, Professor Johnston has left much unsaid in his paper, but presumably all these procedural matters would be satisfied in a hypothetical trial on climate change science.
A commenter above mentioned the various studies be admitted as evidence, and there are some limits on what will and will not be admitted. First, and in general, evidence in the courtroom sense is “something, including testimony, documents, and tangible objects, that tends to prove or dis-prove the existence of an alleged fact.” — Black’s Law Dictionary. But, not all evidence is admissible and thus some evidence may be excluded by the judge. Admissible evidence must also be relevant, that is, have some bearing on the matter before the court; it must not be unfairly prejudicial, that is, not bias the jury by bringing up certain things from the past; and it must not be based on hearsay, although there are legions of exceptions to the hearsay rule. There are many other rules of evidence, but what is likely the most important for the climate science debate is what is the best evidence. By Executive Order (by the President), the EPA Administrator is required to base his/her decisions on the “best reasonably obtainable science.” The fact that the EPA based the recent Endangerment Finding for Greenhouse Gases on the IPCC reports, and those reports are not the best reasonably obtainable science, was one of the grounds for the lawsuits seeking to overturn that finding. Other fields of regulatory law use a slightly different wording for the scientific findings that must be followed, as for example in the Endangered Species Act, where the standard the agency must use is “the best scientific and commercial data available.”
As a practicing attorney, I know only too well what attorneys do with those seemingly simple words, “best reasonably obtainable science.” An attorney attacks each word, then the sequence of the words, then the overall meaning, dictionary definitions, meanings in this and other contexts, what any prior courts have had to say on the subject, and then of course he advocates or argues for the definition that best advances his client’s case. The opposing attorneys will argue the opposite, of course. Thus, what is “best?” What is “reasonable?” What is “obtainable?” It could also be asked, what is “science?” Junk science need not be applied, one would hope. But, it happens. Then, the attorney asks, what is “reasonably obtainable?” The answers to all these are not easy, nor will various parties agree. Clearly, the AGW proponents maintain that their arguments are based on the “best” science, and the skeptics maintain that there is better science that counters theirs.
The best science is usually determined, at least in a courtroom, by being peer-reviewed, published in respected journals or textbooks or treatises, and accepted by recognized experts in the field, all of which imply that the methodologies employed were not only sound, but were appropriate for that data. Yet, there are obviously disagreements between expert witnesses and the science each relies upon. What to do then? In the courtroom, the attorneys will attack the weaknesses in the other side’s position, very likely by cross-examination but also by calling their own rebuttal witnesses. The attorneys each have the further opportunity to convince the jury during closing arguments, where the attorney is expected to re-emphasize the evidence, and point out the strengths of his own science and the weaknesses of the science relied upon by the other side. Then it is up to the jury to decide (usually, sometimes there is no jury and the judge will decide).
But, there is no trial at the moment. There are several lawsuits underway on various aspects of global warming science, including the one I mentioned above in which U.S. EPA is being sued by more than a dozen plaintiffs over the science that was used in the CO2 Endangerment Finding.
There are many, many unanswered questions in climate science. One that has intrigued me for years is the natural release of CO2 into the atmosphere. In particular, cold ocean water with higher levels of CO2 brought to warmer climes where the CO2 off-gases into the atmosphere. While the process is known, how accurate are the quantities known? And another, in which natural deposits of alkali salts are contacted by acid rain, releasing CO2 in the chemical reaction. This is a natural event where the acid rain is a result of volcanic expulsion of sulfur oxides into the atmosphere, then rain removes the sulfur oxides.
There are many, many other questions I would have in a cross-examination or for a rebuttal witness, such as why is there no warming in the GISS dataset as shown by Chiefio, and by my own modest efforts using the HadCRUT published data, and further shown by what I refer to as the Abilene Effect. Further, I would hammer home the process control argument that Dr. Pierre Latour advanced and I wrote on on my blog. If the earth’s temperature is to be controlled by adjusting something, CO2 is not that something, per process control fundamentals. Adjusting CO2 is doomed to failure.
