Amazongate: the smoking gun - by Richard... Saturday, July 03, 2010

Amazongate: the smoking gun - by Richard... Saturday, July 03, 2010

More than five months after the IPCC was accused of making assertions on the fate of the Amazon forest on the basis of a non-peer reviewed WWF report, it now appears that the original source of the IPPC's claim is a Brazilian educational website which was taken down in 2003 (pictured - click to enlarge).

Furthermore, it appears that this is the only source of the IPCC's claim that made up the basis of "Amazongate" – that the IPCC was, once again, using unsubstantiated material which exaggerated the threat. This website, therefore, is the "smoking gun", the latest evidence to suggest that the IPCC is breaking its own rules.

Interestingly, when the "Amazongate" story was broken on this blog on 25/26 January, we had no way of knowing that the trail would eventually lead to a defunct Brazilian website. It was the official denials of our story that gave the clue, and they did not really get underway until 31 January when The Sunday Times published its report headed: "UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim,"

Then the paper had charged that the IPCC warning that global warming "might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest" was based on an unsubstantiated claim, made in a WWF report. 

This evoked from the WWF a press statement standing by "the credibility of its report", a Global Review of Forest Fires (2000).

Starting with the IPCC claim that: "Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation," this had been was referenced to the WWF report which asserted: "Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall." 

Now, the WWF was claiming that the source for this 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 read: "Probably 30 to 40% of the forests of the Brazilian Amazon are sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall."

The claim was repeated on 7 February in a Sunday Times letter from David Nussbaum, the chief executive of WWF-UK, who then used a curious form of words. "This," he asserted – referring to the Fire in the Amazon statement - "is fully supported by peer-reviewed literature." Contrary to the Sunday Times's "suggestion," it was not a "bogus" claim.

Nussbaum did acknowledge, however, that a reference to Fire in the Amazon as the source of the 40% claim was omitted during the editing of the Global Review of Forest Fires.

The lead author of the report, Andrew Rowell, also pitched in, again using a curious form of words for his contribution. The paper, he claimed, had "ignored credible evidence" that the 40% figure was correct and "also ignored evidence that the figure had been backed up by peer-reviewed research both before and after our publication."

Even then, careful textual deconstruction indicated that no one was actually asserting that the source of the 40%, Fire in the Amazon, was actually peer reviewed – merely that it was "supported" or "backed up" by peer-reviewed work, the exact nature of which was always somewhat vague.

We were thus able to charge that Fire in the Amazon was not itself peer reviewed, thus arguing that the IPCC was relying on a WWF report which was not peer reviewed, which in turn was relying on another document which was also not peer reviewed.

The emphasis, however, was on a document and there was nothing to indicate otherwise, even though – also in early February – Daniel Nepstad claimed that the IPCC statement on the Amazon was "correct", but the citations listed in Global Review of Forest Fires were incomplete. He added that the authors of this report "had originally cited the IPAM website where the statement was made that 30 to 40% of the forests of the Amazon were susceptible to small changes in rainfall." 

Therefore, the assumption was that the WWF's claimed source was the only significant IPAM publication of 1999, a document entitled: "Burning Forest: Origins, Impact and Prevention of Fire in the Amazon". This, though, presented problems in that the claim apparently attributed to it by the WWF did not appear in any of the three versions.


Now, however, the website to which Nepstad referred has been recovered. This is the real "Fire in the Amazon" (pictured top left). It seems to have been posted on the IPAM website in February 1999 and left unchanged until early in 2003s, when it was removed. See publication log via the link (illustrated above - click to enlarge). 

Here, at lasr, we find the exact sentence "Probably 30 to 40% of the forests of the brazilian (sic) Amazon are sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall." This is the source of the WWF claim and, ultimately, the source of the IPCC claim. 

As it stands, this is the only known source of this sentence. There is no author identified, the provenance of the web page is not identified and not in any possible way could this be considered "peer reviewed". It has no academic or scientific merit – yet it is this on which the WWF and IPCC apparently rely.

What is also particularly important is that the IPCC uses the sentence, which it modifies slightly, to argue: "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."

By contrast, this very specific claim about reduced rainfall is not used on the IPAM site to argue that the forest will undergo a rapid change from one state to another, per se. The context is in the title: "Why are the forests in the Amazon burning?" It explains why forest flammability has increased. Thus, not only is the primary IPCC claim unsupported, its interpretation is also unsupported.

Yet, despite this, The Sunday Times has been prevailed upon to retract its report, removing an article which was essentially correct in alleging that the IPCC claim is "unsubstantiated". In its place, it has substituted what amounts to a lie, asserting that "the IPCC's Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence."

It would appear now that the WWF must explain why it is relying on data culled from the IPAM website to support its report. It must also explain why it using material which has no academic or scientific value, while giving the impression that it is fully supported. Similarly, the IPCC must tell us why it has relied on such material and how it can justify claims made without credible supporting material.

