UPDATE. Cornered! That's the word I was looking for while I was writing the post but it didn't come to me. Seen at the Instapundit link here (thanks, Glenn). But, as my tagline says, English is not my mother tongue, so sue me!
UPDATE II. Richard North has the transcript of the moment where Pachauri tries to answer about Himalayagate and WWFgate:
Well. There are no errors. There is one error which we have acknowledged which was in respect of melting of the Himalayan glaciers.
Let me emphasise that the others are not errors and it is perfectly valid to use non-peer reviewed literature provided we look at the source of information that is contained in that non peer-reviewed literature and make sure that it's authentic.
You must realise that there are some parts of the world where you really don't have published research material. And therefore it's been the practice of the IPCC to use non peer-reviewed literature. With, of course, a lot of caveats and careful authentication of the source of that information.
And, what you're pointing out is really not correct. We have investigated these so-called errors. They're not errors and we are absolutely certain that what we have said over that can be substantiated on the basis of scientific information.
Except for the case that I mentioned, the Himalayan glaciers where it was said the glaciers would melt, would vanish by 2035 and that error we have acknowledged and have put a note on the IPCC website which I would request you to look at carefully.