Legal verdict: global warming science doesn't withstand the scrutiny

Legal verdict:

Global warming science doesn’t withstand scrutiny

Fundamental scientific uncertainties and disagreements
appear to be
systematically concealed or minimized

6 June 10 - A cross-examination of global warming science conducted by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, has concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming proponents fails to stand up to scrutiny, says this article by Lawrence Solomon.

Johnston found that “on virtually every major issue in climate change science," the reports of the IPCC and other leading climate establishment scientists "adopted various rhetorical strategies that seem to systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties or even disagreements.”

Professor Johnson expressed surprise that the case for global warming was so weak.

"As things now stand," said Johnston, "the advocates representing the establishment climate science story broadcast (usually with color diagrams) the predictions of climate models as if they were the results of experiments - actual evidence." (p. 79)

"Alongside these multi-colored multi-century model-stimulated time series come stories, anecdotes and photos - such as the iconic stranded polar bear -- dramatically illustrating climate change today. On this rhetorical strategy, the models are to be taken on faith, and the stories and photos as evidence of the model's truth. Policy carry potential costs in the trillions of dollars ought not to be based on stories and photos confirming faith in models, but rather on precise and replicable testing of the models' predictions against solid observational data."

The 79-page document, which effectively eviscerates the case for man-made global warming, can be found here.

See entire article by Lawrence Solomon:

Source: Financial Post