The IPCC “Flavor of the day”-gate is now the Amazon Rain Forest. What will tomorrow’s flavor be?
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The link given is no longer active, but the report is on the IUCN website here. Furthermore, the IUCN along with WWF is another advocacy group and the report is not peer-reviewed.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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Christopher Monckton was on a national breakfast show here in Australia yesterday morning, “debating” some climate scientist who defended the glacier-problem on the basis of “well, one mistake doesn’t make the rest of the report invalid”. I can only assume either Monckon hadn’t caught up with the deluge of other invalid supporting material or the format of the “debate” didn’t allow a robust rebuttal. I sure would’ve been the killer comment to point out that this was just one of many instances in the IPCC’s report … a missed opportunity, a least, because that show has a very large audience. 🙁
Actually with all the heat on Pachuri and the IPCC, they just might end up being correct because it seems everything the touch goes down in flames.
And now…ObamaGate:
http://www.heliogenic.net/2010/01/25/obama-stopping-vital-power-plants-in-developing-countries/
Appropriate, considering the date.
Fair fa’ your honest, sonsie face,
Great chieftain o’ the puddin-race!
Aboon them a’ ye tak your place,
Painch, tripe, or thairm:
Weel are ye wordy o’ a grace
As lang’s my arm.
The groaning trencher there ye fill,
Your hurdies like a distant hill,
Your pin wad help to mend a mill
In time o’ need,
While thro’ your pores the dews distil
Like amber bead.
His knife see rustic Labour dight,
An’ cut you up wi’ ready sleight,
Trenching your gushing entrails bright,
Like ony ditch;
And then, O what a glorious sight,
Warm-reekin, rich!
Then, horn for horn,
they stretch an’ strive:
Deil tak the hindmost! on they drive,
Till a’ their weel-swall’d kytes belyve,
Are bent lyke drums;
Then auld Guidman, maist like to rive,
“Bethankit!” ‘hums.
Is there that owre his French ragout
Or olio that wad staw a sow,
Or fricassee wad mak her spew
Wi’ perfect sconner,
Looks down wi’ sneering, scornfu’ view
On sic a dinner?
Poor devil! see him ower his trash,
As feckless as a wither’d rash,
His spindle shank, a guid whip-lash,
His nieve a nit;
Thro’ bloody flood or field to dash,
O how unfit!
But mark the Rustic, haggis fed,
The trembling earth resounds his tread.
Clap in his walie nieve a blade,
He’ll mak it whissle;
An’ legs an’ arms, an’ heads will sned,
Like taps o’ thrissle.
Ye Pow’rs wha mak mankind your care,
And dish them out their bill o’ fare,
Auld Scotland wants nae skinking ware
That jaups in luggies;
But, if ye wish her gratefu’ prayer,
Gie her a haggis!
STOP Sigourney Weaver? SHE KILLS POOR ALIENS!- WWF
Just skimming the report, I find virtually zero data, however there is money-quote after money-quote throughout.
It is interesting that Moore (I will ascribe no honorific title, non is deserved) has this establishment as his e-mail address.
http://www.metisassociates.com/
davidmhoffer (13:36:40)
but when a supposed organisation who is “responsible” for saving the planet, they have to be held to much higher standards. They are the ones who have to be beyond reproach, because their actions affected all of us on this planet. so they have to be whiter than white. But obviously they arent, die to the lies they have used.
just because it was not peer reviewed doesn’t mean its wrong, just because theres no proof of the flying spaghetti monster doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
Glenn (13:47:49) :
“Christopher Monckton was on a national breakfast show here in Australia yesterday morning, “debating” some climate scientist who defended the glacier-problem on the basis of “well, one mistake doesn’t make the rest of the report invalid”.
Here is the audio link:
http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6295&Itemid=134
RichieP (12:51:14) :
And given that it’s Burns Night tonight, and our PM’s a Scotsman (that’s the one who called climate sceptics “flat earthers”), this line from the poet might be appropriate for him, Pachauri, Gore and many, many others:
The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men
Gang aft agley,
“There is no such uncertainty as a sure thing. “
De jour-gate ????????
“De jour” refers to daylight. “Belle de jour” (title of Luis Buñuel’s 1967 film with Catherine Deneuve) contrasts with “Belle de nuit” (beauty of the night).
You mean “scandal of the day”, which in French is “scandale du jour”.
However, even “du jour-gate” is an awful, contrived, uninformative heading! Why not call a spade a spade, a blunder a blunder, and a scandal a scandal?
An interesting report on 12 advancing Glaciers:
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/12-more-glaciers-that-havent-heard-the-news-about-global-warming/comment-page-1#comment-20249
It appears that the 40% figure references this passage in the WWF/IUCN report:
“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.”
This passage references a peer-reviewed article in Nature:
46 D. C. Nepstad, A. Veríssimo, A. Alencar, C. Nobre, E. Lima, P. Lefebvre, P. Schlesinger, C. Potter, P. Mountinho, E. Mendoza, M. Cochrane, V. Brooks, Large-scale Impoverishment of Amazonian Forests by Logging and Fire, Nature, 1999, Vo l 398, 8 April, pp505
Unfortunately I don’t have access to the full article but to call this reference “a complete load of porkies” seems a bit unjustified, unless it can be shown that Rowell and Moore completely misrepresent the Nature article (which of course *is* written by Amazonian specialists).
