Decision of the Complaints Committee 01032-17 Ward v The Mail on Sunday
Summary of Complaint
1. Bob Ward complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Mail on Sunday breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “EXPOSED How world leaders were duped over global warming”, published on 5 February 2017.The article, which also published online under the headline “Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data”.
2. The article
reported on claims made by Dr John Bates, a climate scientist formerly employed
at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), in an online
blog and in an interview to the newspaper. In the blog, Dr Bates detailed at
length his concerns surrounding the archiving and documentation of two sets of
temperature data, which had formed the basis of a climate study published in
the journal Science on 4 June 2015. Dr Bates had claimed that the authors of
the study had failed to follow internal NOAA procedures in relation to the
archiving of the data, which affected other researchers’ ability to scrutinise
the work. This process, which Dr Bates had devised during his employment at
NOAA, was the organisation’s official archiving procedure for all “operational”
datasets. The study, widely referred to as the “Pausebuster” paper, suggested
that there had been no “pause” in global warming in the 2000s as other research
had appeared to show.
3. In addition to criticising the archiving process, the blog also criticised the paper itself, suggesting that its authors had “push[ed] choices to emphasize warming” and that the principal author had his “thumb on the scale – in the documentation, scientific choices and release of datasets – in an attempt to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus”, demonstrating “flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines”. Dr Bates suggested that the publication of the paper had been “rushed” with the aim of influencing the 2015 UN climate conference in Paris. Dr Bates said that he had pressed the co-authors to justify their decision not to archive the data through his devised method, but that they had not defended their decision.
4. The article said
that the newspaper had been shown “irrefutable evidence” that the paper had
been based upon “misleading, unverified data”, and said that NOAA had “breached
its own rules on scientific integrity” when it had published the “sensational
but flawed report”, because the failure to archive the data had meant that “the
Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists”.
5. The article
explained that the Pausebuster paper had been based on two new datasets, one
relating to measurements of land surface temperatures, and the other, ocean
surface temperatures.
6. The article
reported on the concerns which Dr Bates had detailed at length in his blog,
about the archiving of these two sets of data. It said that the data “was never
subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates
devised”. It said that both of these data sets had been “flawed” but that Dr
Bates’ “vehement objections” to the publication of the “faulty data”, which he
had made known to the co-authors of the paper, had been “overridden by his NOAA
superiors”. In an interview with the newspaper, Dr Bates had “accused the lead
author of the paper of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that
maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the
notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to
influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.”
7. The article
explained that the data set which had been used to measure sea surface
temperatures, known as ERSST.v4, had replaced an earlier version of the data
set, ERSST.v3. It said that ERSST.v4 had “tripled” the apparent warming trend
over the sea between 2000 and 2014, compared with ERSST.v3, leading to the
apparent disappearance of the “pause” in climate change over the period. Dr
Bates had told the newspaper that this increase in temperature had been
achieved by “dubious means” because the data’s “key error was an upwards
‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally
reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful
source – water taken in by ships”. Dr Bates said that the authors of the paper
“had good data from buoys” but said that “they threw it out and ’corrected‘ it
by using the bad data from ships… you never change good data to agree with bad,
but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.” Dr
Bates also said that the ERSSTv4 had also ignored “reliable” data from
satellites, which measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere.
8. The article
stated that the NOAA had subsequently decided that ERSST.v4 will have to be
“replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because
it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming”. It claimed
that the new version “will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in
the recent warming trend”, when compared to the dataset used in the Pausebuster
paper, and “will reverse the flaws in version 4”.
9. The article was
illustrated with a graph, entitled “The misleading ‘Pausebuster’ chart”. It
plotted a red line which represented the data from ERSST.v4, described as “the
‘adjusted’ and unreliable sea data cited in the flawed ‘Pausebuster’ paper”,
and a blue line, described as “the UK Met Office’s independently texted and
verified ‘HadCRUT4’ record”, which it said “showed lower monthly readings and a
shallower recent warming trend”. A note at the base of the graph stated that “0
represents 14°C”.
10. The article reported Dr Bates’ criticism of the land
surface data, claiming that it had been “processed through a … method which had
significant errors, meaning that the study would have used data with
experimental processing, which had known flaws”; he had said that data set was
“questionable” because it “was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software
that rendered its findings ‘unstable’”.
