Article by Kurt Schlichter in Townhall
Cross-Examining the Climate Change Cultists
If you want to watch the pinkos fret, simply state the indisputable truth that what they call “climate change” is a massive hoax. Their fallback is inevitably that “science” – which they purport to love except when it demonstrates that there are only men and women and that you can’t change the sex you are born as – has decreed that because we peons insist on not living in caves like primitive tribesmen (okay, non-binary tribespeople) the Earth is going to cook. And, of course, the only solution is to do a whole bunch of things that leftists always wanted to do anyway. There’s no time to think, no time to reflect, and certainly no time to argue. Why, who are you to question the scientists?
Well, I’m a lawyer. I question scientists for a living.
Now, I have no scientific training to speak of. I majored in communications and political science, so the only science I studied at UC San Diego had to do with the physics of foaming when I poured Coors into a glass, as well as the mechanics of human reproduction. Don’t expect me to discourse deeply on the heat retention coefficient of CO2 – I don’t even know if that is a thing, but it sure sounds sciency.
Instead, I hire scientists in most every case I try. Sometimes I hire several in different disciplines. The other side does too, and here’s the weird thing – at trial, the other side’s scientists always, always, disagree with my scientists.
Weird, huh? Because I was told that in the context of climate change the science is settled, that there is only one possible answer and that anything else is at least quackery and possibly felony denial.
Now, it’s easy to be cynical about this and assume that lawyers hire someone who simply parrots what conclusions are needed to support a particular case. That certainly happens – we even have a name for them that would make Hunter Biden’s ears perk up if they weren’t already permanent-perked from all that meth: “Whores.” And quality lawyers despise the whores. A smart attorney wants a scientist who tells you what he really thinks and who has a solid, rational basis for his conclusions. You need to know if your case is strong or weak – if it is weak, you want to resolve it before trial.
But the fact is that two scientists with good credentials can look at the same set of facts and come to different conclusions. This happens all the time. So, how do you know which one is right?
Well, that’s where the lawyer magic comes in. See, our job is to punch some holes in what the other side’s scientists say. That’s what a lawyer does, and it is critical to the pursuit of truth. You have to test the testimony, because otherwise it is just a one-sided monologue. You know, like the cross-examination-free January 6th Kongressional Kangaroo Kommittee. Those amphibians made sure there was no cross-examination because they did not want their phony case questioned.
You want a lawyer who, besides making his own case, takes the evidence from the other side and slices and dices it. Cross-examination, it has been said, is the greatest engine for the discovery of the truth man has yet created. And when someone wants to prevent vigorous, even brutal cross-examination of his case, that’s a giveaway that it is weak.
Looking at you, Liz Cheney, you malignant creep.
And I’m looking at the climate change hoax. The weather cultists even have a uniquely dumb and offensive slur for people who dare test their evidence, such as it is: “Denier.”
The art of cross-examination is designed to illuminate the reasons not to believe the other side. The actual order you do a cross in varies, but let’s start with attacking bias. Bias is huge. Bias is any interest in the testimony outside of simply offering the truth for the truth’ sake. If a person has an interest in a particular answer, then his testimony in support of that answer is questionable. Is he getting paid by someone with an interest in his answer? That can show bias. In the climate arena, is he getting climate change grants? Remember, it’s not just getting hired but the potential for getting fired that can show bias. “Assistant Professor Warmingnut, in fact, if you were opposed to the idea of human-caused global warming being an existential threat, you would have zero chance of ever getting tenure as a full professor at the University of College, correct?”
An awful lot of these science folk have a huge personal interest in providing a pro-climate hysteria answer, whether from gaining cash to saving their careers. And that matters. But for some reason we are not supposed to point that out because scientists are these neutral monks without human drives like greed, fear, and pride. Hang around some scientists for a while and see if you buy that.
Then you would test the foundation that supports their conclusion. You might point out that we have only a human temperature record going back a few hundred years. You could also point out the “heat sink” issue – urban areas tend to retain more warmth than rural areas, and measurements are often closer to urban areas than out in the boonies. They would talk about tree rings and ice cores and such, but you would point out that these are not direct evidence of the temperature like directly measuring it is – we think we can extrapolate from them how hot it was in 2000 BC, but it is really only an educated guess. And then you might question the various adjustments to the raw data that they make before presenting it.
But that’s not allowed, cries the climate clan.
You would also want to cross-examine the conclusions themselves. It’s pretty popular to claim that the recent heatwave in Europe proves global warming. But then, why doesn’t a cold wave disprove it? In fact, what set of facts would disprove the climate change theory? Isn’t the scientific method about generating a theory for a phenomenon and then testing it by trying to find facts that disprove it? So, what would disprove global warming?
None, of course. Everything always proves it. How sciency!
And while we are at it, since “global warming” has been replaced by “climate change,” what, precisely, is the climate we need to maintain? What is the “correct” temperature? Is the goal to stop all climate change? Do we need to counteract natural climate change? You do agree that climate does change naturally, right? All those Americans with those SUVs and BBQs were thousands of years from coming into being when the ice age happened, so what caused that? And what caused the subsequent global warming after it? Are those same phenomena absent today? If not, how much are they causing now?
There are lots of nits to pick. How about the constantly retreating goalposts? What is the current climate apocalypse deadline? Didn’t Al Gore tell us in the 2000s that we would be suffering a climate catastrophe right now in 2022? Florida is still above water, right? So, the scientists Al listened to were wrong, weren’t they? So, Dr. Warmingnut, you concede that scientists have be wrong about climate? The ones in the seventies projecting another ice age in a decade were wrong, correct? So why are the scientists today right?
And then cover the implications. So, you are recommending a pretty radical program of ending the use of fossil fuels and getting rid of cows because they tend to act like Eric Swalwell in order to treat global warming? So, what, exactly, will be the effect of America doing that on the global part of the warming issue? Will it matter what America and Europe do if India and China maintain their current carbon footprints? And how much, in dollars and disruption, will your remedies cost? How does that compare to the cost of ameliorating some climate change effects like higher ocean levels and hotter temperatures?
And then you need to point out some macro issues with questions on the real agenda. So, Dr Warmingnut, can you name a single major climate change remedial initiative, such as higher taxes and increased bureaucratic authority, that does not correspond to something the political left wants to do anyway? Can you name one climate remedial initiative that supports a conservative objective? Does it strike you as odd that the people supporting climate change wanted all the things they now demand because of climate change long before climate change became a thing?
And does it seem strange to you that climate advocates like John Kerry are zipping across the Atlantic to party in Davos and folks like Barack Obama are buying beachfront property if this is an existential crisis?
I know, I know, shut up, denier!
I’m not a scientist. But I am a lawyer. My job is to dig out the truth through cross-examination. And it seems very telling that the climate change hoaxers are desperate to avoid any examination of their ridiculous assertions at all.
