Bishop Hill Simon Lewis and the PCC
Mar 26, 2010 Climate: WG2 Media The Guardian reports that Dr Simon Lewis, an expert in tropical rain forests from the University of Leeds, has made a formal complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about Jonathan Leake's Amazongate article in the Sunday Times.
Leake's article said that the IPCC had reported that 40% of the Amazonian rainforest was very sensitive to changes in rainfall and might therefore be wiped out by global warming. Leake observed that this claim was based on a WWF report that cited in turn a Nature paper that had nothing to do with rainfall.
Dr Lewis's complaint is that Leake gave the impression that the IPCC had made a false claim. His position is that the citation was foolish, but that the 40% statement was supported by the underlying literature, even if that literature was not cited by the IPCC.
The confusion seems to have arisen from a headline that appeared in the print edition, which described the 40% statement as "bogus". This seems to have been removed fairly quickly from the online edition. There is little suggestion in the text of the article that Leake was disputing the 40% statement per se, merely that the citing of WWF literature was inappropropriate. It looks to me as though the headline has been written by someone who didn't read the article very carefully.
Within the text itself, the only word I can see that can possibly be construed as objectionable is "unsubstantiated". Is it alright to describe the IPCC's statement in this way when the substantiation is not presented in the report? I think reasonable people will be able to differ on this, but it's clear from the context that Leake is saying that the statement is not supported by the citation given rather than saying that the statement is wrong.
Lewis seems to have some other grouches, such as the report having been changed after Leake had read it over to him, and the headings on the graphics suggesting the IPCC statement was wrong. More intriguingly, Lewis seems to want the PCC to make Leake reveal his email correspondence with Richard North, who did some of the research on the article. This strikes me as something of a fishing trip by Dr Lewis.
Whether any of this is the basis for a complaint to the PC, I don't know, but it is surely not a substantial complaint.
Reader Comments (15)
More intriguingly, Lewis seems to want the PCC to make Leake reveal his email correspondence with Richard North
Its worse than we had thought.
And if there is only the smallest chance that having him reveal his correspondence will save the planet, we probably ought to make him do it. After all, what is one man's privacy, when set against the future of the human race? What is journalist protection of sources when set against global catastrophe?
Something funny seems to have happened as those lines were written. The Precautionary Principle seems to have turned into a variant of the End Justifying the Means. Cannot be, can it?
There is a pattern forming here. It seems to me that the warm theorists are trying to use sceptics "tactics" (or what they see as tactics) against sceptics. Crowley recently wrote to McKitrick asking where his funding came from and now Lewis demanding to see private e-mails and reporting Leake to the PCC.
Leake cannot be held responsible fot rhe sub-editor's misinterpretation of the article.
It is all good. It keeps the news that the "science is not settled" in the headlines.
Headlines of course are usually added by sub-editors without consulting authors. But this little spat is going to be replicated many times over as and when details of the IPCC machinations and associated, how shall I put it, 'sloppinesses' are revealed and panicking academics and others on the bandwagon take desperate steps to retain some shred of respect.
It is all, hopefully, part of the endgame for AGW alarmism, a most shameful episode in science, politics, and journalism.
"[...] the 40% statement was supported by the underlying literature, even if that literature was not cited by the IPCC."
So not only does the IPCC assess sources that it shouldn't be looking at (like the various pamphlets and position papers of campaigning organizations), it is neglecting sources it should be looking at? Are we supposed to be OK that the IPCC isn't doing the very thing it was created to do?
There's some of the pertinent and pungent comment on the topic you'd expect from "The Beast from Bradford" (aka the EU Referendum blog, a current target of warmist wrath.)
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/death-by-press-release.html
Is it me or does the case seem very weak? The story hinges on the undisputed fact that the IPCC, in clear breach of rule, used a dark grey reference to back a key claim. It's not down to the ST to argue that that doesn't matter because Dr Lewis says so - that's what the letters page is for.
