🚀 go-pugleaf

Surfer wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 06:51:52 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> "Surfer" <no@spam.net> wrote in message 
>> news:kih1d6huj6qrccdagr4s1dci9ir0gvlvj2@4ax.com...
> 
>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pd
>>> "....a paragraph in the 938-page Working Group II contribution to the
>>> underlying assessment2 refers to poorly substantiated estimates of
>>> rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan
>>> glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and
>>> well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC
>>> procedures, were not applied properly...."
>>>
>>>
>>> One paragraph wrong in a 938-page document doesn't sound like a major
>>> issue.
>>>
>> It just takes ONE pin to deflate a balloon
>>
> In this case the wrong paragraph wasn't essential to the rest of
> document.   Furthermore, it has now been fixed.

Point is, the (lack of) credibility of the IPCC in being able to
understand scientific material and produce reports measuring up to the
standards required by REAL science, has been revealed. "Correcting" a
date might "fix up" the date, but it will not "fix" the credibility of
this organization in the eyes of the scientific world. It has been
exposed as the sensationalist, political organization that it is; not a
serious scientific body as it claimed to be. That bit WON'T be fixed by
a quick edit and an attempted whitewash apologia. The glaring
incompetence will remain.

-- 
Labor-Green open borders plan in action...

Number of illegal aliens in detention:

Jan 2005 __________
Jul 2005 ________
Jan 2006 _________
Jul 2006 ______
Jan 2007 _____
Jul 2007 ____
Jan 2008 ____
Jul 2008 ___
Jan 2009 ___ Rudd stops TPVs
Jul 2009 __________
Jan 2010 _________________
Jul 2010 ______________________________

Where to next?