Professor Johnston’s paper is an excellent read. It will require more time for me to digest it more completely.
Fred,
Your quote “dying belief systems always lash out hardest near the end, the last gasps always aim for revenge and punishment” was so good I’d like to borrow it with your permission.
Lawyers – is there any Science that they think Scientists understand better than themselves ?
I wonder if Jason Scott Johnston realizes that Einstein did not “follow the scientific method”…
Skeptics above have anticipated these points, but they nevertheless bear repeating.
It’s not a science paper.
It’s not a peer-reviewed paper.
The author is not a scientist.
Contrary to views expressed above, I found glaring misconceptions in the paper.
On the ‘hockey stick’, the author seems to think the the controversy is about the blade, rather than the handle – that 20th century warming is “exaggerated”. M&M’s critique argued that mid-millenial temps had been underestimated.
The author posits that uncertainty has been underplayed in the IPCC report – the major source document for the paper. This is entirely at odds with the cautious language in AR4, and at odds with even the author’s cites of that document, where degrees of confidence about late 20th century temperatures compared to pre-industrial temps are qualified as “very likely” (higher temps in the last few decades 20th century than in the last 400 years), and “likely” (>66% for the last 1400 years).
On the theme of missing uncertainty, the author states:
But in the IPCC AR4, the term “unequivocal” refers to warming of the planet over the 20th century, not the cause.
What does the IPCC actually say about the attribution of GHGs to global warming?
There are many more mischaracterisations and misunderstandings. I got halfway through the paper and gave up. It reads exactly like an intelligent lawyer has a received notion about the issue but is not fully conversant with the subject. A good number of errors, like the one immediately above, are easily discovered just by checking the source text against the author’s comments. I would recommend some dedicated fact-checking before promoting articles from non-experts at odds with mainstream science.
I just finished my initial reading of Johnston’s research paper and, much to my dismay, I fail to see any merit or potential application. Rather than presenting a detailed cross examination on climate change, Johnston writes an 80+ page exposition on the depth of his lack of understanding of science, the scientific method, and the global scientific research community.
I plan on studying his paper more closely later when time permits because… well, in all honesty, I’m just so disappointed. There must be something of value somewhere in there.
mpaul says:
June 9, 2010 at 12:17 pm
@Wren:
“The only adjustment is putting GISSTEMP and HADCRUT on a common baseline with RSS and UAH.”
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).
————–
Are you suggesting UAH and RSS temperature measurements are adjusted to make them consistent with GISSTEMP and HADCRUT measurements, so that the trends will be similar? A conspiracy theory ?
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
June 9, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Excerpted from: Wren on June 9, 2010 at 12:00 pm
1. AWG is largely the cause since the last Century. No other non-cylical drivers have been found.
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!
=====
The report showed some indexes based on sea – surface temperature correlate with an index of land and sea- surface temperature. That’s not surprising, but where’s the driver?
I’m sorry kadaka, I forgot to address your response to my second point, but I will do it now.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 9, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Excerpted from: Wren on June 9, 2010 at 12:00 pm
2. No harm so far, but potential for harm in the future.
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.
=====
We already have a tax of sorts on carbon, the tax on gasoline. Suppose we didn’t.
1. We could drive larger more powerful cars.
2. There would be less money to build roads.
Would this be a good trade-off? I guess it would depend on who you ask. But either way, tax or no tax, the money doesn’t disappear. I think we could say the same for a direct tax on carbon.
Almost 200 comments so far.
It looks like the Professor and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School struck a nerve.
You know, all those mafia bosses at some stage have had lawyers who eloquently argue that their clients are pure as the driven snow. If you read the report you would see that this professor has taken the approach of a cross-examining lawyer on a hostile witness.
i.e. it is his job to make it look like AGW is bunkum – his clients are the deniers, this is a court of law folks. This guy is a legal representative, not the judge!
