Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake

The real question here is: Does anyone still believe that the IPCC is a legitimate scientific panel? They are a political action committee with an agenda. Whether or not their agenda is legitimate is not the point.<p>Good on them, however, for admitting the problem.

Taking this error, in which the peer-review process was circumvented, together with last year's revelations of Hadley scientists discussing the wholesale subversion of peer review, is very troubling.<p>I'm not sure how to express this to show disgust with the putative "scientists" while only casting skepticism on their work (rather than outright rejection). But it would seem that they are so caught up in their agenda that they believe that the end justifies the means, and are willing to compromise their work and mislead the rest of the world in order to realize their goals.<p>But I have to note that impeaching the source doesn't necessarily invalidate the conclusions. Still, it means that we must subject their claims to increasing levels of scrutiny.

Hopefully all of those who called anyone skeptical of AGW over the last few years "climate change denialists" (by extension from "Holocaust denialists") are now acknowledging that there WERE serious issues with the assertions all along, and are now apologizing for their rashness and intemperance.<p>I wouldn't bet on it though.

The IPCC reports are thousands of pages, so it's not surprising that there are errors. You can find errors in a large fraction of scientific papers if you look hard enough.<p>The relevant question is whether there are more errors in the papers that support the idea of global warming than those that don't. Just judging from what I've seen, the complete crackpot papers (like this one: <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161v4" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161v4</a>) are in the second category.

I notice some people above saying that it could be a mistake. I think it could be. But it is less likely that it was.<p>I say that because Pachauri had been saying for a year that the Indian government was being arrogant by not agreeing to their "findings". And he rejected research such as this : <a href="http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/MoEF%20Discussion%20Paper%20_him.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/MoEF%20Discu...</a> Compiled by people who have 3-4 decades of experience in Himalayan glaciology.<p>Please do check that review paper. It is not easy to find.

It seems like climate scientists are more occupied with manipulating the data to suit them rather than reporting the facts.<p>Sample from some climate emails: "Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with." Source: <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574553652849094482.html" rel="nofollow">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870477970457455...</a>

I guess this is as good a time as any to ask if people have good sources on both sides of the debate. I can search around but have trouble discerning credible sources from non-credible ones. Any links/book recommendations would be appreciated.