· Decision of the Complaints Committee 00766-14 Sloan v The Sunday Telegraph
Summary of
complaint
1. Professor Terry Sloan complained to the Independent
Press Standards Organisation that the Sunday Telegraph had breached Clause 1
(Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “How we are
being tricked with flawed data on global warming”, published on 25 January
2015.
2. The article was a comment piece that presented the
columnist’s criticism of the use of techniques to adjust raw data from weather
stations by scientists studying long-term climate patterns, which he described
as “wholesale corruption”. It suggested that scientists who support the
consensus view of anthropogenic climate change had “invariably” made
adjustments to support their thesis that the earth is warming. The article
contrasted the results of this data from measurements of the earth’s surface
temperature with data from satellite measurements, claiming that “in recent
years”, they have shown “increasingly ... quite different results”. As an
example, the columnist stated that the surface-based record had shown “a
temperature trend rising up to 2014 as ‘the hottest years since records
began’”, while for 18 years the satellite-based records had shown “no rise in
the trend”.
3. The complainant acknowledged that the columnist was
entitled to his opinion, but said that on this occasion he had supported his
argument with inaccuracies. In particular, the columnist’s references to
uncalibrated data were invalid and misleading; calibration was needed to
correct for changes in the way the data were collected. This was widely
accepted among scientists.
4. Further, the complainant denied the claim that the
adjustments were “invariably in one direction”, with “earlier temperatures …
adjusted downwards, more recent temperatures upwards, thus giving the
impression that they have risen much more sharply than was shown by the
original data”. Adjustments could be either positive or negative, with roughly
equal numbers of each type of change.
5. The columnist’s criticism of the use of sampling
techniques to correct for a reduction of the number of weather stations
collecting data was misleading; in fact, the number of weather stations was far
above what was necessary to obtain accurate global surface temperatures. The
columnist had inaccurately called this process “homogenization”; it was
“infilling”.
6. The complainant denied that measurements of mean
global surface temperatures from satellite data were showing increasingly
different results from those taken at surface weather stations. The differences
between the data sets were small enough that they could be the result of
chance; they were less than the measurement uncertainty.
7. The complainant raised several further concerns about
the accuracy of the column. He said the claim that the late 20th-century
temperature increase was no greater than previous “upward leaps” during the
late 19th and early- to mid-20th centuries was inaccurate. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Summary for Policymakers reported
that the increase between 1970 and 2010 was greater than previous periods
cited. Finally, the columnist had misleadingly over-emphasised the warming
impact of a shift toward locating weather stations in urban areas; appropriate
corrections were made for this effect, and all modern studies had showed that
it was in any case minor.
8. The newspaper said climate change was a controversial
subject in which all claims were contestable by reference to opposing studies
and opinions. Uncertainty about the reliability of climate modelling and the
predictions that were derived from it was at the heart of the debate. The
accuracy of all extrapolations for future warming depended on raw measurement
data. Small differences in the data could produce very significant variations
in predicted climate outcomes.
9. The newspaper considered that its assertion that
temperature adjustments were “invariably in only one direction” would not have
been understood literally by readers to mean that all adjustments to recorded
temperature data had always, without exception, been upward. It noted a number
of examples given in the article in which this pattern had been observed, and
it provided examples of studies that discussed other such cases. Nevertheless,
it offered to amend the online article to read “almost invariably”.
10. It stood by the criticism of the techniques outlined
in the article. In relation to infilling, it relied on analysis of global
weather station distribution that indicated that coverage had shrunk
dramatically after 1990. It referred to maps published by the Science and
Public Policy Institute to demonstrate that 80 per cent of global surface area
was not covered by temperature recorders.
11. The newspaper did not consider that its use of the
word “homogenised” for this process was significantly misleading; it was clear
from the context that this referred to the “infilling” of data to cover
geographical areas without weather stations. For clarity, however, it removed
the word “homogenisation” from the online article.
