Du Jour-gate flavor: Amazon

The IPCC “Flavor of the day”-gate is now the Amazon Rain Forest. What will tomorrow’s flavor be?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3640/3300527819_6b9a79eb4a.jpg

James Delingpole of the Telegraph says this better than I ever could, so I’ll provide his summary here. Note that there are plenty more cases of unsubstantiated non peer reviewed references in the IPCC report, a list of which you can see here. For those wondering what “Load of porkies” means, see this.

Delingpole relays North’s analysis:

Here’s the latest development, courtesy of Dr Richard North – and it’s a cracker. It seems that, not content with having lied to us about shrinking glaciers, increasing hurricanes, and rising sea levels, the IPCC’s latest assessment report also told us a complete load of porkies about the danger posed by climate change to the Amazon rainforest.

This is to be found in Chapter 13 of the Working Group II report, the same part of the IPCC fourth assessment report in which the “Glaciergate” claims are made. There, is the startling claim that:

At first sight, the reference looks kosher enough but, following it through, one sees:

This, then appears to be another WWF report, carried out in conjunction with the IUCN – The International Union for Conservation of Nature.

The link given is no longer active, but the report is on the IUCN website here. Furthermore, the IUCN along with WWF is another advocacy group and the report is not peer-reviewed. According to IPCC rules, it should not have been used as a primary source.

It gets even better. The two expert authors of the WWF report so casually cited by the IPCC as part of its, ahem, “robust” “peer-reviewed” process weren’t even Amazon specialists. One, Dr PF Moore, is a policy analyst:

My background and experience around the world has required and developed high-level policy and analytical skills. I have a strong understanding of government administration, legislative review, analysis and inquiries generated through involvement in or management of the Australian Regional Forest Agreement process, Parliamentary and Government inquiries, Coronial inquiries and public submissions on water pricing, access and use rights and native vegetation legislation in Australia and fire and natural resources laws, regulations and policies in Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, South Africa and Malaysia.

And the lead author Andy Rowell is a freelance journalist (for the Guardian, natch) and green activist:

Andy Rowell is a freelance writer and Investigative journalist with over 12 years’ experience on environmental, food, health and globalization issues. Rowell has undertaken cutting-edge investigations for, amongst others, Action on Smoking and Health, The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, IFAW, the Pan American Health Organization, Project Underground, the World Health Organization, World in Action and WWF.

But the IPCC’s shamelessness did not end there. Dr North has searched the WWF’s reports high and low but can find no evidence of a statement to support the IPCC’s claim that “40 per cent” of the Amazon is threatened by climate change. (Logging and farm expansion are a much more plausible threat).

Read Delingpole’s blog here, North’s Blog here

I recommend adding them to your blog roll. I have.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

238 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ron Cram
January 26, 2010 7:46 am

It seems the IPCC went out of its way to make such alarmist claims. They ignored the peer-reviewed paper “Amazon rainforests green-up with sunlight in dry season” which was published in GRL in time to meet the IPCC deadline.
http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:bZk8AnKX-mEJ:citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.71.3129&rep=rep1&type=pdf+Amazon+rainforests+green-up+with+sunlight+during+the+dry+season+pdf&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=safari

Vincent
January 26, 2010 7:56 am

Mikael Lonnroth,
“IPCC says that the assessment is produced through an open and peer reviewed process. They also say that the assessment is (partly) based on ‘gray’ non-peer reviewed documents.”
Yes, I see – the gray stuff. GRAY: neither black nor white; undefined or unclear; incapable of redering firm conclusions; junk.
I must admit I didn’t know about that. I mean, I had assumed that everything was peer reviewed. Perhaps there is a disclaimer, somewhere, buried in the small print, “please be aware, some of the conclusions cited in this report may not actually be factual.”
Maybe some of those skeptics are right about the IPPC – not fit for purpose.

