There’s been lots of whooping and celebrating by the warmist crowd lately over the retraction by the Sunday Times Jonathan Leake story about Amazongate.
The claim was that the sensitivity to rainfall reduction was based on peer reviewed literature. I’m here to tell you that claim is totally unsupportable, I’ll even go so far as to call the claim “bogus”, it is that bad. The proof lies in the screencap below:
Excerpts from what Christopher Booker writes in his latest Telegraph Column:
Last week, after six months of evasions, obfuscation, denials and retractions, a story which has preoccupied this column on and off since January came to a startling conclusion. It turns out that one of the most widely publicised statements in the 2007 report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – a claim on which tens of billions of dollars could hang – was not based on peer-reviewed science, as repeatedly claimed, but originated solely from anonymous propaganda published on the website of a small Brazilian environmental advocacy group.
The ramifications of this discovery stretch in many directions. First, it seems to show that the IPCC – whose reports governments rely on to justify presenting mankind with the largest bill in history – has been in serious breach of its own rules.
…
The document cited by the WWF (World Wildlife Fund), which it later described, after a full internal inquiry, as a “report”, proved remarkably difficult to track down. Since then, both the WWF and Dr Nepstad have cited other papers in support of their claim – but none of these provided any support for the specific claim about the impact of climate change made by the IPCC.
…
The original read: “Probably 30-40 per cent of the forests of the Brazilian Amazon are sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall.” This was hyped up in the final drafting of the IPCC report, to claim that “up to 40 per cent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation”. “Brazilian Amazon” – only around half the total rainforest area – was changed to include the entire forest. The word “sensitive” was changed to “react drastically”. And the original IPAM note had made no mention at all of climate change.
Please visit Booker’s article, to read the full story and to show support.
The Sunday Times piece (now retracted) was originally headlined “UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim”, though this headline was later changed on the website version. It said the 40% destruction figure was based on an “unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise”.
That headline and claim has been borne out by facts. The Sunday Times should put the story back up, and retract their retraction. Leake had it right and the editors simply caved to pressure without doing a thorough investigation to see if his claim was supportable. It took bloggers like Dr. Richard North to do the job the Sunday Times would not do, even to save their own credibility.
The screencap above showing the proof of source to the IPCC claim via the WWF report was located by Dr. Richard North of the EU Referendum (with the help of commenter Gareth on that blog), thanks to the “Wayback Machine“, an archive of Internet web pages. I won’t provide the link here for the old IPAM web page, as I don’t want to overload the service, but you can see the IPAM web pages archived in the Wayback Machine search results page below:
North writes:
As it stands, this is the only known source of this sentence. There is no author identified, the provenance of the web page is not identified and not in any possible way could this be considered “peer reviewed”. It has no academic or scientific merit – yet it is this on which the WWF and IPCC apparently rely.
What is also particularly important is that the IPCC uses the sentence, which it modifies slightly, to argue: “this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation.”
Meanwhile, real peer reviewed literature, published just this week, supports the idea that the Amazon is not all that sensitive to rainfall reduction:
Press Release from the Max Planck Institute
“We were surprised to find that the primary production in the tropics is not so strongly dependent on the amount of rain,” says Markus Reichstein. “Here, too, we therefore need to critically scrutinize the forecasts of some climate models which predict the Amazon will die as the world gets drier.”
Read all about it here:
CO2 field experiment likely to cause “do-over” for climate models
As for the sorry state of incompetence at the IPCC and their claims using WWF literature, Shub Niggurath suggested last week that no peer reviewed science references on the issue existed in first and second order IPCC drafts:
More importantly, contrary to what many have suggested, it does not seem, that a statement was formulated assessing all available literature at the time. The sentence in question remained virtually unchanged through the drafts (except for the ‘drastic’ addition), it referred to the same WWF report through three different versions.
Well worth a visit to his site.
The WWF, in my view, is a poison pill for respectable science. They should be avoided for any references in peer reviewed papers and in journalism.
This whole complaint forcing the Sunday Times into a retraction is a made up crisis, and it’s CYA bullshit of the highest order. Readers know that I don’t use that term in posts often, or lightly. In fact, I can’t recall the last time I used it in a story.
WUWT readers should make this IPCC folly known at other websites in comments. They wanted a debate, they wanted a retraction, well they got it. Now it is time for them to admit they supported a flawed premise based on shoddy activist driven “science”.
