A View On the Select Committee Report

by Richard Courtney, UK

I think it is obvious, and I am not at all surprised that the Select Committee has published the ?findings? that it has.

I am holding in my hand the full Report of that Select Committee (the Select Committee has kindly sent me two copies), and it is very obvious that this Report represents a legal ? and not a scientific ? understanding of ?evidence?.

Simply, the Select Committee assessed information in the same way that a Court of Law would.

Legal ?evidence? is completely different from scientific evidence. Scientific ?evidence? is information obtained from observation of the real world. Law Courts assess the credibility of opinions. They do not have the technical expertise to assess scientific arguments.

So, Law Courts assess the apparent credibilty of witnesses and decide which witness to believe.

Governments have appointed AGW-advocates to positions of authority, and a Law Court will always agree that such witnesses present the ?science? that should be accepted.

For example, James Hansen is head of NASA GISS. He attended a criminal trial in the UK where a group of people were being tried for deliberately damaging a coal-fired power station. Hansen said the CO2 emissions from the power station were doing much more harm than stopping the power station could do.

UK law says that it is lawful to damage personal property as a method to prevent greater harm. For example, a person is entitled to smash a door that is preventing rescue of a child from a burning building and ? according to UK law ? the owner of the door has no right to object to the door being smashed.

Hansen?s testimony is not sustainable by scientific argument: there is no possibility that the power station is making (or could make) significant contribution to AGW even if the ?worst case? scenario for AGW were correct.

But Law Courts do not consider the merit of scientific argument. They only consider which expert they will agree is ?right?.

And Hansen?s authority as an expert on AGW is proclaimed by the fact that the US Government has appointed him as head of NASA GISS. So, the Court decided ? as it must ? that Hansen?s evidence was the most credible ?science?. And there is no AGW sceptic in a similar position of authority whose testimony could dispute that (governments have removed all similar experts from their jobs for disputing AGW; e.g. Henk Tennekes).
So, on the basis of Hansen?s testimony, the Court decided to acquit the people who damaged the power station.

Indeed, another case was won by AGW sceptics but they only won because they understood that Law Courts only consider which expert the Court will agree is ?right?: Law Courts do not assess scientific evidence.

The winning of that case prevented Mr Gore?s science fiction horror movie being shown in schools without explanation to the children that the movie is political propaganda. The government wanted to distribute the movie in schools as being a presentation of the scientific facts. But a UK High Court ruled that the government could not do that because the movie exaggerated at least eleven statements by the UN Integovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

In this case the Court accepted that the IPCC is the expert authority that should be believed and, therefore, that Mr Gore was a lesser expert so his presentation in his movie should not be believed.

Simply, scientific evidence only consists of empirical facts but legal evidence only consists of opinions.

So, the ?evidence? examined by the Select Committee was the written and spoken information provided to it. And the Select Committee assessed (or weighted, if you prefer) that information on the basis of the assumed credibility of its suppliers: i.e. they assessed the ?evidence? as a Law Court would. This was very apparent in the cross-examination of witnesses: Benny Pieser and Lord Lawson were given a ?rough time? (especially Lawson) but the Met. Office and CRU representatives were treated very differently.

Hence, the result of the Select Committee report was a forgone conclusion.