Alexander Vissers
January 26, 2010 8:14 am

Yesterday even the global warming enthousiast Diederik Samson, Dutch left wing Party (PvdA) openly demanded Pachauri’s resignation. However he fails to demand the retrieval of IPCC AR4 as being “void and intenable”.
Companies filing with the SEC know how it works should a misstatemetn be identified:
I suggest the following phrase: “We, the board of the IPCC have established that material content of our report IPCC AR4 does not meet the set standards and contains various material unsupported statements, we equally aknowledge that the controls and procedures surrouding the proces of reporting are insufficient by all standards, even our own. We therefore retract IPCC AR4 and explicitly state that the contents of IPCC AR4 or any previous IPCC assessment reports should no longer be relied upon. We intend to provide a restated report in due time when we will have dealt with the grave shortcommings and have ensured effective controls on the quality of our reporting”. “We deeply regret our failure and humbly apologize for any inconvenience and distress we may have caused and, as a matter of course, collectively resign from our responsibilities, which obviously we cannot live up to”.

January 26, 2010 8:47 am

I disagree that IPCC AR5 needs to be 1,000% correct. Mistakes are what make us human.
What is definitely needed, is a 1,000% transparency in the gathering of scientific articles, and of comments and feedbacks on the text of the report. No more agnosia, no more Chinese whispers, no more disregarding of commentaries. And we also need full disclosure of all possible links between scientists/authors and campaigners, no matter how far-fetched they may sound.
The IPCC should finally keep out of the policy debate as per its mandate.

JohnH
January 26, 2010 8:53 am

On the Today program R4 UK this morning first we had a section on Ocean Acidification followed by an interview Mike Hulme of the CRU along with Tony Juniper Green party activist.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8480000/8480314.stm
The interview was ref the IPCC V4 report, Mike Hulme was calling for changes to be made but Tony Juniper was saying it was a minor error of no consequence. Nothing new there but Tony went on to say the IPCC report was 3000 pages, so its expanded overnight and so errors will be a lower percentage.

January 26, 2010 9:09 am

Ron, I do hope you will reference our discussions about this.

January 26, 2010 10:06 am

Vincent (07:56:27) :
“Yes, I see – the gray stuff. GRAY: neither black nor white; undefined or unclear; incapable of redering firm conclusions; junk.
I must admit I didn’t know about that. I mean, I had assumed that everything was peer reviewed. Perhaps there is a disclaimer, somewhere, buried in the small print, “please be aware, some of the conclusions cited in this report may not actually be factual.”
Maybe some of those skeptics are right about the IPPC – not fit for purpose.”
I do somewhat agree with you and I can’t myself understand why they should have the need to include non-peer-reviewed papers as part of a scientific synthesis. The recent statement about the Glacier error seemed to blame human error instead of recognizing any fault in the system. Too bad.

Richard Sharpe
January 26, 2010 11:17 am

g smiley (04:53:16) said:

Good to see the folks at Realclimate are sticking withe IPCC
From their Start Here Page as of 1253 GMT on 26/01/10
“Informed, but in need of more detail:
Science: You can’t do better than the IPCC reports themselves (AR4 2007, TAR 2001).”
Lets see if they end up changing their minds

High quality science from a government-based committee?
I wonder if they realize how stupid they sound when making a claim like that.
And then there are all those citations of non-peer-reviewed material from WWF and Greenpeace.

January 26, 2010 11:33 am

All the scares are variants of the scares of another age: Lebensraum.
It turned out badly. At great cost and much suffering.
What we are facing today is no different. It will end badly at great cost and much suffering.

January 26, 2010 12:38 pm

Freedom Chimes
I collect historic temperature sets and whilst those from Central America don’t appear to exist, I can offer one from the Bahamas dating back to 1856.
http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/Nassau_The%20Bahamas.html
You will be pleased to note the cyclic variability, where today is not as warm as it has been in the past.
The Little Ice age thermometers collected on my site demonstrates the Earths amazing climate variability, captured all the way back to 1660 by instrumental records.
By the way, I agree we need to look after the Amazon and other rain forests.
Can I give a plug to Cool Earth?
http://www.coolearth.org/
I ‘own’ an acre of rain forest-not for the carbon element but to protect it against logging.
Tonyb

stephen richards
January 26, 2010 1:26 pm

Anthony
I know its a pique but it just confused me initially. It should be ‘du jour’. Du jour is ‘of the day’ ‘de jour ‘ is ‘of day’. Rather like jean-pierre de Paris or pomme de terre.
[Fixed, thanx ~dbs]

John
January 29, 2010 4:01 pm
1 8 9 10
Verified by MonsterInsights