re: #146 Buck

Well not actually false, just not properly peer reviewed. If removed, the rest of the report would still stand.

Unless we find a lot more… so that is a really good reason to keep looking, and adding to the list…

Yes false, in the case of the Amazon, the underlying report from the advocacy group was even misquoted, it referred to the sensitivity of clear cut parts of the Amazon forest, not the forest itself as reported in the IPCC AR4.

The Himalayan part was sourced to Dr. Hasnain who himself has said it was just speculation and appeared nowhere in his actual work. False.

The African part was a small report done by an advocate and carbon trader, it was also applicable to one country and only during drought years. The IPCC AR4 took this to mean the larger region and an overall effect. False.

So yes, not only not peer reviewed, but misquoted from the original sources. What remains is not at all alarming for those regions.

BBL