11. The article said that the “final bombshell” came when Dr
Bates learned that the computer used to process the land surface data had
suffered a “complete failure”; it said that “because of the NOAA’s failure to
archive data used in the paper, its results can never be verified” or replicated
by other scientists.
12. The article claimed that the “failure to archive and
make available fully documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also
those set down by Science”.
13. The article reported Dr Bates’ concerns regarding the influence
which the paper had made on these policy decisions, and said that it had been
shown “astonishing evidence” that NOAA had “rushed” to make the “maximum
possible impact” on world leaders at the 2014 UN climate conference in Paris.
It further claimed that delegations from America, Britain and the EU had been
“strongly influenced” by the “flawed” and “manipulated” data as they negotiated
the agreement, which had “convinced the Paris summit to invest billions in
climate change”; this was the basis for the headline’s claim that “world
leaders were duped over global warming”.
14. The article explained that after the paper was
published, the US House of Representatives Science Committee launched an
inquiry into the paper, and said that the chairman of the Committee had thanked
Dr Bates for “for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s
senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a
politically predetermined conclusion”.
15. The article suggested that the incident had “disturbing
echoes” of the “Climategate” affair, another instance in which the newspaper
had revealed what it described as “dodgy climate data” based on leaked internal
emails sent by climate scientists. The article characterised the new
allegations as “Climategate 2.”
16. The complainant said that article had made a number of
extraordinary claims, which were misleading and inaccurate, including a “fake
graph”. The significance of Dr Bates’ concerns about the archiving procedures
had been misrepresented in the article, and the newspaper had taken no steps to
establish the veracity of Dr Bates’ claims. World leaders had not been duped”,
and there was no “irrefutable evidence” that the paper was based on “misleading,
unverified data”, as the article had claimed. The findings of the Pausebuster
paper had been verified by independent referees for Science in accordance with
its standard peer review procedure, who had been able to access the data in
order to carry out an independent evaluation of the paper, which had provided
independent confirmation of the findings. The relevant data had been pushed on
the NOAA’s File Transfer Protocol (FTP) site in early June 2015, when the paper
was published. The complainant said that in those circumstances, it was
inaccurate to report that the publication of the paper had violated the rules
of Science.
17. The complainant disputed the accuracy of Dr Bates’
claims, particularly his description of the two data sets as “dodgy” or
“faulty”; he did not accept that the paper had “exaggerated global warming”, or
that it was a “sensational but flawed report”. The complainant also denied that
Dr Bates had expressed “vehement objections” to the publication of the data or
that the paper had been rushed. He noted that after the publication of the
article, Dr Bates had issued a statement clarifying that there was “no data
tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious” in the preparation of the
paper.
18. The complainant said that there was no evidence that
ERSST.v4 used “unreliable” methods which “exaggerated” the speed of warming,
given that the paper had been independently examined and verified. While the
complainant accepted that the authors of the paper had noted that buoy data have
been proven to be more accurate and reliable than ship data, he said that this
had been explicitly acknowledged in the paper. In any case, this adjustment
made only a small contribution to the differences between ERSST.v4, and
ERSST.v3; the largest change had resulted from a different adjustment. He
further said that satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere are not
“considered reliable” because they do not provide information about sea surface
temperatures. The sea surface temperatures were not “measured using methods
known to be “dubious” of “unreliable”, given that ERSST.v4’s methodology had
been fully documented in an earlier paper, which described a series of 11
procedures that were applied to correct for potential errors in the data. The
complainant noted that an independent reviewer of the paper had said that the
land data set used in the study was largely similar to a previous version, and
was responsible for relatively little of the increase in warming it had showed.
In those circumstances, the complainant said that, while he could not confirm
whether there were “bugs” in the software of the land temperature dataset, any
bugs which may have been there, would not have been “devastating”.
19. While the complainant accepted that ERSST.v5 would soon
be released, he denied that it would show lower temperatures and a slower rate
in the warming trend, nor would it “reverse flaws in version 4”: ERRSTv5 had
been compiled, largely due to the analysis of new data not available for
ERSSTv4. He said that he had seen the draft paper methodology of the new
data set, and the paper did not make it clear how its results would compare to
the previous data set.
