Dr Pachauri, could the IPCC not have done better in admitting to its mistakes and correcting them quickly?
There is only one error (Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035), to which we have admitted. After that the errors reported are spurious. They (some western media) said the IPCC claim on the losses from disasters was not from an authentic source. We checked the source; it was authentic. The IPCC was also correct on its claim on Amazon forests…the IPCC isn’t here to answer deniers of climate change. Their sole objective is to damage the credibility of IPCC, not answering people whose only motive is to deny the science of climate change. We will put up a statement on IPCC website (clarifying errors), this is it. We are not going to answer these spurious individual complaints coming in only two sources, The Times (London), and, more importantly, The Telegraph. Will the IPCC review its entire report? We cannot do that. It (the fourth assessment report) is a 3,000-page report and there are more than 5,000 references. We really have to put in the same effort (to review the report) as we did to p
Related Questions
- The obstruction is detected more quickly using dR/dt or d²R/dt². What type of time savings (in %) can I expect versus todays PTC standard sensors/INT69 standard devices?
- How quickly have Dr. Gatzas patients gotten relief from their asthma?
- What is the rule about correcting spelling mistakes and grammar?
