Ironically, climate alarmists now leaning on understatement

This article from the NYTimes is funny in its understatement of the situation. Independent Board to Review Work of Top Climate Panel - NYTimes.com. I like how the Reuters reporter dismisses the persistent and embarrassing reports over the last few weeks as "sporadic":

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been under fire since it was pointed out that the 2007 report included a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would vanish by 2035, although there is no scientific consensus to that effect.

That brief citation — drawn from a magazine interview with a glaciologist who says he was misquoted — and sporadic criticism of the panel’s leader have fueled skepticism in some quarters about the science underlying climate change. The climate panel’s assessments are a crucial source of guidance for policy makers addressing global warming.

With their credibility in shambles, what exactly is the basis for the climate alarmism again?