There are three aspects and those of us are going through the three things in parallel.

1) Is the IPCC claim, in the way it has been written, supported by any literature?
2) Do the new papers being cited to support the IPCC claim actually support it?
3) Since some time has passed between 2005 and now, are there other papers saying anything else?

With regards to (1), The IPCC/WWF got the full benefit of doubt. They said “respected IPAM Brazil supports claim” in Feb and we simply swallowed it (Maybe North is the only one who didn’t). I would say, the skeptic blogs completely failed to follow through on this.

Are you saying that a audit of this situation required going through 1),2) and 3) completely, before saying *anything* at all? That is not needed – in this case. An analogous situation in something else, maybe, but not in this case. Why do I say that?

Simply because the experts who defended the meaning of the statement argued so vehemently for the statement itself, and by extension, even for the analogous statement in the WWF report too (!) They never conceded any aspect of this statement. “Yeah, it is goofy, bad, no ref, yada yada, but, it is fully true”. I dont believe that one moment.

Secondly because when we now knew that the real origin of the statement, and that was unsubstantiated and removed so much in time and meaning, from the science that has sprung up later, and supposedly supports it.

About Samanta et al later (post getting long).

In contrast manmade global warming has never been put to experimental test

Only in the strict meaning that future projections of climate change can’t be compared yet to future reality. Besides that, climate scientists test their hypotheses and their understanding of the working of the climate system against empirical data all the time, like in any other science, whether paleo-data, proxy-data, or direct measurements of climate relevant variables are being used. Like the basic theories from physics, chemistry, or biology, on which the understanding of the climate system is based, are being tested as well. So, your assertion that the sets of statements, with which the climate system is being explained and based on which global warming is being projected, isn’t being tested, is just baseless.

there are numerous errors in the observations so great as to make the conclusions based on those results totally meaningless.

About what errors in what observations are you talking, specifically? And how would you know that those errors are too large to draw any meaningful conclusions?

Man-made Global warming [...] is a poorly formed hypothesis with little or no evidence to support it.

If you keep up with repeating this to yourself, perhaps five times a day, in regular intervals, maybe one day it will become true what you say?

If we say “the IPCC statement is wrong” – it obviously opens the gates to thinking/saying – “is the opposite true then?” It is pretty obvious that the scientists concerned with the Amazon do not want this to happen, and we, as outsiders, should be responsible and cautious in this regard and lend them support.

Of all the things that could be true, the opposite (of the IPCC statement) could be true too, but the probability for that would be minimal.

That said, ‘Amazongate’ would die only if we get a statement from the IPCC on what their position is.

This mere fact speaks to the importance of the Samanta paper in a scientific sense – it takes down the precipitation dependence of the Amazon that we all supposed to believe.

when you had an opportunity to put gareth straight on that paper.

http://cybele.bu.edu/download/manuscripts/samanta-01.pdf

Let me therefore take this opportunity to put you straight.

That paper studied greenness changes over a limited time-frame that included a brief drought, but did not not include a prolonged megadrought. Therefore your conclusion that these forests must not be moisture-limited is incorrect. While no evidence was found in the period 2000-08, this is not a very long period of time to get an adequate test of the hypothesis.

According to your link above, The Sunday Times says “UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim” – when in fact no one has proved the “claim” is “bogus”. All that has been proved is that the source of the claim is not credible. There is a difference there, and if you don’t care to take note, well, that says something about your ability to audit.

Then we have a Canadian newspaper parrotting much the same message, when the fact is that the credibility of the source of a three-year-old IPCC 4AR statement bears only tangentially on the veracity of the claim.

So you tell me: who here is not doing their due diligence in fact-checking? Lots of blame to go around, it seems.

Your advice plays in my favor. I question the 40% number as much as any one. That does not mean I believe the correct number is 0%. If Hector M wants to play authority, he should tell us his number, or failing that, give us his assessment of the literature.

Me, I would not even be in this thread were it not for a few people playing authority where they have no business doing so. I’m no authority. But at least I know it.

a) When does Amazongate die?
b) Did it ‘die’ on its own?
c) Isn’t it surprising that a search for the true precipitation sensitivity of the Amazon began right after Amazongate ‘died’?

You should be used to this kind of a thing – if you question ‘X’ hypothesis, it does not mean that you hold ‘Y’ to be true. Doing this amounts to playing tricks.

If one is going to flog the dead horse of amazongate and AR4, that’s fine. But if you’re going to try to propagate a belief that the amazon is totally not at risk, then you’d better be prepared to look at ALL the literature, including the most recent stuff, and not just the trash that AR4 relied upon.

I wouldn’t harp on this except that Hector’s been caught on several points with a couple of porkies. And when he’s outed he moves on like it never happened.