My apologies. The Himalaya's claim takes up less than 1 page of a 3000 page report. It was a minor claim, not making it into the summary for policy makers even, and isn't even necessarily wrong. It is just not evidentially supported in such a fashion that it should have been allowed in.
The Himalayan glaciers are retreating with potentially disastrous consequences. 2006 article summary here if you like from the annals of glaciology: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/agl/2006/00000043/00000001/art00032 So, to sum up: a claim was but in on one page of a 3000 page report that was supported by evidence but made a claim that was too strong given the current level of knowledge. That has since been publicly acknowledged and will noted in future addendums and corrections to the report. The claim was not central to the paper and did not make it into any of the summary reports designed for high-level distribution. You're right, I was way too easy going on you with the 99% figure. It is more like 99.97% with even the 0.03% being a bit kind. Jerk. Judah On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Robert Munn <cfmuns...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I love how you throw out a random percentage number without any backing data > to prove your point that science is working... > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Judah Mc wrote: > > >> Of course, 99% of the report is still found to be >> entirely accurate. >> >> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:311074 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