20. The complainant said that the graph which illustrated
the article was fake. First, the red line did not represent the data from the
paper, because it did not incorporate the land surface data. Second, it
misrepresented the differences between the two data sets: the two lines which
allegedly showed the difference between the two data sets for sea surface
temperature measurements were misleading, because the data sets used different
baselines. It was wrong to say that “0 represents 14°C”; for the NOAA data, the
baseline was 13.9.
21. The complainant raised a number of concerns in relation
to the article’s presentation of the paper’s impact on the Paris Climate
Conference in 2014. In particular, he said that there was no evidence that
world leaders had been aware of the existence of the paper at the time of the
Paris Conference: they had not referenced the paper in their speeches on the
opening day of the summit, and there was no reference to the paper or the
“pause” in any version of the Agreement. It was wrong to say that the US, UK
and EU delegations had been “strongly influenced” by the paper.
22. The complainant denied that the paper had been “rushed”;
it had been submitted to the journal almost a year before the conference;
accepted for publication in May 2015; and published online on 4 June 2015. The
journal determined the timescale for publication, and its editor had said that
“the paper was not rushed in any way”.
23. The complainant raised a number of other concerns about
the newspaper’s claims about the significance and context of the allegations.
Calls for urgent action on climate change did not “look threadbare” as a result
of the claims; the case for action on climate change is based on the evidence
documented in many thousands of rigorous academic studies, not on a single
paper.
24. The complainant denied that the so-called ‘pause’ in
global warming had been “revealed” by UN scientists in 2013. He said that the
2013 report to which this referred had summarised earlier academic studies,
which had already suggested a possible slowdown in the rate of rise in global
mean surface temperature after 1998. He also said it was inaccurate and
misleading to liken the seriousness of the allegations contained in the blog to
that of the 2009 “Climategate” affair, and in any case disputed the
representation of that controversy. He further said that the statements
attributed to the head of the US House of Representatives Science Committee,
were inaccurate and misleading, given Dr Bates’ subsequent statement that there
was “no data tampering, no dating changing, nothing malicious” in the preparation
of the paper.
25. The newspaper defended the accuracy of its coverage, with the single exception of the issue of the graphic (see below). It said it was entitled to highlight the concerns of an award-winning former senior scientist at NOAA, who had reported that NOAA had broken its own rules on the use of scientific data in a crucial paper, and to comment on the implications of these claims.
26. The newspaper said that Dr Bates had checked the
accuracy of the article before publication. It denied that Dr Bates’ statement
saying that he did not allege data tampering, data changing or “anything
malicious” was effectively a withdrawal of his claims: it was an explanation
that figures, once entered, had not been altered. It was not inaccurate for the
article to report that Dr Bates had shown the newspaper “irrefutable evidence”
that the paper had been based on “misleading” and “unverified” data. The
independent reviewers of the paper were free to express their views on the
paper, but others had disagreed with them.
27. It said that Dr Bates had presented evidence that the
land data set was experimental, subject to bugs and unverified, while the
ERSSTv4 sea dataset, which inflated the speed of warming, was about to be
replaced. The newspaper maintained that the land surface data set had not been
properly archived.
28. In response to a request by IPSO to clarify the
“irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’
data” it said that Dr Bates had shown it examples of both fully archived
climate data using the programme that he had devised, and the less detailed FTP
site upload that was issued along with the paper. It said that Dr Bates had
made it clear to the newspaper, and in his original blog post, that putting raw
data on a website is not the same thing as full data archiving. The newspaper
further noted that the author of the paper had admitted that the data had not
been archived when the paper was published and the final ”operational” edition
of the land data would be ‘different’ from that used in the paper. It said that
in circumstances, the evidence that the paper’s data was unverified and
misleading was irrefutable, contrary to the complainant’s position.
29. It said that the journalist had seen the draft paper
which described the method used to produce ERSST.v5. It said that this showed
that it “reverses the errors” made by version 4 in its method of correcting sea
temperatures, and therefore showed both a lower rate of warming since 2000 and
lower absolute temperature values. It provided a quote from the paper which
said, “the short-term (2000-2015) trend is slightly lower in ERSSTv5 than in
ERSSTv4”. The newspaper maintained that satellite measurements of the lower
atmosphere are relevant to sea surface temperatures.
