How can we make the most of this? Is there any point in spreading it 
around, and writing to the editor of the Sunday Times to get them to put 
it onlin?

Chris

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/06/leakegate-a-retraction/Leakegate: 
A retraction
Filed under:

* Climate Science
* IPCC
* Reporting on climate

— gavin @ 20 June 2010

Back in February, we commented on the fact-free IPCC-related media 
frenzy in the UK which involved plentiful confusion, the making up of 
quotes and misrepresenting the facts. Well, a number of people have 
pursued the newspapers concerned and Simon Lewis at least filed a 
complaint (pdf) with the relevant press oversight body. In response, the 
Sunday Times (UK) has today retracted a story by Jonathan Leake on a 
supposed ‘Amazongate’ and published the following apology:

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 the World 
Wildlife Fund (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.

Note that the Sunday Times has removed the original article from their 
website (though a copy is available here), and the retraction does not 
appear to have ever been posted online. Here is a scan of the print 
version just in case there is any doubt about its existence.

This follows on the heels of a German paper, the Franfurter Rundschau, 
recently retracting a story on the ‘Africagate’ non-scandal, based on 
reporting from….. Jonathan Leake.

It is an open question as to what impact these retractions and apologies 
have, but just as with technical comments on nonsense articles appearing 
a year after the damage was done, setting the record straight is a 
important for those people who will be looking at this at a later date, 
and gives some hope that the media can be held (a little) accountable 
for what they publish.
Comments (pop-up) (3)


3 Responses to “Leakegate: A retraction”

1.
1
Spencer says:
20 June 2010 at 11:01 AM

Important to set the record straight — yes. Useful for overcoming 
prejudices — no. Studies show that for pieces like this, that tell you 
“X said A but the truth is Not-A,” a reader who is asked a few days 
later will remember “A is true” if that agrees with their 
preconceptions. Sigh.
2.
2
dhogaza says:
20 June 2010 at 11:29 AM

The importance, hopefully, is that they’ll think twice about running 
anything Leake has to say about climate science without first 
fact-checking his article.

The damage done by the two retracted articles can’t be fully undone, but 
future damage due to new lies can just possibly be prevented.
3.
3
Bob (Sphaerica) says:
20 June 2010 at 11:36 AM

A good beginning, but there are two necessary continuations:

1) Individual journalists who have made repeated egregious errors should 
no longer be professional journalists (i.e. no publisher should hire 
them, or publish their work, period). There must be personal 
repercussions for individuals who demonstrate either extreme 
journalistic incompetence or, worse, purposefully malicious misreporting.

2) We need more of the same. This needs to be repeated, over and over, 
for each and every case of nonsense, so that with the same clamor that 
people heard “the science is bad” they will hear “the journalism was 
very, very bad and the science was actually quite good.”