BREAKING: New shock embarrassment for IPCC - it just keeps getting worse

The UN IPCC is tonight reeling yet again after revelations some of its 'peer reviewed' science was in fact based on a university student's essay, and an article in a popular climbing magazine.

The Sunday Telegraph in Britain is reporting:

In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master's degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

The revelations, uncovered by The Sunday Telegraph, have raised fresh questions about the quality of the information contained in the report, which was published in 2007.

The latest goofs by the IPCC follow revelations that its Himalayan glaciers prediction was based on a magazine article and a WWF pamphlet, and that instead of peer reviewed studies the IPCC report is littered with citations based on Greenpeace and WWF press releases.

Comments

[Ed Darrell]

Why should IPCC be embarrassed about using highly-qualified sources? Why are critics and "disbelievers" of warming working so hard to hide the facts on this case? The "magazine article" was written by a Ph.D. physicist, an expert in mountains and glaciers.

Facts here:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2010/01/31/wattsupgate-denialists-claim-all-knowledge-is-wrong/

[Peter myers]

Seems the Climafundamentalists are getting desperate, getting some second rate TV person to help the cause.

[Kapow]

Because all the warmist like you constantly rave on about the need for peer review and that the IPCC reports are all based on peer reviewed studies that are flawless.
Yeah right.
They demand that the skeptics evidence be peer reviewed - otherwise it is discounted.
Is there one standard for all or not?
Why would you ever want to trust what they say if time after time they have made statements of "fact" that are not backed by solid evidence.
Governments are setting policy on the basis of what the IPCC have stated. Policy that will majorly change all of our standards of living and hit us in the pocket.
The skeptics argument has always been to just hold on there, do we really need to do this to the extent demanded. Is it really that bad?
The evidence coming out now seems to point that the skeptics could be right, perhaps things arent as bad as we have been told.

[Ed Darrell]

Because all the warmist like you constantly rave on about the need for peer review and that the IPCC reports are all based on peer reviewed studies that are flawless.

I think that's a lot of a straw man argument -- we have to have some standards is what we say.

But in this case we have graduate researcher undergoing some of the most intense "peer review" possible, and a Ph.D. physicist, expert and researcher in high mountain glaciers, talking about high mountain glaciers. Plus he's written a book on the topic, perhaps THE book on the topic.

One standard: Accuracy in data.

Where are the competing data to suggest either of these sources is in error?

Do us all a favor: Hold Monckton to those standards. When you get Monckton to stop spreading disinformation, you can start making a case we need to be even more accurate on the other side.

The "skeptics" argument is "kepep burning that oil, it's not nearly as late as you think." We really can't stand to have that view make policy.

[Pete]

C'mon, Ed in this case there is no data. Look we can all respect the expertise of a PhD student and acknowledge his area of specialisation. But this was no research project. And there is no data and no evidence. It was pure anecdote. It may be informed opinion, but it isn't good enough to use this level of evidence as a basis for social policy with implications running into the $trillions, whilst at the same time shouting 'peer reviewed' from the roof tops.
Just look at all the scientist joining in the chorus. This whole IPCC dominated science is a bust.
Pete.