Take the Climate Warmists to court!!
]
Somewhere we hear the cries of climate change denialists that CC science is crooked, contrived , wrong, ect, ect. So why not settle this argument in a Court of Law ?
Well it has just been done.
The now bankrupt Peabody Energy went to court in Minnesota to argue the case against a social price on carbon. Essentially just how much damage does CO2 cause and what should the result cost be against a ton of carbon.
In the Peabody corner we had Dr Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen and William Happer. These are the big scientific names behind CC denial. Their job was to convince the court that CC wasn't what it was cracked up to be and just a little glitch in the landscape.
They comprehensively lost their argument. How was the case won ?
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ian-scientist-witnesses-lose-their-court-case
I wait to see how Andrew Bolt reports this case.
Climate Change Debunked !!! Climate Change Scandal comprehensively Exposed !!
A ground breaking documentary will be launched across the USA on May 2nd that will comprehensively destroy the scientific misinformation around climate change.
The documentary promises a rigorously argued case that will demolish the hysteria created by environmentalists and climate change scientists. The producer, Mark Morano, is confident that after the launch of the documentary many scientists positions will become untenable. He anticipates widespread mass resignations followed by a total revamp of the scientific position around Climate Change
This could be the turning point in whole Climate Change debate. For further information check out Climate Hustle
In case some here have failed to notice, there is a chasm of difference between law and science! Courts of law are not laboratories and, as such, do not have the expertise to make scientific determinations.
There's a lot thats been noticed...
Courts of law bring in experts in scientific disciplines all the time... not least ballistics, which relates directly to physics.
Two hypothetical people could take aim at their victim at two hundred yards one with a projectile charged with fairy dust and the other one with cordite, both with the same intent. The science, the physics will determine which of these two will face court and judgement.
Keep sprinkling that fairy dust cynic.
In case some here have failed to notice, there is a chasm of difference between law and science! Courts of law are not laboratories and, as such, do not have the expertise to make scientific determinations.
How was this case won? Well certainly it helps to have science on your side. Without that, even the most expensive expert witnesses struggle. But Peabody’s scientists made errors that were easy to identify and point out to the Judge. Furthermore, the Judge was smart, quickly able to see through nonsense non-science.
For those of you that read the report, you’ll notice that the Peabody side made claims about the natural variability of Earth’s climate, about Earth temperature changes, and about extreme weather events. The environmental group’s side rebutted these viewpoints (see pages 15-19).
We also showed that the experts for Peabody relied extensively on non-peer-reviewed reports, blog sites, and think tanks to support their conclusions (paragraph 359 in the report). The peer-reviewed scientific literature is the best source for accurate climate science information. In other areas, the Peabody experts used scientific papers that we showed were incorrect (paragraph 360 in the report, for example).
Perhaps the key findings are best articulated in the judicial conclusions, which begin on page 114. Among the conclusions are:
22. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Peabody failed to demonstrate that an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1 or 1.5 °C is correct.
23. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the climate sensitivity is reasonably considered to be in the 2-4.5 °C range.
47. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Peabody failed to demonstrate that the relied upon process is neither peer-reviewed nor transparent.
Perhaps not but they can certainly evaluate evidence that is presented by various witnesses.
If you check up you'll discover that the CC deniers lost the case because the judge did not accept the quality of their evidence. I thought that was quite clear from the excerpts I posted.
Yes that was evident from your posting. However, your comments suggested that you see this as somehow validating the "science". Hence my reason for reminding that the courts have neither the expertise nor the jurisdiction to make rulings on the laws of nature, chemistry or physics!
What I was saying with strong clarity was that in a court of law the science arguments currently used by CC deniers didn't stand up.
I also have some faith in the capacity of a inpartial judge to examine the logic and quality of a series of arguments and judge which have more merit.
That's what happened in this case. But I am absolutely sure the CC deniers will still insist that black is white.
What I was saying with strong clarity was that in a court of law the science arguments currently used by CC deniers didn't stand up.
I also have some faith in the capacity of a inpartial judge to examine the logic and quality of a series of arguments and judge which have more merit.
That's what happened in this case. But I am absolutely sure the CC deniers will still insist that black is white.
Judges in the US are political activists.
Nothing to do with science or empiricisn.
Bob Dylan tagged it in his song about Rubin Carter
Just a teensy bit of a sweeping assertion Wayne. This was actually an Administrative Court in Minnesota ? Not the Supreme Court ? They were evaluating the social cost of carbon - in this case what effects are likely to occur as a result of CO2 and other emissions by coal companies.
Anyway it's a fruitless discussion on this forum.
I understand that there is some comfort to be found in having a favourable court ruling, but this says more about the frailty of legal processes than it does about science.
When presented with conflicting information from expert witnesses, how the heck can a legally (not scientifically) qualified magistrate be expected to differentiate between science fallacy and fact?
The Fort McMurray Disaster: Getting Beyond “Is It Climate Change?”
By: Bob Henson and Jeff Masters , 3:49 PM GMT on May 05, 2016
In just two days, the fire engulfing the Canadian city of Fort McMurray in Alberta has seared itself into the North American consciousness. This appears to be the first time in the continent’s history we have seen a city of more than 60,000 residents (officially an “urban service area” rather than a city), located hundreds of miles from any comparable population center, forced to evacuate a furious wildfire. The fact that a city this large is also so remote owes everything to the presence of vast oil sands, the driver that has increased Fort McMurray’s population more than twentyfold since the 1960s. As of Thursday morning, May 5, more than 1,600 structures had been destroyed and 7,500 hectares (18,500 acres) burned as the fire continued to burn out of control.
Exactly the way they did it. Evaluate the internal consistency of the arguments; evaluate the quality of the people putting up the arguments.
The unmistakable changes in climate were predicted by Climate scientists to become apparent from 2025 onwards. At least that was the view around 2000-2005. The fact that we are seeing them evidenced 10 years earlier emphasises how much quicker the changes are happening.
Where will we be in 2030 when our children are lust leaving school ? Perhaps 2-3C above long term averagewith all that entails (We are currently at 1.3C above long term average)
Another long read but enough detail to make one think
http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm
Wake up Bas...It has all happened 1000years ago......need I bring up Greenland again FFS?
You are determined to brain wash people into believing it is all man made.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?