...today's revelation is about the Amazonian rainforest.
And guess what? It's involves another one of the seemingly endless torrent of reports commissioned and paid for by the WWF. Gosh, they really do seem to have lots and lots of money to splash around.
And yet again the IPCC has been caught out using, (despite what it has always claimed), "research" that has not been peer reviewed.
Oh, and the "experts" that produced it? A 'policy analyst' and a freelance journalist!
From Watts Up With That?:
25 01 2010
The IPCC “Flavor of the day”-gate is now the Amazon Rain Forest. What will tomorrow’s flavor be?
James Delingpole of the Telegraph says this better than I ever could, so I’ll provide his summary here. Note that there are plenty more cases of unsubstantiated non peer reviewed references in the IPCC report, a list of which you can see here. For those wondering what “Load of porkies” means, see this.
Delingpole relays North’s analysis:
Here’s the latest development, courtesy of Dr Richard North – and it’s a cracker. It seems that, not content with having lied to us about shrinking glaciers, increasing hurricanes, and rising sea levels, the IPCC’s latest assessment report also told us a complete load of porkies about the danger posed by climate change to the Amazon rainforest.
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).
I recommend adding them to your blog roll. I have.