30. It also maintained that the land data set was “afflicted
by devastating bugs”. It said that the reviewers for Science had no access to
the land data set and the software and algorithms, because it was not archived.
It said that if independent reviewers had replicated the results, those results
would not have been achieved by the same methods as the ones used in the paper,
because they were not available.
31. The newspaper did accept that the graph’s caption was
inaccurate but said that it was corrected swiftly, on the day of publication,
making clear the inadvertent use of different baselines. It noted, however,
that there are substantial differences between the Met Office data and the NOAA
warming rate. It amended the graph’s caption to:
“The red line shows the current NOAA world temperature
graph- elevated in recent years due to the ‘adjusted’ sea data. The blue line
is the Met Office’s independent HadCRUT4 record. Although they are offset in
temperature by 0.12°C due to different analysis techniques, they reveal that
NOAA has been adjusted and so shows a steeper recent warming trend”.
32. The newspaper said that it had subsequently taken the
decision to remove the graph from the online article, and said that it had also
included an acknowledgment of the error in a follow up article, published 12
February: “It is important to acknowledge the MoS did make one error: the
caption on a graph, showing the difference between NOAA’s sea data records and
the UK Met Office’s, did not make clear that they used different baselines. We
corrected this immediately on our website.”
33. The newspaper did not accept that the article was
misleading in its reporting of the circumstances surrounding the publication of
the paper; the “rush” had been on the part of NOAA, not Science. The authors of
the paper knew that they had to submit it well in advance to ensure it was
published in time to make an impact on the conference. It noted that Science’s
editorial policy for contributions states that data should be “archived in the
NOAA climate repository or other public databases”, and interpreted this to
mean fully archived in accordance with the programme which Dr Bates had
devised. It said that it was therefore not inaccurate to report that the paper
had also breached the rules set by Science.
34. When the paper was released, it was accompanied by a
high-profile NOAA press release and worldwide media coverage. The newspaper
noted that in an October 2015 submission to all delegates attending Paris
shortly before the conference, the Global Science Observing System cited both
the Karl paper and the new experimental data set prominently. In those circumstances, and given that the
point of any report is to influence opinion, there were clear efforts to ensure
that world leaders would be influenced by the paper. It was irrelevant that the
Paris Agreement made no reference to the paper. It further noted that it had
been entitled to report the concerns of the chairman of the US House of
Representative Science Committee, which he had been free to express.
35. It said that the “pause” in global warming was
comprehensively discussed in the 2013 UN IPCC report, and it made no difference
to the article whether others may have reported on the “pause”, previously. The
newspaper said that Climategate was relevant because it involved allegations
that scientists used a “trick” to hide the decline in a climate proxy data set
and colluded to prevent access to data by sceptics.
36. The complainant did not accept the newspaper’s position
that Dr Bates’ concerns about the archiving of the data constituted
“irrefutable evidence” that the paper was based on “misleading” and
“unverified” data. He reiterated that the paper’s findings had been
independently validated, and had agreed with separate global temperature
records created by other groups. The complainant noted that the newspaper had
amended the first graph’s caption but said that the graph had still
inaccurately reported that both data sets were plotted relative to 14.0°C. He
said that the newspaper had relied upon a sentence in the draft methodology of
ERSSTv5, which, when put in its proper context, supported the conclusions of
the Pausebuster paper.
Relevant Code Provisions
37. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading
or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the
text.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where
appropriate - an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence
should be as required by the regulator.
iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must
distinguish clearly between comment conjecture and fact.
Findings of the Committee
38. The newspaper was entitled to report on the views of Dr
Bates, a leading former climate scientist at the NOAA, about the Pausebuster
paper and the circumstances surrounding its publication. While acknowledging
the newspaper’s position that Dr Bates had reviewed the article before
publication, the primary question for the Committee was whether Dr Bates’
concerns had been presented in a significantly inaccurate or misleading way.