BTW, while it's true that "Leake cannot be held responsible for the sub-editor's misinterpretation of the article", the editor can be. In this case, I don't see that he has much to worry about - Lewis is making a fool of himself.
Dr Lewis is a most meticulous fellow. There is much intriguing about this story, not least the WWF hovering in the dark recesses of the forest, including references to orwell, 'concerned scientists', academic spats, retractions, something for everyone
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/up-is-down-brown-is-green-with-apologies-to-orwell/
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/03/mad-as-hell.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/saleska-responds-green-is-green/
Very scary photo in the Grauniad article.
Does anyone have the Brazilian tide tables handy? All I can find is this:
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/12655695
Oh, I see the photo credit is to Greenpeace.
Speaking of the IPCC and E-mail correspondence, some that I would like to see would be that which might explain how the Reviewers (who had completed their work by mid-Sep. 2006) were able to accomplish the magnificent feat of providing their input on the inclusion of no less than 354 Chapter References (in 40 of the 44 total chapters) to material that was not published until 2007
http://hro001.wordpress.com/2010/03/26/ipccs-4th-assessment-report-354-leaps-back-to-the-future/ [in case the link thing doesn't work!]
I think the release of e-mails is a grand idea. If those who promote climate alarmism /IPCC would release ALL of their e-mails related to their work, then it would be proper to ask those opposed to their findings to release their e-mails regarding their research. If FOIA is required for the first part then the second part is not necessary as the first release was not by wanting to promote science.
May I suggest having a look at my recent paper (not yet peer-reviewed, I'm afraid, but on its way to be), "Facts and debates on the future of the Amazon forest" (available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1509603). Comments appreciated.
The link to Leake's article, in the second paragraph of the Bishop article, does not work. What gives?
Hector
It works for me. Let me know if you still can't see it and I'll email you a copy.
HR001
Papers could be used if they were in print. They didn't necessarily have to be published. I'm surprised by the number though, so it could be that the rules were bent as they were for the paleoclimate chapter.
Dr Lewis is an activist. (He'll most likely be appearing in court again soon to be tried for conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass.) Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, unless it colours his science.
Does it colour his science? Possibly not. Does it colour his defence of his science?
From Lewis's e-mail to Geoffrey Leake, as quoted in Lewis's complaint to the PCC:
'The most extreme die-back model predicted that a new type of drought should begin to impact Amazonia, and in 2005 it happened for the first time: a drought associated with Atlantic, not Pacific sea-surface temperatures. The effect on the forest was massive tree mortality, and the remaining Amazon forests changed from absorbing nearly 2 billion tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere a year, to being a massive source of over 3 billion tonnes.'
'Massive' tree mortality? The 'remaining' Amazon forests? His study didn't actually give an overall estimate of 2005 drought tree-mortality (though it did say that you couldn't really see any difference when you were there). What the study did instead was come up with an estimate of net biomass gain/loss by extrapolating from local modeled studies. On that basis, Lewis's 'remaining Amazon forests' comprised 99.7% of the pre-2005 forests.
I stopped reading his PCC submission at that point. Does anyone know whether he ever got around to mentioning that his study of the 2005 drought found no significant correlation between die-back and absolute drought - that, rather, it was relative drought that did the dirty (or the modelled, much-extrapolated dirty)?
To a non-Crusty, non-Leeds Uni School of Geography, non-Camp for Climate Action, non-Zapatista type of person, that finding suggests resilience to drought, not droughty global doom. But what do I know?
Incidentally, does anyone know why everyone - press, police and defendants alike - has gone so quiet about Operation Aeroscope? Is it perhaps being considered by the other IPCC? If so, that would make for an interesting Profero-type bollocks diagram. Two IPCCs, a PCC ... even an ICC, though it's not the same Simon Lewis. (I confess to having started on one. The A489 looms surprisingly large.)