Every criminal on the planet would get off if all you heard was his lawyer’s cross examination!
.
This newspaper article says much the same thing about the recent swine flu ‘pandemic’. It says:
Quote:
Mr Flynn said: “There is not much doubt that (swine flu) was an exaggeration on stilts. They vastly over-stated the danger on bad science and the national governments were in a position where they had to take action.”
Endquote.
Hmmm. Overstated the danger, based upon bad science. Remind you of anything? Why cannot they make the obvious link to AGW?? Both have been based on bad science and promoted to levels of propaganda not seen since the heady days of Pravda.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284133/The-pandemic-Drug-firms-encouraged-world-health-body-exaggerate-swine-flu-threat.html
.
Regards the B.P. quotes on this thread:
Obama:
“B.P. has made a real mess, and they must pay every cent to clear this up.”
Obama:
“The banks have made a real mess, and the governemnt will pay them $20 trillion to clear this up.”
Is this the ‘change’ (or duplicity) that Obama was talking about when he was elected??
.
Let us not forget, as Obama appears to have, that this oil spill was caused by a Swiss company – Transocean – and to level all the blame at the door of B.P. (just because they have deeper pockets) is a tad opportunistic.
.
I’m still looking for a detailed response to this article from the AGW crowd. So far I’ve just heard broad, general statements that the article doesn’t raise points worth refuting.
My own experience is that when I pose some of the “questions” raised by the article over at Real Climate, my question is either deleted from the comments section or met with an evasive answer.
My own experience reading AGW websites is that they have plenty of time to “debunk” strawmen arguments, but when it comes to serious sceptical arguments, they go silent.
Excerpted from: sphaerica on June 9, 2010 at 5:47 pm (emphasis added)
Wonderful.
We have many people commenting here with appropriate degrees who do not accept (C)AGW. Do you feel that only those with degrees in Climatology, preferably doctorates, are able to comprehend the Deep Knowledge of Climate Science?
People here are routinely examining the evidence provided, normally concerning climate science. This is no echo chamber, the work of those not accepting (C)AGW is also frequently dissected and critiqued. So far, the evidence presented for (C)AGW has generally been shown to be weak, often easily dismissed, and increasingly self-contradicts. (C)AGW has been crumbling at an increasing rate as the scrutiny of the details has increased, helped along tremendously by natural cyclical trends reversing course thus causing the “anthropogenic warming” to go away.
So far, the greatest “pseudo-science” I have read on this site is that which seemingly automatically attributes (C)AGW as the cause of virtually anything deemed wrong. “Since (C)AGW is a proven fact, we went looking for the damage it had done. We found damage, thus further confirming that (C)AGW is real and dangerous.”
People here do study, they do learn. They do consider the theories and evidence. And they overwhelmingly conclude that (C)AGW, namely blaming CO2 for the warming, simply isn’t valid. They simply have reached different conclusions than the ones you purport to have.
And what is your response? Generally summarized, “You people are stupid and this site is dumb!” Which I would take as an admission you have lost your argument, if I would accept you had a real argument to begin with.
Ralph says:
June 10, 2010 at 1:41 am
Let us not forget, as Obama appears to have, that this oil spill was caused by a Swiss company – Transocean – and to level all the blame at the door of B.P. (just because they have deeper pockets) is a tad opportunistic.
Au contraire, Ralph. This is an American company founded in Louisiana in 1929 I believe, (feel free to correct me anyone) who forgot to maintain its policy objectives, q.v. their website. BP have been man enough to accept responsibility without reservation for someone elses balls up & are incurring the wrath of ther enviromentals without any consideration of the facts, so no change there then! BP didn’t cause the explosion, they didn’t cause the oil spillage, they were not the ones who had a defective Blow-Out Preventer on site! No I am not in the pay of BP & big oil but do at times wish I were!