Does he protest too much?

30/06/2010

Fresh from his "victory" over The Sunday Times, Dr Simon Lewis tells the warmist site Climate Progress:

I welcome the Sunday Times' apology for failing to accurately report my views and retract the Amazon story. As several experts told them – their story was baseless. What I find shocking about this whole episode is that an article read out [loud] and agreed with me was then switched at the last minute to one that fit with the Times' editorial line that the IPCC contained a number of serious mistakes, but actually ignored the scientific facts.

Up to press, we have only had Lewis's word as to what was read to him and what, therefore, was agreed by him – the difference supposedly being so great that it justified his complaint. However, the actual version which was read to him has recently emerged, which we reproduce below, paragraph by paragraph, contrasted with the text which was actually printed (in bold) interwoven with it:

A claim by the UN's climate panel that global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners.

A STARTLING report by the United Nations climate watchdog that global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its 2007 benchmark report that even a slight change in rainfall could see the rainforest rapidly replaced by savannah.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its 2007 benchmark report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swathes of the rainforest rapidly replaced by savanna grassland.

However, at the time of the report, the only source for its claim was a report from WWF, an environmental pressure group, which was authored by two green activists. They had based the claim on a study published in Nature, but that research had looked at human impacts on the forest such as logging and burning, rather than at changes in rainfall.

The source for its claim was a report from WWF, an environmental pressure group, which was authored by two green activists. They had based their "research" on a study published in Nature, the science journal, which did not assess rainfall but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activity such as logging and burning. This weekend WWF said it was launching an internal inquiry into the study.

This is the third time in as many weeks that serious doubts have been raised over the IPCC's conclusions on climate change. Two weeks ago, following reports in The Sunday Times, it was forced to retract a warning that climate change was likely to melt the Himalayan glaciers by 2035.

This is the third time in as many weeks that serious doubts have been raised over the IPCC's conclusions on climate change. Two weeks ago, after reports in The Sunday Times, it was forced to retract a warning that climate change was likely to melt the Himalayan glaciers by 2035. That warning was also based on claims in a WWF report.

It faces further controversy over suggestions that climate change may be increasing the severity and frequency of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods. This weekend Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC was fighting to keep his job as the questions and the criticism grew ever stronger.

The IPCC has been put on the defensive as well over its claims that climate change may be increasing the severity and frequency of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods. This weekend Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, was fighting to keep his job after a barrage of criticism.

Among climate scientists the biggest fear is that the emergence of more blunders, plus the row over Pachauri, will fuel the claims of climate sceptics, who suggest that global warming is either not happening or is trivial in its effects.

Scientists fear the controversies will be used by climate change sceptics to sway public opinion to ignore global warming — even though the fundamental science, that greenhouse gases can heat the world, remains strong.

The latest controversy originates in a report called A Global Review of Forest Fires, which WWF published in 2000. It was commissioned from Andrew Rowell, a freelance journalist and green campaigner who has worked for Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and anti-smoking organisations. The second author was Peter Moore, a campaigner and policy analyst with WWF.

The latest controversy originates in a report called A Global Review of Forest Fires, which WWF published in 2000. It was commissioned from Andrew Rowell, a freelance journalist and green campaigner who has worked for Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and anti-smoking organisations. The second author was Peter Moore, a campaigner and policy analyst with WWF.

In their report the campaigners suggested that "up to 40% of Brazilian rain forest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall". They made clear however, that this was because dried out forests were more likely to catch fire.

In their report they suggested that "up to 40% of Brazilian rainforest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall" but made clear that this was because drier forests were more likely to catch fire.

The IPCC report picked up this reference but expanded it, to cover the whole Amazon. It also suggested that lower rainfall would kill trees directly as well as by allowing more fires.

The IPCC report picked up this reference but expanded it to cover the whole Amazon. It also suggested that a slight reduction in rainfall would kill many trees directly, not just by contributing to more fires.

The report said: "Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; 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 (Rowell and Moore, 2000). It is more probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems that have more resistance to multiple stresses caused by temperature increase, droughts and fires, such as tropical savannas."

It said: "Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state. It is more probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems that have more resistance to multiple stresses caused by temperature increase, droughts and fires, such as tropical savannas."

Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at Leeds University who specialises in tropical forest ecology described the section of Rowell's and Moore's report predicting the Amazon's potential shrinkage as "a mess".

Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at Leeds University who specialises in tropical forest ecology, described the section of Rowell and Moore's report predicting the potential destruction of large swathes of rainforest as "a mess".

He said: "The 40% claim is not actually referenced in the Rowell & Moore 2000 report. The Nepstad Nature paper is about the interactions of logging damage, fire, and periodic droughts, all extremely important in understanding the vulnerability of Amazon forest to drought, but is not related to the vulnerability of these forests to reductions in rainfall. I don't see how that can be the source of Rowell's 40% claim. It's more likely an unreferenced statement by Rowell himself."

"The Nature paper is about the interactions of logging damage, fire and periodic droughts, all extremely important in understanding the vulnerability of Amazon forest to drought, but is not related to the vulnerability of these forests to reductions in rainfall," he said. "In my opinion the Rowell and Moore report should not have been cited; it contains no primary research data."

This weekend WWF confirmed it had launched a major internal inquiry into the study. "We have a team of people looking at this internationally," said Keith Allott, the group's climate change campaigner. "The issue is the sentence suggesting that up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation and rapidly be replaced by savannah."

WWF said it prided itself on the accuracy of its reports and was investigating the latest concerns. "We have a team of people looking at this internationally," said Keith Allott, its climate change campaigner.

Scientists such as Lewis are demanding that the IPCC ban the use of reports from pressure groups. They fear that environmental campaign groups are bound to cherry-pick the scientific literature that confirms their beliefs and ignore the rest.

It was exactly this process that lay behind the bogus claim that the Himalayan glaciers were likely to melt by 2035 — a suggestion that got into another WWF report and was then used by the IPCC.

Georg Kaser, a glaciologist who was a lead author on the last IPCC report, said: "Groups like WWF are not scientists and they are not professionally trained to manage data. They may have good intentions but it opens the way to mistakes."

Although there are some differences, readers may wonder whether they are that significant and whether the published version is so very different from the text Simon Lewis agreed with Jonathan Leake.

It seems to me that the greatest difference is towards the end, where we are told that scientists like Lewis "are demanding that the IPCC ban the use of reports from pressure groups", on top of the claim that they "fear that environmental campaign groups are bound to cherry-pick the scientific literature that confirms their beliefs and ignore the rest."

With the comparison with the "glaciergate" issue, which was also missing from the original, you can see perhaps why Lewis was so keen to get a retraction. Not least, he is associated with criticism of the WWF, one of his current paymasters Valuing the Arc project.

Lewis in any event, would not want to be associated with such criticism. Although, when it suits him, he presents himself as the sober scientist from Leeds University, he is in fact a dedicated green activist.

He has been involved in the campaigns against airport expansion and coal burning and has been an enthusiastic supporter of the recent climate camp.

Stepping over the line to involve himself in active campaigning, Lewis cannot claim to be impartial. Thus, he cannot claim to be a scientist. He is, like so many in the climate sphere, an advocate. And this is the man at the centre of the "Amazongate" storm. He has been grievously wronged by The Sunday Times?

I don't think so.

Moonbat thread