More IPCC garbage
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.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.