Katrina: The Jury Answers

by Don Wittig

  “Are you aware of other erroneous data used that falsifies or exaggerates the causes or effects of global warming?”

  “Yes. The United Nations IPC. I’m sorry; that’s the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It has misstated both current fossil-fuel usage and future use. They underestimate current levels of CO2 and other emissions and then turn around and exaggerate future predictions. They say small islands and African countries will be using as much fossil fuels as the United States in one hundred years. First, how could you guess that? And secondly, what is the probability of that actually happening? The result of these misquantifications is once again to exaggerate global warming. By the way, one of their best scientists, Dr. Donald Landlake, resigned last year. He accused IPC of being motivated by preconceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. London’s House of Lords had similar criticisms. I agree.”

  “When protagonists use their computer models to forecast big jumps in anthropogenic-induced global warming, do they typically consider the sun as the source or a source of global warming?” Like every good advocate, Mack knew the answer before he asked the question.

  “Until recently, most of the computer models just ignored sunspots, solar flares, solar winds, and increased radiance. A few are starting to use some sun data, but their basic assumptions are the same: that man causes global warming, not the sun. Earth is affected by anywhere from thirty to one hundred and thirty solar flares a year. Increase the number of solar flares, and the temperature goes up. Decrease the number of solar flares, and global temperatures cool. To deny this is to ignore that the sun is responsible for over ninety-eight percent of the Earth’s radiant energy. Even a point one percent change in solar energy over any significant period of time could result in another ice age.”

  “What about the glaciers?”

  “Once again, studies of tree rings have shown that when the sun strength increases, there is more melting, and the oceans warm. I am one of a growing number of scientists who believe you must begin with the sun as the primal cause of whatever warming we have.”

  “Take away the sun, and you are living in the dark. Right, Dr. Boudreaux?” Mack cracked a smile.

  Judge Martin frowned as he powered back in his chair.

  The jury snickered.

  “Like living on the icy side of the moon, no sun, no heat.”

  “Before I let you go Dr. Boudreaux, tell us something about solar flares.”

  “NASA and the European space agency have been using data from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, SOHO, for short, since the mid-1990s. It’s actually a spacecraft orbiting the sun. In 1996, for example, scientists observed a gaseous blob of material that was sixty thousand degrees Celsius and over eighty thousand miles long ejecting from the sun at a speed of at least fifteen thousand miles per hour. When this happens, NASA reports that we can experience major disruptions of communications, navigation, and electrical power circuits. Inside the sun, every second, seven hundred million tons of hydrogen are converted into helium ashes, and five million tons of pure energy are released. Next to God, there is no greater source of power or energy in the known universe.”

  Mack lowered his head and gave a sidelong glance at the jury. Most seemed pleased with Dr. Boudreaux. Two men at the end of the back row folded their arms and scowled. Mack knew he was once again taking a calculated risk. His handling of the Deerman/ Lewis affair had obviously backfired. He hoped it wasn’t obvious that his SOHO question would lead to such a profound answer. But he knew he had to take chances to win over this New Orleans jury. Besides, pushing the envelope was fun.

  “One last question, Dr. Boudreaux. When engineers and scientists are building a flood-protection system, such as the one in New Orleans, should they be more concerned about CO2 or solar radiance?”

  “Neither, Mr. Mack. There are over five million variables that make up climate and climate change. Scientists don’t even agree on what all the variables are. We have learned more about the sun since 1995 than the combined knowledge of thousands of years prior to launching the sun spacecraft. There is no question the sun causes global warming and cooling. The contribution of CO2 compared to the sun is like throwing a pebble into the Pacific Ocean. Unfortunately, the next solar storm, volcano, or asteroid could so drastically change our climate that New Orleans could become as cool as Greenland or as hot as the tropics. With our current lack of agreement and knowledge, you cannot engineer a flood-protection system to account for future climate change.”

  “Pass the witness.”

