APP - More peer reviewed science
- Thread starter tinfoil
- Start date
Bump for the warmers
It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi
Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.
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."
It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi
Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.
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."
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Cypress ran roughshod over the other thread, so he should be along shortly. To be pre-emptive, LOL @ Cypress LOLing!!
LOL I read his rant and it made me shake my head. I love it when people think I'm stupid and can't see the flaws in their argument. I love showing the flaws to them.
I love the strawman argument the warmers have been making that just because the Mann MBH98 and MBH99 are flawed, doesn't mean all climate science is bunk.
what kind of idiots take specific instances, which are clearly showing biased scientists bullying sceptic views and manipulating data sets etc, and then assume the people exposing the corruption are inferring all cliamte science is flawed. That's fricken stupid and nobody on the sceptic side has said all climate data is suddenly wrong.
Just the crap the IPCC relied on the scare fools into paying for their salvation from an imaginary crisis.
I love the strawman argument the warmers have been making that just because the Mann MBH98 and MBH99 are flawed, doesn't mean all climate science is bunk.
what kind of idiots take specific instances, which are clearly showing biased scientists bullying sceptic views and manipulating data sets etc, and then assume the people exposing the corruption are inferring all cliamte science is flawed. That's fricken stupid and nobody on the sceptic side has said all climate data is suddenly wrong.
Just the crap the IPCC relied on the scare fools into paying for their salvation from an imaginary crisis.