Apparently global warming is from woldwide cooking of the books.
“DBates (13:26:43) :
The WWF should be forced to give their acronym back to the World Wresting Federation.”
Well said, DBates, you are indeed a Master DBater. And while they’re at it the IPCC should be gentleman and do the same for the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Perhaps theft needs to be added to the list of crimes?
Pew Research puts “dealing with global warming” dead last on their list of “public priorities” in the US. They even have a separate section of the report, “Global Warming and the Environment,” where they give this oh-so-well-reasoned explanation:
Such a low ranking is driven in part by indifference among Republicans: just 11% consider global warming a top priority, compared with 43% of Democrats and 25% of independents.
Apparently being “indifferent,” synonymous with “callous” and “uncaring,” is indistinguishable from not wanting to “deal with global warming” because you simply do not accept CAGW or even AGW and/or don’t accept there are any consequences that need to be immediately dealt with. Oh well, at least they didn’t blame it on a high percentage of Republican “skeptics” or “deniers.”
Down in the “Partisan Gaps over Priorities” table, “Protecting the environment” is running three times higher among Republicans, so we can see that is being differentiated from “Dealing with global warming.” The split is 43 to 60% among Democrats, and 25 to 38 with independents, so apparently some in those groups are making a distinction as well.
RichieP (12:51:14) :
“And given that it’s Burns Night tonight, and our PM’s a Scotsman (that’s the one who called climate sceptics “flat earthers”), this line from the poet might be appropriate for him, Pachauri, Gore and many, many others:
The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men
Gang aft agley,”
Nice one Richie!
Here’s another apt Scottish saying which is apt regarding CAGW – It’s all fur coat and no knickers.
@Speechless in Seattle (14:11:37) :
De jour-gate ????????
“De jour” refers to daylight. “Belle de jour” (title of Luis Buñuel’s 1967 film with Catherine Deneuve) contrasts with “Belle de nuit” (beauty of the night).
You mean “scandal of the day”, which in French is “scandale du jour”.
However, even “du jour-gate” is an awful, contrived, uninformative heading! Why not call a spade a spade, a blunder a blunder, and a scandal a scandal?
============
GSOH, Speechless?
James F. Evans (13:15:43) :
Follow the money…it will lead you to “their” motives everytime…
And the trail always leads back to one person, Maurice Strong. His motives about one world government and massive transfers of wealth and power from the west through the UN and various NGO’s to the victims of greedy capitalists are well documented.
Speechless in Seattle (14:11:37) :
De jour-gate ????????
“De jour” refers to daylight.
Webster’s:
Main Entry: du jour
Function: adjective
Etymology: French, literally, of the day
Date: 1786
1 : made for a particular day —used of an item not specified on the regular menu
2 : popular, fashionable, or prominent at a particular time
Do you know what is really sad? Even if this stuff was peer-reviewed it would be bogus. You can not trust the peer-review system when it comes to “climate research”.
“just because it was not peer reviewed does’t mean its wrong…”
Given the climate scientists’ habit of either hiding behind “peer review” , or dismissing non peer reviewed papers out of hand , that is one of the most hypocritical statements I’ve seen here .
@RichieP “To a louse” is perhaps more appropriate when discussing the IPCC:
On Seeing One on a Lady’s Bonnet at Church
Ha! whare ye gaun’ ye crowlin ferlie?
Your impudence protects you sairly;
I canna say but ye strunt rarely
Owre gauze and lace,
Tho faith! I fear ye dine but sparely
On sic a place.
Ye ugly, creepin, blastit wonner,
Detested, shunn’d by saunt an sinner,
How daur ye set your fit upon her–
Sae fine a lady!
Gae somewhere else and seek your dinner
On some poor body.
Swith! in some beggar’s hauffet squattle;
There ye may creep, and sprawl, and sprattle;
Wi’ ither kindred, jumping cattle;
In shoals and nations;
Whare horn nor bane ne’er daur unsettle
Your thick plantations.
Now haud you there! ye’re out o’ sight,
Below the fatt’rils, snug an tight,
Na, faith ye yet! ye’ll no be right,
Till ye’ve got on it–
The vera tapmost, tow’rin height
O’ Miss’s bonnet.
My sooth! right bauld ye set your nose out,
As plump an grey as onie grozet:
O for some rank, mercurial rozet,
Or fell, red smeddum,
I’d gie you sic a hearty dose o’t,
Wad dress your droddum!
I wad na been surpris’d to spy
You on an auld wife’s flainen toy
Or aiblins some bit duddie boy,
On’s wyliecoat;
But Miss’s fine Lunardi! fye!
How daur ye do’t?
O Jeany, dinna toss your head,
An set your beauties a’ abread!
Ye little ken what cursed speed
The blastie’s makin!
Thae winks an finger-ends, I dread,
Are notice takin!
O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An foolish notion:
What airs in dress an gait wad lea’es us,
An ev’n devotion!
Sorry about the length of the poem but the IPCC just “Burns me up”.
Lay the proud usurpers low!
Tyrants fall in every foe!
Liberty’s in every blow!
Let us do – or die!
Robert Burns