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The link given is no longer active, but the report is on the IUCN website here. Furthermore, the IUCN along with WWF is another advocacy group and the report is not peer-reviewed.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.
omnologos (17:32:21) :
Let me add that the proper way to do a check is not statistically.
You properly site a thermometer of known accuracy (high) and drift (small) as close as reasonably feasible (good siting) to the unit to be checked and watch it for a year. And compare results month vs month. Day vs day etc.
You want to know if wind, rain, sunshine etc. bias the result.
And I don’t get TOBS bias for a continuous reading thermometer. There shouldn’t be any. You jut pick the readings out of your recording that would match what ever TOBS was used in the prior record.
Any way I may be off base but something doesn’t feel right and I can’t pin it down yet. Or it may just be I don’t trust people with a warmist bias.
I’m going to check Climate Audit and see if they have started a discussion.
TamOShanter (15:03:06) :
“….If you can get a live haggis then good and well!!”
I don’t know about the live haggis but I had a wee ewe lamb try to sneak in the back door again along with her friend the nanny goat. Does that count?
Now that the rampaging hordes attention has been turned from the climategate e-mails and code to the IPCC report and the money trail, I expect we will continue to see this mare’snest unravel into the pack of half truths and lies it actually is. Hopefully all these revelations will keep the politicians from following a course of economic (and political) suicide.
Continuing on with the rapture analogy, what follows is the tribulation period where all those that remain suffer a great deal before Christ returns. The problem with this analogy though is there is no “rapture” equivalent in the AGW scam. So, we will all suffer if the scam eventually takes hold and wins. Therefore, I suggest very sincerely that all efforts be made to expose these fraudsters in our law courts. Once one of them is put behind bars, the AGW scam will quickly die. Otherwise, all I can see is years and years of continual bickering by both sides, while the public getting more and more twisted and confused. Who knows, this could lead to a major war if we are not careful. So, we should kill the AGW scam ASAP.
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.
Actually for Watergate the results were very sporadic for the first six months. Something would pop up. Nixon would deny it and it would go away for a while. Except for the WAPO no one was dogging the story. Then the frequency started to build and by the end of the first year it was almost every day.
Times are different, but humans are the same. This will take a while.
As always it will be the early denials that are the most dam*ing evidence.
You guys are so funny!
Pachauri has already weighed his options.
These guys have built themselves a mountain of lies. You just pull down a few tiny rocks at the bottom and want the king of the hill to ‘resign’?
Hilarious! 🙂
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.
For some people it does.
Schizophrenia and Tobacco
davidmhoffer
“It’ll take lots of arrows to kill this elephant. A dozen more should do it. Keep ‘em coming”
It has more than once occurred to me that anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 is just as soluble in the oceans as is ‘natural’ CO2. The life of CO2 between its entry to the atmosphere and its dissolution in the surface of the oceans is about 5 years, acknowledged by the former IPCC chairman, Bert Bolin. The IPCC have modelled that atmospheric CO2 has a lifetime of 50-100 years [1].
I am unaware of their rationale for the figure they use, but the whole thrust of the AGW argument rests on it. Looks a whole lot like an arrow to me.
The problem with AGW is: der’s smoke cummin’ out da machine!
[1] I. Plimer 2009. “Heaven+Earth: global warming, the missing science.” Connorcourt Publishing. p 422
pat (15:57:47) :
“LOL… stop tickelling me!
Guardian: Oliver Tickell: Don’t let the carbon market dieThe Copenhagen climate change conference achieved too little, but a modest global carbon tax would make amends.”
Here’s an’ther knee slapping reason to kick the dog:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/24/carbon-emissions-green-copenhagen-banks
“The lie of it ye finally see
Bankers, greens, the coterie
Glisters gold the ominous eye
Ye soul they seek before ye die”
The link at the end to Delingpole’s blog points at his Telegraph article, not at his blog. His blog’s address is mentioned at the top of the Telegraph article.
Bernie (13:00:19) :
Bjorn Lomborg is looking better and better,
>>>
I agree, especially on the cost effective priorities list…
> P Gosselin (13:11:13) :
> The dam has broken!
> Headlines at FOX
The full link is http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/25/climate-panel-knowingly-inaccurate-statements-says-insider/
IPCC made GW is looking more and more like the black knight of Monty Python fame http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNKSzmM44gE
But I reckon it’s only short time away from looking like the dead parrot sketch from the same Pythons
It would seem that “denier,” “flat earther,” skeptic,” and “realist” are not quite appropriate terms for those of us whom are not believers.
In light of the “evidence” being uncovered and the “proof” being provided to debunk the AGW canard, we skeptics should be addressed by the term:
PROOFER. I am proud to be a PROOFER.
