Lost amid the news coverage of Copenhagen and Climategate was the assertion that one of the more attention-grabbing statements of the IPCC AR4 was flat-out wrong:
That was the introduction by Prof. John Nielsen-Gammon in his little essay on how the IPCC fumbled their “peer reviewed research”.
(…) To recap, the available evidence indicates that the IPCC authors of this section relied upon a secondhand, unreferreed source which turned out to be unreliable, and failed to identify this source. As a result, the IPCC has predicted the likely loss of most or all of Himalaya’s glaciers by 2035 with apparently no peer-reviewed scientific studies to justify such a prediction and at least one scientific study (Kotlyakov) saying that such a disappearance is too fast by a factor of ten!
This could have been a small, inconsequential error. The WG2 Chapter 10 authors did not highlight the prediction as a key finding in their executive summary, nor does it appear in the summary for policymakers. But such an astounding prediction could not help but attract attention. And it has long since become effectively common knowledge that the glaciers were going to vanish by 2035.
The Indian environment ministry released a report in November by Vijay Kumar Raina that concluded that Himalayan glaciers on the whole were retreating, but not at an alarming rate or any faster than glaciers on the rest of the globe. According to The Guardian, countryman Rajenda Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, was furious.
“Pachauri dismissed the report saying it was not “peer reviewed” and had few “scientific citations”.
“”With the greatest of respect this guy retired years ago and I find it totally baffling that he comes out and throws out everything that has been established years ago.””
Given the nature of the peer review and scientific citations in the IPCC report, we have here a case of the pot calling the kettle black.