And look at the "correction":<p><i>Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: "If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments."</i><p>In other words, we'll remove this particular Jenga block in our little tower of preconceived conclusions, but everything else is AOK. What he should be doing is ordering/performing an immediate review of the origins of all similar "evidence" in the IPCC reports, and a close examination of process to ensure this kind of balls-up can never happen again.<p>Honestly, the IPCC has less credibility than Wikipedia. Maybe they should just ask Wikipedia to do the research for them - at least the WP admins have shown some basic ability/willingness to do due diligence on what gets published.<p>And the worst thing is, we only shine the spotlight on the IPCC because climate change is a controversial subject. How many other government departments are practising this "well I read this in a magazine somewhere" style of policy-making? All of them?