Of course, the AP article insists that the first IPCC report is sound, but that's if you believe the data coming out of the CRU at East Anglia, a major contributor to that report. We've seen that the CRU has its own share of problems, such as destroyed data that can NO LONGER be verified or studied by peers and purposefully blocking skeptical climate scientists from prestigious publications. This means that the first report that the AP proclaims as "sound" is likely bullshit too. I know it is, because it's the report with the erroneous "hockey stick" graph that has since been proven wrong because it omits the Medieval Warm Period. Why omit that MWP? Because it doesn't fit the template of a steady-state baseline followed by precipitous warming.
WASHINGTON -- A steady drip of errors in the top report on global warming -- and the erosion they are causing in public confidence of the science behind it -- have some scientists calling for drastic changes in how future United Nations climate reports are done.
A push for reform being published in Thursday's issue of the prestigious scientific journal Nature comes on top of a growing clamor for the resignation of the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The work of the climate change panel, or IPCC, is often portrayed as one massive tome. But it really is four separate reports on different aspects of global warming, written months apart by distinct groups of scientists.