Skip to comments.More bogus AGW information in IPCC report? ( Now about the Data regarding the Amazon ...)
Posted on 01/26/2010 9:16:18 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
The UNs team on climate change, the IPCC, has had a rather bad few months. First came the uncovered e-mails from the University of East Anglias Climate Research Unit, a key research organization for the IPCC, that showed deception and professional character assassination by so-called scientists attempting to block data and analyses that contradicted the CRU conclusions on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Next, a scandal hit closer to home when the IPCCs reliance on a theory of dissipating Himalyan glaciers turned out to be unscientific speculation that the IPCC badly misquoted anyway. Now the Telegraphs James Delingpole reports that another key claim by the IPCC also comes from non-peer-reviewed work by scientists operating out of their field of work:
Heres the latest development, courtesy of Dr Richard North and its a cracker. It seems that, not content with having lied to us about shrinking glaciers, increasing hurricanes, and rising sea levels, the IPCCs 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:
Up to 40%of theAmazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation (Rowell and Moore, 2000). It is more probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems that have more resistance to multiple stresses caused by temperature increase, droughts and fires, such as tropical savannas.
At first sight, the reference looks kosher enough but, following it through, one sees:
Rowell, A. and P.F. Moore, 2000: Global Review of Forest Fires. WWF/IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland, 66 pp. http://www.iucn.org/themes/fcp/publications
This, then appears to be another WWF report, carried out in conjunction with the IUCN The International Union for Conservation of Nature.
The WWF is not a university or research center. It is the World Wildlife Fund, an environmentalist advocacy group, one best known here for having an agency that produced and distributed (without the WWFs permission) an ad that used 9/11 as a way to accuse people of committing terrorism against the planet. Dr. Rowell works on policy analysis, not research. PF Moore isnt a scientist at all; hes a green activist and a reporter for the Guardian newspaper. And not only is this work not peer-reviewed and not conducted by environmental scientists in a normal research model, Dr. North cant even find the claim that 40% of the rainforest is at risk over slightly reduced precipitation in any of WWFs own research.
How did the IPCC come to include this claim in its report to the UN? Supposedly, all of the underlying data is supposed to be peer-reviewed, legitimate research by professional scientists and not advocates. Yet within nine days we have seen two of its major claims turn out to be anecdotal speculation based on nothing at all. It goes right along with those Himalayan glaciers that were supposedly going to disappear within 25 years at best, speculation that the IPCC falsely presented as scientific research, and likely a large load of carbon-rich effluvium.
Speaking of the glaciers, I Hate The Media has twelve glaciers that havent gotten the IPCCs marching orders yet. Most interesting: the new glacier forming in the concave top of Mount St. Helens in Washington.
The dimoKKKRATS with Al Gore in the lead have been pushing this global warming junk science from the getgo. We should be able to hang this farce around their necks.
3 billion in rainy day fund, conservative governor, no state taxes.. pretty much let you alone..
Interesting reading. “Saving the environment” is a cash cow for crooks — nothing more.
THe World Wildlife Federation once was a reputable group. Now they have sold their soul to the devil (aka Al Gore) and his theology, “global warming.”
No contributions from me anymore.
My wife even worked for them (National Wildlife Federation, US branch) back in the 70’s. Oh the horror of it.
This is why I love FR - all the info gathered from all over the web at my fingertips.
About to post the one on Mount Shasta here in California....it seems to be growing.
Its all a lie from one to the other
” This, then appears to be another WWF report, “
When will the UN realize that Pro Wrestling is FIXED?
Specific the report on the Himalayan Glaciers was bogus.
Gotta love British slang.
This is not just an emergency, it is a planetary disaster. As the guilty are identified and the blame is apportioned, we must ensure that national and international responses go further than identifying a few scapegoats. This must never be allowed to happen again.
There is growing feeling within WWF and IUCN that action is needed to try and catalyse a strategic international response to forest fires. There are no magic bullets for forest fires. The issues to be addressed are complex and cut across sectors, interests, donors, professions, regions, nations and communities. The organisations feel that action only takes place when fires are burning and that little attempt has been made to address the underlying causes.
This report is therefore issued as a follow-up to the 1997 report. It is part of an on-going programme of work by the two organisations to address forest fires. In early 1998 IUCN - the World Conservation Union and WWF - The World Wide Fund For Nature, joined forces in developing a Programme for Strengthening National, Regional and International Networks for Forest Fire Prevention and Management, world-wide.
This FireFight Programme seeks to secure essential policy reform at national and international level to provide a legislative and economic base for controlling harmful anthropogenic forest fires. The programme is intended as a contribution to efforts by national governments, and international organisations such as UNDP, FAO, UNEP and ASEAN, to establish more effective fire management and strategic, preventative responses.
It will mobilise the in-country and international staff of IUCN and WWF and contribute their scientific, environmental, legal and communications skills to develop an integrated policy response. It will cover five major regions of the world, Asia, Central and South America, Russia, the Mediterranean and the Sub-Saharan Africa.
Programme FireFight is being implemented in collaboration with regionally based WWF and IUCN staff and in close consultation with key UN agencies such as UNDP, FAO and UNEP. It covers a wide range of activities from analysis of the costs of fires and improved understanding of underlying causes, through to policy dialogue and follow up action.
See the PDF for more.
it looks like rising temperatures caused by climate change could cause the El Niño to become more frequent and intense. These El Niño events could in turn cause further climate change. The daunting fact is that the world faces a positive feedback cycle in which climate change exacerbated by forest fires and deforestation, increases the frequency of El Niño, which in turn causes more forest burning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.