him a lying glaciers.

The IPCC treatment of Himalayan glaciers and its chairman's conflicts of interest are related. The points and time line below are as I understand them and are informed by reporting by Richard North.

1. In 2007 the IPCC issues its Fourth Assessment Report which contains the false claim that the Himalayan glaciers are expected to disappear by 2035.

2. The basis for that statement was a speculative comment made to a reporter by Syed Hasnain in 1999, who was then (and after) a professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

3. Following the publication of the IPCC report, and the widespread media coverage of the false claim about Himalayan glaciers, Dr. Hasnain joins TERI as a Senior Fellow, where Dr. Pachauri is the director.

January 21, 2010 The UN’s top climate change body has issued an unprecedented apology over its flawed prediction that Himalayan glaciers were likely to disappear by 2035.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said yesterday that the prediction in its landmark 2007 report was “poorly substantiated” and resulted from a lapse in standards. “In drafting the paragraph in question the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly,” the panel said. “The chair, vice-chair and co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of IPCC procedures in this instance.”

"It emerged last week that the prediction was based not on a consensus among climate change experts but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999."

WOW! so that's how they get the Good old Consensus .. ONE single Indian glaciologist. One Brick at the time the AGW wall is falling down.

The IPCC ,the left media,politicians and the Alarmists bragged about the AR4 report and it’s unquestionable scientific integrity.
2500 plus scientists..800 plus contributing authors..450 lead from 130 countries ..6 years in the making and one report 2007 AR4 .. IPCC Chairman "IPCC studies only peer-review science”.
This is not the first inaccuracy to be found in the AR4”.. I do agree it was not the first time and I would like to ask the " Alarmist" why they never reported any of those inaccuracies?
The skepticalscience blog said: “Unfortunately, the error was not spotted in the review process. This may be because it was buried deep in the working group II section”
Buried DEEP? It was smack in everyone’s face daily and was one of Al Gore big scare in the “ NOBEL prize winning crockumantary AIC. Maybe the IPCC should add this to it's COC ."Unless it fit within our range of scary scenarios then simple alarmist speculation from the WWF is acceptable and Peer reviews papers are not needed." It should be called the HIM A LYING report.