Willis Eschenbach recently posted about “Baked Alaska“, as well as Out in the Ama-zone now from Dr. Richard North we have “Amazon Alibi in Flames” and the research of the document trail used to push the Sunday Times into a retraction about the so called “Amazongate” issue is interesting and telling. I posted a few thoughts on it here previously. Since this new revelation about the issue needs a wider audience, I’ve reposted Dr. North’s essay below. However, I suggest that readers put his website in your bookmarks as there will likely be more to come. Upon further research by North, it seems that evidence of the citation is missing, and even George Monbiot now has admitted that the IPCC made a mistake. He’s changed his tune from just a short time ago. – Anthony
==================================
By Dr. Richard North –
Returning to The Sunday Times retraction of its “Amazongate” article, readers will recall that the paper declared that the IPCC’s Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence.
In the case of the WWF report, it said, 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.
This statement mirrored an earlier statement directly by the WWF, where the organisation claimed that the source for its statement was “Fire in the Amazon, a 1999 overview of Amazon fire issues from the respected Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM – Amazon Environmental Research Institute).”
The source quotation from “Fire in the Amazon,” we are told, reads “Probably 30 to 40% of the forests of the Brazilian Amazon are sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall.”
Well, we have now ascertained that there are three versions of this document. It starts off life as: “Flames in the rain forest: Origins, impacts, and alternatives to Amazonian fires”, published in English at 161 pages.
We then get the Portuguese version at 172 pages, entitled: “A Floresta em Chamas: Origens, Impactos e Prevencao de Fogo na Amazonia.”
In both cases, they are published by the “Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian Rain Forest” in 1999, with the support of the World Bank and the Ministry of Environment Secretariat for the Coordination of Amazon.
Then it reappears as an IPAM publication, in a revised version 204 pages long, in Portuguese only, with the same title as the shorter version.
English and Portuguese versions are in electronic searchable form and, as far as we can ascertain, the claim: “Probably 30 to 40% of the forests of the Brazilian Amazon are sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall,” is not present in any version. Nor can we find any variation or close approximation, nor any form with a similar meaning.
In The Sunday Times, it is averred that this document does “relate to the impact of climate change.” And so it does … sort of. It describes how “fires may be affecting climate patterns” (above) and indeed, precipitation. But there is absolutely nothing about climate change affecting rainfall, or the forest being destroyed by small (or any) reductions in rainfall.
In its anxiety to cover its back, and prove “Amazongate” false, the WWF may have been party to the promulgation of a provable lie. Or maybe, this is just another of Nepstad’s little “misinterpretations”. Either way, though, the IPCC is in a little difficulty. Not only is its claim unsupported by its original report, newly offered reference doesn’t support it either.
And they thought that The Sunday Times retraction was the end of the matter. It is only starting.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
TomRude says:
July 3, 2010 at 1:30 pm
WWF= Wolrd Wide Fake
__________________________________
Gee, and I thought it stood for World Wide Fraud Inc.
Were you aware the 20% of the WWF funding comes from our pockets? (Tax dollars) see: http://www.undueinfluence.com/wwf.htm
Is it a coincidence that Times Newspapers and Sky TV are both owned by Murdoch?
Sky is currently running a scam scheme with WWF whereby viewers can adopt a jaguar and help ‘Save the Amazon Rainforest’. Does this Sky/WWF scheme have anything to do with REDD and might this explain how quickly The Times retracted?
Time was when a newspaper like the Guardian and a reporter like Monbiot would be all over this story like a rash instead of defending the money men.
Latimer Alder says:
July 4, 2010 at 12:30 am
…The Guardian debate in London on Climategate next week should be very interesting. George Monbiot is chairing, Doug Keenan is speaking and Steve McIntyre has said that he will be in London that day..whether as a member of the audience or on the panel has yet to be decided. I suspect that George may come in for some awkward questions about this topic too….
@ur momisuglyMods@ur momisugly Please delete this link if you feel that it is not WUWT’s job to advertise another journal’s event, but it might be useful for European based readers to know about it and possibly to attend
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/30/guardian-debate-climate-science-emails
_______________________________________________________________________
Oh I do hope Dr North, and Lord Monckton among others are there with a list of probing questions. Time for George to be on the hot seat for a change.
The KEY point is Richard North’s. WWF and every other environmental (ist) org is tied up in buying the Amazonian forest for CO² Trading. Let’s hope that Lula cottons on and nationalises the whole lot without compensation. Now that would be hilarious.
