Dyslexics of the World, untie!

To Old To Work, Too Young To Retire emails to let me know that I've been delinquent in passing on the latest Global Warming innumeracy. Remember the Himalayan glaciers and how they're disappearing? From the IPCC report (AR4):

Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world ... and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high ...

ZOMG!!1!! Thermageddon!!!!1!one!!

Oh, wait:

THE peak UN body on climate change has been dealt another humiliating blow to its credibility after it was revealed a central claim of one of its benchmark reports - that most of the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 because of global warming - was based on a "speculative" claim by an obscure Indian scientist.

That's some righteous peer-review right there, Scooter.

But it gets worse. The data was given to the IPCC by the World Wildlife Foundation, an environmental lobbying organization. Anyone check for possible bias in the source? Because there was an interesting mistake.

It wasn't 2035. It was 2350. And that was still with a bunch of speculative assumptions.

In other news from the "we have the science wrong" department, Australia's "Warmest Summer EVAH" is so warm, they're getting snow:

CANBERRA, Australia – Australia is following its second-hottest year on record with extraordinary snow flurries in its southeastern alpine region, where some towns have recorded their first-ever summer snowfalls.

Who you going to believe - the Australian Weather Service scientists, or your lying eyes? I mean, it's not like the temperature data is being manipulated or anything. Oh, wait.

UPDATE 21 January 2010 15:43: Holy cow - Roger Pielke Jr. says that the IPCC knew that the Himalayan glacier part of the report was wrong but published it anyway!

Is it really the case that IPCC scientists would have continued to sit on a known error with important policy implications in complete silence until their hand was forced by the focus of public opinion? Really?!

Wow. Maybe I need a new tag. "Junk Science" simply doesn't begin to cover this. Maybe "Fraudulent Science?"