Posted on 06/27/2010 9:40:30 PM PDT by Labour-Watch
The story of the IPCC's claims about threats to the Amazon rainforest takes another bizarre turn.
Last week the beleaguered global warming lobby was exulting over what it took to be the best news it has had in a long time. A serious allegation, which last January rocked the authority of the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was corrected as untrue by The Sunday Times, the newspaper which most prominently reported it. The reputation of the IPCC, it seemed, had been triumphantly vindicated. The growing tide of scepticism over climate change had at last been reversed. But this episode leaves many questions unanswered.
The correction, gleefully quoted by everyone from the WWF and The New York Times to The Guardians George Monbiot related to what was known as Amazongate. This was one of the series of controversies which exploded round the IPCC last winter, when it was shown that many of the high-profile claims made in its 2007 report had been based on material produced by environmental activists and campaigning groups rather than on proper, peer-reviewed scientific evidence.
One example, also reported in The Sunday Telegraph, was the IPCCs much-publicised claim that climate change, leading to a reduction in rainfall, was threatening the survival of up to 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest. The only source the IPCC could cite for this in its report was a document from the environmental advocacy group WWF. But last week The Sunday Times, in its prominent correction to its own story, conceded that the IPCCs claim was supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence after all. Not identified, however, was the nature of this peer-reviewed evidence. Where is it?
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
For more information check out http://www.amazon.com
[/sarc]
bttt
>> Where is it?
The “sex poodle” ate it.
This is going to wreck Sting.
Who needs proof when emotions are at stake?
Interesting times: the “Enquirer” at the grocery checkout may be telling the truth and The Times (any of them) may be wrong.
That is happening fairly regularly now.
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.