I just found out, thanks to Francis Menton, that a thrid skeptical brief was submitted to Judge Alsup in reference to his tutorial. The thrust apparently is showing that the temperature record does not support the claim that recent variability is anything out of the ordinary.
The article by Francis Menton is Klimate Kraziness: A California Judge Holds A “Tutorial” On Climate Science posted at Manhatton Contrarian.
The third friend of the court brief was by The Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council, which presented work of many scientists, most notably James Wallace III, Joseph D’Aleo, John Christie, and Craig Idso. Menton’s explanation below from his article.
Not to downplay the work of my co-amici, but we are the one of the three groups that emphatically made the essential scientific point that the most credible data as to world temperatures, properly analyzed, preclude rejection of the null hypothesis that natural factors are the predominant if not only cause of the observed warming. As stated in our submission:
The conclusion of the work is that each of EPA’s “lines of evidence” has been invalidated by the best empirical evidence, and therefore the attribution of any observed climate change, including global warming, to rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations has not been established.
And, further on in our presentation:
[T]hese natural factor impacts fully explain the trends in all relevant temperature data sets over the last 50 or more years. This research, like Wallace (2016), found that rising atmospheric concentrations did not have a statistically significant impact on any of the (14) temperature data sets that were analyzed. Wallace 2017 concludes that, “at this point, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have caused what have been officially reported as rising, or even record setting, temperatures.”
As they say, read the whole thing.
via Science Matters
March 25, 2018 at 09:11AM