Cross-Examining Climate Science.
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 concludes that virtually every claim advanced by global warming proponents fail to stand up to scrutiny. He summarizes his findings as follows:
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. Such misimpressions uniformly tend to support the case for rapid and costly decarbonization of the American economy, yet they characterize the work of even the most rigorous legal scholars. A more balanced and nuanced view of the existing state of climate science supports much more gradual and easily reversible policies regarding greenhouse gas emission reduction, and also urges a redirection in public funding of climate science away from the continued subsidization of refinements of computer models and toward increased spending on the development of standardized observational datasets against which existing climate models can be tested.
The full report is here. Expect Johnston’s analysis to resurface in the litigation against the EPA’s endangerment determination and to be used to counter the narrative behind the Kerry-Lieberman/Waxman-Markey legislative initiatives.
