Nature News is still respected on the strength of the scientific basis of the organisation.
And given that most people aren't going to read the national academies report, its a good source of the scientific opinion on it.
Other news sources said the same of course:
Backing for 'hockey stick' graph
And the scientific blogosphere had the same analysis. The point is that the national academies report supported the hockey stick graph, and a scientist that read it could tell you that, even the reporters for Nature.
The finding of Mann et al, that the little ice age and the medieval warm period where not at the same time over the northern hemisphere is interesting, valid, and still holds now. This is why whole hemisphere reconstructions show it much more weakly than the 1990 IPPC graph from one site in central England. (still used in the denialist literature such as "swindle".)
The national academies said that it was over used, considering at the time it had not yet been reproduced.
Your argument that it "vanished from the summary", therefore it must be considered wrong doesn't follow. The IPCC reports are about the science that has been learned since the last report. The hockey stick was well reported in the 2001 IPCC report. There is no reason to put it in such a prominent place in the 2007 IPCC report.
It is true that it doesn't appear in the summary for policy makers. You are exaggerating your case when you call this the summary. It does appear in the technical summary.
I know that from conversations with ecologists, I don't know where or if they have been published. The rainy season in outback east australia has changed time of year. The ecological communities that blossom in the vastly different temperatures are different. (And not the interesting and unique ones). Freshwater communities devastated by the same effect. The rivers are out of water at the wrong time of year.
The damage to the subantarctic is from interviews with those studying it. I'll look one up if you like, but I'll submit this first, as I might not get a chance.
But the first google hit I got was this:
"Dr Claudia Sadoff of The World Bank, said in her
opening address: “The countries in the Himalayan subregion
account for 40% of the world’s population. The
rivers in the region are extreme in terms of population
density, sedimentation and variability. Each river is in
effect many rivers in one; each is an ecosystem in itself. Hence, issues related to
the Himalayan rivers are complicated. These are difficult rivers to understand,
manage and talk about. They are shared rivers, which increases complications.
There has been a lot of talk recently about how these rivers are under threat.
Glaciers are disappearing, rivers are running dry; rivers are overdrawn and
polluted. These rivers are extremely variable in terms of floods and droughts.
They are even more threatened due to climate change. The World Bank has
identified climate change hot-spots. One is over the Himalayas." - http://www.strategicforesight.com/Ka...u%20Report.pdf
Will it do? I'm sure I could find something by the IPCC or a NGO about the consequences of climate change in the region if you want.
I wasn't really meaning financial costs.
But economics is a science of sorts. And an important one for deciding on climate change policy.