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The link given is no longer active, but the report is on the IUCN website here. Furthermore, the IUCN along with WWF is another advocacy group and the report is not peer-reviewed.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.
How much longer before the list of peer reviewed is shorter than the list of non peer reviewed
OT about the book Climategate: The Crutape Letters by Mosher and Fuller (2010) which arrived in the mail today – much sooner than indicated during the ordering process.
Between the lines below is the post that presented the new book and my comment after ordering it. As you can see I did not enjoy the process of ordering the book. BUT, it came sooner than stated and I especially like the spaghetti graph on the cover with the barbed wire and the major cracks in the underlain foundation. I’ve only looked at it and read 5 pages and still suggest you order yours today. Thanks Steven and Thomas.
———————————————————–http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/16/history-in-a-hurry-the-first-book-about-climategate-is-published/#comment-291771
John F. Hultquist (09:13:10) :
I went to the link to buy the book. What a pain! It only took me about 20 minutes to get through this mess. I think you are going to miss a few sales to grumpy old men with this round-about ‘createspace’ web page, and now I’ve got a new on-line account with someplace I really don’t need one, never heard of before, won’t get the book for 3 weeks, if and when I do get it.
Your salvation is that I wanted to support the authors.
———————————————————–
It’ll take lots of arrows to kill this elephant. A dozen more should do it. Keep ’em coming!
P Walker (16:37:47) :
davidmhoffer (15:22:32) – I apologize if I misread your statement . However , this site is devoted to debating AGW “truths”. If you had been around here long enough , you would understand the frustration
Haven’t been around the site that long, but certainly understand the frustration. You don’t have to read blogs to become angry. You only have to have kids who come home from school spouting nonsense. That said, I read the warmist blogs from time to time and a lot of them remind me of two erstwhile young men who knocked on my door some time ago to introduce themselves and their local house of worship. During our discourse they attempted to convince me to join by quoting from their official reference text. It may well have been peer reviewed for all I know, but being familiar with the text itself I was compelled to point out to them that their reference was quite fictional. As they became offended at this, and I had a copy of said text on hand, I provided it to them and asked then to produce the evidence to which they had reffered and if they did, I would apologize. They not being able to find the text, as it was one of those things commonly accepted but not actually true, I was surprised that they not only became angry, but turned their animosity on me. Apparently their misunderstanding of their official text was my fault and I was interfering with their belief system. The words “evil” and “blasphemer” having been bandied about, I summoned aforementioned children who had conveniently grown beyond the 6 foot 200 lb target set for them, and had said erstwhile gentlemen escorted firmly to the property line.
I fully understand your frustration, just advise you be prepared to continue to be frustrated as insults and scorn are hurled your way in face of facts.
TerryBixler (17:18:20) :
Obama, Kerry, Boxer and Lisa Jackson are still AGW supporters. They will collectively attempt to kill the U.S. economy based on the “science” of Hansen, Phil Jones, Mann, Briffa and the manipulated data from CRU and GISS. Pachauri has not resigned. The IPCC has not been discredited except here and in the press. The APS still has their AGW agenda. The MSM has hardly noticed climategate barely noticing glaciergate. Which brings up the point that there is much work to be done.
It took a little over two years to bring Nixon down following discovery of the burglary. Early days yet. (only 2 months since 19 Nov 2009).
Didn’t we just have a long combox about the black soils in the Amazon, and the many evidences that it is a result of silvaculture and not a natural jungle?
re Revkin and station data. Go for it… this gives one more opening for the ultimate destruction of AGW after AW and Co review Menee et al. Probasbly will end being a major post here LOL!
part of the problem with using documents on the internet is they are hard to find after the fact… I tried going to the reference and got a link error… Anyone know where the full article is?
mikelorrey (12:49:34) :
“These two are evidently among the top of the alleged 2500 “peer reviewed” scientists endorsing the IPCC AR4”
Mike, I think you’ve got it! The 2500 “peer reviewed” scientists endorsing the IPCC is from the WWF membership list.
TerryBixler (17:18:20) :
Obama, Kerry, Boxer and Lisa Jackson are still AGW supporters. They will collectively attempt to kill the U.S. economy based on the “science” of Hansen, Phil Jones, Mann, Briffa and the manipulated data from CRU and GISS. Pachauri has not resigned. The IPCC has not been discredited except here and in the press. The APS still has their AGW agenda. The MSM has hardly noticed climategate barely noticing glaciergate. Which brings up the point that there is much work to be done.
