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 had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Axiomatically, I think your poll is flawed because it implies scientists should influence politics.
Perhaps the questions could be a) should scientists seek to play a role in politics, and if so b) should they act as i) passive consultants, or ii) active agents for change.
If a scientist goes down the route of b) ii) then I would say they are no longer scientists doing a bit of politics, they are politicians doing a bit of science.
If I were to become a "b) ii)" candidate, then I would then simply answer by correcting one of the very flawed sayings I was given as a child.
chrismb wrote:Axiomatically, I think your poll is flawed because it implies scientists should influence politics.
Perhaps the questions could be a) should scientists seek to play a role in politics, and if so b) should they act as i) passive consultants, or ii) active agents for change.
If a scientist goes down the route of b) ii) then I would say they are no longer scientists doing a bit of politics, they are politicians doing a bit of science.
If I were to become a "b) ii)" candidate, then I would then simply answer by correcting one of the very flawed sayings I was given as a child.
I say; "the ends always justify the means".
1. It is not a scientific poll
2. The punch line is question three
3. I guess American humor is too subtle for Brits ;-)
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Josh Cryer wrote:How does "I was aware it wasn't peer reviewed" mean "I lied"? At least he's manning up, and hopefully this will make IPCC AR5 much better.
Wait a minute - are you telling me that as the head of a working group It wasn't his job to check? And he failed to notice the source?
To answer your question - putting something in the report he said himself that he knew was in error and then claiming as an out that he knew it wasn't peer reviewed and was doing it to move policy. Well if it wasn't a lie it was definitely
FRAUD
And Josh - isn't fraud based on a lie or giving false impressions i.e. not telling the whole truth?
The IPCC is full of scum. Don't let it rub off on you. It is not worth it.
Care to make any other rash statements? I have reams of ammunition. Reams.
Don't be under the bus when the last wheel comes off this bus Josh. You will get crushed.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Suppose I sell you pixie dust on the promise it will make any auto use 90% less gas on long trips. And I sold you the dust based on a report in which according to the rules all statements are supposed to be peer reviewed.
And you find out my claim is bogus. And my response to you is "I knew it wasn't a peer reviewed statement. So I didn't lie. "
Come on Josh, quit covering for these creeps. You are better than that.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.