WARMING: Balance one-sided debate
Cliff Harris is three for three. Two months ago it was an Arctic melt in 1922, which went unnoticed by the locals. Last month it was the glaciers are growing rather than shrinking, oddly, the next day the USGS posted an article showing the glaciers are melting. This month he says that a lawyer is more knowledgeable than the entire ranks of world wide experts.
He forgets to tell you that, according to Professor of Environmental Law Dan Cole, “His (the working paper’s author) purpose is not to deny or cast doubt on whether anthropogenic (human caused) global warming is occurring.” In fact, the director of the institute that published the paper is on the record as saying, “the organization does not doubt the science.”
The Global Warming Policy Foundation is known for cherry picking the years they count to show a cooler world. Further, they have published a number of errors that, also, predict global cooling. In fact they flipped the graph to show a loss rather than an equal gain. There are only two scientists on the GWPF Academic Advisers board. One is an expert on the ancient Earth’s magnetic field who has never worked in climate change science. The other is a theoretical physicist with no training or work in global warming.
The paper itself does not support its contentions. Professor Cole writes, “For all his searching ‘cross-examination’. . . Johnston does not seriously challenge . . . that observed global mean temperature trends confirm models of anthropogenic climate change.” This seems to be a case of, what lawyer and PR CEO James Hoggan describes as, “entirely – almost deceptively – one sided.” He then points out that cases of that sort are only acceptable because there’s a lawyer on the other side who will do the same. But, he cautions, “The problem is this: in court, there are rules of evidence (you have to tell the truth) and a judge who has the expertise and is given the resources to make an intelligent decision about what is being presented. But there are no such rules in the public conversation. There are only tactics, strategies and spin.”
Harris claims that Professor Johnston was without bias. Three political scientists found, “environmental skeptics are not, as they portray themselves, independent and objective analysts. Rather, they are predominately agents of conservative think tanks.” That describes the GWPF quite well.
Professor Johnston’s cross-examination can’t even convince him. He can’t fool the Director of the think tank which published the paper. The GWPF is known for “errors” that make their case. There are no trained climate scientists on the staff, but there are a lot of conservative economists. In evaluating this paper, it is well to remember the dictionary definition of cross-examination: “To examine as for the purpose of discrediting the witness’ testimony.” By choosing the term cross-examination Johnston shows his true bias.
JEFFREY E. BOURGET
Coeur d’Alene