39. The article had characterised Dr Bates’ testimony as
providing “irrefutable evidence” that the paper had been based on “misleading,
‘unverified’ data”, leading – as the headline claimed – to world leaders being
“duped” over global warming, and “convinced” to invest billions in climate
change. These claims by the newspaper went much further than the concerns which
Dr Bates had detailed in his blog or in the interview; they did not represent
criticisms of the data collection process, but rather, were assertions of fact
that the data had been demonstrated conclusively to be wrong and had a
significant impact on the decision making of world leaders, with an additional
implication this had been part of a wilful attempt to deceive. Dr Bates had
challenged the findings, as he was entitled to do; however he had not proven
them to be false, nor had he suggested that the authors of the study had acted
dishonestly. Having considered Dr Bates’ claims in detail, the Committee
concluded that they did not constitute or identify “irrefutable evidence” that
the data was “misleading” or that leaders had been “duped”. The newspaper had
failed to take care over the accuracy of the article.
40. The article claimed that because of the NOAA’s “failure
to ’archive’” the data, “its results can never be verified”. Central to Dr
Bates’ detailed criticisms was the decision of the paper’s authors to upload
the data on NOAA’s FTP site, instead of archiving it through NOAA’s standard
archiving procedure for operational data. While it appeared to be accepted that
the paper had not undergone the full archiving process, the Committee did not
consider that the article had made sufficiently clear that the failure to
archive, had been a failure to archive the data through the NOAA’s archiving
procedure for operational data only; the data had been made publicly available
on the FTP site. Further, the newspaper did not dispute that the results had
been independently validated as part of the Science peer review process, after
publication of the paper. In characterising Dr Bates’ claims in this way, where
he had expressed the precise nature of his concerns clearly in this blog and
during the interview, the newspaper had failed to take care over the accuracy
of the article, in breach of Clause 1 (i) and had then failed to correct these
significantly misleading statements, in breach of Clause 1 (ii).
41. The graph which accompanied the article had provided a
visual illustration of the newspaper’s contention regarding the difference
between the “flawed” NOAA data and other, “verified”, data. The newspaper’s
failure to plot the lines correctly represented a breach of Clause 1 (i); the
result was significantly misleading and required correction under Clause 1
(ii). While the Committee noted that the newspaper had amended the graph’s
caption to make clear that the two data sets were plotted using different
baselines, and had referenced this inaccuracy in a later article, this did not
constitute a correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). It did not clearly
identify the inaccuracy or set out the correct position, and was not
sufficiently prominent as a single sentence in a longer article, which was not
distinguished as a correction. There was a further breach of Clause 1 on this
point.
42. Dr Bates had made clear in his blog and during the
interview with the newspaper that he considered that the paper had been rushed,
and deliberately timed to influence the Paris Climate Conference in order to
make the maximum possible impact on world leaders. He had said that the NOAA
had breached its own rules on scientific integrity, the paper had been
sensational but flawed and that it had exaggerated global warming. He
criticised the land and sea data sets, setting out the specific grounds for the
concerns, and said that objections he had raised prior to the paper’s
publication had been ignored.
43. These claims had been attributed to Dr Bates, based on
his experience as a senior leader at the NOAA, and had been attributed in the
article as such. The complainant disputed them. However, the newspaper was
entitled to publish Dr Bates’ opinion regarding these issues, and it was not
for the Committee to reconcile these conflicting positions. The Committee
considered that the newspaper had reported Dr Bates’ testimony accurately in
these respects; there had been no breach of the Code on these points.
44. It was a matter of scientific debate as to whether data
from satellites of the lower atmosphere were relevant in the measurement of sea
surface temperatures; whether sea surface temperature data taken from ships was
reliable; or whether the differences between ERSSTv5 and ERSSTv4, highlighted
in the draft methodology of ERSSTv5, would undermine the results of the
Pausebuster paper. It was not for the Committee to reconcile these conflicting
positions.
45. The newspaper was further entitled to comment on the
context and potential implications of Dr Bates’ allegations: to draw
comparisons with previous “scandals” within the scientific community; to
comment on the wider implications for other scientists and climate policy; and
to report on political reaction to the claims. There had been no breach of the
Code on these points.
