Richard Lindzen, MIT professor and much-maligned denouncer of the religion of global warming has an interesting column in the Daily Mail. In it, he exposes the flaws in the theories and the flaws in the thinking of the zealots who have embraced the new religion.
Throughout the 550 pages of his document, Stern continually strikes a confident note, as if there were no dispute about the issues.
Completely divorced from scientific reality
Yet this self-assured stance is completely divorced from scientific reality. It is an inconvenient truth for Stern and his political allies that there is, in fact, precious little hard evidence to back up his sweeping claims.
In a revealing recent comment, Stern admitted that when he was appointed by the Government, he 'had an idea what the greenhouse effect was but wasn't really sure'.
This lack of understanding of science shines through every chapter of his report.
He is guilty of misreading the data, of distorting the evidence to suit his political masters' dogma, of throwing numbers about with reckless abandon, of promoting alarmism in place of rational discussion, and of reinventing climate history.
There are fundamental misconceptions throughout the document. He seems to think that climate prediction is a mature science stretching back to the early 19th century, hence the confident tone science stretching back to the early century, hence the confident tone of his pronouncements.
But in reality climate prediction is a relatively modern science, which has emerged only in recent decades thanks partly to the emergence of computers.
So there are no easy certainties about the past — or the future.
Stern states boldly that the scale of global warming has been unprecedented for at least the past 1,000 years, but he cannot possibly be sure on this point because data from previous centuries is unreliable.
At most, we have a 50-year span of accurate measurements. The only genuine global records of temperature come from weather balloons, since 1958, and from microwave sounding units, since 1978.
What they indicate is a very gently warming trend, nothing approaching the apocalyptic vision of Sir Nicholas.
There is a lot more, I'd recommend reading the entire thing. He also points out something I have noted in the past. The bureaucrats and politicians who are embracing these theories are doing so because it increases their control. They gain more control of the economy, the behavior of citizens and expand their rule over everyday life. Its about power for them, alright. Not energy production though, it is political power. Look at the gargantuan consumption of electricity by Saint Al, or as he is known around here, Gorezilla. He urges controls over puny humans but exempts himself by purchasing green indulgences for himself - from himself, mind you. Those indulgences will only be available to the rich and powerful. Not the average person. (The true believers don't see that folks like Gorezilla won't even look at them if they gain control. The true believers will be cast down with the rest of the puny.)
(Posts about the First Church of the Presumptuous Assumption of Global Warming® always elicit comments. But as a warning, I have a comment policy, it is enforced and there is no appeal. Spam filter blacklisting is forever.)