TribLIVE

| News

 
Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

More IPCC garbage

Email Newsletters

Click here to sign up for one of our email newsletters.

Letters home ...

Traveling abroad for personal, educational or professional reasons?

Why not share your impressions — and those of residents of foreign countries about the United States — with Trib readers in 150 words?

The world's a big place. Bring it home with Letters Home.

Contact Colin McNickle (412-320-7836 or cmcnickle@tribweb.com).

Daily Photo Galleries

'American Coyotes' Series

Traveling by Jeep, boat and foot, Tribune-Review investigative reporter Carl Prine and photojournalist Justin Merriman covered nearly 2,000 miles over two months along the border with Mexico to report on coyotes — the human traffickers who bring illegal immigrants into the United States. Most are Americans working for money and/or drugs. This series reports how their operations have a major impact on life for residents and the environment along the border — and beyond.

Wednesday, Aug. 3, 2011
 

Given all the heat it has taken for its problematic prognostications, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) logically should be applying more science than speculation to its research. But that doesn't fit its global-warming agenda.

In its latest fallacious finding, IPCC declares, "Close to 80 percent of the world's energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies."

But to reach that 80 percent figure, IPCC's inquisitors tossed out not one, not two, but 163 different scenarios. And that's just the tip of this latest trash heap, according to Jim Lacey, a professor of strategic studies at the Marine Corps War College.

To make their model work, the "researchers" assumed that the world somehow will be using less energy come 2050, despite population projections of an additional 2 billion people, notes Mr. Lacey, writing for National Review Online. Oh, they won't need a watt of power, will they?

All this, from a report "written by Greenpeace activists in conjunction with a lobbying group for renewable energy. No real scientists or engineers were involved," Lacey says.

Not that the presumptive IPCC gives a hoot about methodology when the outcome is preordained.

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.

 

 


Show commenting policy

Most-Read News