The notion that the Amazonian Rainforest is at increased risk due to global warming – as stated in the IPCC v4 report from 2007 – was taken from a WWF report that was not part of any peer review process. The WWF report was written about forest fires, not the Amazon Basin, and was generated to
“secure essential policy reform at national and international level to provide a legislative and economic base for controlling harmful anthropogenic forest fires.”
This is not in itself a bad thing. Advocacy organizations do this all of the time, and it is completely reasonable for individuals and groups to try to convince others of their viewpoint. And it is true that the Amazonian Rainforest is under threat from clearing for cattle pastures, logging, etc. But the IPCC reports are supposed to present science. The IPCC holds its peer review process up as the gold standard. And there was no peer review to confirm or disprove the assertion that global warming itself threatens the Amazonian Rainforest. This bit of advocacy was included in the same portion of the report as the now-discredited assertions of catastrophic retreat by Himalayan Glaciers.
I love this quote from Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice chairman of the IPCC, regarding this new information:
“I would like to submit that this could increase the credibility of the IPCC, not decrease it. Aren’t mistakes human? Even the IPCC is a human institution.”
Trust us more because we make mistakes. One does not usually get that effect from this cause. Here is an article about the Rainforest portion of the IPCC report.