In the news this week, lots of agitation over some questionable science from an NGO wrongly cited by the IPCC, and a newspaper that caved to pressure.
The two journalists who originally broke the story “Amazongate”, Booker and North, were covered on WUWT last January. See links here and here. Now with new developments and a retraction by The Sunday Times, the controversy erupts anew.
Richard North writes on his EU Referendum blog:
Booker has taken on board the “Amazongate” developments in this week’s column. Interestingly, rather than me, it was Booker who suggested “going big” on the issue this week, his motivation in part being the intervention by George Monbiot, who has been his usual charmless self, parading the ugly face of warmism in all its triumphant ghastliness.
It is indeed getting ugly these days. It will likely get uglier as November elections in the USA approach. There’s a sense of panic afoot as some people know their window of opportunity is closing. Copenhagen failed, Cap and Trade in the US looks to be failed, Australia’s ETS is put on hold, and many other political objectives that are the result of an oversold set of actions are also unraveling.
Yes, the panic driven ugliness will get worse before it gets better.
The warmist community has gone into serious overdrive this week following the apology and correction in last week’s Sunday Times over its reporting last January of the IPCC scandal known as Amazongate.
The reason for all this? WWF, (World Wildlife Fund) which all you need to know. WWF is not peer reviewed science, it’s a billion dollar business with an agenda. When that business and it’s opinionated agenda driven output gets used in place of peer reviewed science, then all hope is lost for the integrity of science everywhere.
Let me remind everyone of the WWF sponsored report that led to the major 2035 glacier melt blunder by the IPCC. Texas State Climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon was the original finder of the error.
I covered the fallout here.
Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.
Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’
In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air.
The WWF, in my view, is a poison pill for science. They should be avoided for any references in peer reviewed papers and in journalism.
In addition to the EuReferendum and Christopher Bookers column, we also have a fresh analysis by Willis Eschenbach on WUWT also well worth reading. This graph he produced sums up the entire issue succinctly: there’s no trend.
Booker at the Telegraph needs support now, more than ever before, please visit and comment on his article.
UPDATE: Shub Niggurath suggests that no peer reviewed science references 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 – Anthony
Is there any truth to the fact that the WWF stands to gain billions of dollars if carbon credits are traded?
If it is, talk about your conflict of interest.
And thanks to all of them for their work and their observations and revelations.
And Salon brings a unique perspective to the discussion as well…..
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/06/25/climategate_retraction/index.html
The text of the Sunday Times apology:
“The article “UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim” (News, Jan 31) stated that the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had included an “unsubstantiated claim” that up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest could be sensitive to future changes in rainfall. The IPCC had referenced the claim to a report prepared for the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) by Andrew Rowell and Peter Moore, whom the article described as “green campaigners” with “little scientific expertise.” The article also stated that the authors’ research had been based on a scientific paper that dealt with the impact of human activity rather than climate change.
In fact, the IPCC’s Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence. In the case of the WWF report, the figure had, in error, not been referenced, but was based on research by the respected Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) which did relate to the impact of climate change. We also understand and accept that Mr Rowell is an experienced environmental journalist and that Dr Moore is an expert in forest management, and apologise for any suggestion to the contrary.
The article also quoted criticism of the IPCC’s use of the WWF report by Dr Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at the University of Leeds and leading specialist in tropical forest ecology. We accept that, in his quoted remarks, Dr Lewis was making the general point that both the IPCC and WWF should have cited the appropriate peer-reviewed scientific research literature. As he made clear to us at the time, including by sending us some of the research literature, Dr Lewis does not dispute the scientific basis for both the IPCC and the WWF reports’ statements on the potential vulnerability of the Amazon rainforest to droughts caused by climate change.