And one should not forget the Murdock familly in all this. They are currently fund raising for this lot through their SKY TV channels
Richard North,
“REDD is becoming synonymous with corruption, yet the most powerful players in the game are the World Bank, with partners WWF and Woods Hole Research Center (Nepstad’s employer). ”
WWF seem to be in partnership with BSkyB as well, judging by the tv ads. Apparently, the viewer can donate a sum of money to WWF which will be matched by BSkyB. If I can understand what’s going on, it seems that people making donations will be providing the financing for WWF to lease forest from the Brazilian government, and get nothing as the WWF and presumably BSkyB sit back and rake in the carbon credits issued by the UN. I say the donors will get nothing – they will of course get the satisfaction of knowing the have enriched the WWF and BSkyB.
If society is going to go down this route of monetizing the rainforest, then it should at least be done in an open and transparent way. A much more honest approach would be for private investment companies to invite investors to finance leasing of the rainforest in return for an income based on the profits from carbon certificates. Although this is also a completely unnecessary solution to a non-problem, I would find it less disgustingly dishonest than what WWF are doing.
Here’s something i missed. The BBC reported a while ago that some of the money raised by Bob Geldof’s hunger relief activities for Ethopia was channeled through a local rebel organization who allegedly used most of it for arms. Geldof disputes it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/03/ethiopia.html
Might serve as good example for what we will get with REDD.
Here’s a report of an Interpol guy warning that the 60 billion REDD fund will attract organized crime. (well, duh, i thought it was organized by them in the first place – oh, he doesn’t mean the UN but some other organized criminals 😉 )
http://planetark.org/wen/53152
And here’s another good example of how you can make sure you get a part of the action; corruption in the WFP (The World Food Programme (WFP) is the food aid branch of the United Nations):
http://www.ethiopianreview.com/content/27237
Take all this together and REDD might become the one most destabilizing issue of the coming decades.
Richard North said:
REDD is becoming synonymous with corruption, yet the most powerful players in the game are the World Bank, with partners WWF and Woods Hole Research Center (Nepstad’s employer).
REDD is all about carbon trading and a foundation sponsor for the Woods Hole Research Center, a supposed independent science organization , is Goldman & Sachs.
For those interested, direct link to the podcast of the BBC’s report about the Ethiopian aid diversion. Hope the link works. Contains interesting interviews with people who were there.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p006dyn3
, one study cordoned off an area of pristine forest with a representative population of trees and shielded the canopy to prevent rain reaching the trees in question. In the early years the trees seemed little affected. At around year 5 a disproportionate amount of tree mortality and ill-health presented. The researchers concluded it was because the soil moisture content the trees tapped into took that long to deplete
Just curious, but what else besides rainfall was prevented from reaching the trees in question by such a canopy? Sunlight too, perhaps? Air circulation lessened which would reduce the amount of carbon dioxide available for the trees, perhaps? Were measurements of the moisture content in the soil the trees tapped into taken as time elapsed?
You know I think I’m past the acceptance stage with regards to the apparent idiocy and superficial posturing of people like George Monbiot. I’m just disappointed. His drive and passion is admirable (sometimes he writes a good post) but his lack of asking the simple questions like ‘Has someone measured that?’ and ‘What does it actually mean to have something peer-review published? Does it mean that what’s published is correct?’ are either something I have completed missed or he doesn’t appear to fully grasp it. That’s okay. Most scientists don’t grasp that you have to measure stuff rather than XBox it (model it to known rules). So the 40% idea here? How would you even start to measure that? And even if it were true that your analysis showed it, why would you be shouting it from the rooftops when any person with sense can see that it’ll take a lot more work and careful investigation to test it.
I despair sometimes this Idiocracy we have. How did all that enlightment and advancement in science come to this?
I know its all emotionally driven anyway.
Here’s one very inconvenniet truth, a damning report about deforestation:
http://www.globalforestcoalition.org/img/userpics/File/briefing%20paper%20bioenergy_final_1.pdf
I posted yesterday a story about it. Journalist Stephen Leahy was none too pleased about it either.
Apparently Monbiott (I’ll reserve the right to withold name calling until a later date)
and IPCC (I remember when I was new to this ACGW stuff and I accidentally called them ICPP in my English class… The class laughed at me in good nature but ICPP is probably a better designation because whenever I look at the side of the global warming I see a lot of … Oh high Anthony 🙂
Moving on… Apparently Monbiott, IPCC, et al. has totally overlooked numerous studies published by the National Geographic and Science, that have said at least 5 times since 2009, that there is a surprising amount of excelerated grow back in the regions where the farms have stopped clear cutting and left. There are huge amounts of CO2 hovering in the area and trees are sucking up the CO2 and are growing in exponential numbers.
I find it amazing how even when articles are written in publications that are predominately on the side of the ACGW, they still put their blinders on and stumble forth with pure nonsense and tripe.
i wish wordpress would let you edit your previous comments… I meant to say Oh hi Anthony not oh high anthony.
