PDA

View Full Version : Environment Legal verdict: Manmade global warming science doesn’t withstand scrutiny


mikey23545
07-07-2010, 01:43 AM
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/06/06/legal-verdict-manmade-global-warming-science-doesn%E2%80%99t-withstand-scrutiny/

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 fails to stand up to scrutiny.

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.”

The 79-page document, which effectively eviscerates the case for man-made global warming, can be found here:
http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf

Brainiac
07-07-2010, 01:52 AM
I'm skeptical about manmade global warming. I also don't see how an opinion expressd by a law school adds anything substantive to the debate.

CrazyPhuD
07-07-2010, 02:07 AM
I'm skeptical about manmade global warming. I also don't see how an opinion expressd by a law school adds anything substantive to the debate.

Yup that's the problem...to actually add something here he better have VERY strong scientific credibility. If not then it's really no different than a reporter claiming the same thing. Also unless peer reviewed, credibility will also be strongly strained.