Let’s look into the IPCC meltdown a little further, and take on some of the claims made in their defense.
Perhaps it was a massive blunder? I’m sure some would want us to give them the benefit of the doubt. As some have said, the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report is huge, it’s unlikely it could be completely devoid of any mistake. Pachauri assures us that one mistake doesn’t mean we should throw the whole report out (Although it is clear there are more mistakes). In other words, they made a mistake but there was no harmful intent. The words of Dr. Lal seem to indicate otherwise, but let’s set them aside for the moment. If this was just one mistake with no malicious intentions, we should be able to tell by how they handled themselves when their false statement was challenged.
An entire team of Indian scientists led by the Indian Environmental Minister concluded that the IPCC’s statement about the glaciers was ‘alarmist and misplaced’. If the IPCC simply made a mistake without intent to deceive, when confronted with evidence of their failure they would have reviewed the data and concluded they were indeed wrong. Issuing a retraction would certainly have hurt their credibility, but at least they are engaging in the correct scientific procedure. This is not what happened. Instead, Pachauri lashed out at the report, calling it ‘voodoo science’, ‘not peer-reviewed’, and claiming ‘we have a very clear idea of what is happening’.
Their response proved the IPCC as unscientific. Even if you can still claim (a difficult argument) that they did not intend to deceive, you are left with the reality that they did not even attempt to correct a blatant scientific error. Scientists’ claims are always open to scrutiny. The IPCC didn’t need the science on their side. One profession can always make claims without any data to support them, and then defend them vehemently when they are proved wrong. They are called politicians.