Steve Goddard (13:35:45) :
Curious that Gavin, Tamino, Romm and other IPCC insiders spend most of their life blogging, but never had enough time to tell us about the incredibly lousy job the IPCC was doing.
>>>
Exactly my point the other day. They have enough time to constantly attack, advertise and request money, but not enough to debate or fact check !
The AGW boat does seem to be sinking, but no doubt they will interpret it as a rise in sea level!
These days Tom P, Joel Shore and company are silent, as they were on the days just after the Climategate outbreak……..
“The gist of the report is that bad thermometers almost exactly compensate for poor siting.”
Mannn…. who knew that climate science was so lucky????
D. King (18:16:16)
Ron de Haan (17:10:34)
That the WWF may itself be partly responsible for the rapid collapse of the AGW religion and the trashing of it’s IPCC bible is just too delicious. I am reminded of a scene in The Hunt for Red October for which I could only find the audio –
http://www.moviesounds.com/redoct/arrogant.wav (coarse langauge)
My thinking is that when the AGW movement repainted the Peer Review torpedo green, they painted over the label that reads “Aim away from face.”
“just because it was not peer reviewed does’t mean its wrong…”
Congratulations, my child, you have just passed pre-Kindergarten.
Anticlimactic (19:29:03) :
The AGW boat does seem to be sinking, but no doubt they will interpret it as a rise in sea level!
Now that’s a zinger! O’ Lord, please let me remember it?
Von Storch, Richard Tol, and Pielke says Pachauri shall be replaced, in order to save, and to change, IPCC.
I wonder if one should support the railway engineer. Let Pachauri stay where he is. He hasn’t done anything wrong; anything not normal in IPCC climate science.
The longer Pachauri can stay, the sooner… well, let’s say: somehing good may happen.
😉
Boy, you know those emails didn’t really affect the science at all did they? Why did Jones want all the emails related to AR4 deleted so badly? Bet there is a smoking gun or twelve in there.
(I’m probably in general against such things as UN science bodies.)
I am afraid that if you want to draw analogies, you will find that AGW is less like an elephant and more like a giant demonic chicken. Cut its head off and it will continue to run around flapping its wings, drawing attention, and making a mess. Should it bump into an immovable object, it will simply change course and run off in another direction. And, as you argue with those who shout “see, its not dead!” at you, you will discover that it has grown another head. Remember when the UN dissolved their human rights body because it was completely staffed by human rights violators who exonerated themselves? Well it worked. They have a NEW human rights body with a brand new name staffed by human rights violators who have exonerated themselves.
Way back there someone pointed out that Obama still believes in AGW. Well, despite evidence to the contrary, he believes that apologizing to people who hate us will stop them from plotting suicide attacks, that hitting the reset button with Russia will get them to support him in the UN, that Iran will stop building a nuclear bomb if we’re just nice enough to them, and that he is black. While I will give him half marks on the last item, I see no change in his position on the rest of them.
I hope to be completely wrong, but my observation of world politics, the UN in particular, over the past several decades, is that just when you are certain that the Intergovernmental Panel on Chicken Chit has finaly died, it will be reborn as the World Wide Focus on Poultry Excrement (WWF-PE) and it will take ten years before anyone realizes that its all the same people just with different titles and brand new evidence much stronger than the previous evidence because they have learned from their mistakes.
Now I am a double denier. I believe in neither the AGW nor the death of the IPCC.
To Kum who must be a true believer:
The United Nations states that its charity programs can no longer afford to feed the starving peoples of the world because of the high cost of staple foods. Mr. Jean Ziegler, the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, repeatedly denounced biofuels as “a crime against humanity.” The new UN food envoy, Mr. Olivier De Schutter, has called for United States and European Union biofuel targets to be abandoned, and said the world food crisis is “a silent tsunami affecting 100 million people.” Oil price increases have not shrunk the human food supply, but biofuel production has. The more biofuels we produce, the less food we have to eat, because we grow biofuel crops using the same land, water, fertilizer, farm equipment, and labor we use to grow food.
Using United Nations poverty and hunger statistics as a base, it is reasonable to estimate that globally biofuel production was a significant contributing factor in the early, avoidable deaths of up to 20 million people in the year 2008 alone. Any force, such as worldwide biofuel production or oil price hikes, that significantly raises food prices also raises the number of human deaths due to malnutrition. It is difficult for us to control the price of oil, but it is easy for us to control our own biofuel production; we just stop doing it! The one-two punch of biofuels crowding out food production and high oil prices raising the cost of almost everything is a deadly blow to the poor on a planetary scale.