FOXNews.com - U.N. Climate [Scam] Chief Defends Panel's Global Warming [Scam] Findings

"Yes, some mistakes were made in relation to the pace of retreat of Himalayan glaciers, but the rest of the science remains robust and is underpinning political decision-making and policymaking in a very, very solid way," he said.

De Boer said the motivation behind some of the criticism, including calls for panel chairman Rajendra Pachauri to resign, may have emanated from companies that feel threatened as governments enforce cleaner but more expensive technologies to slow down or cut global warming.
...
Although no binding agreement was reached on emissions cuts, De Boer hailed the recent Copenhagen change talks as proof of the political will being shown by major nations like the United States, China, India, Brazil, Germany and France to tackle global warming and the commitment by developed countries to provide billions of dollars to help poor countries adapt to climate change.

"The political significance of it (Copenhagen) was huge," he said.

FOXNews.com - Hoaxes, Fakes and Frauds: Great Archaeological Swindles - Slide 1 of 9

There's no avoiding it -- fakes are everywhere. Jane Walsh of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History says, "any museum -- I don't care what museum it is -- has fakes."

Understanding glacier changes | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Globally, most glaciers are reported to be diminishing more or less rapidly. Reports of "disappearing glaciers" have come from many parts of High Asia. However, this is not the case in the upper Indus and upper Yarkand River basins. Here, the glaciers have been holding their own for several decades and recently, in the Karakoram Himalaya, many have started thickening and advancing. Not only is this opposite to the broader picture for Eurasian glaciers, but also to what had been happening to Karakoram glaciers. Through most of the twentieth century they too diminished and retreated. There is no question that today's behaviour is a regionally distinct response to climate change. It may sound like good news, given the dominant lament for the loss of glaciers, but that too would be misleading. Advancing glaciers bring dangers as well.

Of immediate concern are a number of glaciers on the Indus and Yarkand Rivers, whose past advances gave rise to large ice dams and catastrophic outburst floods.
...
A 2006 survey of 5,020 glaciers in the mountains of western China and the Tibetan Plateau found widely differing rates of reduction. It also found 894 glaciers, about 18%, have advanced in recent decades.
...
One must qualify the notion that threats only arise from "disappearing" glaciers or in proportion to the rate of reduction. This is certainly a cause for concern, in itself or in what it implies about humanly induced atmospheric changes. But growing glaciers are not necessarily benign. In most glacierised mountains, certainly the Karakoram Himalaya, the worst consequences experienced in recent history came with the enlarged ice cover of the Little Ice Age: a period of several centuries, ending just over 100 years ago, when glaciers grew throughout the northern hemisphere. From those events come most of the stories and fears about glaciers recalled in Himalayan towns and villages. The considerable reduction of the glaciers observed between about 1910 and the 1960s was, in effect, removing ice stored in the Little Ice Age, a process that is not yet complete. Today's glaciers are larger than a few centuries ago. Meanwhile, the evidence of advances in the Karakoram not only indicates a different response here to changing climate. It raises the prospect of a return to the hazards of advancing ice not seen since the Little Ice Age.

The green debate goes tribal | Giles Wilkes | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

As a result, I trust that the vast scientific consensus is not either (a) incompetent in an amazing, synchronised way or (b) somehow corrupted into lying about something so important. I trust that politicians with far greater access to the science are not determined to crater the economy just for the fun of it. But I am also revealing my predisposed dislike of rightwing-nuttery. If Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh believe something, I sure won't, until hell freezes over.
...
The two sides in this debate possess the same human frailties, the same tribal urge to hate, belittle and ignore their opponents. But there are differences. Believers in global warming do so because a painstakingly built up body of theory and evidence [what evidence, specifically?] points towards a disaster of catastrophic scale. The deniers bend over backwards to disbelieve them, fearing the challenge to free market orthodoxies – and because the greens are some of the most annoying people on the planet. In a way, they're both right.