Posted on
21 June 2010
London, UK: A key element of the concerted
attack on climate science earlier this year
collapsed yesterday, with The Sunday Times
apologizing for and withdrawing an article
alleging that estimates of climate change
risks to the Amazon were based on an “unsubstantiated
claim” in a WWF report.
The apology, coming
almost five months after the article was
published, followed complaints to the UK
Press Complaints Commission from leading
tropical forest ecologist Dr Simon Lewis,
who was interviewed for the article and
WWF report authors Andy Rowell and Dr Peter
Moore.
The Sunday Times accepted
that assessments of risk to the Amazon in
both the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change report and a WWF/International
Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
report on forest fires were not unsubstantiated,
but based on peer-reviewed science.
The article did not
give a “fair or accurate account” of the
views of Dr Lewis and was inconsistent with
the research literature he had provided.
Nor were the authors
of the 2000 WWF/IUCN global report on forest
fires “green campaigners” with “little scientific
expertise”. The paper said “We also now
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”.
"This retraction
hopefully indicates that after a period
of some hysteria, balance and consideration
is being restored to the media's reporting
of climate science,” said WWF-UK’s head
of climate change, Keith Allott.
“Earlier this year we
witnessed a concerted attempt to discredit
both the IPCC and the whole body of climate
science - and too often certain media seemed
to write the headline first and then construct
a story to fit it. The media are right to
challenge and to hold all claims to account,
but in this case their story was just not
fair or true."
"As we said in
a letter published by The Sunday Times at
the time, misleading coverage in respected
media outlets can serve to undermine public
confidence in the credibility of climate
science.
“The reality is that
we are running out of time to head off the
huge risks that climate change poses, not
just to the Amazon but to the rest of the
world."
Recent Stanford University
research found a majority of US and UK citizens
solidly behind action on climate change,
with views little affected by the now rapidly
unraveling spate of attacks on climate science.
The correction published
by the Sunday Times reads:
The Sunday Times and
the IPCC: 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 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.
The original article to which this correction
refers has been removed.
