« Tim Tebow and His Mom to Appear in Pro-Life Super Bowl Ad | Main | Another Teleprompter Sighting »

Get ready for ... Amazongate?

If the last few weeks have were all about Brownmania, then this week is all about continued scandals relating to global warming "research". This time, I have to put research in quote because it isn't a case of scientists fudging or faking results. It is a case of opinion and propaganda being treated as scientific research.

The previous (and Nobel prize wining) IPCC report stated that as much as 40% of the Amazonian rain forest could react drastically to reduce precipitation resulting from global warming. (Er, maybe from climate change--I forget whether cooling or warming causes reduced precipitation at the moment.) As it turns out, this finding was not the result of any scientific research or modeling at all. The basis for the claim comes from activists that are part of the World Wildlife Foundation and other such groups. James Delingpole at the Telegraph reports:

It gets even better. The two expert authors of the WWF report so casually cited by the IPCC as part of its, ahem, "robust" "peer-reviewed" process weren't even Amazon specialists. One, Dr PF Moore, is a policy analyst:


And the lead author Andy Rowell is a freelance journalist (for the Guardian, natch) and green activist:


But the IPCC's shamelessness did not end there. Dr North has searched the WWF's reports high and low but can find no evidence of a statement to support the IPCC's claim that "40 per cent" of the Amazon is threatened by climate change. (Logging and farm expansion are a much more plausible threat).

Follow the link above to read more of his analysis, including the provided bios of the two sources I cut above for brevity. Delingpole notes that the Watts Up With That blog lists many more non-peer-reviewed papers that were cited as evidence in the IPCC report.

The evidence of tampering within the environmental science community continues to mount.

  • We have learned that the data behind the famous hockey stick graph was altered to hide the decline.
  • The researchers at the CRU used their influence to hijack the peer review process and keep scientists who's research opposed the view of AGW from publishing in established journals.
  • The Russians have accused climate researchers of cherry-picking Siberian station data which if considered in its entirety does not substantiate the AGW theory.
  • The former Green Peace leader admitted to exaggerating the claims of polar ice cap melt in order to sway public opinion.
  • A Nobel-prize-winning IPCC report has been found to include bogus claims about Himalayan glacier melt and, now, about dire threats to the Amazonian rain forest.
  • IPCC chair Pachauri used this report to secure funding for his institute of research and could now be facing criminal charges.
I could go on about Carbon-billionaire Al Gore and his use of CGI footage from the Day After Tomorrow in his An Inconvenient Truth documentary, but that is old news.

People keep claiming each of these incidents is isolated and that the scientific proof for global warming is still rock solid. If it wasn't obvious to you before that the process has been anything but scientific it should be glaringly obvious to you now. The tide is indeed turning. Christopher Field, the new co-chairman of the IPCC working group responsible for climate impact reports, had the following to say:

The 2007 study should be seen as "a snapshot of what was known then. Science is progressive. If something turns out to be wrong we can fix it next time around.
I guess the science was "settled" after all.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (9)

Perhaps Barry can get a "co... (Below threshold)

Perhaps Barry can get a "consensus" that the entire IPCC report is full of bullshit.

You will notice that few li... (Below threshold)
Victory is Mao's:

You will notice that few liberal trolls still have the stomach for this fight but I do.

Lies! All you filthy neocons can tell are lies!

That should hold you filthy neocons.


I have to say that I am qui... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

I have to say that I am quite taken by Field's statement, "The 2007 study should be seen as "a snapshot of what was known then. Science is progressive. If something turns out to be wrong we can fix it next time around."

I agree with Field. I can think of no other word to describe actions of the IPCC and CRU other than "progressive."

Moa - I'm beginning to think that the decreased attendance lately of our left-leaning friends has something to do with their realizing that all their (supposed serious) arguments mirror you own.

Perhaps Barry can... (Below threshold)

Perhaps Barry can get a "consensus" that the entire IPCC report is full of bullshit

no, i helped to author it


No you didn't Ellie, I did.... (Below threshold)

No you didn't Ellie, I did.

Mark Spivey

I guess the science was ... (Below threshold)

I guess the science was "settled" after all.

Or, in many cases, even science.

I've been saying this for s... (Below threshold)

I've been saying this for several years.

"Global Warming" was just a bunch of hot air.

There is more "science" backing astrology than there is the so called pseudo-science of "climatology".

And astrology is a crock of shit.

I have some more informatio... (Below threshold)

I have some more information from a former head of global warming research for TVA that I know personally. He said that when he went to a conference on global warming research in Birmingham, Alabama at the Redstone Armory that Redstone Armory builds the satalites that NASA uses for weather temperature readings. The director came in furious with NASA because the satalites had not been calabrated correctly. This was in 1996. So whatever temperature readings were taken before then were incorrect.

This researcher is a chemical engineer who built the machine that measures CO2 emissions from coal fire power plants. He worked for the EPA and under Carol Browner who he said out Marxes Marx. He said that global warming is a scam too.

"The director came in furio... (Below threshold)

"The director came in furious with NASA because the satalites had not been calabrated correctly."

There's another problem with NASA, in that the satellites were recalibrated, but they "adjusted" the newer measurements to match their "corrected" temperature readings from a hand-picked subset of warmer earth-based stations.

It's really interesting, for example, that heat measurements in places where there are few or no people (like in the middle of the oceans) are noticeably high in comparison to places where people can actually measure the temperatures for themselves.

Remember the "Arctic Melt" situation a couple of years back? Right about the time the ice started returning to previous levels, they put up a new satellite - and "corrected" it to show continued melting in places where there was new ce...






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy