First of many or a one off ?
BBC News - UN climate body admits 'mistake' on Himalayan glaciersHow many more "mistakes" or misunderstandings" could have been made ? It's science, Jim, but not as we know it Isn't this exactly how science is supposed to work?A mistake is made, someone appears to have transcribed 2350 for 2035.Others pick it up and the science is corrected.As for how many more, probably lots.Because the weight of evidence is enormous.When the 'errors' become asignificant part of the evidence, rather than 1 typo in a 3000 page report, then you may gloat. Not in my book.
From this article:
World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown - Times Online
"Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.
It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi"
"The IPCC's reliance on Hasnain's 1999 interview has been highlighted by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview for the New Scientist."
Generally, a scientific paper is peer reviewed before publication. To issue headline-stealing alarmist claims based on an interview is more typical of a scientific body trying to ensure future funding. I can't think, offhand, of another scientific discipline where this would have occurred.
I think you are being somewhat disingenuous trying to bury this story as a mere "typo". It appears, to me,that there are slightly more worrying issues. What with trying to stop contrary opinions being submitted for peer review and basing headline releases on non-peer reviewed (I was going to say "papers", but it wasn't even that) "evidence"......hmm not exactly "evidence" either...well, I think you get the point I'm trying to make.
Incidents like this, hot on the publication of a couple of fairly damning emails, are only serving to further alienate an already sceptical public.
Cheers
Brian Kind of paraphrasing Einstein (I think).It only takes one person to disprove one of the fundamentals and the whole edifice will crumble.
And in this day and age of instant global communication, it is impossible to silence someone who has something important to say.
But we are still waiting for that one golden nugget. It's voodoo science, a phrase that Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously used to dismiss criticism of the Himalayas claim. Show us all the fundamental flaw. You mean apart from it being wrong and taking 3 years to correct it? 
It's also a real insight into how the system works. The IPCC's 'dodgy dossier' was largely based on a campaining report by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) a hotbed (forgive the pun) of global warming zealotry. Incidentally, the WWF's CEO at the time (1999-2007) was Robert Napier, "a passionate environmentalist" according to their website. He's now head of the Met Office. 
The WWF report in turn used the original New Scientist article as its source. Jawaharlal Nehru, the indian scientist who was the the source of the story had since admitted 'that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research'.
The IPCC was set up in order to provide world leaders with information. It's now just the propoganda arm of the UN's carbon trading / 3rd world handouts scam. No, I was actually talking about the whole CC thing, not some potential consequence. Except it seems that those involved are trying to perpetuate the error as often as they can to ensure funding...
UN climate panel blunders again over Himalayan glaciers - Times Online
If you read the article it seems that the chairman himself of the IPPC as used this 2035 error in order to win funding for research....
The Telegraph also covers the story http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7062667/Pachauri-the-real-story-behind-the-Glaciergate-scandal.html
Far from being an error in transcript from 2350, it seems the 2035 date has been widely used to justify funding and action before the IPPC report also used 2035.
For example
see also http://notin2035.com/
Pages:
[1]