The issue here is that the IPCC has wielded the 'peer reviewed' phrase like a hammer, and repeatedly knocked anyone on the head with it if they presented someth

The issue here is that the IPCC has wielded the 'peer reviewed' phrase like a hammer, and repeatedly knocked anyone on the head with it if they presented something that wasn't peer reviewed. There are many, many quotes from the IPCC brushing off conflicting information with 'it's not peer reviewed, like all of our science'. Now that they've been found to not apply their own standards, others are using that same hammer to hit back with. Even if it's only one or two instances, the damage is done. Now that one error involving a non-peer reviewed (so called 'grey' reference) has been found, people are crawling all over the rest of their reports, finding other instances. The WWF report from 2005 that contained the himalayan glacier melt story is still cited throughout the report - they just removed the offending factoid about 2035. Until they comprehensively go back and apply their own standards more rigourously, they are going to attract more and more scrutiny, more errors will be found (the sheer length of the report almost guarantees that). And their current position of 'it's only one error' is going to look bad. If they are to be effective, there's going to need to be some serious changes put in place. People's support for the IPCC-backed science and policies in Western countries is eroding (if you believe the polls) and while not yet under the 50% mark, it's not in the direction the IPCC wants. Until they make some changes, I don't see their support rising again.