Global warming is on trial in a court of law, a case has to be presented to convince the Judge and jury that manmade global warming is false. Hearsay and circumstantial evidence is not be permitted.
• What solid evidence would you present to the court?
• Which expert witnesses / reports / sources would you rely on?
• What arguments would you used to counter believer’s claims?
Please see my similar question regarding the case against global warming.
Related posts:
- Would the case for global warming convince a Judge and jury? Global warming is on trial in a court of law,...
- If you believe in global warming, do you agree that ships on the ocean contribute to global warming? No, don’t dodge the question by bashing me for questioning...
- What are some good arguments for global warming being fake? For my speech class, I’m doing a persuasive speech and...
- What’s new on the global warming front to convince to us that humans are the problems? Cause more and more scientists and other people are rejecting...
- How is global warming a political issue? The republicans say that there is no global warming or...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
December 20th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Well, for all the big names you have waving their Global warming flags all have something to gain from a carbon tax, and that would start the funding for one world government.
John Coleman founded the weather channel in 1982, he himself to this day is meteorologist and is active in fighting the claims of Al Gore and his team of highly funded university scientist on global warming, Mr. Coleman says the opposite is true, The Earth is Actually COOLING DOWN, this is why the data is being doctored, because these elite bigwigs know that a carbon tax would never be tolorated by the world, unless they doctored the data to show the absolute worst case scenario at all times, every single day in the news, but thank God Mr. Coleman and 30,000 other scientist have filed a lawsuit angainst Al Gore challenging his data againt their own independent data, I believe judge would throw Gore in jail if this case was on trial.
December 20th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Some scientific information revealing the truth about global warming, when it happened and what probably caused it. And as well how many years, centuries or millennia it might be before the world warms up again from the coming ice age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:0Master_Past_20000yrs_temperatures_icecore_Vostok_150dpi.png
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://reasonmclucus.tripod.com/CO2myth.html
http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Atmospheric_Analysis.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
Where the heat came from and why it was abnormally cold previously
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/215.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_minimum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
December 20th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
A lot better than the case for it, yes.
December 20th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Not unless the jury was full of deniers. No chance it would convince an impartial jury.
If I had to argue the case, I would focus entirely on climate sensitivity, cloud and water vapor feedbacks, and their associated uncertainties. I wouldn’t deny the established science that humans are causing global warming – that’s a losing argument. I’d focus the argument on the uncertainty about future warming.
For expert witnesses I’d bring in Christy, Spencer, and Lindzen. I’d also warn them to try and stick to the facts and keep their personal biases out of the matter (no ranting about liberals or conspiracy theories). Spencer’s blog has been full of that stuff lately, and it really damages his credibility.
I’d look up some papers which show climate sensitivity on the lower end of most estimates. If I were feeling particularly dishonest, I would use the recent Lindzen and Choi paper on the subject and conveniently gloss over the fact that they only examined short-term feedbacks (and hope the defense wasn’t familiar with the paper).
December 20th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
You conveniently left out the man made part of the question.
December 20th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
If I were trying to win the Denier side in a trial, I would spend little trime preparing arguments, but instead work hard on jury selection, trying to get a lot of crazy people on the jury.
December 20th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
only need die hard religious people on jury and no need for any evidence. for some reason it has become anti God to believe in climate change