More IPCC errrors revealed.

[applecorped]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece

Dr Rajendra Pachauri dismissed calls for him to resign over the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s retraction of a prediction that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.
But he admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible.



“I know a lot of climate sceptics are after my blood, but I’m in no mood to oblige them,” he told The Times in an interview. “It was a collective failure by a number of people,” he said. “I need to consider what action to take, but that will take several weeks. It’s best to think with a cool head, rather than shoot from the hip.”

 

[geni]

Rvealed by those who accept the reality of global warming not the deniers. Odd that. Perhaps doing real science means you pick up mistakes from time to time.

 

[GreNME]

Ahh, more presenting disagreements in the field as 'proof' against the conclusion. Interesting how, as has already been pointed out, it was his fellow climate scientists-- who also hold the conclusion of global warming-- who caught and reported this.

ETA: you know, wouldn't it be interesting if things like this happened in other valid areas of science as well? Funny thing, that. I guess Evolution is a fraud as well.

 

[skeptsci]

Rvealed by those who accept the reality of global warming not the deniers. Odd that. Perhaps doing real science means you pick up mistakes from time to time.

Ahh, more presenting disagreements in the field as 'proof' against the conclusion. Interesting how, as has already been pointed out, it was his fellow climate scientists-- who also hold the conclusion of global warming-- who caught and reported this.

ETA: you know, wouldn't it be interesting if things like this happened in other valid areas of science as well? Funny thing, that. I guess Evolution is a fraud as well.

You know how funny (and cynical) AGW alarmists sound when they talk in the name of science? The vocabulary and argumentation are those of fundamentalists ("deniers" "flat earth believers" producing propaganda films and winning Oscar and Peace Nobel Prizes). With IPCC reports serving as their Bible. Many times, in this forum system, I have read sentences such as: " so you claim that all these scientists at the IPCC are wrong…." ?. Those who have been using science as a tool for facilitating the advancement toward (long sought after) political goals of some politicians or movements should well expect to be answered by the same token. The damage to the trustworthiness of science in the public eye caused by the revealed bad science and problematic scientific behavior of scientists in climatology related fields will take long time to heal.
And GreNME how can you even start comparing the enormous explanatory power, theoretic soundness and body of evidence of the theory of evolution to that (AGW) level of scientific argumentation?!

 

[GreNME]

skeptsci, instead of ranting characterizations that aren't even making sense (let alone reasonable), how about you actually explain what about the science doesn't stand up? Better yet, could you explain why other scientists who are "alarmists" (as you seem to be characterizing) were the ones who reported the incorrect statements in the paper?

Here's an easy one: can you explain what report was wrong, why it was wrong, and how the incorrect information made its way into the report in question? These are all public knowledge and easy to find out, and don't require a degree to explain. You should have no problem backing up your histrionics with some general information.

 

[GreNME]

And GreNME how can you even start comparing the enormous explanatory power, theoretic soundness and body of evidence of the theory of evolution to that (AGW) level of scientific argumentation?!

Actually, the question is why you seem to think the flawed tactics Creationists use to deny evolution are applicable as an argument tool. I would love to understand the cognitive dissonance that must take place for the same flaw to be considered both proper and improper as an argument tool by someone.