The controversy over melting of Himalayan glaciers is not about the melting of ice, which is visibly evident and will have consequences, but rather how long it will take. Another 25 years or 125 years? Nobody is likely to offer a date by which all glaciers will have melted unless they know how rapidly temperatures will rise.

As Professor Hunt points out, the controversy does focus attention on IPCC findings and that is surely welcome by most scientists and the general public. All science, not just climate science, should be the subject of peer review and public scrutiny.

That does not alter the basic science associated with concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and global warming.

If commentators such as Professor Plimer and Lord Monckton, who are dismissive of that science, expect their views to be taken seriously, they must show that the science is wrong and why it is wrong and support their position with empirical evidence. The same goes for Dr Pachauri and the IPCC. An even higher level of academic rigour applies to them and they know it.

Nothing is more important than to have public confidence in the findings of a global scientific body and the conclusions of individual scientists. They are responsible for ensuring that their findings are peer-reviewed and accurate and then stand up to public scrutiny.

Dr. Pachauri has failed in this regard and he should consider whether the structure of the IPCC is the most appropriate, how it could be improved - and his own position in that organisation

Actually Pilmer and Mockton have to do no such thing. The pro-climate change 'scientists' should be engaged in trying to falsify their theories as per standard scientific method. They have failed to do this. The fact they've been caught out isn't falsification, it's just embarrassing and creates media fall out for all.

Those who do not believe that man is causing global warming will forever look for holes in the IPCC doctrine.
Some of the scientists who were involved in the very first report were dissolusioned that the IPCC was set up to prove that humans were causing global warming. (Vincent Gray, Tim Ball, S. Fred Singer, Larry Gould, Kenneth Haalpaala et al.) The mission was not to find out if man's pollutions were affecting the planet.
While I cannot, for sure, identify the original assertion that carbon dioxide is the main culprit, I am totally convinced that, as I was taught in school sixty years ago and as is taught in schools today, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
So why does the temperature fluctuate? Surely, that is the question to ask, not, how do we get rid of CO2.
If there is proof that the climate is warming more than it ever has done before, there has to be a reason other than carbon dioxide.
Polar bears still live despite higher temperatures during the medieval warm period. More people die of cold than die of heat.
As an enthusiastic student of the TV series, Yes Minister, I am mindful that experts will produce the result that their masters want. By only employing scientists who have to justify their generous salaries, Sir Humphrey Appleby obtains the results that he wants.
Why else would Michael Mann ignore the Medieval Warm Period as well as the Little Ice Age in his 'Hockey Stick" graph?
Is no one else interested in finding out why the planet's temperature is always fluctuating?

Thanks from me , a great and concise contribution .

I would have gotton lost trying to Analise the type of People who get involved in (Political) Science where Truth has a number of complexions depending on expediency and (Political)Influence .

One such situation is currently being played out in our Federal Parliament right now , Where an "Emperor" an RTD (Responsible Truth Denier)is volubly arguing his innocence regarding the death by electrocution of four men . (See Garret on Kerry O'Brien Feb.11)
If we are prepared to redefine the Truth then Garret could be found not to be culpable of course Garrett wouldn't be culpable it he could provide a certificate from an Electrician verifying the safety and integrity of the electrics previous to the installation but apparently he didn't proscribe inspections .
Of course Garret wouldn't know about Rats ,Mice and Possums that chew and strip insulation off wiring , armature sparkies who wire in a nice new fancy light for Mum are another hazard , twist wires together insulate with tape from Department Stores the s--t tape peels off in the heat and bingo we have another dead man . We could be extra generous and ask Garrett if he would allow armatures to do work on Car Brakes or replace lights on cars , to inspect Pool Fencing to inspect Pool Sanitation etc ect .
Garrett suffers from the "Greens Malaise" Quite happy to Pontificate on everything but never never admit anything an example of this is the Fires ; 147 people dead again Garrett and his Mates are culpable they are "Deniers" here they don't believe in cleaning up the Eucalyptus Forest Floors , this used to be called "Back Burning" it reduces the Temperature of the wild fire in summer heat wave conditions and as a result the eucalyptus oil is not evaporated out of the leaf canopy and the Eucalyptus Oil Gas Explosions seen on Black Saturday don't happen but don't ask Garrett about this you will do no better than Kerry O'Brien on the other Dead Men .

Cheryl,
A little bit of 'a' and a little bit of 'b' is as always true.

in any worthwhile debate both pro and con need to prove their assertions.

Assorted geologist types aided and abetted by media entertainment magicians including their supporters put up alternatives/objections but get very precious when their evidence is subjected to the same scrutiny they proffer. Usually this takes the form of absurd conspiracy theories, ad hominem attacks, 'shoot the messenger', particularly when their idols or pet theories are threatened. i.e. their reaction to Plimer's deeply flawed book , or Monckton's even less admirable credibility because of his selectivity or data, hyperbole and outrageous character slander/libels, see Media Watch. Regardless of media watch's presumed standing this case has facts.
The abiding question is why do these get traction.

a. the scientists don't explain very well they leave much up to the media who focus on conflict....it sells.
No one has noted the two recent papers that cast doubt on the geologist's key base assumptions.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100211163129.htm
simply because it's too hard to make it sexy.

b. the IPPC system is incomplete rather than flawed per se.
Yes it needs to adopt a more public friendly approach.

c. Scientists need to explain the limitations and boundaries of scientific process. May believe that the scientists paper release (fabricate) scientific research to of set denialist claims. The idea that the papers are often long term research escapes them.

d finally the media need to lift their game emphasis on objectivity not selling papers via conflict.

I am with ShazBaz001 - one of the better articles on the IPCC and AGW.

Cheryl: "The pro-climate change 'scientists' should be engaged in trying to falsify their theories as per standard scientific method. They have failed to do this."

Dead wrong. The scientific community are following their usual methods. The only reason the current theories aren't falsified is because no one knows how to. That might be it is because they are correct.

You are confusing the IPCC with science. The IPCC is an effort by politicians to force the climate science to yield an oracle like truth. A truth they can act upon, and use to cover their arse if it all goes wrong. The problem is, outside of mathematics there is no absolute scientific truth. They are asking the impossible.

I suspect most people know that. The IPCC job is to extract a consensus from the climate scientists about what is most likely to happen. This isn't science. It is a political exercise. And if the IPCC has indeed managed to fairly represent that consensus, it has done a remarkable job. Remarkable because currently that consensus is damaging to a rich and powerful part of our society who are doing their absolute damnedest to undermine it.

If the only things they got wrong in 4,000 pages was the rate of melting of glaciers on one mountain range, and the effect of deforestation of one forest that it will be amazing. So amazing I have trouble believing it.

Assuming consensus painted by the IPCC is correct, that still leaves the problem of whether the currently favoured hypothesis of climate science are right or wrong. Unfortunately given the complexity of the science, that answer can only come from the climate scientists themselves. That makes many people very uncomfortable, including me. I am not used to being in that position.

One thing I am sure of is phoenix94's solution of relying on what he was taught 30 years ago and insisting the science hasn't changed over intervening 3 decades is obviously wrong. Give it up old boy.