JY - I missed the smiley. It was meant as a joke (the benchmark thing)
Time to leave this thread now - as there is little room for further debate. I'm afraid that any slight knowledge of the IPCC would lead any normal person to adopt a healthy degree of scepticism. But the post I like today most is AdamW's for being so (unintentionally) spot on:
Armchair climatologists abound!
How true you are Adam. Thank you!
"The IPCC had reported, as highly probably, that the glaciers in the Himalayas would melt, due to global warming, by the year 2035. Expert glaciologists said the claims were total rubbish. But the IPCC was refusing to back down....
...The head of the IPCC, who has no degrees in the fields over which he presides, launched some very public attacks on people who actually are experts on glaciers...
...the IPCC “expert reviewer” responsible, Murari Lal, cited several sources for this startling claim—not a one of them considered a legitimate scientific source...
...Lal is trying to excuse his bogus claims, published by the IPCC as fact. He says: “I am not an expert on glaciers and I have not visited the region so I have to rely on credible published research. The comments in the WWF report were made by a respected Indian scientist and it was reasonable to assume he knew what he was talking about.” So, Lal admits he published this extreme claim about glaciers on nothing more than the hearsay report from a political lobbying group like the World Wildlife Fund. There was no attempt to verify the claim, there was no scientific data investigated, no peer reviewed reports read. It was published simply because one IPCC office “assumed” it must be right. Why that assumption? Because skepticism is discouraged by the IPCC."
Good night!!
