Specifically for ChrisGraley, llcx, and nzsvz9
And others interested in the other side of the story on Climate Change.
In an attempt to destroy his professional career, Jason Scott Johnston, Professor and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, decided to investigate the claims of the Anthropogenic Global Warming establishment.
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.”
Professor Johnson, who expressed surprise that the case for global warming was so weak, systematically examined the claims made in IPCC publications and other similar work by leading climate establishment scientists and compared them with what is found in the peer-edited climate science literature. He 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.”
The findings in the paper are basically what I and the bloggers in the post title (and many others) have been saying for a long time. The whole "science" of AGW does not stand up to scrutiny. Anyone who questions it is excluded from the academic proceedings. It is a cult of lunatics.
As for the followers, well, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds applies here.
I have downloaded and reviewd the 79 page report. Like I said, it covers much of what we already know: Global Termperature sets are a disgrace, computer modeling is unreliable, feedback uncertainty is glossed over and presented as always positive, peer-reviewed literature paints a more uncertain picture than IPCC reports, etc...
If you are at all skeptical of the veracity of AGW alarmist claims, read the report. Then ask them to answer the questions raised. You'll never buy their B.S. again.
Why should you do this? Because the Cap-n-Trade scam is rearing its ugly head again. Decarbonizing the American economy based on not-science is foolish. Hastily rushing new, difficult (perhaps impossible) to reverse policy through Congress during a major Recession (Depression) is economic suicide. I think you should care but feel free to make up your own mind.
David in Qatar