New Scientist Mag, well known for it’s strongly supportive stance of the AGW hypothesis, seems to have backpedaled somewhat on the “Himalayan Glaciers Gone by 2035” statements. They also seem to have acknowledged that Climategate has damaged the credibility of the “climate scientists.”
Here’s the story: New Scientist Magazine Backpeddles In CYA Move and Acknowledges Climate Science Has Been Damaged by the Climategate Emails
Speaking of Climategate, there’s a new book out on that very subject. Check out the WUWT announcement, here: first book on Climategate
Update: JoNova chimes in on the subject, points out that the story may be getting some traction, and adds some good points about the “quality” of the IPPC process. WUWT also has an update on the story and more than a few comments.
- JoNova: Is the media awakening?
- Well, maybe not.
- WUWT: IPCC to retract claim on Himalayan Glacier Melt – Pachauri’s “arrogance” claim backfires
- The Reference Frame remarks on the quality of the IPCC process: IPCC vs Pachauri: 2035 vs 2350
- SPPI: World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown
- EUreferendum: Pachauri: there’s money in them glaciers
Update: WUWT prints IPCC “retraction” of glacier story. IPCC admits error on Himalayan glacier melt fiasco
Another View on Climate 