After lying to us about shrinking glaciers, increasing hurricanes, and rising sea levels...

...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 And yet again the IPCC has been caught out using, (despite what it has always claimed), "research" that has not been peer reviewed.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?: De Jour-gate flavor: Amazon 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. This is to be found in Chapter 13 of the Working Group II report, the same part of the IPCC fourth assessment report in which the “Glaciergate” claims are made. There, is the startling claim that: At first sight, the reference looks kosher enough but, following it through, one sees: This, then appears to be another WWF report, carried out in conjunction with the IUCN – The International Union for Conservation of Nature. The link given is no longer active, but the report is on the IUCN website here. Furthermore, the IUCN along with WWF is another advocacy group and the report is not peer-reviewed. According to IPCC rules, it should not have been used as a primary source. 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: My background and experience around the world has required and developed high-level policy and analytical skills. I have a strong understanding of government administration, legislative review, analysis and inquiries generated through involvement in or management of the Australian Regional Forest Agreement process, Parliamentary and Government inquiries, Coronial inquiries and public submissions on water pricing, access and use rights and native vegetation legislation in Australia and fire and natural resources laws, regulations and policies in Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, South Africa and Malaysia. And the lead author Andy Rowell is a freelance journalist (for the Guardian, natch) and green activist: Andy Rowell is a freelance writer and Investigative journalist with over 12 years’ experience on environmental, food, health and globalization issues. Rowell has undertaken cutting-edge investigations for, amongst others, Action on Smoking and Health, The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, IFAW, the Pan American Health Organization, Project Underground, the World Health Organization, World in Action and WWF. 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). Read Delingpole’s blog here, North’s Blog here I recommend adding them to your blog roll. I have.

Posted via email from Garth's posterous