You know, the world runs on oil, reserves of which are estimated by various parties with wild inconsistencies. And yet, people publish oil reserve figures over and over again, all around the world, and policy makers base the plans of their nations on that.<p>Glaciers in the world, and yes, in the Himalayas, are in retreat. (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850</a>) The rate of retreat, given the seriousness and the surprise of the sound bite, may have been seriously and widely overestimated, and, yes, misrepresented. But in just the same way as the available reserves of oil are misrepresented to government officials everywhere (for they must be misrepresented some of the time, estimates being inconsistent, and varying over time: e.g. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#OPEC_countries" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#OPEC_countries</a>)<p>Yes, it is a case study in the spread of alarmist claims, it should be a rallying call for more scientific integrity, but to emphasize the existence of a widely-cited, less than supported claim as evidence of systemic scientific malfeasance, when it is but one amid a sea of measurements, predictions and threats, seems to me to be falsely elevating the form of scientific inquiry above its function: to understand the world better than we other wise would, perhaps to make better decisions, perhaps just to wonder. It is, in other words, to miss the avalanche for the snowflake.