Lawyer's view on climate science

Legal analysis

It’s always interesting for me when a lawyer, trained and experienced in separating fact from fiction, turns his attention to climate science.

Put the kind of sloppy generalisations, blatant political interference, fudged data and concealed evidence that underpins the entire climate “Consensus” in front of a court of law and it would be demolished in seconds. Unfortunately, I cannot see a way of ensuring that could happen. The next best thing is to get a lawyer’s perspective, and that’s what we have here:

A review of the peer-edited literature reveals a systematic tendency of the climate establishment to engage in a variety of stylized rhetorical techniques that seem to oversell what is actually known about climate change while concealing fundamental uncertainties and open questions regarding many of the key processes involved in climate change. Fundamental open questions include not only the size but the direction of feedback effects that are responsible for the bulk of the temperature increase predicted to result from atmospheric greenhouse gas increases: while climate models all presume that such feedback effects are on balance strongly positive, more and more peer-edited scientific papers seem to suggest that feedback effects may be small or even negative.

The cross-examination conducted in this paper reveals many additional areas where the peer-edited literature seems to conflict with the picture painted by establishment climate science, ranging from the magnitude of 20th century surface temperature increases and their relation to past temperatures; the possibility that inherent variability in the earth’s non-linear climate system, and not increases in CO2, may explain observed late 20th century warming; the ability of climate models to actually explain past temperatures; and, finally, substantial doubt about the methodological validity of models used to make highly publicized predictions of global warming impacts such as species loss.

Insofar as establishment climate science has glossed over and minimized such fundamental questions and uncertainties in climate science, it has created widespread misimpressions that have serious consequences for optimal policy design.

Read it here. (h/t Hockey Schtick)


  1. Musing out loud…

    If Sceptics are labelled “Deniers”

    Then warmists are labelled “Collaborators”

    Its a word that should be used – I dont know why no one has thought of it yet.

    • If anybody denies that human can change the climate; doesn’t understand what ”climate” is: chop the trees in Brazil – will turn into Sahara; human can chop those trees = human can change the climate!!! B] build lots of extra dams in Australia, to save extra storm-water = that improves the climate, prevents floods and droughts. The other way: confiscate farmer’s water, to drain it into the estuary = less humidity inland -> less clouds will go inland in near future + bigger droughts and bushfires.

      Unfortunately, for most of the fake ”Skeptics” Brazil and Sahara have SAME climate. Confusing the phony GLOBAL warmings, with the normal big / small climatic changes, is the precursor of all evil.

      Counseling that H2O changes the climate, instead of CO2 – is Warmist tool / Skeptic’s stupidity. Your honor, who is the guilty one?…

  2. It’s just a case of following the money trail i.e FAT AL.

  3. There is a possible way to get this scam tested in a court of law. Perhaps if one was to (very publicly) accuse one of the major players of fraud or of lying that party might be tempted to sue.
    I have oft dreamt of this happening. Is it just a foolish fantasy of mine?

  4. I am a lawyer and I have this joke on why I see things differently than the “accepted view.” I have actually read the documents and res and policy report and the footnotes. I know when there’s no support but wishful thinking or renamed Marxist political theory back for another go around in the 21st century.

    Or when the law is nothing more than an insider attempt of the politically connected to authorize theft. That’s increasingly common these days from the environment to education. Both collectivist tools.

    And when it says “science” these days, it’s usually the social sciences wanting to create a foundation for transformational public policy.

    It’s Downright farcical in the fine print these days wherever we find OPM and the political coercion levers of the state.

  5. Statistic from just a few decades ago – 91% of all scientists who had ever lived were still alive. That says something.

  6. Just goes to show you.. While there will never be a Marxist that I can stand, not even for a second, there are some lawyers that I could learn to like.

  7. Laurie, Statistic from just a few minutes ago – 91% of all climate scientists who have ever lied were still lying. That says something.

%d bloggers like this: