However, he said that the mistake, included in its 2007 assessment global warming, did not alter the broad picture of man-made climate change.
He told the BBC: \”I don\’t see how one mistake in a 3,000-page report can damage the credibility of the overall report.
\”Some people will attempt to use it to damage the credibility of the IPCC; but if we can uncover it, and explain it and change it, it should strengthen the IPCC\’s credibility, showing that we are ready to learn from our mistakes.\”
That\’s the Himalayan glacier nonsense: the idea that they would all melt away by 2035 being obvious nonsense on the face of it.
Now, if it had in fact been hte IPCC which had uncovered it then that might in fact be a reasonable defence. Science does indeed progress by continual re-examination and the expulsion of mistakes and errors from the canon.
But it wasn\’t the IPCC which uncovered the mistake at all.
All of which leads one to wonder what other such mistakes there might be in there. And, inevitably, what process should be used to go and uncover them.
Like, for example, having another look at how those temperature records and proxies have been put together.
Worth recalling the most basic point about all of this. Whatever is done about climate change, from nothing to slashing emissions to nett zero by 2050 as some insist we should. This is the most expensive decision the human race has had to take so far. Whatever has to be spent on the science underlying that decision, the sums laid out are trivial in comparison to he sums at issue in hte decision. Worth making sure that we\’re getting the science right.