Right. They’re all getting, or about to get, their 15 minutes of shame, but will that be enough to create a real tipping point in the general public’s understanding of AGW’s true threat? That is, gutting our economy and sending Western civilization back to the Middle Ages, but without all that Catholic-y repression to spoil the fun. Well, at least the future is supposed to just as warm. Small comfort that.
@M. Simon:
“Are there any papers that might suggest that fire is an essential ingredient in at least parts of he Amazon?”
The only papers I’ve seen relating to your question are generally about preventing anthropogenic fires in the Amazon. One recent paper claims that “High moisture contents and dense canopies have historically made Amazonian forests extremely resistant to fire spread.” This implies that natural forest fires are an uncommon occurrence in the Amazonian rain forest.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121498506/abstract
This deserves repeating:
One thing is, if we ever get an IPCC AR5 it will HAVE to be 100% accurate. ANY mistakes whatsoever will be ripped apart and the whole report will be discredited.
The IPCC has had a very easy ride so far with credulous uncritical believers, it appears those days are ended.
FYI, From 2002
GLOBAL WARMING NOT SINKING TUVALU –
– BUT MAYBE ITS OWN PEOPLE ARE
By Michael Field
AUCKLAND, New Zealand
(March 28, 2002 – Agence France-Presse)—International environmentalists might have it wrong — global warming is not drowning the Pacific atoll nation of Tuvalu beneath a rising Pacific.
Its fate may be much more prosaic and all local: severe over-population, profound pollution and an unusual World War II legacy
http://www.tuvaluislands.com/news/archived/2002/2002-03-30.htm
Ron de Haan (17:10:34) :
Bye Bye EPA’s CO2 Regulations?! Report: UN IPCC’s reliance on WWF may compromise EPA’s claim that IPCC peer review ‘meets the statutory standards required of EPA peer review’ (Climate Depot)
Yep, they pushed the “Self Destruct” button.
It’ll take lots of arrows to kill this elephant. A dozen more should do it. Keep ‘em coming
Unfortunately it is a very large elephant, is charging ahead, and is subject to certain laws of physics as described by Newton:
A belief system in motion will tend to stay in motion…
Shifting the topic slightly, does anyone know whether or not the North West passage is now open?
Being more serious, does anyone know what the extent of sea ice around the North Pole is after the recent cold spell around the Northern Hemisphere? I would love to know.
omnologos (17:32:21) :
The gist of the report is that bad thermometers almost exactly compensate for poor siting.
How lucky can you get?
And – surprise – the bad stations will need to be warmed a bit to correct for the residual error.
But even if true that does not get to the heart of the matter. What we need to know is how homogenization affects the final result.
As I understand the report raw data was not compared to raw data. And it will take a deeper look into the methods used to see if the results represent reality or data manipulation (valid or otherwise).
Daniel H (17:57:48) :
Thank you.
Meanwhile,
The travel bill to Copenhagen was over $1 million – not counting Air Force one and all those on board.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/25/cbsnews_investigates/main6140406.shtml
The UN has taken advantage of a world that needs something to believe in, with AGW. I cannot believe that the IPCC would use WWF as a source for any information, afterall they are a lobby group albeit with a supposed aim of protecting the environment which we all want to and need to do. It would be like believing a report (even if it were peer reviewed) funded by the tobacco industry saying that smoking can benefit your health.
M. Simon (17:48:38) :
It took a little over two years to bring Nixon down following discovery of the burglary. Early days yet. (only 2 months since 19 Nov 2009).
The difference is that, in the case of Nixon, the MSM was actively and passionately pursuing the Watergate story. The MSM tried hard to bury climategate and is now whitewashing glaciergate as a typographical error.
Interesting article on the Amazon.More proof that nothing beats hands on experience
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0607-carter_interview.html
Can cattle ranchers and soy farmers save the Amazon?
An Interview with John Cain Carter:
Rhett A Butler, mongabay.com
June 7, 2007
But it’s already hit a couple of unbudgable objects: The US public & the Chinese premier. It’s dead on its feet, as far as carbon-taxing goes, but more arrows are needed to knock it down.
Oh, sure, THAT part will go marching on, even if the world starts cooling.
“tokyoboy (17:43:13) :
IIRC, James Delingpole was the first person that used the term “climategate” in public on 21 November. Is this right?
REPLY: No our commenter “bulldust” coined the term here on WUWT, and Delingpole picked it up. – Anthony”
Thanks Anthony, I’ve found this in the First CRU Post on 19 November :
Bulldust (15:52:36) :
Hmmm how long before this is dubbed ClimateGate?
So Delingpole was the first to use the term in a newspaper article.