Legal beagle says: Manmade global warming science doesn’t withstand scrutiny

Legal beagle says: Manmade global warming science doesn’t withstand scrutiny“. Anthony Watts points out an article by enthusiastic denialist and Financial Post journalist Lawrence Solomon about a publication called Global Warming Advocacy Science: A Cross Examination. Apparently a partisan “Research Paper” by a law professor with a history of climate change denial is a “Legal verdict” that “eviscerates the case for man-made global warming.” University of Pennsylvania Law School Professor Jason Scott Johnston even “expressed surprise that the case for global warming was so weak”.

Wasn’t this was all wrapped up by that Grade Four student in Beeville, Texas?

Sorry Professor Johnston although you’ve apparently been trying to concoct this attack since September 2008 your Justice is clearly not blind. This is a kangaroo court with the judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one ignorant pedant, even with the “helpful comments from David Henderson, Julia Mahoney, Ross McKitrick, Richard Lindzen, and Roger Pielke, Sr.”.

Perhaps Anthony’s “beagle” description is more accurate than he thinks.

3 thoughts on “Legal beagle says: Manmade global warming science doesn’t withstand scrutiny

  1. DENIER’S BRIEF………. The first place to look for a denier’s signature is on the hockey stick blade.

    Referring to an IPCC 2007 hockey stick:

    “…a large number of attempted reconstructions of past climate that tend to show that 20th century temperatures were high, but no higher than temperatures during the medieval warm period of roughly 1000 years ago.” page 15

    So he’s comparing the MWP to the AVERAGE temperature for the ENTIRE 20th century (1900-1999)!

    The rest of Section 2 follows suit. The usual anti-Mann 1999 stuff, ad nauseum. Of course Mann 2008, which would be the starting point for an objective long-term-temperature-change discussion, is never mentioned.

    Anyone who thinks some legal trappings improve the denier’s message has a fool for a lawyer.

    • If, before seeing this document, I didn’t believe there was a conspiracy among some politicians on the right to attack climate scientists, this document makes me suspect there now is one. This whole report seems to be written to provide “legal” ammunition for Ken Cuccinelli’s witchhunt against Mann’s research at UVA.

      This document is not about science. While I haven’t read the full 79 pages, it appears to be about accusing scientists of playing politics with the results of scientific research. Note the careful phrase from the very beginning:

      page 1: “Legal scholarship has come to accept as true the various pronouncements of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientists who have been active in the movement for greenhouse gas (ghg) emission reductions to combat global warming.”

      Note the use of words “pronouncements” of the IPPCC and “other scientists.” He obviously has no understanding of how the IPCC –and possibily the scientific process– works. Note the phrase “active in the movement.” What movement is that? So much for actually addressing the science.

      So, who is Jason Scott Johnston? PHD economics, JD Michigan. ZERO training in natural science. Yet, he writes:

      “This paper departs from such faith in the climate establishment by comparing the picture of climate science presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other global warming scientist advocates with the peer-edited scientific literature on climate change.”

      Note the phrase “faith in the climate establishment.” We all know what that is: code-language for “I’m not actually going to do science here, I’m going to accuse you scientists of playing politics and biasing your research because you don’t agree with what this small group of people over here are saying.” (And Ben points out that the small group is the usual suspects.)

      Johnston leaves room for himself to weasel out of anything he writes with this on page 7:

      “The reader should be warned that the cross-examination presented in Part I does entail actually discussing the substance of climate science”

      and

      “It is of course possible that despite efforts to ensure accuracy, there remain mistakes in my interpretation of the climate science literature.”

      Written like a true lawyer — not a scientist.

      “The bulk of this paper proceeds by cataloguing, and illustrating with concrete climate science examples, the various rhetorical techniques employed by the IPCC and other climate change scientist/advocates in an attempt to bolster their position, and to minimize or ignore conflicting scientific evidence.”

      Rhetorical techniques? Bolster their position? Hey — if a retired TV weatherman can play scientist, why not a law professor?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s