If glacier data is a little incorrect but helps that effort, then the data is true in all but a very narrow and clinical scientific sense.
(George Monbiot's article in The Guardian documents a similar case of systematic misrepresentation
of glacier data by skeptics.)
In a previous post entitled Worldwide Glacier Retreat, we highlighted the results of a study by J. Oerlemans, who
compiled glacier data from around the world and used them to estimate temperature change over the last ~ 400 years.
Thereto, the WGMS annually
collects glacier data through its scientific collaboration network that is active in more than 30 countries.
IPCC faces more criticism from politicians than ever: In the wake of the revelations about the
Himalayan glaciers data, the U.K. director of Greenpeace called for Pachauri to step down; so has Senator John Barrasso (R - WY) and others.
Pachauri refuted the Indian
government glacier data, while he was negotiating with the EU and the Carnegie Foundation, for funds to study Himilayan glaciers.
As to glaciers, I'm not aware of anyplace where 2010 summary data is available; it takes quite a while to
compile glacier data, perhaps because the predominant methods of measuring mass loss involve actually going to the glacier, and it takes time to make and compile all the information.
First, Barrows and colleagues severed the connection between
the glacier data and the cooling event.
Further
the glacier data suggests we did not at least for a portion of the LGM, since there is no way to note how long the glaciers were at the depressed snowline location.
Early analysis suggests some evidence of a period around 1500 around as warm as 2000 and a sharp, but as yet not fully researched deterioration in the few decades prior to that which appears to have some corroboration in
the glacier data which was researched separately.