Joel Heinrich says:
July 3, 2010 at 11:43 am
In 2008, in the ALCUE Latin american and European nations´meeting, someone introduced in the final text that all signees agree in declaring the Amazon Jungle as a reserve owned by humanity. Fortunately, the brazilian diplomats noticed it and President Lula was to abandon the summit if that text was not changed.
That would be the same as declaring half of the US as a reserve for humanity and governed by the UN bureaucrats.
Just to add a bit to Larryoldtimers comment on the experiment to withold rain from trees with dieback occurring after 5 years, this strikes me as a pretty extreme experiment, witholding all rainfall. It surprises me that the trees lasted that long.
It also has no relevance to the current IPCC claims which talks about sensitivity to small changes in rainfall, not complete deprivation.
“That would be the same as declaring half of the US as a reserve for humanity and governed by the UN bureaucrats.”
It’s actually worse, because the governance is delegated to NGOs such as the WWF. This is a particularly unpleasant and malign form of neo-colonialism, reminiscent of the days of the Hudson Bay Company and the East India Company. Commercial entities are being given a licence to administer and subdue the natives in order to create and protect the market for carbon credits. WWF is said to be hiring ex-special forces personnel for its South American ventures.
I’ve got no problem with skeptics. I appreciate people who withhold judgment until after the first wave of emotion.
On the other hand, a line is crossed when you move from skeptic to denier. Science is frequently inaccurate, often to the point of being 180 degrees from the correct direction. That is no reason to dismiss all science out of hand.
I think that its very likely that the motivations behind many of the “skeptics” here are much less than altruistic or scientific. I know very little about climatology compared to a climatologist. I’m a microbiologist, but I don’t know enough about cancer to review articles for a cancer journal. I find it tragic that so many of you, who are not climatologists (no, geology isn’t really close enough) feel that you even understand the parameters of the discussion enough to value your impressions of the hypotheses and evidence.
Furthermore, the requisite ulterior motive of a fraud is thin at best, and ridiculous when compared to the obvious ulterior motives present in the defense of the status quo by the well-heeled profiteers of the fossil fuel industries.
I’ve read a lot about “climate-gate” and this recent Amazon effect analysis. I have yet to read anything that supports the point of view of AGW deniers. Face it, you are not arguing from the position of a dispassionate, objective analysis. Y’all have an agenda, and you are not doing your agenda a service, because fewer and fewer people are buying what you are selling.
REPLY: I understand where you are coming from. You might want to look up how many colleges offer a degree in climatology. I think you’ll be surprised. Also surprising, James Hansen didn’t start out as a climatologist, neither did Mann. – A
Billy said;
‘Y’all have an agenda, and you are not doing your agenda a service, because fewer and fewer people are buying what you are selling.’
I’m intrigued as to what you believe my agenda to be and what I am supposed to be selling. Many of us here believed in AGW until we looked at the very thin evidence.
tonyb
If you hold on to one of your easily disproved mistakes, and keep holding on to in forever, and you occupy a position of power and influence – you become a fraud, even though the original mistake may not have been so much a fraud.
Hello Billy
Forget all the fossil fuel, skeptic, denier etc etc..all those things. Climate and what’s going on in the blogs will take some time to figure out (if you can spare it). You have a science background – you should be able to read all the blogs (apart of the literature – which is the foundation). You will quickly notice that everyone is mixing opinion from fact, but not matter. Read all blogs, I am sure you’ll come to a good conclusion.
stephen richards says:
July 4, 2010 at 4:48 am
The KEY point is Richard North’s. WWF and every other environmental (ist) org is tied up in buying the Amazonian forest for CO² Trading.
Which kind of makes
Our Self-Annointed Saviors’their claimed “scientific” worries about CAGW just a wee bit dubious, eh – what with the danger of an imminent Amazon CO2 “sink” conversion to Savanna, and all?And, thank you profusely, Richard North!
Billy says:
July 4, 2010 at 11:51 pm
On the other hand, a line is crossed when you move from skeptic to denier.
Or maybe also if you simply become a CAGW “believer” right out of the box and never allow anything to alter your faith? Perhaps, say, by presuming – as you do, without having anything at all to back it up – that, ” its very likely that the motivations behind many of the ‘skeptics’ here are much less than altruistic or scientific,” then adding in the old ~”being paid off by Big Oil, or falling for Big Oil propaganda” propaganda?
Neither of which are arguments which have anything at all to to with the actual Scientific Method-determined credibility of the CAGW claims to begin with! Right?
But since you still claim you can be objective, go for it! I sincerely hope that you can be objective, despite the fact that you’ve obviously gotten off to a very bad start, which I also hope you now realize.