To the great Monbiot, The Guardian has given me right of reply. The comments are open on the piece - it will be interesting to see how the debate develops.
IF YOU POST A COMMENT ON THE SITE, PLEASE ALSO POST IT HERE .. SO WE CAN SEE WHAT IS SAYS IF IT DELETED BY THE MODERATORS.View full article here
These are my first offerings:29 Jul 2010, 12:56PM
Richard North, responding as "spacedout" - just so that there is no misunderstanding.
ARebours @ 29 Jul 2010, 12:30PM. Please do me the courtesy of reading the piece ... the IPCC referenced the WWF review ... the reference to the IPAM work was omitted - accidentally, maybe but, as printed, the WWF Rowell and Moore claim was unreferenced.
When we take the IPAM reference which the WWF says applies, this is the IPAM website, which is unsubstantiated claims, with no references. Thus, as stated, the WWF report IS unreferenced. This is FACT - yet your head round it.
Further, it is FACT, that the IPAM "report" is unreferenced. Not incorrectly referenced. As to the stand first ... the IPCC report ... you can be pedantic .. and say it was referenced to Rowell and Moore ... but we are not talking about incorrect referencing here. Rowell and Moore was unreferenced.
As to why the Sunday Times report was retracted, you do not KNOW why it was reported. You might THINK you know, but you do not actually know. I have a fair idea, which is why I have made a complaint about the Sunday Times to the PCC. You do not know what went on - don't pretend you do.29 Jul 2010, 1:19PM
jjc100 @ 29 Jul 2010, 12:31PM
I have no issue about Simon Lewis being misquoted in The Sunday Times ... if you read between the lines, you will find that Jonathan Leake has no issue either. The piece he wrote annd agreed with Lewis was not the piece that was published ... that is a matter of public record.
The issue I have is the retraction - and the comment following - stating that the IPCC claim is supported by peer reviewed scientific literature. It is not. Thus, my ojections are set out in my own complaint to the PCC - that is 42 PAGES, linked here.29 Jul 2010, 1:32PM
jjc100 @ 29 Jul 2010, 1:21PM, asks:
"So Richard, tell us, what was the PCC's reaction to Dr Lewis's submission?"
Initially, we know that it entertained the complaint as one which fell within the Editors' Code of Practice. As far as I understand it, the PCC mediated but did not then adjudicate, leaving The Sunday Times to make its own accommodation with Lewis.
As it stands, the PCC have entertained my complaint and are investigating it.
By the way, why is it "Dr Lewis", while I am "Richard" (not that I mind) and not Dr North? Have we been introduced? Are we friends?29 Jul 2010, 1:45PM
alanww @ 29 Jul 2010, 1:35PM asks:
"When it's all unraveled, is there or isn't there a "proper" research paper at the bottom of it all ?"
No, there is not. There is nothing specifically, or even by inference, to support the claim that 40 percent of the entire rainforest could be turned into savannah or some such (i,e, destroyed) by a slight reduction in rainfall.
The best that can be offered is modellers' assumptions, that if there is a substantial fall off in rainfall, than the forest will be affected - hardly a matter of dispute ... if A happens, B is the result.
However, a growing body of evidence, not least this, suggests that the projections are unduly pessimistic.