From the ABC.....

The IPCC co-won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for bringing climate change
to the world's attention through a reputation for rigour, caution and
fact-checking.

Under this process, data are peer reviewed by other scientists and are
then meant to be double-checked by editors.

Well it seems that didnt happen. In their hurry to doom the world, they
published figures which suited those "ecology industrialists" (and the
term is used loosely)
Which means to me, no one is above checking, when they become the
specialists in anything.
Which reminds me of something : Corruption will always creep in when it
becomes the sole source of information. Simply because if you can have
something beyond question, then you have absolute power.
The problem is, weather has always been variable, so its easy to get the
figures wrong of fudge them. Its even harder to disprove those who say
Global warming is happening, when someone like the authority IPCC makes
a statement on Global warming. Who are we to disprove them? This is what
makes their science so dangerous... The people who made these mistakes
were either genuinely wrong, or did this deliberately. I suspect the
latter due to the billions at stake. Follow the money trail....It works
for me...


Public attack

*_In an exceptional move, the lapses came under public attack from four
prominent glaciologists and hydrologists in a letter to prestigious US
journal Science._*

They said the paragraph's mistakes derived from a report by
environmental group WWF, which picked up a news report based on an
unpublished study, compounded by the accidental (?) inversion of a date
- 2035 instead of 2350 - in a Russian paper published in 1996.

(WWF has been accused by a number of environmental groups and
campaigners, such as Corporate Watch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Watch and PR Watch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PR_Watch of being too close to businesses
to campaign objectively. It accepts donations from partnerships and
include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LafargeCoca-Cola
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola, Lafarge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lafarge and IKEA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA.^[15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Fund_for_Nature#cite_note-14
It also has a Corporate Club
http://panda.org/about_wwf/how_we_work/businesses/businesses_we_work_with/ways_business/corporate_club/index.cfm
that provides promotional opportunities for companies to use the WWF
name and logo as a promotional tool. Previous donors have included
Chevron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_Corporation,Exxon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon and Telekids
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telekids (each donating more than $50,000
in 1989 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989), Philip Morris
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altria_Group, Mobil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobil, and Morgan Guaranty Trust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPMorgan_ChaseLafarge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lafarge and IKEA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA.^[15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Fund_for_Nature#cite_note-14
It also has a Corporate Club
http://panda.org/about_wwf/how_we_work/businesses/businesses_we_work_with/ways_business/corporate_club/index.cfm
that provides promotional opportunities for companies to use the WWF
name and logo as a promotional tool. Previous donors have included
Chevron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_Corporation,Exxon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon and Telekids
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telekids (each donating more than $50,000
in 1989 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989), Philip Morris
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altria_Group, Mobil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobil, and Morgan Guaranty Trust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPMorgan_Chase (stranger and stranger))

"These errors could have been avoided had the norms of scientific
publication, including peer review and concentration upon peer-reviewed
work, been respected," according to the letter, which Science released
on Wednesday, two days ahead of scheduled publication.

One of the letter's authors was Austrian specialist Georg Kaser, who
contributed to a different section of the 2007 report.

*_He said the mistake was enormous and that he had notified IPCC
colleagues of it months before publication._*

_*Despite the controversy, the IPCC stood by the overall conclusions
about glacier loss this century in major mountain ranges, including the
Himalayas.*_

The report concluded that "widespread mass losses from glaciers and
reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate
throughout the 21st century."

IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri defended the panel's overall work, a
position shared by other scientists, who say the core conclusions about
climate change are incontrovertible.

"Theoretically, let's say we slipped up on one number, I don't think it
takes anything away from the overwhelming scientific evidence of what's
happening with the climate of this Earth," Pachauri said.

Sceptics have already attacked the panel over so-called "Climategate,"
entailing stolen email exchanges among IPCC experts which they say
reflected attempts to skew the evidence for global warming.

The row came as the UN panel began the marathon process of drafting its
Fifth Assessment Reports, inviting scientists to lead its work.

The reports, due out in 2013 and 2014, will focus on sea level changes,
the influence of periodic climate patterns like the monsoon season and
El Nino, and forging a more precise picture of the regional effects of
climate change.

I guess with their normal form this means that this will give them time
to put some more "spin" on their project, and we will all have to put
our thermometers
near our heaters to allow proper temperatures to be measured....
Benny Hill said, "when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me...."
I assumed they were right too...till other factors started to crop up....
Others are a bit slower.... I hope the IPCC are wrong in this instance.
Time will tell if the climate can be changed, but I feel its out off our
hands.
Its also time to assess what can be done to the enormous damage logging
companies, airlines, cars are doing to our climate, and it should fall
on those who export, and import needlessly.
Why can you buy goods grown thousands of miles away when the local
product is no different?
Price control would be a good start.
Stop large retail organisations who sell foods, from short changing out
local growers for a start.
There are probably other things that should be looked at....
Think globally, do locally....


WWF has been accused by a number of environmental groups and
campaigners, such as Corporate Watch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Watch and PR Watch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PR_Watch of being too close to businesses
to campaign objectively
--