978-1285770178 Case Printout Case CPC-25-07 Part 3

whether the expert has unjustifiably extrapolated from an

accepted premise to an unfounded conclusion. See Joiner,

extinction and regional effects of global warming, except

151:6-152:4. Between 1977 and 2005 Hansen won eight-

een awards for his scientific work, including winning the

2. Hansen’s testimony

er than the changes that drove glacial to interglacial

changes in the past. Id. at 30:22-31:1.

the sun’s brightness. Id. at 12:16–24.

FN11. The concentration of carbon dioxide in

creases in carbon dioxide emissions are two parts

per million, up from one part per million when

Hansen’s “tipping point” theory posits that at a certain

cluding rapid sea level rise, extinctions, and other regional

effects, would be inevitable with a two to three degrees

In the last one hundred years the temperature has in-

creased to within less than one degree Celsius of the

measured in ocean cores.

ture fluctuations were less dramatic, sea level

was at least a few meters higher than today’s dur-

Hansen’s testimony is of a different nature from much of

the expert testimony on which there is more extensive

caselaw. Hansen presented a wide-reaching theory regard-

ing the worldwide effects of unprecedented human–

created climate change, not a theory about a drug‘s causa-

of rapid ice sheet disintegration have also been published;

in 2005 he published an editorial essay projecting that two

to three degrees Celsius warming would likely cause a

sea-level rise of at least six meters within a century due to

ice sheet disintegration. See James E. Hansen, A Slippery

for thirty-five years, and is the past director of the Com-

plex Systems Research Center at the Institute for the

Study of Earth, Oceans and Space at UNH. Tr. vol. 14-A,

7:20-8:4 (Rock, May 4, 2007). He has an undergraduate

degree, a master‘s degree, and a Ph.D. in botany, focusing

on the comparative study of forest conditions. Id. at

10:10-15. He has published peer-reviewed articles on

the lead author of the regional assessment. Tr. vol. 14-A,

13:10-11. Rock clearly is qualified to offer an expert

the Canadian climate model-which predicted six degrees

the New England region. Tr. vol. 14-A, 15:23-

would result in very muted color displays, given that color

changes in maples result from seasonal changes in tem-

perature and day length. Id. at 18:16-24. In addition, cli-

mate change could cause the loss of maple trees in Ver-

mont, as they are unable to tolerate a warmer climate.

With the warming that either model predicts, there would

eventually be no more maples in New England. Id. at

18:24-19:3, 20:6-12.

Finally, Rock testified that warming will affect maple

December, January, and beginning mid-to-late February.

est sugar content and lowest metabolic by-

testimony on reliability grounds. Specifically, they argue

that: (1) his testimony as to likely temperature increases

in Vermont and New England relies on models which are

those models. Both are global models, which NERA

downscaled for use at the regional level. They do not take

into account regional environmental factors affecting re-

producing the dominant influence on regional

temperature-related climate indicators”); see also

K. Hayhoe et al., Quantifying the Regional Im-

Change in the Northeast, 2005.

FN27. The gist of Rock’s testimony was not a

the reasons noted above, the Court does not find the use

of those models to be a source of unreliability.

Second, the ‘302 plaintiffs argue that Rock has improperly

of the study that underlies his opinion regarding loss of

Fed.R.Evid. 702 advisory committee’s note. Rock testified

of citation to a study confirming his conclusions. See

to less snow and have an effect on Vermont’s ski industry.

This seems, as a proposition, unarguably true. The study’s