Global Warming Skeptic Argues U.S. Position in Suit

Eli Kintisch

The U.S. government has enlisted an outspoken skeptic of global warming in a legal fight
with environmental groups over U.S. funding for overseas energy projects. The move has
angered several prominent climate researchers, however, who say the government's
arguments fly in the face of scientific consensus about both the causes and possible
consequences of global warming.

On 29 April, a federal district court in San Francisco will hear a case (Friends of the
Earth v. Peter Watson) about whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
should apply to projects supported by the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation. The act requires the government to assess actions that could
alter the environment. The plaintiffs in the case, which include several environmental
groups and four western U.S. municipalities, argue that the federally supported
projects--including oil drilling, pipelines, and commercial power plants--contribute to
global warming, which in turn affects U.S. economic interests and its citizens. That
connection is essential to establish their legal right, or standing, to bring suit.

Science, Vol 308, Issue 5721, 482 , 22 April 2005
[DOI: 10.1126/science.308.5721.482]


From: Science, Vol 308, Issue 5721, 482 , 22 April 2005

Global Warming Skeptic Argues U.S. Position in Suit

Eli Kintisch

The U.S. government has enlisted an outspoken skeptic of global warming in a
legal fight with environmental groups over U.S. funding for overseas energy
projects. The move has angered several prominent climate researchers, however,
who say the government's arguments fly in the face of scientific consensus
about both the causes and possible consequences of global warming.

On 29 April, a federal district court in San Francisco will hear a case
(Friends of the Earth v. Peter Watson) about whether the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) should apply to projects supported by the Export-Import Bank
and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. The act requires the government to assess actions that could alter the
environment. The plaintiffs
in the case, which include several environmental groups and four western U.S.
municipalities, argue that the federally supported projects--including oil
drilling, pipelines, and commercial power plants--contribute to global warming,
which in turn affects U.S. economic interests and its citizens. That connection
is essential to establish their legal right, or standing, to bring suit.

To counter that claim, the Justice Department argues that "[t]he basic
connection between human induced greenhouse gas emissions and observed climate
itself has not been established." It buttresses its case with a 41-page
statement from David Legates, head of the Center for Climatic Research at the
University of Delaware, Newark.

Legates begins by attacking the evidence for the 0.6°C rise in temperature in
the 20th century cited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
in Geneva, Switzerland, in its 2001 report and by the plaintiffs. The proximity
of temperature gauges to cities, he says, has artificially elevated reported
temperatures. He also points to natural variability as an important factor,
citing a 2004 study that suggested solar variability may have contributed up to
0.25°C of the recent warming. As for future impacts, he says surface
temperatures in Greenland are falling, coral bleaching is a beneficial response
to stress, and the impact of droughts has been relatively benign in the 20th
century. Legates says a Canadian climate model that plaintiffs cite to show
potential changes in surface temperatures and moisture across North America is
"extreme" and "overstated."
................

The rest of the story is at:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5721/482

A subscription or library access is required.

For another look at the interconnection between the denialists, check out
the authors of this "Report" from a rather conservative group:

http://www.independent.org/store/pol...etail.asp?id=5

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

Well done. For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert--the
Third Law of Litigation.

So why jump to conclusions about GW when things are not yet settled?

And in other news, a couple of years old but still good, WAIS is alive
and well.

Ray

---
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2624603.stm


The West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) has been melting naturally and
releasing water to the ocean for the last 10,000 years.
Research published in the journal Science suggests that the last Ice
Age never really ended in that part of the world.

If the melting continues at its current rate then the WAIS could
disappear in 7,000 years, possibly raising worldwide sea levels by five
metres.

However, scientists warn that a sudden rapid melting of the WAIS could
cause serious problems for some coastal regions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1766064.stm

New research has found that parts of the ice sheet that covers West
Antarctica may be getting thicker, not thinner, as scientists have
feared

The long-term future of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) has been
the focus of much concern. While the East Antarctic Ice Sheet is
considered relatively safe, there have been fears that climate change
could cause the WAIS to disintegrate, raising global sea levels by as
much as five metres.

That could have a catastrophic effect on coastal communities.

Most researchers are agreed that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has been
retreating over the last 10,000 years, but the new findings, published
in the journal Science, could be evidence that that this trend is about
to be reversed.

Still some concern

Dr Ian Joughin, of the American space agency's (Nasa) Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, and Slawed Tulaczyk, of the University of California at
Santa Cruz, say they have found "strong evidence" that the ice sheet in
the Ross Sea area is growing, by 26.8 gigatons per year.

In article .com, says...

Well done. For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert--the
Third Law of Litigation.

So why jump to conclusions about GW when things are not yet settled?

Lawyer science is not real science.
There would still be "opposites" when the debate gets down to 999 to 1...

What happened Ray? Did you miss your flight again?

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

Eric Swanson wrote:
Global Warming Skeptic Argues U.S. Position in Suit

Eli Kintisch

The U.S. government has enlisted an outspoken skeptic of global warming in a legal fight
with environmental groups over U.S. funding for overseas energy projects. The move has
angered several prominent climate researchers, however, who say the government's
arguments fly in the face of scientific consensus about both the causes and possible
consequences of global warming.