In addition, the article stated that Dr Lewis’ concern at the IPCC’s use of reports by environmental campaign groups related to the prospect of those reports being biased in their conclusions. We accept that Dr Lewis holds no such view – rather, he was concerned that the use of non-peer-reviewed sources risks creating the perception of bias and unnecessary controversy, which is unhelpful in advancing the public’s understanding of the science of climate change. A version of our article that had been checked with Dr Lewis underwent significant late editing and so did not give a fair or accurate account of his views on these points. We apologise for this. “
Sure, no one was really paying any attention at that time, this Global Warming seemed but a normal UN joke as many other jokes coming over and over again during the trailing three decades of the 20th century, but now, most of the entire world is tuned in, oh yes, with megaphones to their ears and magnifying glasses in hand!
United Nations & World Wildlife Fund et al., you will never be able to hide and deceive from anonymity again.
the source of the 40% claim is Nepstad.
and he has confirmed repeatedly, that the 40% claim is correct.
http://www.whrc.org/resources/essays/pdf/2010-02-Nepstad_Amazon.pdf
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.
the error was a tiny one. (quoting the WWF article, instead of the real source, and getting sources wrong)
the term “……gate” is completely out of touch with reality.
the Leaky article was demolished by the retraction.
Bishop Hill has more details here:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/6/27/more-amazonian-knockabout.html
You know, whenever I run into the religiously inclined environmentalists, I tell them to try their arguments on these threads… I never see an attempt… Now I see why…
When it comes to ‘Evil Bush’ and ‘Evil Oil’, one mention of the Jones Act and Dutch attempts at assistance pretty much shuts them up… The Obassiah is too sacred for the goals of the religiously inclined environmentalists to allow others to know how bad for the environment their savior has turned out to be.
Stay cool…
I’m a pessimist.
I don’t think “the panic driven ugliness will get worse before it gets better”, I think it will get worse before it gets even more worse.
At this point, there is far too much money at stake, there are far too many people aboard the AGW boat, and scientists/governments have taken this issue way too far to make an about face.
AGW policies will go forward as planned… with skeptics kicking and screaming whilst they’re being dragged down the yellow brick road.
Where oh where is George Carlin when you need him ?
“sod says:
June 27, 2010 at 2:05 pm
the source of the 40% claim is Nepstad.
and he has confirmed repeatedly, that the 40% claim is correct.
[…]
the error was a tiny one. (quoting the WWF article, instead of the real source, and getting sources wrong)
”
The Nepstad who is paid for by the WWF? And whose “study” is translated and distributed worldwide by the WWF? Here’s a german version. Looks glossy.
http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wwf.de%2Ffileadmin%2Ffm-wwf%2Fpdf_neu%2FTeufelskreis_am_Amazonas_-_Klimawandel_und_Waelder.pdf&rct=j&q=nepstad+wwf&ei=ab8nTMvULouaOOKV9NoC&usg=AFQjCNEV93ucRAaYk-0DR85vnH2oE5-5uw
sod, you need to learn to read. Nepstad is talking about soil moisture and susceptibility to fire damage, not about susceptibility to climate change. Are you often this whack?
===========
About the Nepstad report – it’s not a study, it’s a report FOR the WWF – i found the following statement on a swiss website calling itself “living naturally”:
“Daniel Nepstad hat im Auftrag des WWF einen ausführlichen Bericht zur Lage des Regenwaldes am Amazonas verfasst. Dieser kann auf der Webseite des WWF heruntergeladen werden. ”
Engl.(Google):”Daniel Nepstad has written on behalf of WWF, a detailed report on the situation in the Amazon rain forest. This can be downloaded from the website of the WWF.”
Source:
http://www.natuerlich-leben.ch/nc/magazin/einzelansicht/artikel/01/08/2008/regenwald-teufelskreis-abholzung/
So there seem to be some connections between Nepstad and the WWF.
“kim says:
June 27, 2010 at 2:21 pm
sod, you need to learn to read. Nepstad is talking about soil moisture and susceptibility to fire damage, not about susceptibility to climate change. Are you often this whack?
”
Read the report i linked to. Nepstad is not alarmist; he’s apocalyptic. I guess you have to be when your customer is the WWF.
