Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 17684-23 Ward v Daily Mail
Summary
of Complaint
1. Bob
Ward complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily
Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in a leader
column headlined “Climate hysteria”, published in print and online on 21 March
2023.
2. The
editorial – which appeared on page 14 of the newspaper – followed the
publication of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
the day before.
3. The
column reported that the “prophecies of catastrophe by UN climate scientists”
were “distinctly familiar”: “[d]isastrous global warming”, “[d]isastrous
floods”, “heatwaves”, and “famine”; with “time running out for humanity”. It
then said that the public had heard “hair-raising predictions many times over
the years and they often fall short of reality”. After stating that “[n]obody
believes more strongly than [the publication] that we should strive to look
after [the] planet”, the leader asked: “wouldn’t it be easier to trust the
green lobby – and encourage people to make sacrifices to help the environment –
if such hysterical language was avoided?”.
4. The
complainant – an expert reviewer of the IPCC report – said the column was
inaccurate and misleading, in breach of Clause 1. First, he said that it
wrongly characterised the IPCC report as “[c]limate hysteria”, containing
"hysterical language” and “prophecies of catastrophe”; he said the report
was a factual synthesis on the causes and potential consequences of climate
change, with evidence-based projections of future risk.
5. Secondly,
he said the column wrongful claimed that “hair-raising predictions […] often
fall short of reality” when, in fact, previous reports by the IPCC – for
example, projecting increases in global temperatures, rising sea levels and changes
to the frequency and magnitude of extreme weather events – had proved
“remarkedly accurate”. In support of this, he noted that the report itself
provided an overview of the accuracy of projections from previous IPCC
assessment reports, and concluded that there was “medium confidence that past
projections of global temperature are consistent with subsequent observations”.
6. The
complainant also disputed that the report was published by “UN climate
scientists”. Though the report was commissioned and approved by the member
governments of the IPCC, the complainant said its authors were not employed, or
employees, of the UN; they were employed by universities and similar
institutions in the UK and other countries.
7. Finally,
he said the column wrongly described the report’s authors as “the green lobby”;
they were climate scientists.
8. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. It said that the
column – a short, concise editorial comment on the stories of the day – was
clearly presented as the newspaper’s view and distinguished as such. It argued
that the column was not specifically and solely focused on the IPCC report.
Rather, it was a subjective assessment of the language often deployed during
discussions of climate change. It was entitled to interpret and characterise
the IPCC report and its response – as well as the wider issue of climate change
– in the way that it did and had sufficient basis to do so. It noted that the Secretary-General of the UN described the
IPCC report as a “survival guide for humanity”; Greenpeace claimed it was “our
final warning”; the Shadow Secretary of State of Climate Change and Net Zero Ed
Miliband MP argued for action to ensure “a liveable future”; and Greta Thunberg
claimed that, by 2030, the world would face “the end of civilisation as we know
it”. It also noted that a corresponding news article, within the same edition
of the newspaper, had set out that the IPCC report had in effect suggested that
time was running out for humanity and the world was nearing the point of no
return. It was entitled to be sceptical
of these claims and doing so did not render the article inaccurate or
misleading.
9. Further,
the publication said “prophecies” was simply a synonym for “predictions”,
adding that in the context of the article there was no material difference
between these terms – a point which the complainant disputed as he said it
suggested they were in some away unscientific and would be understood by readers
as such.
10. The
publication also denied that the disputed claim “hair-raising predictions […]
often fall short of reality” related specifically to the IPCC report and was
inaccurate. The publication argued that there were numerous examples of similarly
catastrophic claims that have either failed to materialise or have not
reflected reality by failing to take into account other changes in the climate.
To demonstrate this, the publication shared several examples, including, the
claim that by 2007, large parts of the Netherlands would be rendered
uninhabitable by flooding; and by 2020, Britain would have a “Siberian climate”
as the system of atmospheric circulation broke down.
11. In
addition, the publication did not accept that the article was inaccurate to
state that the IPCC report was published by “UN climate scientists”. It noted
that the IPCC described itself on its website as “the United Nations body for
assessing the science related to climate change”. It also noted that IPSO had
previously adopted the description of the IPCC as the “UN Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change” in 2019 when considering a previous complaint from the
complainant.
12.
Finally, the publication did not accept that its description of the “green
lobby” was inaccurate or misleading. It said that this was editorial judgment
and a characterisation of the collective focused on addressing climate change,
and which it had a sufficient basis for, highlighting a range of activists,
commentators and other bodies.
Relevant
Clause Provisions
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.
iii) A fair
opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when
reasonably called for.
iv) The
Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly
between comment, conjecture and fact.
Findings
of the Committee
13. The
Editors’ Code makes clear that newspapers can publish contentious or
controversial opinions or arguments, as long as these are clearly distinguished
as such. Where there are factual claims, care must be taken not to publish
inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. 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.
14. The
complainant had raised a number of objections to the newspaper’s commentary on
the IPCC report and the wider issue of climate change. The article under
complaint, however, was an editorial piece, and the newspaper was entitled to
set out its position on the topic – in particular, its view that the language deployed
regarding the issue was often hyperbolic. The column clearly set out the
newspaper’s position on this, and it had been able to provide a clear basis for
its characterisation of the language as “hysterical”. Further, although the
complainant disputed that the IPCC report contained “prophecies of
catastrophe”, the basis for this characterisation was also set out in the
column: the IPCC report had forecast increased global temperatures and
increased risk of flooding, heatwaves, and famine. The Committee did not,
therefore, consider that there had been a failure to take care over these
characterisations, and there was no inaccuracy that required correction under
Clause 1(ii). There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.
15. The
Committee next considered the complainant’s concern that the column claimed
“hair-raising predictions […] often fall short of reality”. The column did not
suggest that this claim related specifically to the predictions made by the
IPCC. Rather, it was a general observation by the publication regarding the
accuracy and credibility of predictions over and for which the publication
provided a sufficient basis for. The Committee did not, therefore, consider
that there had been a failure to take care over this claim, and there was no
inaccuracy that required correction under Clause 1(ii).
16. The
Committee next considered whether the description of the authors of the IPCC
report as “UN climate scientists” amounted to an inaccuracy. In circumstances
where the IPCC had been established by the United Nations Environment Programme
and World Meteorological Organisation in the 1980s, and the IPCC described
itself on its website as a “United Nations body for assessing the science
related to climate change”, the Committee did not consider that this
description represented a failure to take care over accuracy or gave rise to
any inaccuracy that required correction under Clause 1(ii). There was no breach
of Clause 1 on this point.
17.
Finally, the Committee considered the complainant’s concerns regarding the term
“green lobby”. The Committee did not consider that this term referred
specifically to the climate scientists or the authors of the IPCC report.
Instead, it was a passing reference to an unspecified collective which, it
considered, used “hysterical language” when discussing the threats posed by
climate change and which the publication had provided a basis for. In such
circumstances, the Committee did not consider that this reference represented a
failure to take care over the accuracy of the article, or constituted a
significant inaccuracy requiring correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).
As such, there was no breach of Clause 1.
Conclusion(s)
18. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
action required
19. N/A
Date
complaint received: 23/03/2023
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 14/07/2023
Independent
Complaints Reviewer
The
complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process
followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints
Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request
for review.