Mike Davis wrote:I want to resurrect thread with this tid bit:
The IPCC Lies Just Keep Coming: Multiple Violations of IPCC's Own Policies Generate More Untruths
Read here. The IPCC, and those supporting climate scientists, continue their damnedest to destroy any shred of credibility and reputation remaining for the science community, in general. Not only did the scientists exuberantly fudge the climate scientific facts, they bent just about every IPCC rule to advance the political agenda within the 2007 climate report publication.
One policy rule that was blatantly ignored, and then denied to have been violated (and still deny), was the rule that no scientific publication would be included after the January 2006 deadline.
"A few weeks ago, IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri declared in an essay that one of the reasons the 2007 IPCC report (also called AR4 - which stands for Fourth Assessment Report) is perceived as being too conservative in some respects is because it: ...was based on scientific studies completed before January 2006, and did not include later studies...But this is only the beginning. In Chapter 2 of Working Group 1's report, six papers are cited that weren't published prior to January 2006 - despite Pachauri's assurances to the contrary. Nor were they published prior to January 2007. Rather, they all appeared sometime during the 2007 calendar year"..."If you think that's bad, Chapter 11 of Working Group 1's report cites 17 papers with a 2007 publication date"
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/05/the- ... ruths.html
Which links to this:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com ... dates.html
I do believe the "Creative License" taken by the defenders of the IPCC is being displayed for what it is: Lies!
What Pachauri said was that the scienctific studies were completed before Jan 2006. He did not say published. In order to prove Pachauri a liar, the submission dates of those papers published in 2007 needs to be cited. It often takes over a year for the peer review and corrections to be completed.