I'm going to call that the Dan Rather defends. On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Judah McAuley <ju...@wiredotter.com> wrote: > > The claim that Himalayan glaciers would be all gone by 2035 was not > supported by the evidence at hand. The claim should not have made it > into the IPCC report. Everyone, as far as I'm aware, agrees on that. > > That being said, the Himalayan glaciers have been retreating for 5 > decades (see the link I posted earlier) and there is evidence that the > rate is increasing. So the original claim may not be supported well > enough to make it into the IPCC report but it also isn't a spurious > claim either. > > And the main point is that Robert's implication that the IPCC report > is tarnished because of the inclusion of one statement that was > erroneously included out of 3000 pages is a big crock of shit. > > Judah >
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:311092 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
