Three in Two Weeks - that must be a record
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Dave
Jan 26, 2010, 8:30:11 PM1/26/10
to ETS Action Group
For the third time in two weeks, the IPCC has been forced to admit
that it has used sloppy practices and reprinted unfounded claims as
fact in it's 2007 report. Hot on the heels of the admission that the
Himlayan glacier data is flawed and that reported correlation between
global warming and significant storm events is baseless, the IPCC has
now admitted that it's report on the affects of global warming on the
Amazon Rainforest are totally unproven. The original report was
published by the WWF (World Wildlife Fund) and IUCN (International
Union for Conservation of Nature) - basically two activist groups.
The reports authors are 1. a policy analyst and 2. a freelance
reporter. Neither of them are climate scientists nor do they have any
expertise in the Amazon Rainforest. So basically a political advisor
and a report wrote a story about AGW and the rainforest which WWF/IUCN
published without any analysis or review and the IPCC picked it up and
included it within their 2007 report still without any scientific
analysis or peer review. Not a good look at all - here is the full
story from the Telegraph in the UK:
that it has used sloppy practices and reprinted unfounded claims as
fact in it's 2007 report. Hot on the heels of the admission that the
Himlayan glacier data is flawed and that reported correlation between
global warming and significant storm events is baseless, the IPCC has
now admitted that it's report on the affects of global warming on the
Amazon Rainforest are totally unproven. The original report was
published by the WWF (World Wildlife Fund) and IUCN (International
Union for Conservation of Nature) - basically two activist groups.
The reports authors are 1. a policy analyst and 2. a freelance
reporter. Neither of them are climate scientists nor do they have any
expertise in the Amazon Rainforest. So basically a political advisor
and a report wrote a story about AGW and the rainforest which WWF/IUCN
published without any analysis or review and the IPCC picked it up and
included it within their 2007 report still without any scientific
analysis or peer review. Not a good look at all - here is the full
story from the Telegraph in the UK:
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages