Shining light on global warming
On December 21, we posted Lord Monckton’s lucid analysis of Al Gore's global warming theories. Today we find that Lord Monckton’s science agrees with that of Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, and Dr. Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT. They rebut the UN’s claims that global warming has been caused by and can be cured by humans.
They assert that the UN report is poor science, that the ‘consensus’ of scientists does not exist, that the UN has strong-armed and grant-fed scientists who know little about the subject into agreeing with its political conclusions, and has easily fooled the media into “promoting laughably nonsensical theories while dismissing or demonizing those of detached science.”
The UN science includes ersatz economics. Canadian Mark Steyn wrote in the Chicago Sun-Times that “In evaluating industrial impact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used GDP estimates based on exchange rates rather than purchasing power: As a result, they assume by the year 2100 that not only South Africans but also North Koreans will have a higher per capita income than Americans. That's why the climate-change computer models look scary. That's how "solid" the science is: It's predicated on the North Korean economy overtaking the United States.”
Why would the UN do this? The world has plenty of problems. Hunger, disease, violence, and real pollution spring immediately to mind, but apparently they don’t grip the global imagination the way fantastically imagined climate change does. Is UN science being driven by thinkers who have an almost religious yearning for apocalypse or by transnational elite bureaucrats who plan to get their hands on the vast resources to be poured into the UN to prevent the sky from falling?
You may well wonder after you read American Thinker’s description of the science. It’s chilling.