  34 O’Reilly Irradiates

  “DR. BOUDREAUX, JULY 2000 WAS a solar maximum, or the end of the sun’s warming cycle. Correct?” “Correct, but in 2003 we had an episode of solar weather change that induced warming.”

  “Nevertheless, according to your own solar warming theories, we should have been in the cooling side of sun cycles?”

  “True.”

  “And the last few years we have experienced a decrease in solar flares?”

  “Correct.”

  “Yet at the same time, 2005 was the hottest year in over a century.”

  “Perhaps. But the places and methods of measurements have not been constant.”

  “So you don’t believe that 2005 was the hottest year in the last one hundred years?”

  “It’s very possible. I just don’t think we can say that with any degree of scientific certainty. A possibility. Not a scientific fact.”

  “Actually, Doctor, the Earth’s magnetic field protects us from solar storms and solar bursts, does it not?”

  “Thankfully, yes. Or we wouldn’t be here to talk about it.”

  “The sun’s heat radiates to the Earth’s surface and is transferred to the air by conduction. True?”

  “True.”

  “Does most of this conduction happen between the Earth’s surface and the first few centimeters of air?”

  “Yes.”

  “Then convection brings the heat up from the surface into the lower atmosphere. Am I not correct?”

  “Yes, you are correct in that statement.”

  “And so are you saying that anthropogenic additions to the atmosphere such as CO2 and methane have no effect on global warming?”

  “Not at all. It’s like a pot of water on the stove. The stove element heating the water is like the sun. Depending on what ingredients you add to the water, it might vary the temperature a few degrees. But if you turn the stove element up or down, the effect of the stove is geometric compared to adding a little trace CO2 to the mix.”

  “Now Dr. Boudreaux, isn’t it more like putting a lid on the pot? When you add CO2 and methane to a steamy atmosphere, isn’t that exactly like putting a lid on the pot?”

  “I agree that the atmosphere does act something like a lid. But it’s more like putting the lid under the pot. Greenhouse gases hold in heat, but they also shelter the Earth from the sun. More cloudy, less sun. Less sun, less heat.”

  “Not quite fair, Dr. Boudreaux. Maybe it’s more like a lid on the top and the bottom of the pan?”

  “Perhaps I’ll concede you that. However, you must also remember that the upper atmosphere and stratosphere are much cooler, even cold. So convection takes the heat up and the air cools the farther up it goes. You have heard commercial pilots tell you the outside temperature at thirty-five thousand feet is negative sixty-eight degrees Fahrenheit? Actually, by five thousand feet the temperature is already down to forty-one degrees Fahrenheit.”

  “So, Dr. Boudreaux, do you also subscribe to the theory that solar irradiation caused abrupt climate change from 1910 to 1945 and 1975 to the present?”

  “Perhaps in part. There are many factors at work, including ocean currents, atmospheric convection, cloud effects, water vapor, ice sheets, the cooling effects of aerosols, and the biosphere.”

  “Now Doctor, that’s pretty sneaky. The biosphere would include man-made emissions from fossil fuel. True?”

  “Among many other things. Yes.”


  “And what about new studies that indicate an increase of methane from the melting permafrost?”

  “These studies are preliminary. But yes, increases in naturally occurring methane releases are just one more factor in the equation. Some scientists believe methane played a large role in the past when lower atmosphere temperatures increased five to seven degrees Celsius. And the biggest problem with methane is that it is twenty times more potent than CO2 in trapping or holding heat. Thankfully, it only lasts a fraction of the time in the atmosphere compared to CO2. And there is little we can do when the biosphere releases methane from hydrates or the permafrost. Frozen methane hydrates can contain one hundred and seventy times the gas that is released into the atmosphere.”

  “So, Doctor you think the methane effect could be worse than the CO2 effect?”

  “Yes. However, like the sun, it’s largely a natural phenomenon. Not a lot we can do about it as we sit here in the courtroom today. That is unless you want to shut down all the feed lots and tell the poor people all over the world to stop raising sheep and goats.”