On 29 April, a federal district court in San Francisco will hear a case (Friends of the
Earth v. Peter Watson) about whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
should apply to projects supported by the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation. The act requires the government to assess actions that could
alter the environment. The plaintiffs in the case, which include several environmental
groups and four western U.S. municipalities, argue that the federally supported
projects--including oil drilling, pipelines, and commercial power plants--contribute to
global warming, which in turn affects U.S. economic interests and its citizens. That
connection is essential to establish their legal right, or standing, to bring suit.

Science, Vol 308, Issue 5721, 482 , 22 April 2005
[DOI: 10.1126/science.308.5721.482]


From: Science, Vol 308, Issue 5721, 482 , 22 April 2005

Global Warming Skeptic Argues U.S. Position in Suit

Eli Kintisch

The U.S. government has enlisted an outspoken skeptic of global warming in a
legal fight with environmental groups over U.S. funding for overseas energy
projects. The move has angered several prominent climate researchers, however,
who say the government's arguments fly in the face of scientific consensus
about both the causes and possible consequences of global warming.

On 29 April, a federal district court in San Francisco will hear a case
(Friends of the Earth v. Peter Watson) about whether the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) should apply to projects supported by the Export-Import Bank
and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. The act requires the government to assess actions that could alter the
environment. The plaintiffs
in the case, which include several environmental groups and four western U.S.
municipalities, argue that the federally supported projects--including oil
drilling, pipelines, and commercial power plants--contribute to global warming,
which in turn affects U.S. economic interests and its citizens. That connection
is essential to establish their legal right, or standing, to bring suit.

To counter that claim, the Justice Department argues that "[t]he basic
connection between human induced greenhouse gas emissions and observed climate
itself has not been established." It buttresses its case with a 41-page
statement from David Legates, head of the Center for Climatic Research at the
University of Delaware, Newark.

Legates begins by attacking the evidence for the 0.6°C rise in temperature in
the 20th century cited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
in Geneva, Switzerland, in its 2001 report and by the plaintiffs. The proximity
of temperature gauges to cities, he says, has artificially elevated reported
temperatures. He also points to natural variability as an important factor,
citing a 2004 study that suggested solar variability may have contributed up to
0.25°C of the recent warming. As for future impacts, he says surface
temperatures in Greenland are falling, coral bleaching is a beneficial response
to stress, and the impact of droughts has been relatively benign in the 20th
century. Legates says a Canadian climate model that plaintiffs cite to show
potential changes in surface temperatures and moisture across North America is
"extreme" and "overstated."
...............

The rest of the story is at:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5721/482

A subscription or library access is required.

For another look at the interconnection between the denialists, check out
the authors of this "Report" from a rather conservative group:

http://www.independent.org/store/pol...etail.asp?id=5

This is a very dangerous tactic for this US government to argue, because
if they loose, the principal that anthropic changes are causing global
changes is established in law.

josh halpern

In article pFhae.768$yc.678@trnddc04, says...

Eric Swanson wrote:


Science, Vol 308, Issue 5721, 482 , 22 April 2005
[DOI: 10.1126/science.308.5721.482]


From: Science, Vol 308, Issue 5721, 482 , 22 April 2005

Global Warming Skeptic Argues U.S. Position in Suit

Eli Kintisch

[cut]


This is a very dangerous tactic for this US government to argue, because
if they loose, the principal that anthropic changes are causing global
changes is established in law.

If so, this could get interesting.....

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

"Eric Swanson" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
says...
Well done. For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert--the
Third Law of Litigation.
So why jump to conclusions about GW when things are not yet settled?

Lawyer science is not real science.
Eric Swanson

Eric, your enviro science ain't real neither. Much less so, in fact.
Enviro science is to science what astrology is to astronomy.
asstrolloIan, the NG resident astrologer, knows that all too well.
Hence you, his disciple, shouldn't make such a loud Swansong.
You living like a green moldy hermit in the backwood emvironment
of the Southeast in moonshine county are hardly an expert to
judge other experts, be they lawyers or real scientists.
ahahaha... ahahahanson

YES! AGW would become an established legal precedent,
and dem fossil fool walls will come crashing down.

Note that the government didn't use one of the established
fossil fool flunkies, who have a long and embarrassing record
full of obvious lies, that the environmentalists could exploit
in court. They used this virgin, to be safe.

"Eric Swanson" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
says...

Well done. For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert--the
Third Law of Litigation.

So why jump to conclusions about GW when things are not yet settled?

Lawyer science is not real science.

Neither is agenda driven science. Those climate scientists that are upset
over a legal skirmish is proof of an agenda.

In article , says...


"Eric Swanson" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
says...

Well done. For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert--the
Third Law of Litigation.

So why jump to conclusions about GW when things are not yet settled?

Lawyer science is not real science.

Neither is agenda driven science. Those climate scientists that are upset
over a legal skirmish is proof of an agenda.

My experience is that the GW denialist crowd are the ones with the agenda.
James has never given us a reason for his interest in the politics and not
in the scientific knowledge of the problem. Does he too have an agenda?

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

"Eric Swanson" wrote in message
...
In article , says...


"Eric Swanson" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
says...

Well done. For every expert there is an equal and opposite
expert--the
Third Law of Litigation.

So why jump to conclusions about GW when things are not yet settled?

Lawyer science is not real science.

Neither is agenda driven science. Those climate scientists that are upset
over a legal skirmish is proof of an agenda.

My experience is that the GW denialist crowd are the ones with the agenda.
James has never given us a reason for his interest in the politics and not
in the scientific knowledge of the problem. Does he too have an agenda?

There is no interest in bogus science unless it's an agenda. It's an issue.
Not a problem.