4 ms·

And look at the "correction": Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glacie

And look at the "correction": Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: "If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments." In other words, we'll remove this particular Jenga block in our little tower of preconceived conclusions, but everything else is AOK. What he should be doing is ordering/performing an immediate review of the origins of all similar "evidence" in the IPCC reports, and a close examination of process to ensure this kind of balls-up can never happen again. Honestly, the IPCC has less credibility than Wikipedia. Maybe they should just ask Wikipedia to do the research for them - at least the WP admins have shown some basic ability/willingness to do due diligence on what gets published. And the worst thing is, we only shine the spotlight on the IPCC because climate change is a controversial subject. How many other government departments are practising this "well I read this in a magazine somewhere" style of policy-making? All of them?

electromagnetic 17y ago
His words, to me, sound worse than you attribute to them. IMO it sounds like "We're going to remove this, if this fuss keeps being made, and only if we really have to." It doesn't even sound like he cares that part of his report might have been based on nothing more than thin air. It sounds like he cares more about having to do work to undo his gross incompetence.
- femfacalifornia 17y ago
  he should be fired and never be allowed to work in the scientific community again. i just read his cv though and he's got more experience than god, which means, he knew just exactly how wrong what he was doing was. what a fool. maybe he's losing his mind. he is 61 years old. and arrogant? his reviewers challenged some of his assertions in his paper and they got his paper back with him saying things like "i can't find the data to support this right now.. have to give it to you later." or "corrections made" when nothing had been changed. that is arrogance!
femfacalifornia 17y ago
if they've got millions of papers they're working with and they have been found to have had 2 blunders, i'd say they're as close to perfect as human beings can get. or would you expect absolute perfection from the years and years and volume after volume of data that they have had to read through to assemble an analysis? me thinks thee protests too much. and if you think, somehow that this negates the fact that the earth is warming, show me how this incident changes all the other data that verifies it? the glaciers are melting and some at a very rapid rate. they're just not going to be gone by the absurd date of 2035.

electromagnetic 17y ago

His words, to me, sound worse than you attribute to them. IMO it sounds like "We're going to remove this, if this fuss keeps being made, and only if we really have to." It doesn't even sound like he cares that part of his report might have been based on nothing more than thin air. It sounds like he cares more about having to do work to undo his gross incompetence.

femfacalifornia 17y ago
he should be fired and never be allowed to work in the scientific community again. i just read his cv though and he's got more experience than god, which means, he knew just exactly how wrong what he was doing was. what a fool. maybe he's losing his mind. he is 61 years old. and arrogant? his reviewers challenged some of his assertions in his paper and they got his paper back with him saying things like "i can't find the data to support this right now.. have to give it to you later." or "corrections made" when nothing had been changed. that is arrogance!

femfacalifornia 17y ago

if they've got millions of papers they're working with and they have been found to have had 2 blunders, i'd say they're as close to perfect as human beings can get. or would you expect absolute perfection from the years and years and volume after volume of data that they have had to read through to assemble an analysis? me thinks thee protests too much. and if you think, somehow that this negates the fact that the earth is warming, show me how this incident changes all the other data that verifies it? the glaciers are melting and some at a very rapid rate. they're just not going to be gone by the absurd date of 2035.