  “Dr. Boudreaux, are you familiar with the study that suggests the sun’s brightness actually decreased by point zero seven percent in the year 2000?”

  “Yes. And another study in the 1980s showed a decline in the sunlight reaching Earth of four to six percent since the 1960s. Then the cycle was reversed in 1990. That corresponded to another warming trend, which, in my opinion, was again followed by our current cooling pattern.”

  “And another study shows the sun only contributes ten to thirty percent to global warming. Do you agree or disagree with that?”

  “I agree that is the minimum of the sun’s effect. Another study shows the sun contributes up to seventy-one percent of the Earth’s temperature shifts in climate. That study is by Sally Canicule, an astrophysicist at one of our best universities.”

  “Actually, scientists agree they really don’t know the total effects of the sun on warming, do they?”

  “True. But until we fully appreciate the sun’s effects, we can’t measure or predict anthropomorphic effects either. You know the ancients viewed the Earth, moon, and sun with a certain reverence and mystery. Even today there is much more mystery about the sun than science.”

  Julia and Tiashi smiled. Tiashi really liked Barbara Boudreaux. She convinced herself that they had some of the same blood. Julia was somewhat cooler. She didn’t like her high-end stylish clothes and ways. That also turned off three of the blue-collar male jurors. Still, all paid attention. All the science being thrown out was a lot to chew on. Was it really science or sleight of hand? The interplay between the attorneys and the witnesses kept the courtroom quiet and attentive.

  O’Reilly passed the witness and drank a tall glass of water. He was not happy. It was time for a skull session.

  35 O’Reilly Calls for Powwow

  “L ET’S GO BACK TO MY hotel everybody. We need to talk.” The atmosphere was strained as O’Reilly’s team of lawyers, Lewis, Deerman, and the other environmental representatives made their way out of the courtroom and to the nearby hotel where they were all staying. O’Reilly told Holly to order up some takeout so they could work through dinner.

  O’Reilly was having a difficult time scoring many points on Mack’s witnesses. He had about decided he needed to put Melinda Lewis back on the witness stand to win Tiashi back. Between General Walker and Dr. Boudreaux, Tiashi might have wandered over to the defense side. O’Reilly needed to remind her of Mack’s rude treatment and that, after all, this was Melinda’s case. He motioned for everyone to join him at the large conference table he had ordered up to his suite. He somberly intoned, “How are we doing?”

  Deerman spoke first. “I think we are doing fantastic. No one can honestly believe Boudreaux’s sun mystery stuff. We all know its CO2 and methane that are causing global warming and more intense hurricanes. I think the jury will see right through her. And that Waters guy. That’s a bunch of voodoo science. He thinks the climate changes every time the tide comes in. I’ll bet everyone on that jury knows better and would like to take a hockey stick to Mack. And they believe the science, even if Dr. Voodoo doesn’t.”

  Melinda Lewis was less sanguine. “I was concerned from the beginning that Mack would lead us down rabbit trails. He has: to the sun, to Mars, to volcanos and to everything except what the Corps did wrong. I think the witness who hurt us the most was General Walker. Having a three-star general sit up there and talk with the jury cost us points.”

  O’Reilly jumped in. He had his cue. “Melinda’s right. We had to have the environmental issues in order to get into court. However, I’m afraid the jury may be forgetting about how badly the Corps botched up and caused billions of dollars of damages to the people of southern Louisiana. We don’t have enough trial time left to score a knockout blow to Mack’s experts on the sun, climate cycles, ocean currents, and all his distractions. We need to refocus the jury on New Orleans and the trash that is still heaped in the streets here. If you have mud and a ton of garbage in your front yard, you aren’t worried about global warming!”

