After the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its 2007 assessment, which included stark warning about the future of the Amazon rainforest if climate change continues unabated, the london newspaper The Sunday Times published an article ridiculing the IPCC's reliance on information from WWF about the Amazon. The paper said the information came from "green campaigners" with "little scientific expertise," but now the paper has published an apology.The original WWF paper estimated that up to 40 percent of the Amazon could be under threat from changing rainfall patterns. The criticism from The Sunday Times reverberated around the world, giving fodder to climate deniers and sowing seeds of doubt.
But the truth was a much different story. The IPCC's citation was just one of thousands, which obviously didn't negate the validity of the IPCC's other findings. And as The Sunday Times has now noted, scientists involved in Amazon research have come forward and defended the WWF study. Perhaps the biggest support came from Daniel Nepstad of the Woods Hole Research Center, who published an informed defense.
Here's the full text of the correction.
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 had, in error, not been referenced, but 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 Mr Rowell is an experienced environmental journalist and 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.
In addition, the article stated that Dr Lewis' concern at the IPCC's use of reports by environmental campaign groups related to the prospect of those reports being biased in their conclusions. We accept that Dr Lewis holds no such view - rather, he was concerned that the use of non-peer-reviewed sources risks creating the perception of bias and unnecessary controversy, which is unhelpful in advancing the public's understanding of the science of 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.
More on the IPCC:
Is the IPCC Assessment on Global Climate Change Wrong
Worst-Case IPCC Climate Change Trajectories Are Being Realized: Copenhagen Climate Congress Concludes