The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on March 6th, 2018 at 12:31 am
In a puzzling aside to the UN’s release of its latest climate report, Sydney computer teacher Tim Lambert claimed (in a note to Andrew Bolt) to have read the just-delivered report way back in October:
[You] claim that I’m not up to date on the new IPCC report. Actually I am. I’ve read it and you haven’t. It does not predict sea level rises of 14-43cm. You seem to be relying on an inaccurate story in the Australian. The new IPCC report has similar numbers for sea level rise as the previous one.
No, it doesn’t. As Bolt points out, the report Lambert thinks he read last year differs substantially from the report now available.
UPDATE. Lambert looks for a way out: “I didn’t say the numbers were the same, merely similar.” The numbers in question are … 59 and 88.
UPDATE II. This might explain Lambert’s pre-release access to IPCC material, and his reluctance now to comment on that access. Last May, Lambert mentioned an IPCC “expert reviewer”:
“Expert reviewer for the IPCC” doesn’t mean that they asked him to review material—all it means is that he asked to see the draft report.
Just a guess, but Lambert could’ve made a similar request. If he did, why would he now be disinclined to say so? Well, as Lambert explains:
The only real requirement to be a reviewer is to sign an agreement not to publicly comment on the draft.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.