New Documents Show IPCC Ignored Doubts About Himalayan Glacier Scare

According to the GWPF, and contrary to Dr Pachauri’s claims, there is already ample evidence to show that the IPCC review process is neither robust nor transparent.
...
“Clearly questions were raised about the 2035 predictions, but they were not properly dealt with. Had the IPCC been open and transparent and published online to the world the drafts, Expert Reviewers' comments, Lead Authors' responses and Review Editors' reports, this and the many other flaws would not have made it into to the finally published IPCC text,” said David Holland who wrote the GWPF report.

During the drafting process, doubts were raised by Government and Expert Reviewers who submitted comments to the Lead Authors. Until now, however, neither the IPCC nor the working groups have put these internal documents into the public domain. Up till now, Lead Authors could be confident that neither the Expert Reviewers nor anyone else would find out if their views had been accepted, rejected or ignored.

Twitter / Andy Revkin

Real trouble for IPCC when author admits pushing policy with Himalayan glacier hype: http://j.mp/IPCCoops #agw http://j.mp/AndMore coming.

Bharati Chaturvedi: Carbon on My Conscience

...we are already victims of climate change-sea levels are rising by almost a centimeter every decade.

UN climate change panel blunders again for wrongly linking global warming to rise in severe floodings | Mail Online

The UN's climate change panel has blundered again - this time by wrongly claiming global warming was to blame for floods and hurricanes.

Fake but Accurate | Climate Skeptic

I have written a number of times about climate science and post-modernism, where taking the politically correct position and pushing for the “right” government actions is more important than fact-based analysis or the scientific method. This is a great example of the IPCC acting as just such a post-modernist institution