Mealy-mouthed Monbiot - by Richard... Monday, July 05, 2010

Mealy-mouthed Monbiot - by Richard... Monday, July 05, 2010

In the Canada Free Press today we find the following:

Mealy-mouthed Monbiot ("mealy-mouth:" unwilling to state facts simply and directly) has become a laughing stock not only among skeptics of the man-made global warming fraud, but also die-hards in his beloved tree-hugging fraternity.

Author John O'Sullivan also writes of an expensive libel action averted but that is not the case just yet. The Guardian, with my agreement, are treating my complaint in two parts.

The rather stiff apology from Mr Monbiot relates to the purely technical matter of his mistake, and his sneering comments related thereto, in not realising that my argument on "Amazongate" rested on two rather than one posts. 

That leaves the second and rather more serious issue of what I allege to be defamation by Monbiot, and we have so far reached tentative agreement on a "right of reply". However, The Guardian is at the moment relying on a "fair comment" defence, arguing that this relieves Mr Monbiot of any responsibility to apologise.

On this, I find myself in the rather unusual position of instructing The Guardians senior lawyer on matters of basic law pertaining to the defence of fair comment. This passage is as useful as any:

If a defendant can prove that the defamatory statement is an expression of opinion on a matter of public interest and not a statement of fact, he or she can rely on the defence of fair comment. The courts have said that whenever a matter is such as to affect people at large, so that they may be legitimately interested in, or concerned at, what is going on or what may happen to them or to others, then it is a matter of public interest on which everyone is entitled to make fair comment. 

The comment must be based on true facts which are either contained in the publication or are sufficiently referred to. It is for the defendant to prove that the underlying facts are true. If he or she is unable to do so, then the defence will fail.

Amongst other things, I am taking the view that Mr Monbiot's assertion that, "Now that the IPCC has been vindicated, its accusers, North first among them, are exposed for peddling inaccuracy, misrepresentation and falsehood", is meant as an statement of fact rather than opinion.

Either way, whether represented as opinion or fact, the assertion is neither true nor founded on fact. Nor could it be said that Monbiot's claim is free from malice, especially in view of his subsequent comments. But, on the substantive point, it is for Monbiot andThe Guardian to prove that, as a matter of fact, I have been "exposed for peddling inaccuracy, misrepresentation and falsehood".

In this, they would have to demonstrate that the IPCC, in respect of "Amazongate" has been "vindicated" and that the assertions made stem from, that as a matter of course.

As it stands, The Guardian lawyer has other commitments for this week, so I have agreed to a temporary hiatus. By the end of the week, however, we expect further developments with the WWF, and we will also be bearding the IPCC, putting the issue back in their court, where it also belongs. I am also advised that there may be other very significant developments, which could have a substantial effect on the debate.

Thus, this matter is very far from over, and even when we have done here, there is the huge issue of REDD, which is just beginning to impinge on the public debate. One might suggest that if Mr Monbiot was truly an environmentalist, he might be more concerned with issues such as this, where the implications are enormous and disturbing.

But then, since when have the Greenies actually been interested in the environment, much less people?

Comment: Moonbat thread

Print ready

A "game changer"? - by Richard...

"Climategate was 'a game-changer' in science reporting, say climatologists", is the offering today from The Guardian. It tells us that after the "hacked" emails scandal scientists became "more upfront, open and explicit about their uncertainties".

Thus, ahead of publication of the Muir Russell report this Wednesday, we are told that science has been changed forever by the so-called "climategate" saga, and mostly it has been changed for the better.

One wonders if this can really be the case – especially after the recent "Amazongate" experience. But, we are allowed to read: "Trust has been damaged," the view of Hans von Storch of the KGSS Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany. "People now find it conceivable that scientists cheat and manipulate, and understand that scientists need societal supervision as any other societal institution," he says.

Nevertheless, speculation on our forum is that The Guardian has wind of some the contents of the Muir Russell report. In that case, it could be indulging in some creative damage limitation.

However, if you have the misfortune to stumble across the Daily Kos, you will discover that the "real story was that thieves hacked the private emails of respected climate scientists."

"That's a crime," we are told, and that should have been at least part of the focus of the reporting: "a false scandal was being concocted by people who were, at face value, criminals." Not content with that, the author then opines: "But the larger part of the story was that it was a deliberate effort to distort and distract from the scientific facts. That, too, should have been at least part of the reporting."

And when you read stuff life that, you know that nothing has really changed.

Comment: Moonbat thread

Print ready

Them eggs - by Richard... Sunday, July 04, 2010

Selling eggs by the pack is going to be banned by the EU. No, selling eggs by the pack isn't going to be banned by the EU. Yes, selling eggs by the pack is going to be banned ... Amd that's where it currently stands, according to a tiresome little man in the Grocer magazine, writing in The Mail on Sunday.

Unaccustomed as I am to taking instruction and guidance on EU law from The Grocer, I had nevertheless taken little interest in this tedious issue. But even then, I had come to a view and placed myself firmly in the "Euromyth" camp. However, since the Grocer man, by the name of Adam Leyland, still insists that he is right, it is necessary to revisit the issue and do a little more homework. 

And here, one is a little worried by his claim to have taken the trouble "to actually read the EU's 75-page draft", specifically because the draft of Regulation 2008/28 of the European Parliament and of the Council "on the provision of food information to consumers" is actually 85 pages. One wonders what he has been reading.

