The 2007 IPCC report on global warming won, along with Al Gore, the Nobel Prize. We now find out that the prediction in the report that the Himalayan glaciers had a "very high" probability of "disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner" was based on zero science. Far from being a consensus among climate experts, and peer reviewed, this was a repeated line from a single media interview in 1999 on an Indian scientist. So one guy in an interview over 10 years ago spouts off, "yeah, I think we could loose the Himalayan glaciers by 2035" and it becomes hard science in an international report.
This is absurd and repulsive to us scientists, however, because the climate debate is political and not really science based, it is pretty normal I think. Any results that show a terrible future are trumpeted, other results are ignored.
Please comment: Click "Comment", write comment, on comment as dropdown click "name/url", enter name on top line, hit "continue", hit "post"