http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8479795.stm
more fuel to the sceptics fire, whilst I, like most reasonable people accept the findings of the IPCC's reports they don't do themselves any favours by over-egging the pudding, just let the smart folk look at the data scientifically, you don't need to gerrymander it - thats the sceptics job 
Trouble is, it's only the tip of the non-melting iceberg. It appears that the IPCC AR4 is ram-jam packed with non-peer reviewed science from The World Wildlife Fund (isn't that where the current boss of the Met Office comes from? Sorry, I digress).
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/the-scandal-deepens-ipcc-ar4-riddled-with-non-peer-reviewed-wwf-papers/ The IPCC claimed that 40% of the Amazon rainforests could be lost through global warming. They cite a paper written by Rowell & Moore, 2000 -another WWF report. The two authors? Well, the latter is a "policy analyst", while the former - the lead author - is:
a freelance writer and Investigative journalist with over 12 years’ experience on environmental, food, health and globalization issues. Rowell has undertaken cutting-edge investigations for, amongst others, Action on Smoking and Health, The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace... terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired, terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/25/de-jour-gate-flavor-amazon/#more-15658So, lots of science there, then.
Oh, and the Stern Review (written by that slippery economist, Nicholas Stern) got the cost of hurricane impacts wrong by a factor of 10. The report was changed later (...on the quiet, of course).

There is so much out there that has been manipulated and falsified that the whole thing is beginning to fall apart..and with good reason.