Conclusions
46. The complaint was upheld.
Remedial Action required
47. Having upheld the complaint under Clause 1, the
Committee considered what remedial action should be required.
48. The breach of the Code established by the Committee was
sufficiently serious that the appropriate remedial action was the publication
of an adverse adjudication, as opposed to a correction.
49. As the inaccurate information had appeared on page 10,
11 and 12 of the print edition, the Committee required the newspaper to publish
the adjudication on page 10 or further forward.
50. The wording of the headline to the adjudication should
be agreed with IPSO in advance, or in the absence of agreement, as determined
by the Complaints Committee. It should refer to IPSO, include the title of the
newspaper, make clear that the complaint was upheld, and refer to the subject
matter. The placement on the page, and the prominence, including font size, of
the adjudication must also be agreed with IPSO in advance.
51. The adjudication should also be published on the
newspaper’s website, with a link to the full adjudication appearing on the top
half of the homepage for 24 hours; it should then be archived in the usual way.
52. The terms of the adjudication to be published are as
follows:
Following an article published on 5 February 2017 in the
Mail on Sunday, headlined “EXPOSED How world leaders were duped over global
warming”, Bob Ward complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation
that the newspaper had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of
Practice. IPSO upheld the complaint and has required the Mail on Sunday to
publish this decision as a remedy to the breach.
The article reported on claims made by Dr John Bates, a
climate scientist formerly employed at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), about a paper published in the journal Science that
suggested that there had been no “pause” in global warming in the 2000s. Dr
Bates had published a blog criticising the way the data used for the paper had
been analysed and archived. The article detailed at length the complainant’s
concerns with the data; it then characterised them as demonstrating
“irrefutable evidence” that the paper had been based upon “misleading,
unverified data”.
The article was illustrated with a graph. It plotted a red
line, described as “the ‘adjusted’ and unreliable sea data cited in the flawed
‘Pausebuster’ paper”, and a blue line, described as “the UK Met Office’s
independently verified record”, which it said “showed lower monthly readings
and a shallower recent warming trend”. A note at the base of the graph stated
that “0 represents 14°C”.
The complainant said that the significance of Dr Bates’
concerns about the archiving procedures had been misrepresented in the article,
and the newspaper had taken no steps to establish the veracity of Dr Bates’
claims. World leaders had not been “duped”, as the headline said, and there was
no “irrefutable evidence” that the paper was based on “misleading, unverified
data”, as the article had claimed.
The newspaper said that Dr Bates had shown it examples of
both fully archived climate data and the less detailed version used for the
paper; putting raw data on a website is not the same thing as full data
archiving; therefore the evidence that the paper’s data was unverified and
misleading, was “irrefutable”.
The Committee emphasised that its central concern was
whether the article had accurately reported Dr Bates’ concerns. It decided that
the newspaper’s claims that Dr Bates’ testimony had provided “irrefutable
evidence” that the paper had been based on “misleading, ‘unverified’ data”,
leading – as the headline claimed – to world leaders being “duped” over global
warming, and “convinced” to invest billions in climate change, went much
further than the concerns which Dr Bates had detailed in his blog or in the
interview; they did not represent criticisms of the data collection process,
but rather, were assertions of fact that the data had been demonstrated
conclusively to be wrong and had a significant impact on the decision making of
world leaders, with an additional implication this had been part of a wilful
attempt to deceive.
The article claimed that because of the NOAA’s “failure to
’archive’” the data, “its results can never be verified”. The Committee did not
consider that the article had made sufficiently clear that the failure to
archive, had been a failure to archive the data through a particular method,
and that the data had been made publicly available. In characterising Dr Bates’
claims in this way the newspaper had failed to take care over the accuracy of
the article, in breach of Clause 1 (i) and had then failed to correct these
significantly misleading statements, in breach of Clause 1 (ii).
The graph which accompanied the article had provided a
visual illustration of the newspaper’s contention regarding the difference
between the “flawed” NOAA data and other, “verified”, data. The newspaper’s
failure to plot the lines correctly represented a breach of Clause 1 (i), and
there had been a further failure to correct the significantly misleading
impression created as a result. There was a further breach of Clause 1 on this
point.
Date complaint received: 07/02/2017
Date complaint concluded: 07/07/2017