The Verdict: Global Warming Doesn’t Stand Up to Reality
Posted by greg2213 on June 9, 2010
Note: We’re talking about Gore’s version of Global Warming, not the reality of ~.6C over 120 some odd years. Even that number is open to question, given the players involved, the questions about the surface record, Urban Heat Island effects, and so on.
Of course, it isn’t the reality which is driving the policies, it’s the Gore driven hype.
The Financial Post has the article:
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.”
The rest: Legal verdict: Manmade global warming science doesn’t withstand scrutiny
The 79 page PDF, which dismantles the AGW case, can be found here: Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
The WUWT post, with the usual interesting comments, is here: Legal beagle says: Manmade global warming science doesn’t withstand scrutiny