PDA

View Full Version : The Continuing Climate Meltdown



FlaGator
02-16-2010, 12:09 PM
The plot unravels even further... I suppose wilbur well now have issues with the Wall Street Journal and call it a scandal rag. :p



It has been a bad—make that dreadful—few weeks for what used to be called the "settled science" of global warming, and especially for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that is supposed to be its gold standard.

First it turns out that the Himalayan glaciers are not going to melt anytime soon, notwithstanding dire U.N. predictions. Next came news that an IPCC claim that global warming could destroy 40% of the Amazon was based on a report by an environmental pressure group. Other IPCC sources of scholarly note have included a mountaineering magazine and a student paper.

Since the climategate email story broke in November, the standard defense is that while the scandal may have revealed some all-too-human behavior by a handful of leading climatologists, it made no difference to the underlying science. We think the science is still disputable. But there's no doubt that climategate has spurred at least some reporters to scrutinize the IPCC's headline-grabbing claims in a way they had rarely done previously.

Take the rain forest claim. In its 2007 report, the IPCC wrote that "up to 40% of the Amazonian 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."

But as Jonathan Leake of London's Sunday Times reported last month, those claims were based on a report from the World Wildlife Fund, which in turn had fundamentally misrepresented a study in the journal Nature. The Nature study, Mr. Leake writes, "did not assess rainfall but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activity such as logging and burning."

The IPCC has relied on World Wildlife Fund studies regarding the "transformation of natural coastal areas," the "destruction of more mangroves," "glacial lake outbursts causing mudflows and avalanches," changes in the ecosystem of the "Mesoamerican reef," and so on. The Wildlife Fund is a green lobby that believes in global warming, and its "research" reflects its advocacy, not the scientific method.

The IPCC has also cited a study by British climatologist Nigel Arnell claiming that global warming could deplete water resources for as many as 4.5 billion people by the year 2085. But as our Anne Jolis reported in our European edition, the IPCC neglected to include Mr. Arnell's corollary finding, which is that global warming could also increase water resources for as many as six billion people.


Story is here (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703630404575053781465774008.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion)

wilbur
02-16-2010, 12:49 PM
The plot unravels even further... Or not - but I'm sure you don't really care - I'm not even sure you read these articles past the headline.

Let's look at this choice bit from your article....




....

Take the rain forest claim. In its 2007 report, the IPCC wrote that "up to 40% of the Amazonian 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."

But as Jonathan Leake of London's Sunday Times reported last month, those claims were based on a report from the World Wildlife Fund, which in turn had fundamentally misrepresented a study in the journal Nature. The Nature study, Mr. Leake writes, "did not assess rainfall but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activity such as logging and burning."

The IPCC has relied on World Wildlife Fund studies regarding the "transformation of natural coastal areas," the "destruction of more mangroves," "glacial lake outbursts causing mudflows and avalanches," changes in the ecosystem of the "Mesoamerican reef," and so on. The Wildlife Fund is a green lobby that believes in global warming, and its "research" reflects its advocacy, not the scientific method.

...


See the Times, which has basically retracted the misreporting of Johnathan Leake over this particular claim:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article7017878.ece



...

The piece asserted that the IPCC finding that up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest is vulnerable to even small reductions in rainfall was “based on an unsubstantiated claim” in WWF’s Global Review of Forest Fires report. This is not correct.

WWF cannot speak for other institutions that have used our report, but we, and indeed leading scientists in the field, firmly stand by its conclusion that “up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall”. The primary source for this statement is Fire in the Amazon, a 1999 overview by the respected Amazon Environmental Research Institute that states: “Probably 30-40% of the forests of the Brazilian Amazon are sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall.”

This is fully supported by peer-reviewed literature. Contrary to the headline’s suggestion, it is not a “bogus” claim.


Oops....

This thread here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=25281) deals more with this issue.

Swampfox
02-16-2010, 01:00 PM
Wilbur, you didn't post a "retraction" by the Times. You posted a letter to the editor from David Nussbaum
Chief Executive, WWF-UK. That WWF stands by its claim is hardly shocking. If you want to believe the letter fine, but don't misrepresent what it is.

Gingersnap
02-16-2010, 01:15 PM
Anyone seriously following this issue should probably have a better understanding of exactly what IPAM is before getting too excited about whether the WWF quoted them correctly or not. :cool:

hampshirebrit
02-16-2010, 02:47 PM
Wilbur, I noticed your rather patronising comment about reading beyond the headline.

This is from the end of the WSJ article, the very last sentence, in fact.


The lesson of climategate and now the IPCC's shoddy sourcing is that the claims of the global warming lobby need far more rigorous scrutiny.

I'm wondering if you agree that the claims should be subject to more rigorous scrutiny or not.