An alibi in flames - by Richard... Friday, July 02, 2010

An alibi in flames - by Richard... Friday, July 02, 2010

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.

It is 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 the WWF report, the claimed reference doesn't support it either.

And they thought that bullying The Sunday Times into submission was the end of the matter. It is only starting.

Moonbat thread

Print ready

The deliberate deceit - by Richard... Thursday, July 01, 2010

My colleague yesterday, over on her blog points out how the brave venture of abolishing the CFP and repatriating fishing policy has morphed into the same old tired Tory mantra of "reform".

Then, today, we have this cynical attempt by Nicholas Clegg Esq to exploit the gullibility of the great British Public, giving them the "right" to nominate laws they want scrapped.

These weasel words remind me the old joke about the lady at the complaints desk, being told that the product she had bought had been laboratory tested. "It failed dismally," said the man. "But it was laboratory tested".

And so it is with Cleggie's laws – you can nominate them for scrapping, but you can't requirethem to be scrapped. And, of course, if they are EU laws, you can "nominate" for all you are worth. But they will remain unchanged.

What is so dismal about all this is the way the media roll over and pretend that this egregious cynicism actually means something. Thus, we have The Sun prattling that, "LUDICROUS Labour laws are facing the chop at last - and Sun readers can help to choose which ones should go."

Then you actually have the slimeball in person telling us that "the state has crept further and further into people's homes and their private lives under the cover of pretending to act in our best interest." And, "That needs to change," he says.

"Over the last decade, thousands of new rules and regulations have amassed on the statute book. And it is our liberty that has paid the price," Clegg then tells us, but it is all down to "Labour". There is not a single mention of the EU. 

Along with that comes Hague's speech, where he tells that that we must increase our influence in "Europe". This is part of his drive to increase UK representation in Brussels – a "new approach to foreign policy" designed to extend British global reach and influence.

There are still people around who are stupid enough to believe that Hague is a eurosceptic – as indeed some will aver that Call me Dave is also of that persuasion. Much – but by no means all – of that stupidly resides within the media. And there are as many people who actually believe Clegg is doing something worthwhile.

Stupidity aside, the actions of this loathesome pair cannot be accidental. It is part of the deliberate deceit perpetrated on us by our rulers, and the reason why we have nothing but contempt for them.

There can be no meeting of minds here - they are taking the piss, and they know it. What we think - those who are not so dumbed-down by the education system that they are still capable of thinking - they don't really give a shit. They have the power and intend to use it, until we rise upand slaughter them and give them a group hug.*

*I was advised not to write about "slaughter" as it lowered the tone and authority of the blog.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Airbus: the flying subsidy machines - by Richard...

The incredibly long-running WTO dispute over Airbus subsidies, which we've covered from time to time, has at last come to a head with the WTO ruling that about $20 billion in loans for the A-380 "super-jumbo" and others has comprised illegal export subsidies.

In a grudge match, where neither side is taking prisoners, US Trade Representative Ron Kirk is showing no signs of caring for the finer feelings of the Europeans and has claimed an outright "victory". The so-called launch aid, he said, had "greatly harmed" the US and Boeing, he declared, while his colleague Tim Reif is demanding that EU member states end preferential loans to the aircraft manufacturer.

The timing of this could not be worse, Airbus is hoping that its A-330 will be chosen for the $40 billion air tanker fleet replacement for the USAF. Pressure is now building in Congress to pass legislation to require the Pentagon to take into account illegal subsidies in the tanker competition.

We should be pleased about this, only there are British jobs at stake, and the Americans have tasted blood. Airbus officials, however, says the EU will appeal the ruling, noting that: "There's not a single WTO case that hasn't been changed on appeal." They have 60 days to lodge the appeal.

Oh for those heady, hubristic days of January 2005 when Tony Blair praised the "dedication" of all those involved in the project and said the A-380 was "... the most exciting new aircraft in the world, a symbol of economic strength and technical innovation." 

And now it is Call me Dave's turn. Is he going to junk the flying subsidy machine, or will European unity prove to have the stronger pull?

COMMENT THREAD