Another IPCC prediction of doom turns out to be bunkum

davidwatsonok

IPCC Rainforest eco-tastrophe claim confirmed as bunk • The Register

                                                                        40 per cent of the Amazonian rainforests - dubbed the "lungs of the planet" by some for their ability to turn CO2 into oxygen, and also seen as vital on biodiversity grounds - might disappear imminently. This disaster would be triggered, according to the IPCC's assessment, by a relatively slight drop in rainfall of the sort to be expected in a warming world.

But now it has been conclusively disproven - so much so that even IPCC members pour scorn on it, though they haven't retracted or amended their original endorsement of it.

The baseless IPCC projection originated in a study produced in 2000 by hard-green* ecological campaigning group WWF.

"The way that the WWF report calculated this 40 per cent was totally wrong," according to IPCC member Jose Marengo, commenting on the new research.                                Click to expand...       

Isn't it time this collective of liars, thieves, fraudsters and lunatics was disbanded ?

Wild Weasel

That's the UN for you. They've been looking for a new source of cash since the oil-for-food scam was wound up.




The Daily Mash - GLOBAL CATASTROPHE WARNINGS REACH MONTHLY QUOTA

Steve.J.Davies

Makes you wonder how the 2000 study got throught the IPCC 'peer review'.

Wild Weasel

It was a 'pal review', that's why.

johntheexpat

There is no excuse for using non peer reviewed stuff and presenting it as fact, that is out of order.

Then again Is one dry year really enough to debunk everything?
How far below average does the amazon water table go in one dry year?  Does it go below the depth of the majority of tree roots or does it fall only a few metres?
If you had an extended period of relatively light rain, would the water table fall further than during one dry spell? In other words, would an extended period of drought be worse for a forest than one year of drought?

You (^^^^) are all in danger of creating a stance that is founded on ice that is as thin as the MMGW threat is claimed to be on.  You really need something more substantial that one dry year in the Amazon to comprehensively dismiss any threat to the Amazon.

But keep trying!  

deckingman

Well there is this

Fifth of world carbon emissions soaked up by extra forest growth, scientists find | Environment | guardian.co.uk

No doubt because, it's not all doom and gloom, you'll have to dismiss it. Don't worry, there are some words to latch on to in the article, which will enable you to do so.