Many

Russ Steele Severalof Nevada County's liberal bloggers, who are strong supporters of the notion that humans are responsible for global warming, often cite the UN IPCC reports to support their position. Wrapping themselves in a warm sweater of authority.They claimed that thousands of climate scientists have vetted critical peer reviewed climatology papers, and we should all accept these UN IPCC reports a undisputed fact. The "science is settled" they claimed, see my warm sweater.Now those claims are coming unraveled just like a well worn sweater. As the skeptics pull on the peer reviewed threads the warm "science is settled" sweater is unraveling.One of those unraveling threads is the IPCC claim that the Himalayan glaciers would be largely melted by 2035. This bogus claim was lifted from a news report published in 1999 by New Scientist magazine. It was never published in an peer reviewed paper.A second unraveling thread is the discovery the IPCC's 2007 report, which warned that the world had "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s", suggested a part of this increase was due to global warming and cited an unpublished report.The Sunday Times found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the IPCC report was published.When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."

The UK Times Online has more details on this second thread here, and Watt Up With That has the details on the melting Himalayan glacier claims here.

Update #1(01-25-10) More IPCC fraud



Yet more evidence that the IPCC cooked the books. Here’s its 2007 claim that global warming could devastate African agriculture:

"In other [African] countries, additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include greater erosion, deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000-2020 period, and reductions in crop growth period."



In fact, that claim comes from a non-peer-reviewed and non-scientific paper which looked at just three African countries, and was produced by a sustainable development lobby group. How did this end up as IPCC gospel?



H/T Climate Realists

Update #2: More IPCC non-peer-reviiewed fraud



“The IPCC also made false predictions on the Amazon rain forests, referenced to a non peer-reviewed paper produced by an advocacy group working with the WWF. This time though, the claim made is not even supported by the report and seems to be a complete fabrication.



Thus, the IPCC is relying for its assertions that “up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation” on a free-lance journalist/activist and a specialist in policy and analysis relating to forest fires in Australia, Asia and South Africa. ... not a peer reviewed study.



H/T Heliogenic Climate Change