Moonbat thread

Print ready

A comment - by Richard... Friday, July 02, 2010

... on the Monbiot blog:

Monbiot in his previous article:

The ironies of this episode are manifold, but the most obvious is this: that North's story – and the Sunday Times's rewritten account – purported to expose inaccuracy, misrepresentation and falsehood on the part of the IPCC. Now that the IPCC has been vindicated, its accusers, North first among them, are exposed for peddling inaccuracy, misrepresentation and falsehood. Ashes to ashes, toast to toast.

Monbiot today:

There is no doubt that the IPCC made a mistake. Sourcing its information on the Amazon to a report by the green group WWF rather than the substantial peer-reviewed literature on the subject, was a bizarre and silly thing to do.
...
It is also true that nowhere in the peer-reviewed literature is there a specific statement that "up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation". This figure was taken from the WWF report and it shouldn't have been".

One can be gracious in defeat, and humble in victory. On the contrary, one can be George Monbiot.

And where, incidentally, does that put The Sunday Times retraction?

Moonbat thread

Print ready

Mann-ic - by Richard...

With the climate change situation becoming Mann-ic, according to Bishop Hill and more so byClimate Audit, we are continuing to chip away at the "Amazongate" story.


We have agreed with The Guardian lawyers a preliminary apology which is posted on the Monbiot blog (pictured above). And, pending further developments, a version of the letter below has been sent to the WWF.

Benjamin Ward
Head of Press & Media Relations
bward@wwf.org.uk


Dear Mr Ward,

On 31 January 2010, your office issued a press release on "WWF, the Amazon and climate change". 

In this release, it was noted that the WWF/IUCN publication Global Review of Forest Fires (2000) had been the subject of comment in media regarding its use as a source for the IPCC, and that the credibility of some of its claims had been questioned.

In the Global Review of Forest Fires it was claimed that "up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall." In your press release, it is claimed that WWF's source for this 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 release further asserts that the source quotation from Fire in the Amazon reads: "Probably 30 to 40% of the forests of the Brazilian Amazon are sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall." 

In pursuing this issue, I am having some difficulty in tracking down the precise publication to which you refer, and would be very much obliged if you could advise me of which specific edition of "Fire in the Amazon" that you used, the language of that edition, the full title and the publisher. 

Also, I would be grateful if you could identify the page number and line(s) on which is printed the quotation: "Probably 30 to 40% of the forests of the Brazilian Amazon are sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall". It would be extremely helpful also if you could send me a facsimile of that page (and the cover page of the document), in jpeg or .pdf fomat.

Monbiot, on the other hand, is now acknowledging that, "There is no doubt that the IPCC made a mistake."

Sourcing its information on the Amazon to a report by the green group WWF rather than the substantial peer-reviewed literature on the subject, was a bizarre and silly thing to do, he says, adding: "It is also an issue of such mind-numbing triviality ... ".

This is quite an interesting "take" on the issue. When he perceives me to have made a "mistake", I am "exposed for peddling inaccuracy, misrepresentation and falsehood." When the IPCC is thus exposed, it is of "mind-numbing triviality". I will review his article shortly.

Moonbat thread

Print ready

And your point is? - by Richard...

"You are physically repulsive, intellectually retarded, vulgar, insensitive, selfish, stupid, you have no taste, a lousy sense of humour and you smell!"

Which just goes to prove that you don't have to swear to make your point.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Third time unlucky? - by Richard...

Gore is a "pervert and sexual predator. He's not what people think he is – he's a sick man." So says massage therapist Molly Hagerty, the experiences of whom are to be investigated by Police in Portland, Oregon, for the third time.

The former vice president's spokesperson welcomed the new investigation, saying it "will only benefit Mr Gore". He added: "The Gores cannot comment on every defamatory, misleading and inaccurate story generated by tabloids. Mr Gore unequivocally and emphatically denied this accusation when he first learned of its existence three years ago. He stands by that denial."

That, I think, is called chutzpah ... or innocence.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Beyond parody - by Richard...

The Independent argues that the appointment of Lord Browne to government office is "beyond parody”.

The time was that people who like Browne, who had put up so many blacks – to coin a phrase – would do the decent thing and fall on their swords or exile themselves in the country and not be seen in polite company. Nowadays, though, it does not seem to matter how vile your behaviour is, or how dire your record. Nothing is sufficient, it seems, to bar such people from high office. 

And this is not harping back to a past that never actually existed. Things were different once. Now, the ruling classes have lost the plot. They have become so detached, and so confident in their power, that they feel they can take the piss and get away with it. And, for a time, they can. But the reckoning always comes.

Comment: "Keeping up the standards" thread

Print ready

An alibi in flames - by Richard...

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.

Moonbat thread