[Vision2020] Times Retracts IPCC Claims

Ron Force rforce2003 at yahoo.com
Fri Jun 25 15:35:39 PDT 2010


>From Newsweek.com:

Newspapers Retract 'Climategate' Claims, but Damage Still Done
 
by Sharon BegleyJune 25, 2010  
 Greg Rico / AP
Vindicated too late? Penn State climatologist Michael 
Mann  
A lie can get halfway around the world while the 
truth is still putting its boots on, as Mark Twain said (or “before the truth gets a chance to put its pants on,” in Winston 
Churchill’s version), and nowhere has that been more true than in 
"climategate." In that highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal, 
e-mails hacked from computers at the University of East Anglia’s climate-research group were spread around the Web by activists who deny that human activity is 
altering the world’s climate in a dangerous way, and spun so as to 
suggest that the scientists had been lying, cheating, and generally 
cooking the books.
But not only did British investigators clear the East Anglia scientist at the center of it all, Phil Jones, of 
scientific impropriety and dishonesty in April, an investigation at Penn State cleared PSU climatologist Michael Mann of “falsifying or suppressing data, intending to delete or conceal e-mails and information, and misusing privileged or confidential information” 
in February. In perhaps the biggest backpedaling, The Sunday Times of London, which led the media pack in charging that IPCC reports were 
full of egregious (and probably intentional) errors, retracted its 
central claim—namely, that the IPCC statement that up to 40 percent of 
the Amazonian rainforest could be vulnerable to climate change was 
“unsubstantiated.” The Times also admitted that it had totally 
twisted the remarks of one forest expert to make it sound as if he 
agreed that the IPCC had screwed up, when he said no such thing.
It’s worth quoting the retraction at some length:
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.
In another retraction you never heard of, a paper 
in Frankfurt took back (apologies; the article is available only in German) its 
reporting that the IPCC had erred in its assessment of climate impacts 
in Africa.
The Times's criticism of the IPCC—look, its reports are full of mistakes and shoddy scholarship!—was widely picked up at the time it ran, and has been an important factor in 
turning British public opinion sharply against the established science of climate 
change. Don’t expect the recent retractions and exonerations to change 
that. One of the strongest, most-repeated findings in the psychology of 
belief is that once people have been told X, especially if X is shocking, if they are later told, “No, we were wrong about X,” most people still believe X. As Twain and Churchill knew, 
sometimes the truth never catches up with the lie, let alone overtakes 
it. As I wrote last summer in a story about why people believe lies even when they’re later told the truth, sometimes people’s mental processes simply go off the 
rails. 


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100625/3978b6fc/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Vision2020 mailing list