Coal made its best case against climate change, and lost | Dana Nuccitelli (see my original post, asking why Washington University in St. Louis would partner with a science-denying entity like Peabody Coal):
Among other absurdities, here's what Peabody's 'experts' tried to argue:
The coal company called forth witnesses that represented the fringe 2–3% of experts who reject the consensus that humans are the primary cause of global warming, including Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen, while their opposition invited witnesses like Andrew Dessler and John Abraham who represent the 97% expert consensus. John Abraham previously summarized the proceedings and ruling in favor of the higher carbon cost estimates, but it’s worth delving into some of the details of the climate science and economics arguments to see why the judge ruled against the coal company and its contrarian witnesses. The losing case from the coal company witnesses (rebutted by John Abraham here and here) can be summarized as follows:
- Warming has been less than models predicted [False]
- This means the climate’s sensitivity to the increased greenhouse effect is low [False]
In between these primary arguments, Peabody coal’s witnesses made a variety of false and/or conspiratorial statements, dredging up numerous long-debunked climate myths.
- Carbon pollution is great anyway and should be subsidized, not taxed [False]
Read the rest of the story: Coal made its best case against climate change, and lost | Dana Nuccitelli
