The robustness of the processes used by the IPCC in reporting climate science has been subject to further criticism, amid revelations that information on Himalayan glaciers, Amazonian rainforests, and the effect of climate change on the severity of natural disasters in the IPCC's 4th Assessment report was incorrect, and in some cases it seems deliberately so. A number of climate scientists have rushed to the defence of the IPCC's conclusions, saying that mistakes are inevitable in a 1,600 page report, however when all the 'mistakes' are in the same direction (ie exaggerating the evidence in support of human-induced climate change) there is obviously a more fundamental problem.

Britain's Chief Scientist, John Beddington, is reported as being critical of climate scientists on two fronts - one being a lack of transparency in restricting access to data, and the second being in failing to spell out the uncertainty associated with modelling outcomes - particularly in the case of computer modelling. Australia's Chief Scientist, Professor Penny Sackett, was perhaps less robust in criticising some of the science and pronouncements by climate scientists, but did reinforce John Beddingtons comments about the need to explain the uncertainty surrounding certain predictions about future climatic conditions.