If the IPCC accepted this nonsense, where does this leave the so-called "peer review" process?

As Flunky has demonstrated many times on this site, peer review means only a very select group can be officially declared as peer. This group of peers seems to comprise more of politically motivated people rather than having anything to do with science. The head of the IPCC was a railroad engineer. He is acceptable, 31,000 credited scientists who signed petitions against AGW are not. Paul Ehrlich, who is a Stanford biologist is acceptable, where as a productive aeronautical designer such as Burt Rutan is not. Al Gore is considered an expert while Will Harper, a Princeton University physicist, is not, even though he worked for Al Gore at one time.

Quote by Madhav L. Khandekar, UN scientist, a retired Environment Canada scientist: "Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth's temperature trends and associated climate change….As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth's surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed."

You never hear of Madhav's 'peer review'.

We can see the ultimate goal of this greenie movement and it isn't scientific. Quotes by H.L. Mencken, famous columnist: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." And, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it."

Just remember, the IPCC is a tax collection and propaganda agency, not a scientific agency. They have proven that time and time again. Their main job is to scare people and not to protect the Earth, as they claim. And what a good job they are doing. Just look at how many people write in on this site terrified of Global Warming. They are terrified of an unproven, unscientific, undefined and irrational bogey-man, all because of organizations like this.

Some of your links have already been pulled. The greenies will do anything to subvert the truth.

EDIT GARY F: When will your greenies ever admit the truth?

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/09/himalaya...

"The U.N. got it wrong on Himalayan glaciers -- and the proof is finally here.

The authors of the U.N.’s climate policy guide were red-faced two years ago when it was revealed that they had inaccurately forecast that the Himalayan glaciers would melt completely in 25 years, vanishing by the year 2035."

<An idiot would jump to the conclusion that the dishonest writer intended - that there is no net loss in Himalayan glaciers. That is not true. Some glaciers are hanging on - while others are experiencing more rapid melting. There is a net loss.>

Well then why did the UN-IPCC chief apologize?

"Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and director general of the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in New Dehli, India, ultimately issued a statement offering regret for what turned out to be a poorly vetted statement."

Gotcha! Now you owe flossie an apology. Let us see if you are man enough to withdraw that 'idiot' comment.

Jeff: I think you and your sock puppets ought to write a letter to Rajendra Pachauri and explain this. According to you he is totally out of it.

Spare us.

How do you interpret this headline from one of your sources: "Himalayan Glaciers Not Melting"

An idiot would jump to the conclusion that the dishonest writer intended - that there is no net loss in Himalayan glaciers. That is not true. Some glaciers are hanging on - while others are experiencing more rapid melting. There is a net loss.

The IPCC error came from non-peer reviewed sources and, so, your sleazy attempt to connect the two fails, as well.

Before you accuse others of being untrustworthy, you should take a look at yourself.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/12091...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=i...

http://www.livescience.com/19696-karakoram-himalay...

======

edit ---

No one has ever said that it is impossible to learn anything from mainstream sources, only that the reader know the difference between professional scientific publications and reports about those publications. The only reason it has become an issue is because of the deliberate refusal of many Deniers to exercise even reasonable adult judgment in obtaining topical information, including the use of obvious shock headlines as scientific evidence and an exclusive reliance on sources whose sole purpose is political advocacy and whose reports have been repeatedly shown to be inaccurate, dishonest, and completely unreliable (for example, as you have done here).

Compounding their poor scholarship and intellectual dishonesty, Deniers seem incapable of the critical thought necessary to distinguish empirical evidence from anecdotal stories and informed opinion from what they are told to think, science from non-science, fact from fiction, reality from imaginary, and journalism from political propaganda. And they wonder why people say they are stupid - go figure, huh?

Here are some peer reviewed articles on Himalayan glaciers as you seem to be harping on about them.

Geophysical Research Letters vol. 35 - http://ir.itpcas.ac.cn:8080/bitstream/131C11/476/1...

The Cryosphere vol. 5 - http://www.the-cryosphere.net/5/349/2011/tc-5-349-...

Journal of Glaciology vol. 57 - http://www.igsoc.org:8080/journal/57/203/j10j054.p...

Journal of Hydrology and Meteorology vol. 6 no. 1 - http://soham.org.np/pdf/journal/journal-vol6.pdf#p...

And I'll even include a journal that states glaciers in one region may or may not be advancing at a rate of 0.11m/y +/- 0.22m/y

Nature Geoscience - ftp://ftp.bas.ac.uk/dgv/IPCC-submitted-papers/gardelle%20NatureGeoscience%202012.pdf

Here is an article by PNAS and others on the Himalayan glaciers and the IPCC's 'gaffe'

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC316914...

(Not sure if peer reviewed) http://geoportal.icimod.org/Publication/Files/cf89...

In summary... they weren't lies. Overall Himalayan glaciers are retreating as is the snowline with a few glaciers advancing. However overall there is a decline as Gary stated.

Sagebrush: This is my only account. You can continue blaming me for things I haven't done I don't really care. I've said time and time again that whoever is doing this, if there is anyone doing it, they should realize it does not lead to anything. It's Yahoo Answers for God's sake. I also only have a 14% best answer rate. Someone like Maxx has a 21% best answer rate mainly due to you choosing each other as best answer almost every time. And no, it isn't 'according to me'. He asked for peer reviewed studies and I showed him some. If you have a problem with those studies might I suggest posting a rebuttal in the peer reviewed literature?

The IPCC made a mistake with one particular prediction out of thousands of papers they reviewed. I'm afraid, until we have sentient, conscious, self-aware machines, people will make mistakes.

Now, you can either chalk it up to a mistake, or dress it up as 'deliberate lies' and 'failure of the peer review system'. I think the latter option sounds a bit hysterical.

How well you can cut and paste from most laughable anti-science blogs has nothing to do with science. In secondary school you might have learned science. Since you didn't, why not get a life instead of recycling lame lies about science.

I think you are turning this in to a conspiracy when it clearly was just an act of laziness.

Futhermore, the problem was corrected. Credible outside sources (**note: CREDIBLE, not like some posts I've seen here of pamphlets on GW made by a man who designs airplanes for a living) fact check IPCC. What you've proven is that when the IPPC is wrong, academics within the field will find the error and correct it.

Sagebrush

<As Flunky has demonstrated many times on this site, peer review means only a very select group can be officially declared as peer.>

Yeah! They are called experts. Or would you rather have the YA community vote on scientific questions and call that peer reviewed?

http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201...

Pee(r)ing in the Wind, I should say.