12. The newspaper said that published data indicated that
surface records were consistently higher than satellite records, as reported:
the relevant data showed that between 1980 and 2015, temperature anomalies
(from a mean) for the surface records (GISS and HadCRUT) were .72 and .49. For
the two satellite-based measurements (UAH and RSS), the figures were .32 and
.28. The newspaper denied that the differences between these two sets of
figures were “insignificant”; small global temperature changes could provoke
dangerous climate effects.
13. The newspaper said there were many widely accepted
studies that supported its report of the impact of the urban heat island. With
regard to the previous periods of warming, it referred to an interview in which
Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University
of East Anglia, had stated that the warming rates for the periods mentioned
were “similar and not statistically significantly different from each other”.
14. Nonetheless, the newspaper accepted that the column
contained two inaccuracies relating to the trends shown by recent satellite
data and offered to publish the following correction in print and online:
An article of Jan 25 ("How we are being tricked with
flawed data on global warming") stated that, in contrast to global
surface-based temperature measurements - which have shown a trend rising up to
2014 - satellite-based measurements have recorded no rise in trend for 18
years. In fact, this has been true for 17 years, not 18. It is also the case
that, although the RSS record shows 2014 as only the sixth warmest year since
1998, the averaged satellite-based temperature records show it as the fifth
warmest. We are happy to make this clear.
15. The complainant did not accept the newspaper’s offer
of a correction, as it did not fully address his complaint. He did not accept
the newspaper’s interpretation of the data. In relation to the anomalies, his
own calculations showed an anomaly of .4 (not .72) for GISS; thus, while the
satellite measurements showed smaller increases in raw terms, all four data
sets showed increases that were compatible with each other within the
measurement accuracy. He said the newspaper had relied on a non-peer reviewed
publication to support its position regarding the effects of reduced weather
station distribution and urban heat islands.
Relevant Code Provisions
16. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i). The Press must take care not to publish
inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii). A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement
or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due
prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published. In cases involving
the Regulator, prominence should be agreed with the Regulator in advance.
iii). The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Findings of the Committee
17. The article was an opinion piece in which the
columnist sought to challenge established scientific views on global warming.
There is still dispute about the interpretation of historical temperature data,
and the columnist was entitled to select evidence to support his position. The
Committee emphasised that its role was to evaluate the complaint under the
Editors’ Code and not to attempt to reach a position on matters best left to
public debate.
18. The complainant had raised a number of objections to
the newspaper’s commentary on the processing techniques commonly used by
climate scientists. This, however, was a comment piece and the columnist was
entitled to set out his position on the topic. The analysis of climate data using
statistical models and views about the significance of apparent trends in this
data are inherently matters of interpretation. The columnist had presented his
argument and had adequately substantiated his position; the Committee did not
establish a breach of the Code in this regard.
19. In addition to these general criticisms, the
columnist had made the significant allegation that these adjustments had been
used “invariably” to adjust the data “in only one direction. Earlier
temperatures are adjusted downwards, more recent temperatures upwards, thus
giving the impression that they have risen much more sharply than was shown by
the original data”, as part of a “wholesale corruption of proper
science”.
20. The newspaper had provided evidence of examples of
adjustments to the data fitting this pattern, but it had not been able to
demonstrate that this was “invariable”. The Committee expressed serious concern
about the adequacy of the material the newspaper had provided to substantiate
its claim. On balance, it concluded that the newspaper had provided adequate
material to avoid a finding by the Committee that it had failed to take care
over the accuracy of the article, in the context of a clearly contentious
opinion piece. Further, the Committee was of the view that there was an element
of hyperbole in the suggestion, and as such it was not significantly misleading
such that a correction was required under Clause 1 (ii). Nonetheless, the
Committee noted that this had come very close to the line.
21. The Committee welcomed that, in response to the
complaint, the newspaper had removed the word “homogenisation” from the online
article, and had offered to correct its report that satellite-based
measurements had not recorded a rise in temperature for 18 years, and that 2014
had been the fifth warmest year, not the sixth, on record. These, however, were
minor inaccuracies that were not significant in the context of the columnist’s
argument. The newspaper was not required to correct these points under the
terms of Clause 1, but the Committee welcomed its offer to do so.
Conclusions
22. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 18/02/2015
Date decision issued: 27/07/2015