Roger Pielke Jr, indirectly, raised an important issue about the provenance of the IPCC Amazon statement at Climateaudit. “Why should we be content examining just the references quoted by IPCC Amazon defenders?” In doing so however, he succumbed to Amazon ‘jungle fever’ and started cutting through the thicket of citations himself.
At this stage, when the heavy lifting has been done, and done again, what would the outcome of any clear-eyed examination of the literature on the Amazon precipitation sensitivity be? That the IPCC’s statement on the Amazon in its Latin America chapter is unsubstantiated – is my guess.
This lucid post was the outcome of his search effort (made easy by the unacknowledged work of others no doubt). If you are new to Amazongate, and want to simply get to the root of the matter – this is where you look. Now that Ranga Myneni has contributed his thoughts across several insightful comments in the thread, one just hopes no one pops an aneurysm.
The Wall Street Journal seems to have picked up on Pielke Jr’s post ( A Climate Absolution? – WSJ.com)
A widely cited claim by the IPCC that Himalayan glaciers would all but vanish by 2035 was debunked. Another stunner about a potential 40% decline in the Amazonian rainforest “appears to have absolutely no scientific basis at all,” according to Roger Pielke, Jr., an environmental studies professor at the University of Colorado. Other attention-getting IPCC assertions turn out to have been based on the work of environmental pressure groups and popular magazines.
It appears that the story of the IPCC’s Amazon statement is an open secret.