But, with EU law, if you are coming to it cold and really want to know what is going on and what is intended, you don't just read the COM. You read the Commission staff working documents as well (the so-called SEC series). In this case, there are three of them, the most important of which is the 90-page SEC(2008)0092. (This is a little trick you pick up when you have to evaluate EU law for a living.)

Read this, the original proposal and the explanatory notes, and it all becomes perfectly clear (although it does help if you were the technical advisor for the UK egg producers' association for ten years, and then spent four years in the EU parliament as a research director).

The nub of this proposal, it will be seen – and as the text makes perfectly plain – is "recasting of the different horizontal labelling provisions." These, as we all know, deal with "quantitative indications" – ingredients, nutritional standards and the rest. As any fule noes, these do not and cannot affect (without stating specifically) the "vertical" marketing legislation, under which – for instance – the egg regime falls.

It is under the Egg Marketing Regulations (as amended) that the marketing requirements for eggs are set out, and they are not affected by 2008/28. They cannot be unless specifically repealed. And the application of the EMRs is (rightly) confirmed by the EP press office.

However, Leyland calls in aid Andrew Opie, food policy director at the British Retail Consortium and Conservative MEPs such as Vicky Ford. Yea right. The times I've sat across the table from the BRC, I've concluded I would not ask them for instruction on how to tie my shoe laces.

Good at making money out of shopkeeping, the BRC members might be, but don't ask them about EU law. Mostly, they favour legislation as it messes up the small retailers and gives their supermarket members a competitive advantage. All they generally want to know is how to implement it. And as for Tory MEPs understanding EU law ... you gotta be kidding.

In essence, Leyland had it wrong. The papers got it wrong. And he's still wrong. But then, what do I know? Leyland suggests that I (and any other blogger who disagrees with him) is only an ill-informed "internet blogger" (is there any other sort - internet, that is?). By contrast, he has talked to "people who actually know what they are talking about." And they MUST be right.

UPDATE: Iain Dale argues that Leyland should be believed. It was the widely respected Grocer magazine, which first printed the story about the EU wanting to ban selling products by numbers, he writes. Then enjoining us to read the MoS article, he tells us: "This is not written by a tabloid journalist or a partisan blogger. It's written by the editor of The Grocer. Think on that."

From an analytical perspective, what you see here is a fascinating illustration of the power of prestige. It is not very often one sees such a good example. The argument Leyland offers is poor, and involves, inter alia, an "appeal to authority". Dale buys it because, in his eyes, the editor of the Grocer has "prestige". 

Note, in the context, the interesting use of the descriptor: "widely respected". If it is thus, then it has prestige and can be believed. Unfortunately, those lesser mortals and institutions without "prestige" can be ignored. The quality and depth of argument is irrelevant. It is not what is said that matters - it is who says it.

Comment: a Euromyth bites the dust

Print ready

Better dead than REDD - by Richard...

In The Observer today, there is a confused and incomplete story about how the REDD scheme is being undermined by corruption. Some countries, we are told, intend to abuse system "by pocketing billions in subsidies while continuing to fell trees."

How far this is different, in terms of corruption, from pocketing subsidies for "protecting" trees that are not under threat from logging, is not specified, but that is the other side of the scam. And it is this scam in which, as we recently pointed out, the WWF is closely implicated. For a shorter summary, see here. 

But what does emerge from The Observer piece is an indication of the role of the World Bank in all this. This comes via Simon Counsell, director of Rainforest Foundation, who is cited as saying: "Redd has been touted as the quickest and cheapest way of preventing climate change, but what we are seeing are expensive and ill-conceived plans that fail to address the underlying causes of deforestation, and might make things worse." 

Counsell goes on to say that: "Redd needs to be taken out of the hands of the World Bank, and a new global institution [must be] established to rigorously oversee payments to tropical countries on the basis of the actual amount of logging or deforestation that is averted."

What is not said is that partners with the World Bank, right from the beginning, have been the WWF and the Woods Hole Research Center, with Daniel Nepstad a lead player, at the very heart of the advocacy for the system.

It is utterly bizarre that a man who – on the one hand – argues that, if adopted, "REDD could trigger the largest flow of money into tropical forest conservation that the world has ever seen," and, on the other hand, is a direct beneficiary of that flow of money, is still regarded as a reliable source of objective advice on the state of the Amazon.

This is not to say that Nepstad – or the that matter the WWF and WHRC – are lying or misleading the public and governments (although it is likely that they are), but it is absolutely clear that as "players" and beneficiaries of the system they advocate, they are not impartial.

Furthermore, as The Observer is reporting, since REDD is actually leading to corruption and possibly more logging, one would think that the conservation NGOs, human rights and environment groups would be against the scheme – and largely they are. 

Groups, which include Global Witness, Greenpeace International, Fern and Rainforest Foundation, have spoken out, fearing that REDD is being used by governments to victimise and steal the carbon rights of people who live and depend on the forests.

But, in the vanguard of the advocacy for the system is the WWF, which has millions and potentially billions of dollars at stake. For many indigenous peoples, faced with the system – and the malign interference of NGOs such as WWF – their cry might be "better REDD than dead" and it is about time the media (and western governments) woke up to what is going on.

Whatever else, it is about time the media, in particular, stopped taking the WWF at face value and recognised it for what it was – a big, multi-national corporate business with an axe to grind.

Comment: Moonbat thread

Print ready

The Awakening - by Richard...

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