Found the english version:
http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.panda.org%2Fdownloads%2Famazonas_eng_04_12b_web.pdf&rct=j&q=nepstad+wwf+report&ei=H8InTM6RKJCsOJuwzKUC&usg=AFQjCNHIy4LYiZSRkAkPmRz0pZsNcwjygg
Anthony:
> In the news this week, lots of agitation over some questionable science from an NGO wrongly cited by the IPCC, and a newspaper that caved to pressure.
Who conducted the “questionable” science? Your wording seems to imply the NGO, but this is not the case.
Why is the science “questionable”? The Sunday Times retraction accepts that it wasn’t.
How do you know they “caved to pressure”? Do you have some inside knowledge? Why this spin? Why the desire to dismiss the possibility that a correction may in fact be more true and representative than the original story?
Why the focus on Booker and North, when it was Jonathan Leake’s coverage specifically at issue?
Why the switch to the completely separate glacier issue?
Is this:
> WWF, (World Wildlife Fund) which all you need to know.
Not a textbook Ad Hominem?
John Q – WWF potentially have a stake in a $60 billion pot from the REDD scheme, which involved monetizing the rainforests, using them to generate carbon credits. Nepstad is up to his armpits in it and Woods Hole Research Center and WWF are financial partners.
The Amazon and climate change has become one huge money-making scam, with Nepstad at the center of events. Yet the only support the WWF can get for the 40 percent figure is to have Nepstad “confirm” that it is correct. That is an interesting development in science – a figure is correct because an advocate with a financial stake in the outcome says it is!
kim
Answer: always. Go and have a look at Lucia’s Blackboard, where sod is an ill-mannered exception to the civilised, though animated discussions that go on between people of very different viewpoints.
Northern Exposure : I’m a pessimist.
I don’t think “the panic driven ugliness will get worse before it gets better”, I think it will get worse before it gets even more worse.
I generally agree – but the recent row-backs in Australia and Spain seem heartening. Of course, Monbiot’s ugliness can only get worse as anno domini proceeds!
parading the ugly face of warmism in all its triumphant ghastliness
What happens when the baby seal of truth is clubbed in plain sight.
Northern Exposure says:
June 27, 2010 at 2:15 pm
>I don’t think “the panic driven ugliness will get worse before it gets better”, I think it will get worse before it gets even more worse.
It will get much worse, they are only getting warmed up. The only thing that will show a glimmer of hope is crashing world temperature.
lol, I feel like a group hug is order. Very nice, A.
Ammonite, thanks, that’s very helpful. On this site alone, it has been linked and quoted on almost every thread posted, at least the ones I’ve read. The story isn’t about the WWF study being correct, it is about mis-quoting a person.
Anyone giving any credence to that sophomoric assertion about 40% whatever if something improbable happens has lost their ability to think for themselves. Who said the Amazon jungle was going to quit having rainfall? How did they come to that conclusion. Until someone explains that, all of this is just idiocy. We can say if the sun stops shining, then…… or if suddenly the moon loses its gravitational pull then….. if frogs has a glass a##, then they wouldn’t jump so high, but they don’t.
norther exposure is correct..they will not listen..to many back-scratching deals already made..i know i live in mass. were i contact the left the response always is thank you for your concern….BUT THIS IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO….even if the dems loose big time in nov. they WILL push through all they planned???
Sod
Please re-read the Nepstad letter.
He does *not* offer a citation for the 40% claim.
“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”
Look down in his references and what do you see ? Nothing.
There is apparently a secret IPAM document called “Fogo na Amazônia” or Fire in the Amazon. It is so secret, no one seems to be able to find it.
Ammonite says:
June 27, 2010 at 1:58 pm
The text of the Sunday Times apology:
………”We accept that Dr Lewis holds no such view – rather, he was concerned that the use of non-peer-reviewed sources risks creating the perception of bias and unnecessary controversy, which is unhelpful in advancing the public’s understanding of the science of climate change.”………………
===============
IMO, it would be “helpful” if the science of climate change was better understood, before it was “advanced” upon the public.
Kim:
Unfortunately, yes.
This Nepstad article is a load of crap.
I couldn’t read more than 4 or 5 pages.
Who takes that serious?