  The environmentalists squirmed. Some wondered if they were drawn into the case under false pretenses. Sensing their mood, the lawyer for Earthcore spoke up. “I think O’Reilly has done a remarkable job. He practically destroyed Walker with the IPEC findings. We have already gotten our five million back plus four hundred and forty-nine million—and that is before any verdict. We’ve got to keep our eye on the ball. We still have the potential for the largest environmental verdict in history. It’s a team effort. I trust O’Reilly’s judgment, and I urge you to do likewise. Richard, I do have one question. What did you think of Dr. Waters?”

  O’Reilly appreciated the vote of confidence and voice of reason. “Jim, you know a lot more about global warming than I do. But my guess is that thermohaline circulation, water density, and what the Vikings did in Greenland is much more interesting to the scientists and environmentalists than to someone who had ten feet of salt water in his home. Look, Jim is right. This is about a team plan. The greens wouldn’t be here without the case against the Corps, and the case against the Corps wouldn’t be here without the environmental policy angle. Neither case can survive alone.

  “So here’s where we need to go. We need to make sure Tiashi and Julia are still on our side. We need to make sure our friends on the jury have fresh ammunition when they go into deliberations. I think either Julia or Tiashi will be the presiding juror—the foreperson, if you will. We’ve got to have that person on our side. We also need to remind the jurors that Melinda has no ax to grind and that General Walker was just singing the company line. Strategically, we have the strongest case when we close with our best witness. Agreed?”

  While Natureone’s people and even Bob Deerman suffered some hurt feelings, compromise was consistent with maximizing the dollar recovery for their organizations. After all, the environmentalists were getting 60 percent of the net damage recovery. That could be billions of dollars. And the publicity had been awesome. “Agreed,” most responded. No one said no to O’Reilly.

  2 Meanwhile, Mack met with Sherry and his staff. “I think we really threw some clods into O’Reilly’s green machine. Walker was great. Boudreaux was great. Waters was not as clear as he could have been—no pun intended. I think we hurt them. So what will O’Reilly do tomorrow?” The room was momentarily silent.

  Then Sherry spoke up. “You always preach ‘go to your strength.’ I’ll bet that’s what O’Reilly will do too.”

  “And so, my insightful youngster, who or what will that be?”

  “Melinda Lewis, no doubt about it.”

  “Does anyone disagree with the genius? I take it from your silence that you do not. Meeting adjourned. I need to get ready for Ms. Lewis and get some rest. Good-night, all.”

  The group dispersed. None went to sleep at their regular hour. The tension of the trial was building to an inevitable climax. Thoughts of the points scored and the points lost swirled i
n everyone’s head. Mack alone stayed entirely focused. How do I maximize Lewis’s last appearance? We can pretty well guess what she’ll say. What do she and O’Reilly least expect? A brilliant idea struck him. He jumped into bed, closed his eyes, and dreamed about the next day’s last cross-examination.

  36 The Defense Rests; Melinda Lewis Recalled

  T HE JURY TOOK THEIR SEATS in Judge Martin’s courtroom. They were feeling good after their New Orleans Saints had returned home to the Superdome and were actually winning some games. They relished last weekend’s win over Philadelphia.

  Judge Martin greeted them and the testimony resumed. “Does the defense rest?” the judge queried, looking eye to eye with Mack.

  “We do your honor.” Mack rose, smiled at the judge and jury, then resumed his seat. Judge Martin turned toward O’Reilly and queried, “Anything further?”

  O’Reilly responded he would like to recall Melinda Lewis to the stand.

  “Proceed.” the judge commanded.

  O’Reilly asked Melinda Lewis to return to the witness stand.

  “Dr. Lewis, you previously testified last week and are still under oath.”

  “I understand.”

  “I’d like to take you back to 1965 and Hurricane Betsy. Tell us what happened in September 1965.”

  “Betsy devastated the New Orleans area. It was the worst devastation to the area in recorded history. Over five thousand miles were underwater. That included both St. Bernard and Orleans Parishes. The Betsy flooding was caused by overtopping and breaches of levees in Orleans, St. Bernard, and Plaquemines Parishes. At least sixty-one were known dead and over seventeen thousand injured. Many homes were picked up and carried over ten miles away.”