The Science Is Settled, A Continuing Series: Disappearing Rain Forest Edition

First the Himalayan glaciers and now this.

Which is less credible...Obama's new found desire to restrain spending or the IPCC's scare mongering?

In the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), issued in 2007 by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), scientists wrote that 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest in South America was endangered by global warming.

But that assertion was discredited this week when it emerged that the findings were based on numbers from a study by the World Wildlife Federation that had nothing to do with the issue of global warming -- and that was written by a freelance journalist and green activist.

The IPCC report states that "up to 40 percent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation" -- highlighting the threat climate change poses to the Earth. The report goes on to say that "it is more probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems ... such as tropical savannas."

But it has now been revealed that the claim was based on a WWF study titled "Global Review of Forest Fires," a paper barely related to the Amazon rainforest that was written "to secure essential policy reform at national and international level to provide a legislative and economic base for controlling harmful anthropogenic forest fires."

EUReferendum, a blog skeptical of global warming, uncovered the WWF association. It noted that the original "40 percent" figure came from a letter published in the journal Nature that discussed harmful logging activities -- and again had nothing to do with global warming.

Well, forest fires are hot so that's close enough to man made warming, right? And as for it being a letter and not an actual scientific study, that's just details.

Besides according to the UN Climate gang, this is kind of endearing, right?

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice chairman of the IPCC, was quoted in the European press as saying, "I would like to submit that this could increase the credibility of the IPCC, not decrease it. Aren't mistakes human? Even the IPCC is a human institution."

Look Frenchie (technically he's Belgian, whatever), you can submit anything you want but we don't have to pretend it's anything other that pure BS. I mean, it's not like we were previously under the impression all of this stuff was coming from robots. We know you are human and as such are prone to, how to put this? Making shit up if it gets you what you want (which is usually research grants and power).

But of course, the science is settled and poling holes into the UN report is really not sportsman like or something. Allow me to take a minute to preview how Gaia worshipers will calmly and in scientifically explain this, um, unfortunate incident...."Shut Up!".

posted by DrewM. at 05:17 PM

| Access Comments