Ian
Activist UK Supreme Court Judges don’t even understand schoolchild science
Plimer 6July2024 9:00 AM
Every time I am required to give evidence as an expert witness, I am surprised at the total ignorance of matters science displayed by lawyers and the bench. I’m talking about basic science, nothing at the cutting edge. Schoolchild science. Maybe it is thought that reading a brief and finding one internet posting is all that seems to be required to understand a complex debatable scientific concept.
Furthermore, in my experience in courts there is no cognisance of the scientific method, the processes of validation, the coherence criterion of science, concepts of falsification & the fact that much peerreviewed scientific work can be demonstrably wrong, yettreasuredbiases persist for decades.
For example, if one proposes a theory that human emissions of plant food drive global warming, then this proposition must be in accord with validated evidence from other fields of science. This proposition is not in
accord with what has been repeatably validated in geology, physics, astronomy & chemistry & hence is an invalid theory.
The UK Supreme Court has made an extraordinary ruling about carbon dioxide and climate change (https//www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/u ksc-2022-0064-judgment.pdf).
Lord Leggett stated that, ‘Anyone interested in the future of our planet is aware by now of the impact on the climate of burning fossil fuels – chiefly oil, coal & gas. When fossil fuels are burnt, they release carbon dioxide & other “greenhouse gases” – so called because they act like a greenhouse in the earth’s atmosphere, trapping the sun’s heat and causing global surface temperatures to rise. According to the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) Production Gap Report 2023, p.3, close to 90 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions stem from burning fossil fuels.’
This statement looks like it was produced by a scientifically illiterate brain-damaged gnat.
Anyone interested in the future of the planet surely would want to make sure that they got their facts right rather than parrotingactivistpropaganda. Unless,of course, one is an activist. One does not have to be a blue-haired uncouth loud ignorantbuffoontobeanactivist when wigs & robes on the bench suffice.
Why was the word ‘chiefly’ used? Are there other fossil fuels which are burned besides coals, oil & gas? There is no mention of
Getty Images
burning limestonethatemits carbon dioxide during the manufacture of cement.
There is no mention that the modern world owes its existence to the burning of fossil fuels & that without fossil fuels & their byproducts such as plastics, steel, fertiliser and concrete then we progress back to the Stone Age.
There is no mention that people in the West have been pulled from grim poverty by the use of coal with the resultant increase in longevity, health, wealth & freedoms. This escape from poverty occurred in the West & is occurring in India & China.
The pillar of science, the periodic table of elements, is a concept beyond lawyers.
I learnt this when I was in my early teens & have never forgotten the structure of the first 20 elements. As soon as the word ‘carbon’ is substituted for ‘carbon dioxide’, you know that you are dealing with activist language wrapped in a shroud of scientific ignorance.
Words such as ‘pollution’ are used in the judgment showing that the concept of photosynthesis has passed by the bench. Photosynthesis is one of the first scientific processes learnt in school science.
Thebenchdidnotseemtobeawarethat carbon dioxide is essential for life, that atmospheric carbon dioxide & carbon dioxide dissolved in ocean waters are controlled by basic chemical equilibrium & that when atmospheric carbon dioxide increases, so does dissolved carbon dioxide in ocean waters. Carbon dioxide is simultaneously added to & removed from the atmosphere in the carbon cycle.
Lord Leggett’s understanding of the socalled ‘greenhouse effect’ shows that he does not understand the atmospheric radiation balance & confuses heat with radiation.
There is no mention of the main greenhouse gas, water vapour & he is suggesting that traces of a trace gas in the Earth’s atmosphere drive major planetary processes.
WastheCourtawarethatwehaveacarbon dioxide crisis? There is just not enough of this gas of life.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide has been decreasing since the appearance of multicellular life & over the last 10 per cent of geological time, has decreased from 0.7 per cent to 0.04 per cent. If it halved, then there would be no life on Earth.
Surely a basic reading of the literature would show the Court that there have been cycles of climate operating for billions of years?
These are very well documented in the scientific literature which is easily accessible in a simple internet search. Clearly this was not done by the Court. The science of climate change is certainly not settled.
Recently there was a publication that suggested a 2.4-million-year climate cycle related to Mars! The mechanisms of tectonic, galactic, orbital, solar, lunar & Martian climate cycles driving climate change are well established & there is scientific argument on the details of these processes.
My greatest concern is the Court’s one & only reference. There is a huge literature oncarbondioxide,all ofwhichwas ignored & only an introductory line in an activist report is cited. Where is a balanced judgement that weighs all the evidence?
Was the Court aware that not one scientific paper demonstrates that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming? Not one!
For years I have challenged scientific activists to produce half-a-dozen landmark scientific papers that demonstrate that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. None have been forthcoming.
It is demonstrably incorrect to claim that burning of fossil fuels accounts for 90 per cent of emissions.
Was the Court aware that only 3 per cent of global emissions of carbon dioxide derive fromhumanswiththeremaining97percent from ocean exhalation, volcanism & respiration?
It is clear that the Court did not even question the 90 per cent UNEP number which has not been validated, assumed that all carbon dioxide emissions are of human origin & was not aware that natural emissions far outweigh human emissions.
The Court should have been aware from the extensive literature that once the UN is involved, we escape from science & embrace political activism.
Why did the Court use a UN document as the only reference when a simple internet
search could very quickly have shown that the UNEP figure is plucked from thin air?
Was the Court aware that for thousands of millions of years there has been a recycling of carbon dioxide into sediments, soils, life & the oceans?
Was the Court aware that atmospheric temperature rise causes an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide by oceanic degassing, the inverse of what we are told by activists?
There is a huge literature on Greenland & Antarctic ice cores that demonstrate this observation which is validated by solution chemistry.
Was the Court aware that in past times the atmospheric carbon dioxide content was up to 500 times higher than at present & the biggest ice ages in the history of the planet occurred in these times?
This is yet another example of unelected activists driving the political agenda & espousing scientific illiteracy.
It is no wonder that taxpayers who fund the legal system have lost confidence in what were once treasured institutions.