Irony: "Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as "voodoo science"."  More on Pachauri here: <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-busin...</a><p>Between stories like this and the release of the emails / climategate, you really have to wonder especially about the validity of some of the most alarmist claims.  On one hand, I wonder how much of this is because of confirmation bias but how much is the result of outright fraud?  Something else that I've been reading more about lately (because of another story here) is the reporting by Gary Taubes on 'Good Calories, Bad Calories' and I can't help but wonder about what supposed scientific consensus means and the importance of skepticism.<p>Obviously there's a massive body of work out there when it comes to climate science and it would be ludicrous to dismiss it all, but surely it's time to agree that we need a lot more skepticism especially when these claims are being used to advocate policies that will at least cost hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars.