Legal Case For Globull Warming About What You’d Expect

If you expected it to be about as solid as a sewer water, yeah, that’s about right

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.

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.”

I’ve slowly started reading the document (2nd link in the blockquote), and it is, well, not really eye opening, since most of us who haven’t drank the green kool aid knew AGW really had no legs to stand on. Money quote

(Professor Johnson) 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.”

As we have been saying. Maybe you climate alarmists should listen.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “Legal Case For Globull Warming About What You’d Expect”

  1. Otter says:

    I shall be pleased to add this analysis to the others which have come out recently. The science is advancing… and it is Rapidly leaving AGW behind.

  2. David says:

    You really don’t believe this do you? A university could never produce such a document. It would mean the end of grant money for the foreseeable future. It would also not stand up to the peer review process which is geared to the acceptance of GW. So it must be a hack.

  3. Lee Thomas says:

    What I find refreshing is to see many climate scientists who have been silent finally coming out of the woodwork and tentatively calling for ethics to return to science.

    According to the IPCC’s own report the ocean should be viewed as the primary mover and shaker of climate. Yet the field of oceanography is a relatively new field in which we are learning new and amazing things daily.

    Claiming the science is settled when we dont even have a real understanding of how the ocean works is beyond ludicrous.

  4. John Ryan says:

    starting under Bush the US Navy has been planning for the Arctic Ocean to be ice free in the summer. Teach do you think that our navy is wrong and maybe has been drinking that kool aid ?

  5. Otter says:

    You should just head back out on your date with bunny / reasic, ‘lil LIAR johnnie ryan.

  6. Bunny Colvin says:

    Good one, Squatter. So tell me, what is your take on the breakdown of modern economic/portfolio theory? You claim that I don’t know anything about economics, so please educate me.

  7. Otter says:

    What claim, reasic? I see NO such claim in my comments.

    Can you do nothing but LIE, reasic?

Pirate's Cove