Regular readers of this blog (all of whom are highly esteemed and valued) will recall instantly that I made a complaint about this article by David Rose in the Mail on Sunday.
My initial complaint is here (let me know if you cannot see it, I can only get at it from inside Blogger)
My second letter is here:
And my third letter is here.
Below you can read their judgment. As cynics and sceptics would expect, they fully agree with the rightness of that which is written in their colleague's newspaper.
Anthony Watts thinks this is a wonderful vindication of the truth of the climate sceptics cause.
I have commented on his blog:
So the PCC has given the all clear to one of its own members, even if it meant that a committee of media types has to redefine the meaning of “plotted in retrospect”, “the world’s average temperature” “Here’s what the experts say” and re-evaluate the significance of a very small number of past scientific papers suggesting global cooling.
You will of course take this as a scientific vindication of Rose’ original article.
But the all clear given to Phil Jones and the East Anglia unit by several committees of scientists is a whitewash in your view, is it not?
Hmmm.
For the sake of their own credibility the PCC should have made one or two concessions. But the fact is that their credibility matters not one jot, since they are soon to be killed off, as a result of the Leveson Inquiry.
And yes, despite this, we should all continue to complain about newspaper inaccuracies, because if we do not complain because we think the PCC is useless, they will interpret our silence as one of contentment.
_________________________________________________________________________
Commission’s decision in the case of
Lawson v The Mail on Sunday
The
complainant, an environmentalist and the author of
greenerblog.blogspot.com, was concerned that the newspaper had published
an article on
the subject of climate change – both in print and online – which
contained a number of alleged inaccuracies, misleading statements and
distortions in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of
Practice.
Under
the terms of Clause 1, “the press must take care not to publish
inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information”; “a significant
inaccuracy, misleading statement
or distortion once recognised must be corrected promptly and with due
prominence”; and “the press, whilst free to be partisan, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact”.
In
this instance, the article under complaint formed part of a “four-page
special report” entitled “The Great Green Con”. The piece was written
from the perspective of
investigative journalist David Rose and, in the Commission’s view,
readers would have recognised the article as one individual’s analysis
of the information provided by the United Nations Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). When reporting scientific
findings, publications must often present complex information to a
general readership; this may involve an element of interpretation. The
newspaper was permitted, under the terms of the Code, to publish such
interpretation of scientific data, however strongly
disputed.
The
Commission considered each of the points raised by the complainant in
turn and carefully took note of the supporting material supplied by both
parties.
The article was accompanied by a graph showing
estimated temperature changes over time alongside the average
temperature for the same period. The complainant said the newspaper had
misrepresented the nature of computer model hindcasting
(where known or closely estimated inputs for past events are entered into a model to see how well the output matches the known results)
when it described the earlier temperature records in the graph as
having been “plotted in retrospect”. The complainant said that if the
graph had been accurately “plotted in retrospect” by hand, it would have
displayed a post-1998 levelling off of surface
temperatures. The Commission considered that the newspaper was free to
rely on a graph produced by computer model hindcasting
showing predicted data originating from the IPCC
and actual temperatures supplied by the Met Office. While the
complainant’s position was that the newspaper could have better
explained to readers the processes behind generating such
a graph, the Commission could not conclude that the description of
predictions “plotted in retrospect” misrepresented what had been done in
this instance. There was no breach of the Code on this point.
With
regard to the article’s claims that “the graph confirms there has been
no statistically significant increase in the world’s average temperature
since January 1997”
and “the awkward fact is that the earth has warmed just 0.5 degrees
over the past 50 years”, the complainant argued that this might
possibly be true of the world’s average surface
temperature, but the phrase “world’s average temperature” implied
that all temperature measurements were included. He said that when the
continuing increase of ocean temperature is included, a statistically
significant increase in the world’s average temperature
has continued since 1997. The Commission could not agree that the
phrase “world’s average temperature” would automatically be understood
to include ocean temperature. It considered that the readers would have
understood the figures to represent surface
temperature, as experienced in their day-to-day lives. The
Commission’s role is to administer the Editors’ Code of Practice and it
emphasised that it is not the correct body to test veracity of the
scientific data relied upon by the columnist. However, it
was able to conclude that the newspaper had not presented those figures
to readers in such a way that would have misled them as to what was
being shown by the graph.
The
Commission noted that, contrary to the complainant’s assertion, the
article did not refer to Dr David Whitehouse as an “expert” in the field
of climate change. Rather,
he was given the broader description of “avowed climate sceptic” and
author. In the absence of any complaint from Dr Whitehouse that his
position had been misrepresented, the Commission was unable to conclude
that the newspaper had breached Clause 1 of the
Code on this point.
Although
the complainant considered that the newspaper should have explained to
readers the background of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the
Commission made clear
that the Code does not require newspapers to publish exhaustive
information on a particular subject. The omission of details about the
political motivations of the Global Warming Policy Foundation did not
render the article misleading or significantly inaccurate
in such a way that would necessitate subsequent correction under the
terms of Clause 1 (ii). In any case, the Global Warming Policy
Foundation was mentioned in the context of the report penned by Dr
Whitehouse and, as his position as a sceptic was made clear,
the Commission considered that it would have been clear to readers that
the organisation was not impartial on the issue of climate change.
The
complainant was concerned that the article’s reference to the “global
cooling” theories of the 1970s was misleading as the idea was only put
out by a very small group of
scientists at that time. The Commission noted his position that just
seven scientific papers from the era suggested cooling, while six times
that number suggested warming. He had argued that the prevalence of
global warming theories meant that it was wrong
for the newspaper to state that “in the Seventies, scientists and
policymakers were just as concerned about a looming ‘ice age’ as they
have been lately about global warming”. This was plainly a matter of
interpretation of scientific papers (which the complainant
did not dispute existed) and the Commission considered that the
newspaper was entitled to set out its editorial stance that historical
concerns about global cooling are comparable to modern day fears about
global warming.
The
complainant objected to the article’s assertion that “the forecasts
have also forced jobs abroad as manufacturers relocate to places with
no emissions targets”. He asked the newspaper to provide examples of
where more than one manufacturer had relocated to places with no
emissions targets where the motivation of “no emission targets” was the
primary driving factor. The Commission noted that
the during the complaints process the newspaper had supplied material
detailing how companies – such as steel manufacturers and oil refineries
– have closed or relocated due to carbon constraints. The complainant
had accepted the newspaper’s
evidence
that energy levies may be a factor in some firms relocating and the
Commission was satisfied that there was no breach of the Code on this
point.
No breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) was established by the complaint.
Finally,
the Commission noted that the complainant had initially expressed
concerns about the reporter’s alleged misrepresentation
of comments made by Professor Myles Allen in relation to past
predictions for temperature change and revisions to those predictions.
In
regard to complaints about matters of general fact under Clause 1
(Accuracy) of the Code – where there are no obvious first parties cited
in the article, who might complain – the
Commission emphasised that it can indeed investigate complaints from
any concerned reader. However, in this instance, the disputed comments
were clearly attributed to Professor Allen (who had subsequently
clarified his position in an article published in
The Guardian newspaper).
During
the complaints process the complainant had indicated that he was
content to leave it to Professor Allen to complain about
these issues, rather than pursue the matter himself. The Commission
noted that Professor Allen had written in support of the complainant’s
case, but had not submitted his own formal complaint to the PCC. The
Commission explained that it had subsequently
written separately to Professor Allen, providing him with the
information necessary to allow him to make his own complaint, but no
reply had been received. The Commission made clear that should Professor
Allen decide to complain separately, then it would be
happy consider the matter further.
Reference no. 131408
No comments:
Post a Comment