If global warming went 'on trial', could deniers do better than John Christy?
The US Chamber of Commerce has been talking about putting the science of global warming "on trial". What they fail to mention is that a similar trial already happened in Vermont. The denial movement was represented by John Christy's testimony, the opposition by James Hansen. Some excerpts from the judge's ruling:
"There is widespread acceptance of the basic premises that underlie Hansen’s testimony. Plaintiffs’ own expert, Dr. Christy, agrees with the IPCC’s assessment that in the light of new evidence and taking into account remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations. Tr. vol. 14-A, 145:18-148:7 (Christy, May 4, 2007). Christy agrees that the increase in carbon dioxide is real and primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels, which changes the radiated balance of the atmosphere and has an impact on the planet’s surface temperature toward a warming rate. Id. at 168:11-169:10.
Christy also agreed that climate is a nonlinear system, that is, that its responses to forcings may be disproportionate, and rapid changes would be more difficult for human beings and other species to adapt to than more gradual changes. Id. at 175:2-174:11. He further agreed with Hansen that the regulation’s effect on radiative forcing will be proportional to the amount of emissions reductions, and that any level of emissions reductions will have at least some effect on the radiative forcing of the climate." http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2007/VermontDecision_20070912.pdf
If there is another similar trial, are the deniers going to be able to do better than John Christy? How many trials do they have to lose before enough is enough?
2009-08-26T09:33:20Z
andy - the quote is talking about what John Christy said. And the IPCC's "very likely" corresponds to 90-99% certainty. You want to take the 1-10% possibility they're wrong and bet our future on it? Remind me not to go to the race track with you.
2009-08-26T11:31:39Z
boy jim, it's a good thing your link doesn't contradict any of Christy's testimony. I almost thought you were accusing him of perjury for a second there, with your "here's what Christy actually thinks" preface.
2009-08-26T12:06:27Z
Let's be clear here - Christy doesn't deny humans are causing global warming, but he doesn't think the warming will be as rapid or dangerous as most climate scientists think. He's in a similar boat as Spencer and Lindzen in this respect, except Christy is more honest than the former 2.
pegminer2009-08-26T09:48:43Z
Favorite Answer
They'd have Lindzen and Gray to call on also. I'm not sure Gray would help their case, though. Despite a very distinguished career he just gives the impression of being out of touch these days. I haven't seen Lindzen in action so I can't judge how effective he'd be, but having an endowed chair at M.I.T. will certainly impress non-scientists. The problem with people like Christy and Chris Landsea is that they actually believe in AGW.
Unfortunately for the AGW non-believers, the pro-AGW side has many more people to draw on and with guys like Jeff Severinghaus, Ralph Keeling, Kerry Emanuel, Kevin Trenberth, Susan Solomon, and Michael Oppenheimer it's hard to see how the deniers would have a chance. These people are smart
EDIT: jim z, could you be more specific about what you didn't like about my answer? I wasn't making a scientific argument to begin with, so saying it's without scientific merit is irrelevant. What I said was: it's a lot easier to find scientists (with expert qualifications, that is) that support AGW than to find ones that don't believe in it. There really is no disputing that. Then I said that I don't think William Gray is that in touch with the latest science. I've seen him speak several times and I wasn't "wowed." He gave a talk that immediately followed mine at a meeting last year, and he was the only I saw using hand-drawn transparencies! That doesn't make him wrong, but it may make him less rhetorically effective, which is important in a trial. The people that I did mention ARE quite rhetorically effective, and would trounce most average speakers.
I don't think anything I said was at all "leftist," I was just answering the question. If you were handicapping a football game between a bunch of liberal NFL players and conservative Pop Warner kids, and you said that the NFL players would crush the kids, would that make you leftist too?
Without knowing what Dr. Christy said about water vapor, it's hard to know if the deniers could do better. It sounds like Christy conceded a lot of key points.
My experience with expert witnesses is that they are extremely unpredictable. You go over their testimony with them several times before trial, and yet when they get on the stand, everything they say is qualified and caveated to the point it all boils down to about nothing.
You can go through the transcript line by line, and what they said in lines 1 to 15 is taken back or qualified into a nullity in lines 130 to 145, and what they said in lines 45 to 60 is caveated into nihil in lines 235 to 250.
When you're done with the analysis every part of the transcript cancels out some other part and the net residue and remainder is a big fat bowl of zero.
They do take up a lot of Court time though, and they enjoy being on the stand, and they like to put a lot of biographical detail into how they got to be so smart and expert.
For that reason, panels of scientists are a better source of good science than are Courts. Most judges are science ninnies. So even if they do their very best, it's a little like brain surgery with a wooden spoon.
Heisenberg talked about the idea that the event is changed by the process of observing it. So if we put the electron on the witness stand and ask it how it became such a fast electron, it gives and unreliable answer --- well it's the same with expert witnesses.
You gotta hope that by giving them an answer, even one they don't like they will pay attention. Sadly they seem to have very little to say (offering evidence that indeed winter is colder than summer and refering to the south pole and the antarctic as if they are different places) so they are compenstating by saying it loudly and as often as possible. Keep trying, but don't waiste too much effort, it may not be worth trying to convince some people. BTW, I do like the link where the girl who was picked as the best responce basically told the asker that he was an idoit and then said she felt dirty being associated with his question.
You are kidding right? Instead of using a judges thoughts about what someone says, how about you just post what the person has said. here is Christy's statement (summary) to the House Ways and Means Committee.
peg, blob, and gib gave predictable answers, leftist, biased and without scientific merit.
I wonder if you really believe that there has been harmful warming that has been unprecedented or if you simply spread that misinformation because you believe in a political agenda that very very few support because that agenda has been tried and it failed. It is very hard to tell. Clearly, some people don't learn from history, human or natural.
Here is what Christy actually thinks: Christy is actually the environmental lobby's worst nightmare - an accomplished climate scientist with no ties to Big Oil who has produced reams and reams of data that undermine arguments that the earth's atmosphere is warming at an unusual rate and question whether the remedies being talked about in Congress will actually do any good. http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/index.htm