Monday, July 5, 2010

The IPCC's glass is half empty.

Here the Economist talks about another report that finds new errors in the IPCC's climate change report.

Here is the conclusion in which the Economist, as usual, contradicts itself in order to sound reasonable,

"The PBL report does not prove or indeed suggest systematic bias, and it stresses that it has found nothing that should lead the parliament of the Netherlands, or anyone else, to reject the IPCC’s findings. But the panel set up to look at the IPCC’s workings by Dr Pachauri and Mr Ban should ask some hard questions about systematic tendencies to accentuate the negative."

What is the difference between "systematic bias" and "systematic tendencies to accentuate the negative"? And if the PBL report found none then why should the UN panel under Mr. Ban be asking hard questions?


No comments:

Post a Comment