This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
It's not over yet.
While admitting the inclusion of the Himalayan data was not well advised, the IPCC clings to its contention that the glaciers are disappearing.
Hmmm. Yes and no. In some parts they are not.
If, as we presumably agree, we are emerging from an ice age, then glaciers must be expected to shrink, some of them or even many of them.
But is this normal or a consequence of AGW?
The latter is not something the Indian government's report says (a report condemned by Pachuri as "voodoo science").
Meanwhile more WWF propaganda has been included in the IPCC 4th report as science including a piece on tropical rainforests. As before, the numbers sem to have been added by the IPCC.
The story can be found in James Delingpole's Telegraph blog and on WUWT.
It seems the IPCC report could prove a treasure trove of such myths and "campaign" documents tarted up and preseneted as "science".
On the subject of the IPCC AR4 report proving to be a treasure trove of campaign documents dressed up as science, I did a quick experiment to see if Britain's top Greenie, Sir Jonathan Porritt, is referenced. After googling: AR4 porritt , sure enough there are two references in Chapters 12 and 20 to something written by Porritt, specifically his 2005 book "Capitalism as if the World Matters".
The reaction of some people to the melting glacier fiasco is interesting. Andrew Neil, the leading BBC political commentator, regards the melting glacier howler as much more significant than Climategate.
We AGW sceptics tend to see the IPCC as a dodgy organisation, so use of WWF reports as references doesn't come as any particular surprise, but it's quite a revelation to people like Neil who see the IPCC as some sort of respectable scientific organisation, a bit like an equivalent of CERN for climate science.
The impression that the IPCC only deals with peer reviewed scientific material is something which I think comes from environmental journalists. An example of it is this article from a few months ago by the BBC's Roger Harrabin, where Harrabin even seems to be under the delusion that the IPCC carries out all the peer review work itself:
A few excerpts from this article:
"In his regular column, the BBC's environment analyst, Roger Harrabin, looks at how the affair of the stolen climate e-mails has sparked debate among some scientists about the body which peer reviews climate science."
"So the IPCC has serious weaknesses - but it remains the most ambitious peer review process modern science has undertaken."
The carbon dioxide cult is still making converts:
If bin Laden is now supporting the cult it must at last be in its decadent phase, kept going only be the inertia of those in power.