3 ms·
The 2007 study should be seen as a snapshot of what was known then. We now know that "snapshot" wasn't the intent because the "no glaciers in 2025" claim was i
by anamax 17y ago
The 2007 study should be seen as a snapshot of what was known then.
We now know that "snapshot" wasn't the intent because the "no glaciers in 2025" claim was included even though they knew that it was wrong because they wanted to influence the politics.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scie...
FWIW, while they're trying to distance themselves from the claim, they've kept the immediate author on-payroll. Are they buying him off or protecting their own?
- cwan 17y agoThis looks even worse for Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC: - The scientist that made the glacier claim now works for Pachauri - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7062667/Pachauri-the-real-story-behind-the-Glaciergate-scandal.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherboo... - A possible motive? "Pachauri ... may have raised millions of dollars for his New Delhi institute on the basis of the totally bogus ‘glaciergate’ claim by the IPCC that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035" http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/01/23/ipcc-head-in-glaciergate-crime/ http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/01/23/ipcc-h... (Walter Russell Mead)
- anamax 17y agoEven if the claim wasn't bogus, we have yet another example of a supposedly objective scientist/official personally benefiting from pushing AGW. And yet, most of what we hear is that the "deniers" are in it for the money because some of them used to work for the petroleum industry.