Sunday, January 24, 2010

Glacier scientists says he knew data had not been verified | Mail Online

Glacier scientists says he knew data had not been verified | Mail Online: "The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action."

It has been a bad year for the global warming crowd, and the winter isn't over yet. February 2 is Groundhog Day, and I'll bet Punxsutawny Phil will deliver more bad news to them.


DBX said...

Second warmest year on record (2009), warmest non-El Nino year on record (2009); Great Lakes ice MIA; Labrador iced up a month late. There's plenty of evidence. We'll see what happens this year with the El Nino active.

But because one batch of e-mails got taken out of context and a UN guy has been found to be distorting evidence, there's no crisis. Yeah, really.

Compared to the torrent of distortion that comes every day from the fossil fuel industry and others, this is small beer. Note how the climate change skeptics are hiring the same lobbyists the tobacco industry hired 10 to 20 years ago. That should tell you something.

The overwhelming majority of climate science has been based on peer review. Where's the peer reviewed material from the other side?

Personally, I trust the insurance companies on this more than anyone. Try getting a homeowners or mortgage policy on a barrier island these days.

DBX said...

Also, if that groundhog gets any fatter, we're not going to KNOW whether he sees his shadow or not.

Tom Skiba said...

Of course that assumes PETA does not file for an injunction to "protect" Phil from cruel and unusual treatment.