The UK Sunday
Times has apologised over a major part of
the so-called “climategate’ scandal – "Amazongate".
In February this year,
the Sunday Times ran a story alleging that
the IPCC was making stuff up about the effects
of climate change on the Amazon.
The story was picked
up across the world, appearing in print,
on blogs and on television. The allegation
was that the IPCC used a bad reference for
its predictions around the Amazon, one taken
from a WWF report. The reference WAS missing
from the report, but the science was correct.
"In fact, the IPCC's
Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed
scientific evidence," says the Sunday
Times apology.
In fact, the Sunday
Times had the reference to the peer-reviewed
scientific literature a full eight hours
before going to print. It had also talked
with the author of that scientific literature,
but that didn't appear in the story either.
When the Sunday Times
talked with climate scientist and rainforest
specialist Dr Simon Lewis, they completely
disregarded his comments, misquoted him,
and read him a version of the story that
bore no resemblance to the story that appeared
in the paper.
"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," said the Sunday Times.
The authors of the report,
and Dr Lewis then complained to the UK's
Press Complaints Commission, complaints
which have led to this full apology and
retraction four months later.
This is yet another
nail in the "climategate" coffin.
It's yet another part of the "scandal"
around the IPCC that has turned out not
to be a scandal at all. So the question
remains: Will all the media who ran the
"Amazongate" story also run retractions?
Will it be taken off websites? Will, for
example, The Australian, which ran the story,
word for word, as a syndicated piece, also
run an apology and take the story off its
website? (Update: it appears they did remove
the story but we couldn't find a retraction.)
This story was the basis of editorials,
blogs and general diatribes against the
IPCC around the world.
The hype around Amazongate
was enormous. It travelled across the world.
But much of the media
never likes to admit it's wrong – and the
climate denial bloggers pushing the climategate
hype have never let the truth get in the
way of their story - so my guess is that
they won't be jumping to correct themselves.
So if you know of any blogs or newspapers
that ran the story, I encourage you to write
a letter, call them up, post a comment to
get them to take it down and run a story
about the Sunday Times' apology. They owe
it to the public. And to the climate.
(As you need to register
at the Sunday Times site to read the retraction,
we reproduce it here for your convenience)
The Sunday Times full
retraction: 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.
+ More
The original article
to which this correction refers has been
removed
The town of Sidi R’bat
on Morocco’s Atlantic coast is where the
biblical Jonah is said to have been vomited
up by a whale. Less than 100km from that
spot, something has been going on this week
that is again enough to make a whale sick
to the stomach.
The International Whaling
Commission has met this year beneath a dark
cloud of scandal. As delegates descended
on the city of Agadir, media headlines exposed
Japan “buying” countries to vote with them
– including the accusation that airfares
and accommodation for this meeting’s acting
chairman were paid by Japan. Hardly an auspicious
start to a crucial international meeting,
nor a good omen for the whales.
Allegations that prostitutes
and envelopes of cash, as well as ‘financial
assistance with strings attached’ were exchanged
for support of the otherwise unpopular whaling
industry may be a shock, but to those following
the desperate death throes of the Japanese,
Norwegian and Icelandic whaling industries,
they come as no surprise.
On this backdrop of
corruption and scandal, countries were attempting
to reach agreement on the future of the
Commission, with the goal of improving the
conservation and management of the world’s
whales. We believe this attempt was one
worth making, and were pushing countries
to respect the moratorium on commercial
whaling and make some drastic improvements
to the draft proposal made by the IWC chairman
– a proposal that was grossly inadequate.
On day one the meeting
lowered its tone, expelling NGOs and media
so that countries, grouped into pro-conservation
blocs, could meet in private with each of
the whale hunting nations plus South Korea
(which has repeatedly expressed its wish
to resume commercial whaling). In what was
seen by outsiders as some sort of obscene
speed-dating arrangement, a day and a half
of precious time was wasted in discussions
that yielded nothing.
With me here in Agadir
is my friend Junichi, who is currently facing
the grim possibility of 18 months jail in
Japan for his part in exposing embezzlement
and corruption at the heart of the Japanese
government’s whaling programme. He is willing
to risk his freedom to bring an end to commercial
whaling – yet governments meeting this week
seem unwilling to risk very much at all
to bring this goal any closer.
Yesterday, it was Junichi
who made public the failure of countries
to achieve progress for the whales. Countries
have moved on to discussing a “cooling off
period” of one year before negotiations
resume. Whatever they mean by cooling off,
it’s not cool by us. Time is precious for
the world’s whales. Norway and Iceland will
be killing whales in the next few weeks
if they aren’t already, and the Japanese
fleet is at sea now, hunting down whales
in the North Pacific including endangered
sei whales.
Greenpeace is opposed
to all commercial whaling in all of our
oceans. We were hoping that this year, countries
might be able to take a hard negotiating
stance to finally produce an agreement that
would save whales, not dying whaling industries.
While we did not support the proposal on
the table, it is shameful that leaders here
were unable to change it into something
positive. That means Japan, Iceland and
Norway will continue to kill whales with
impunity. Behind closed doors, governments
have effectively ushered in another year
of the status quo in which around two thousand
whales may die needlessly. Die in the name
of science we don’t need, and meat that
no-one wants. Die at the expense of taxpayers,
many of whom do not even support whaling,
to line the pockets of a few men still seeking
to profit from a plunder that belongs in
the century past.
It’s enough to make a whale sick.
