“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.
Wott's Up With That? 
If a lawyer says so, it must be true!
[Correct! (A lawyer told me so.) – Ben]
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:
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:
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:
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:
and
Written like a true lawyer — not a scientist.
Rhetorical techniques? Bolster their position? Hey — if a retired TV weatherman can play scientist, why not a law professor?