The Awakening - by Richard... Sunday, July 04, 2010

The Awakening - by Richard... Sunday, July 04, 2010

If little Simon Lewis had kept his mouth shut, "Amazongate" would probably have become just a folk memory. But, with The Sunday Times being bounced into an unwise retraction and Moonbat going into screech mode, the effect has been to resurrect the issue. But now, the blogs have awakened ...





and, of course ...


In each case, click the pic to go to the respective pieces, the last one - obviously not being a blog ... although Booker is a sort of honorary blog. His piece asks "'Climategate', 'Amazongate' - when will the truth be told?", noting that critical evidence from climate change sceptics continues to be ignored by the political and scientific establishments.

His main piece on the column today is about state sponsored kidnap, with the SS stealing children. A truly ghastly state of affairs - it is about time MPs were brought in to do their jobs on this.

Booker will be back big time with "Amazongate" next week - or, at least, that's the plan at the moment. And then watch Moonbat squirm.

Moonbat thread

Print ready

Perpetuating the lie - by Richard... Saturday, July 03, 2010

In the wake of the "Glaciergate" and "Amazongate" controversies, the WWF – whose reports were at the centre of the storm in each case – promised to launch "a full-scale inquiry involving WWF offices from several countries"

Considering that "Amazongate" did not break until 25/26 January and the WWF did not really focus on it until the end of the month, the inquiry did not take very long. "As a science-based organization," the WWF told us in a statement issued on 10 February 2010, "we are strongly committed to the integrity of our research."

Thus began a statement headed, logically enough: "Statement from WWF Regarding the IPCC and the Strength of our Science."

In it, repeated the following day by communications director Nick Sundt (pictured) on his blog, was outlined "the results of our internal inquiry and the steps we are taking to ensure our scientific publications continue to meet the highest standards for accuracy". Note the use of the word "continue" - possibly indicating a degree of partisanship.

Nevertheless, the inquiry had included "a review of our scientific procedures to determine if changes in our current protocol are warranted," and there was a claim that the WWF was "working to institute a system to ensure that the scientific community and the public can more easily distinguish between WWF's peer-reviewed scientific reports and our general communications products."

However, as regards the "Climate Change Threat in the Amazon", the results of the WWF "full-scale inquiry" into "the integrity of our research" were remarkably brief. Simply, the WWF/IUCN study "Global Review of Forest Fires" had "failed to include the correct citation – a 1999 report titled Fire in the Amazon, by the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM)."

That was it – a simple omission of the "correct citation." "Unlike the statement about Himalayan glaciers, the reference was drawn from an authoritative source, was factually correct and is supported by the peer-reviewed literature," the WWF then avers.

Looking at this in the round, this is not an ad hoc statement, on the run, made under pressure in response to events. It is a considered statement, made on the initiative of the WWF, after "a full-scale inquiry".

But what is said is not true and since we can rule out mistakes under pressure, there must be premeditation - intent. Therefore, we are talking about deliberate, structured lies.

Firstly, Fire in the Amazon - as we now know, is not a report. It is a page on a website. Interestingly, the WWF does not offer a correct citation – it cannot – it would be laughed out of court:

Anon 1999: Fire in the Amazon. Why are forests in the Amazon burning? Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM): http://www.ipam.org.br/fogo/porqueen.htm

Secondly, in no conventional or accepted sense can the source be regarded as "authoritative". In the context, an "authoritative source" is a peer-reviewed scientific journal, or something of equivalent status. An anonymous, unreferenced web page on a site owned by a Brazilian advocacy group cannot be regarded as such. Thus to claim is a lie.

Thirdly, the WWF claims the statement is "factually correct". How is the claim: "Probably 30 to 40% of the forests of the Brazilian Amazon are sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall," a statement of fact. It is an assertion. It does not even pretend to be fact. To assert that it is "factually correct" is preposterous.

Fourthly, says the WWF, this assertion on the website of a Brazilian advocacy group "is supported by the peer-reviewed literature." And that is very much a matter of opinion. But, in any normal sense of the word "supported", one would expect to see direct evidence, underwritten by sound research, that 30 to 40% of the forests of the Brazilian Amazon are at risk. There is none.

Had the WWF told the truth, what would it have said? Well, assuming that the missing citation has been an accident, it could only have said something like:

We have ascertained that the missing citation was a reference to an anonymous page on the website of a Brazilian advocacy group. It was posted in 1999 and removed in 2003 and is no longer available for normal viewing.

Whether that conforms with the "highest standards for accuracy" and "scientific integrity" is moot. This is not a position I would be prepared to defend.

However, the WWF is happy to tell us that the controversy surrounding the two" improper IPCC references" is not an indication that the scientific process is broken or that the underlying climate science should be questioned.

Rather, it says, "it's an illustration of the scientific process at work. By continually reviewing and reevaluating claims, our estimates improve over time, errors are corrected, and consensus builds. It is through precisely this process of publishing, review, scrutiny and reevaluation that we are able to refine and hone our understanding of the natural world."

The trouble, I suppose, is that once you start lying and then covering up, you have to keep lying, which ends up in you delivering unmitigated bullshit such as this. In choosing between the commercial corporates and the NGOs such as the WWF, there does not seem much difference.

Moonbat thread

Print ready

Amazongate: the smoking gun - by Richard...

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 last, 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, so it its interpretation.

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 is using material which has no academic or scientific value, while giving the impression that the material is fully supported. Similarly, the IPCC must tell us how it can justify the claims it has made, in breach of its own rules.

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