਍ഀ Rebuttal offered in defense of Climate Physics Institute - Daily Inter Lake: Opinion਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ

Rebuttal offered in defense of Climate Physics Institute - ਍ഀ Daily Inter Lake: Opinion

਍ഀ

Rebuttal offered in defense of Climate Physics ਍ഀ Institute

਍ഀ

By Ed Berry | Posted: Sunday, May 6, 2012 7:15 am

਍ഀ

Dr. Jerry Elwood’s opinion letter “Court ruling on climate didn’t say ਍ഀ what letter claimed” of March 2 challenges my Jan. 24 letter on the Montana ਍ഀ Supreme Court’s rejection of the Climate Change Petition by “Our Children’s ਍ഀ Trust”.

਍ഀ

Let’s review Elwood’s claims:

਍ഀ

1. Elwood claims there is a “consensus of almost all scientists” that ਍ഀ human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming.

਍ഀ

Response: Elwood gives no reference to back up his claim. At best, this ਍ഀ fabled “consensus” claiming “98 percent of scientists” derives from a biased, ਍ഀ two-question, online survey where only 77 selected scientists participated. ਍ഀ Elwood’s claim is absurd.

਍ഀ

Collecting 75 of 77 votes pales into insignificance compared to the thousands ਍ഀ of scientists claiming otherwise (see below) and to the 31,000 scientists who ਍ഀ signed a petition denying that human activity is responsible for major climate ਍ഀ change.

਍ഀ

2. Elwood claims the “current scientific consensus” is based upon a ਍ഀ “substantial and well-documented body of scientific evidence.”

਍ഀ

Response: Climate Physics Institute presented just two documents ਍ഀ (available online at climatephysics.org) that give (a) over 1,000 qualified ਍ഀ scientific opinions and (b) over 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific reports that ਍ഀ contradict Elwood’s claim.

਍ഀ

Alarmists, like Elwood, have not rebutted the voluminous evidence against ਍ഀ their case. Read their public letters. Rather, the alarmists resort to the ਍ഀ fabled “consensus” claim and to ad hominem attacks against the 1,000s of ਍ഀ scientists who do not accept their alarmist climate-change religion.

਍ഀ

The burden of proof is on the side of the alarmists (just as it is on the ਍ഀ plaintiff in a legal trial), and they have clearly failed to convince an ਍ഀ extremely large body of professional scientists (who can be likened to a ਍ഀ jury).

਍ഀ

3. Elwood claims (a) “There is nothing in the court’s decision that ਍ഀ challenges this consensus or questions its scientific validity,” (b) “the ਍ഀ court’s decision could not have been influenced by any of the largely ਍ഀ scientifically baseless ‘evidence’ which Climate Physics ਍ഀ Institute introduced into the successful intervention,” and (c) the court ਍ഀ did not rule that “the science of climate change is not settled.”

਍ഀ

Response: Unlike Elwood, I do not claim to be an expert in law. Quentin ਍ഀ Rhoades, attorney who filed the intervention for Climate Physics Institute, ਍ഀ sends this response to Elwood:

਍ഀ

“Elwood’s statement is false. If there were a “consensus” there would be ਍ഀ no need for a trial on the facts. Not only does the court’s ruling ਍ഀ “challenge” the idea of consensus, the necessary implication is there is no ਍ഀ “consensus” sufficient to be legally recognized as such.

਍ഀ

“From a legal perspective, it remains a fact in dispute. In addition, ਍ഀ the attorney general offered no evidence to dispute the evidence submitted by ਍ഀ petitioners. Climate Physics Institute did. Absent such evidence, the court ਍ഀ could not have ruled there was a dispute on the fact.”

਍ഀ

Here is what the Montana Supreme Court reviewed and ruled:

਍ഀ

A. The petitioners claimed there is a scientific consensus that human ਍ഀ emissions of greenhouse gases are causing “catastrophic anthropogenic ਍ഀ global warming,” and that there are no factual issues to be resolved.

਍ഀ

B. The intervenors presented substantial evidence to the contrary and showed ਍ഀ the factual issues are not “resolved.” Had the intervenors not effectively ਍ഀ done so, the Supreme Court would have had no factual issues ਍ഀ to “resolve” and the petitioners would have won their case.

਍ഀ

C. The Montana Supreme Court ruled:

਍ഀ

“This court is ill-equipped to resolve the factual assertions presented by ਍ഀ petitioners.”

਍ഀ

Thus, the Montana Supreme Court ruled the science of catastrophic ਍ഀ anthropogenic global warming is “not settled” and told the petitioners ਍ഀ if they wish to change this decision they must prove their science claims in a ਍ഀ lower court. Until then, in the state of Montana, there is legally NO scientific ਍ഀ consensus on catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.  

਍ഀ

4. Elwood claims Climate Physics Institute is a “so-called ਍ഀ institute.”

਍ഀ

Response: On the same day the Inter Lake published Elwood’s letter, I ਍ഀ received the “2012 Annual Report Notice” for Climate Physics ਍ഀ Institute from our Montana secretary of state.

਍ഀ

No other institute or entity in Montana stepped up to defend Montana’s ਍ഀ economy from the environmental Climate Change Petition.

਍ഀ

Climate Physics Institute paid the $7,000 legal fee for the discounted legal ਍ഀ services of attorney Quentin Rhoades. Montanans have so far donated ਍ഀ $2,000 to help cover this cost.

਍ഀ

5. Given Elwood’s attacks on Climate Physics Institute, let’s look at ਍ഀ Elwood. His doctoral degree is in ecology. Climate change is a subject ਍ഀ of atmospheric physics, not ecology. Elwood should attend the seventh ਍ഀ International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago on May 21-23 to bone up on ਍ഀ climate-change science.

਍ഀ

In closing, I quote Harold Lewis, emeritus professor of physics at the ਍ഀ University of California, Santa Barbara:

਍ഀ

“The global warming scam, with the trillions of dollars driving it, has ਍ഀ corrupted so many scientists, [and] ... is the greatest and most successful ਍ഀ pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”

਍ഀ

Berry, of Bigfork, is a certified consulting meteorologist and the CEO of ਍ഀ Climate Physics Institute.

਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