Sunday, June 27, 2010

As a Courtesy....

... to the ludicrous antagonistic talk radio hosts, their contentious callers and any others who noisily and benightedly ridicule the concept of climate change, broadcasting any and all manufactured controversies or cherry-picked statistics in order to deride political opponents and malign "greens," "enviros," or "Al Gore," here's some of the The Sunday Times of London's recent retraction of the erroneous, false, and misdirecting nonsense that you've been exploiting for few months:

The article "UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim" (News, Jan 31) stated that the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had included an “unsubstantiated claim” that up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest could be sensitive to future changes in rainfall.
The IPCC had referenced the claim to a report prepared for the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) by Andrew Rowell and Peter Moore, whom the article described as “green campaigners” with “little scientific expertise.” The article also stated
that the authors’ research had been based on a scientific paper that dealt with the impact of human activity rather than climate change.In fact, the IPCC’s Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence. In the case
of the WWF report, the figure . . . was based on research by the respected Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) which did relate to the impact of climate change. We also understand and accept that . . . Dr Moore is an expert
in forest management, and apologise for any suggestion to the contrary.The article also quoted criticism of the IPCC’s use of the WWF report by Dr Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at the University of Leeds and leading
specialist in tropical forest ecology. We accept that, in his quoted remarks, Dr Lewis was making the general point that both the IPCC and WWF should have cited the appropriate peer-reviewed scientific research literature. As he made clear to us at the time, including by sending us some of the research literature, Dr Lewis does not dispute the scientific basis for both the IPCC and the WWF reports’ statements on the potential vulnerability of the Amazon rainforest to droughts caused by climate change. . . . A version of our article that had been checked with Dr Lewis underwent significant late editing and so did not give a fair or accurate account of his views on these points. We apologise for this.

No comments: