After the ClimateGate, a flurry of other "Gates"

After the ClimateGate scandal, we now see a list of other "Gates" that shows clearly that the way the IPCC as been conducted itself is far from appropriate for a scientific organization.

Here's a quick list as of Feb 2010 of all the other Scandals:

Aussie Droughtgate

Melbourne University alarmist David Karoly once claimed a rise in the Murray Darling Basin’s temperatures was “likely due to the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human acitivity”...

But the latest evidence shows that Rudd and Karoly were wrong. In fact, there’s no evidence in the Murray Darling drought of man-made warming, says a new study in Geophysical Research Letters

Africagate

the IPCC has wrongly claimed that in some African countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent by 2020....

At best, this is a wild exaggeration, unsupported by any scientific research, referenced only to a report produced by a Canadian advocacy group, written by an obscure Moroccan academic who specializes in carbon trading, citing references which do not support his claims.

GlacierGate

United Nations report that claimed Himalayan glaciers were at risk of disappearing by 2035. This information was repeated all over the world by all media and NASA.

On January 20, however, the IPCC repudiated the 2035 estimate after media attention revealed that most glacier experts consider it absurd.

IPCC based claims on student dissertation and magazine article!

The United Nations’ expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world’s mountain tops on a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine....

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them. Aren't we supposed to see only peer reviewed science based studies?

And there is many articles by GreenPeace and the WWF that made it into the IPCC report... Again...

Aren't we supposed to see only peer reviewed science based studies in the IPCC report?