|
|
Not in my book.
From this article:
World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown - Times Online
"Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.
It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi"
"The IPCC's reliance on Hasnain's 1999 interview has been highlighted by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview for the New Scientist."
Generally, a scientific paper is peer reviewed before publication. To issue headline-stealing alarmist claims based on an interview is more typical of a scientific body trying to ensure future funding. I can't think, offhand, of another scientific discipline where this would have occurred.
I think you are being somewhat disingenuous trying to bury this story as a mere "typo". It appears, to me,that there are slightly more worrying issues. What with trying to stop contrary opinions being submitted for peer review and basing headline releases on non-peer reviewed (I was going to say "papers", but it wasn't even that) "evidence"......hmm not exactly "evidence" either...well, I think you get the point I'm trying to make.
Incidents like this, hot on the publication of a couple of fairly damning emails, are only serving to further alienate an already sceptical public.
Cheers
Brian |
|
26-11-2019 04:30:40