Double post

Wait...what????

• The telegraph has called for his resignation.
• Greenpeace has called for his resignation.
• CEI has has called for his resignation.

I mean come on...the man was cought knowingly using false data. 

Support is the one thing he lacks atm....

^
I guess you could argue that the timing wasn't helpful. Kinda like how not finding WMD's weeks before the invasion would have been anti productive, but i am not excusing his actions either.

It might be interesting to find out if the new glaciar estimates were actually available at Copenhagen.

Well I can't think of any time when it's helpful to be caught in a lie =P

As for the estimates, Pachauri was made aware of the error before Copenhagen but it wasn't until late January that any sort of correction to the issue was seen.  This is particularly damning if you understand how massive an issue the Himalayan story is to India where the majority of their fresh drinking water is from the glaciers in the Himalayans.  As a native Indian himself, I find it hard to believe the gravity of the error had escaped Pachauri and I find it even harder still to believe it would garner a priority so low that it would only be addressed weeks later ...and coincidentally right after the media began covering the story.

I don't think it takes much of a leap to see that Pachauri had no intention of correcting the issue and only did so after being dragged to the issue by the press coverage and PR damage it was doing to the IPCC.  He had weeks to fix it after it was pointed out in private e-mails by Pallava Bagla but only needed 48 hours once the press coverage hit a fevered pitch in the UK and India.  It doesn't take a cynic to see the worst in what was going on there.

Oh, and did I mention he used this claim as the basis of grant funding for a grant that was just awarded in January? And in the abstract of the grant it was claimed:

"One authoritative study reported that most of the glaciers in the region "will vanish within forty years as a result of global warming, resulting in widespread water shortages,"

Am I being all that cynical here? I mean REALLY? Am I?

So your point is you don't like capital letters? The point of this thead was to ask if people who have been agreeing with global warming based on this reasearch are having second thoughts, now that it is being shown to have been seriously mismanaged at it's very best.

I don't see what yout issue is with the way I approached this discussion. If something is false, it is exactly that. I am entirely disgusted with this extreme left philosophy of forcing the rest of into playing into their political agenda, and killing my way of life. I don't walk into this insulting people. I just am tired of being told something is a fact, when it has not been proven.

False according to you.

Extreme "left" philosophy, according to you.

Nobody brought up left or right ideology before you did. You watch too much TV.

Noone tells you its a fact, atleast on vgchartz, right? So don't worry about it.

Another smart response, ey?

I'm not usually mean to people, but here goes.

You know, you are right to be thanking Elprincipe and sqrl, as well as a few others, because without them this thread would have just been you spouting abuse at people. Yes common sense wins over doomsday hysteria, but you have shown very little common sense in this thread.

Most of the anti-global warming group here have been attempting, and rather well may I add, to falsify the global warming theory. In fact some of these posts have had me question whether I should accept global warming as a theory or merely a hypothesis that is yet to be proven or unproven.

However, you have made no attempt at a rational debate. Every single one of your posts has been quick to call another person stupid, mock them as a liberal or criticise them without due. Often ignoring many of their points.

You even accused me, someone who considers themselves somewhat neutral on the whole climate change debate, for something I did not support.

Why? Because you were quick to stereotype me as a tree hugging liberal who thinks carbon credits are a good idea; despite me saying how much I detest them a few posts earlier and protesting that climate change is essentially an overblown fad. You proceeded to accuse me of something I didn't support and you were willing to attempt to make a fool out of me because of it, when it wasn't due.

You have acted disgustingly to several members on this thread in a similar fashion. You have showed no grace whatsoever.

I know I'll probably get banned for this post, but I think it had to be said.

For the sake of avoiding an offshoot debate I'll simply say my disagreement is largely in your presentation of information.

It is my opinion that there are good and bad ways to approach the issue and while I'd not be so arrogant as to claim that my way is the right and perfect way, I do think your approach leaves something to be desired.

In short, my point is that we agree on the final conclusion but how we arrived there and the breadth and depth of information for which we base our conclusions appears to me to be susbstantially different. 

@highwaystar -

I agree with your post. sguy and megaman add virtually nothing to the discussion. Sqrl and elprincpe brought in actual data to validate their arguments while sguy and megaman simply throw their hands up in the air with ad hominem attacks and other unreasonable forms of debate.