🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 01:35:05 +1100, Oy rool out a carbon tax
<gillard_lies@nowhere.com> wrote:

>Surfer wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 15:58:14 +1100, Oy rool out a carbon tax
>> <gillard_lies@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Surfer wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 1)    The IPCC data has been pretty well discredited, 
>>>>>
>>>> This error was reported.
>>>>
>>>> IPCC admits Himalayan glacier error
>>>> http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/55455/title/Science_%2B_the_Public__IPCC_admits_Himalayan_glacier_error
>>>>
>>>> But its been found and corrected.
>>> This in no way absolves the IPCC of its gross ineptitude and its total
>>> discreditation in claiming to be "scientific". 
>>>
>> 
>> Your ranting isn't scientific.
>
>You clearly have no understanding of science, if you can't see the
>significance of the fundamental blunder of the IPCC. 
>

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.

And remember that IPCC documents are publically available, so any
errors are likely to be pointed out sooner or later by someone with
relevant knowledge.

>
>What are your scientific qualifications BTW?
>
Using Google to look things up :-)