Sponsored IT training links:
If planning to take on RH202 exam then try out 642-446 dumps and 70-648 practice test prepared to provide quick success.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“probably sensitive” could mean anything, including–there would be a barely detectable effect. It does not obviously mean the rainforest would wither away and die. Likewise “more and more common” could mean simply 5% more common, for an already rare event of drying enough to burn–you would barely be able to detect it. This is what is called “handwaving” to make something look alarming. That is all. It is not a scientific assessment. “might” “more” “possibly” “probably”
And still, 40% of Brazilian rainforest is only 20% of Amazonian rainforest. Not only did the IPCC base their claim on an environmental advocacy group but they even doubled the figure.
They will go on denying they made a mistake and the train will go full steam towards its miserable fate from here. Good Riddance, IPCC, we had so much fun together.
that website was probably set up by a big oil company conspiracy, for sure
How anyone can quote the IPCC with a straight face beggars belief. What a shower of charlatans.
Craig Loehle @ur momisugly July 10, 2010 at 2:26 pm says:
“probably sensitive” could mean anything, including–there would be a barely detectable effect. It does not obviously mean the rainforest would wither away and die …
Craig, yes – you are absolutely right. And if you read round the passage which Anthony has so helpfully marked, you will see the context of the sensitivity – the increase vulnerability to fire. Yet the IPCC has chosen this (mis)represent this as creating a “switching point”, turning the forest into savannah.
““Probably 30-40 per cent of the forests of the Brazilian Amazon are sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall.””
Probably?? well gee whiz, so is a corn field.
and people actually get paid for this? I’m surprised they didn’t lift it from a Disney brochure.
This one is a stunner. I can’t wait to hear the sobs of despair. EPIC FAIL
Talk about an organization created to advance an agenda:
http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.htm
They collect, and distribute, scary stories.
They even go so far as to say: “It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.”
So, they can yell FIRE in a crowded theatre, and not be responsible for the outcome.
A politicians dream.
Oh, those poor trees! They sure seem to be “reacting drastically”. This was obviously a very reliable document. Trees with such sad faces wouldn’t lie.
ICPP
I was listening to an interview of the host for “On the Media,” and part of the discussion turned to how the new non-commercial media won’t be able to do the in-depth spade work that the well-funded media has done up to now. Between climategate and the IPCC screwups, I think we can make a decent case that lots of volunteer prying eyes can equal a few paid prying eyes, at least in cases where the information is somewhere on the public net.
I hope the folks at the Sunday Times are feeling rather embarrassed.
My my Anthony, this has got your feathers ruffled, dander up, and “them’s fighten words” warrior geared up for battle! And make no mistake, words can be every bit as good as a shot across the bow.
The only things that should be whitewashed are weather stations.
I’d love to be a fly on the wall when George chairs the upcoming CC debate!
He and Mr Brooker have crossed swords many, many times before and GM may have to retract his recent rainforest triumphalism.
References to MP Stringers latest offerings may also give rise to uncomfortable seat-wriggling on the chair.
Oh, and to cap it all, SMc will be there too.
Keep a close eye on BishopHill and ClimateAudit , as well as WUWT, get the popcorn in, it’s going to get very interesting soon.
RoyFOMR says:
July 10, 2010 at 3:50 pm
“I’d love to be a fly on the wall when George chairs the upcoming CC debate![…]”
The George that they call The Bat Of The Moon?
DirkH says:
July 10, 2010 at 4:03 pm
RoyFOMR says:
July 10, 2010 at 3:50 pm
“I’d love to be a fly on the wall when George chairs the upcoming CC debate![…]”
The George that they call The Bat Of The Moon?
‘Tis him, Dirk, the very one,
his lunar sheen reflects the sun
with daytime attitude upside down
it’s scribblings that reveal the clown
Get the popcorn in enjoy the fun’
I SO hope the Sunday Times will have the balls (not to mention good sense) to “retract the retraction.” As Anthony said: thanks to Booker, the work has been done for them. Surely it is better to look sloppy – and silly – for having made the original retraction, rather than continuing to look to the generally unenlightened as deniers-come-clean. If they do not meet their moral obligation to retract the retraction, it will just be yet another case of “the debate is settled” regardless of the latest proof to the contrary. Come on, Sunday Times! Make like journalists again!
Alas, such bogus “science” hits the scene easily and rises quickly in stature and effect, but it takes quite a while for such things to be properly refuted and discredited. Unfortunately, along the way, those who criticize the bad work and malfeasance are themselves criticized mercilessly for being being “deniers” and evil at the core. Not sure how to fix that problem.
Anthony,
WUWT readers should make this IPCC folly known at other websites in comments. They wanted a debate, they wanted a retraction, well they got it. Now it is time for them to admit they supported a flawed premise based on shoddy activist driven “science”.
I would ask only one thing, and that is you should employ the term ‘propagandists’ instead of ‘activists,’ inasmuch as that’s really what they are.
Unbiased activism is neutral in its thrust, in that it seeks to reveal the truth of matters, rather than push for a political outcome only.
