View Single Post
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
anorton anorton is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 440
Default OT-Scientists Admit GW blunders


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"azotic" wrote:

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued
a
benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most
detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was
the
world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could
vanish by 2035.

The report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any
other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood
of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if
the
Earth keeps warming at the current rate."

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that
it
was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal,
published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

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.


Science has long been abandoned in support of the 'cause'. AGW is every
environazi's
dream. Total control of everything they do not like. Green on the
outside, Red on the
inside.

I'd rather see us spend a fraction of the costs the environazis want to
enact on us to
raise people in Haiti and Africa out of the gutter they live in.

Wes

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller


This is by no means an indication of science abandoning AGW. This is a
prime example of science policing itself to find the truth as best it can.
When a lazy, overzealous technocrat gets things wrong, he is called on it.
Of course this should have been caught earlier in a peer review process, and
I assume they will be improving that process.

On the other hand all the anti-AGW crap on the internet (such as the
Petition Project) that has been debunked many times as fraudulent still
stays on the web and commentators and bloggers still cite it.