It takes a twisted mind to rail against the deforestation of the Amazon but then also push sugar cane for ethonol as being a priority.
We are still seeing ethanol treated as a fuel that doesn’t emit CO2.
I had read about this article it seems a week ago. How is the WWF holding up? Are they at some point going to be seen as the joke they look like and find their donations dry up?
The claim was that the sensitivity to rainfall reduction was based on peer reviewed literature. I’m here to tell you that claim is totally unsupportable
Actually, the literature goes further than ‘40%’, about half the forests are vulnerable to the types of reduction in rainfall projected for the Amazon …..
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been recently criticized in media coverage (e.g. Sunday times) for presenting inaccurate information on the susceptibility of the forests of the Amazon Basin to rainfall reduction in its fourth assessment. The statement that has drawn the criticism reads as follows:
“Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation (Rowell and Moore, 2000).” (IPCC 2007, Magrin et al. 2007)
The Rowell and Moore review report that is cited as the basis of this IPCC statement cites an article that we published in the journal Nature in 1999 as the source for the following statement:
“Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall. In the 1998 dry season, some 270,000 sq. km of forest became vulnerable to fire, due to completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil. A further 360,000 sq. km of forest had only 250 mm of plant-available soil water left.[Nepstad et al. 1999]” (Rowell and Moore 2000)
The IPCC statement on the Amazon is correct, but the citations listed in the Rowell and Moore report were incomplete. (The authors of this report interviewed several researchers, including the author of this note, and had originally cited the IPAM website where the statement was made that 30 to 40% of the forests of the Amazon were susceptible to small changes in rainfall). Our 1999 article (Nepstad et al. 1999) estimated that 630,000 km2 of forests were severely drought stressed in 1998, as Rowell and Moore correctly state, but this forest area is only 15% of the total area of forest in the Brazilian Amazon. In another article published in Nature, in 1994, we used less conservative assumptions to estimate that approximately half
of the forests of the Amazon depleted large portions of their available soil moisture during seasonal or episodic drought (Nepstad et al. 1994). After the Rowell and Moore report was released in 2000, and prior to the publication of the IPCC AR4, new evidence of the full extent of severe drought in the Amazon was available. In 2004, we estimated that half of the forest area of the Amazon Basin had either fallen below, or was very close to, the critical level of soil moisture below which trees begin to die in 1998. This estimate incorporated new rainfall data and results from an experimental reduction of rainfall in an Amazon forest that we had conducted with funding from the US National Science Foundation (Nepstad et al. 2004). Field evidence of the soil moisture critical threshold is presented in Nepstad et al. 2007.
In sum, the IPCC statement on the Amazon was correct. The report that is cited in support of the IPCC statement (Rowell and Moore 2000) omitted some citations in support of the 40% value statement.
http://www.ipam.org.br/biblioteca (Select English rather than Portuguese, unless you happen to be fluent….)
Dead horse, guys.
REPLY: Phil as usual, you conflate issues. The issue here is that IPCC relied on an opinion written on an activist website, with no author, no references, no attribution…zero zilch nada. That issue is proven without a doubt, but you go off on tangents, even in the face of other, new peer reviewed research (Planck) says there’s not much of an issue.
I dub you “grand obfuscator”. Are you on an NGO payroll? -A
Christopher Booker seems to remember that most important injunction from the Watergate fiasco — follow the money. Just think of that $60 billion windfall from carbon credits just waiting to be “harvested” from the Amazon.
Anthony,
Dr North has without doubt been the driving force behind this expose, but I’m sure he would not mind me pointing out that a contributor to his blog called ‘Gareth’ actually uncovered the old web page.
I would say that Dr. Simon Lewis’ 31 page complaint is well worth the re-reading:
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Lewis_S_Times_PCC_Complaint_As_Sent1.pdf
In short, there is no “bogus rainforest claim”, the claim made by the UN panel was (and is) well-known, mainstream and defensible science, as myself and two other professional world-class rainforest experts (Professor Oliver Phillips and Professor Dan Nepstad) each told Jonathan Leake.
…. the Sunday Times published inaccurate, misleading and distorted information which would lead any reasonable person to assume that the UN report had included information that was not backed by the best scientific information available at the time….
… the Sunday Times used my expertise to lend credibility to the assertion, due in part to the concealment of my views that the statement in question was fully in line with scientific knowledge at the time the IPCC report was written…
I’m having a hard time deciding if the Sunday Times misrepresented Dr. Lewis’ views, but it seems to me that as an expert on the Amazon Dr. Lewis not only should have known but in fact did know that the views he expressed were not grounded in reality and were factually inaccurate. There is a word that covers that….