05932-24 Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit v The Daily Telegraph

Summary of Complaint

1. The Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Daily Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Eco activists have lost at life and now want to make the rest of us suffer”, published on 21 June 2024.

2. The article – which appeared on page seven – was a comment piece which set out the author’s views on “eco activists”. It said: “How can we stop weather hyperbole, and the constant blaming of ‘climate change’ on capitalism? For one thing, the climate hasn’t changed. It was just as hot in the Middle Ages. Monastic chronicles under the reign of Edward IV record people ‘cooking food on cobblestones’; while the Tudors wilted, letting prisoners out of the Tower because of temperatures in London. The summer of 1524 was noted as ‘intolerably hot’ in the Annals of Dublin. ‘Many expired.’”

3. The article also referred to a previous bill which had been introduced at the House of Lords, for the protection of badgers. It said: “There are still no badgers in the Lords; though who knows what will happen under Sir Keir’s proposals for that chamber. He has said he is pro-badger, so they appear to enjoy increasing support.”

4. The article also appeared online, in substantially the same form, under the headline “Eco activists have lost at life and want to make the rest of us suffer”. This version of the article was published on 20 June 2024.

5. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because it reported that the climate hasn’t changed. It was just as hot in the Middle Ages.” The complainant said that this was not true, and the fact that the climate had changed was indisputable. It said that a meta-study from Environmental Research Letters found a greater than 99% consensus on human-caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. It also provided a chart published by Climate Lab Book, which showed global temperatures are much higher now than they were in the Middle Ages. It said that the chart had used a database of global temperatures which gathered “692 records from 648 locations, including all continental regions and major ocean basins.” It also provided a chart published by The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which showed that the average global surface temperature is higher now than it was in the Middle Ages. It said a summary of the IPCC report stated: “The average temperature of the Earth’s surface between 2011 and 2020 was […] warmer than at any time in the last 100,000 years.”

6. The complainant also provided a quote from NASA which said:

“Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives. The current warming trend is different because it is clearly the result of human activities since the mid-1800s, and is proceeding at a rate not seen over many recent millennia.”

7. The complainant said the inaccurate information was a statement of fact – rather than the author’s opinion. The complainant argued that the reference was significantly inaccurate as it was used to qualify the argument that that Just Stop Oil’s actions at Stonehenge were unnecessary and inappropriate.

8. The complainant suggested that the reference under complaint be amended to: “For one thing, it was hot in the Middle Ages.”

9. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. However, upon receipt of the complaint, it confirmed it had amended the reference to read: “For one thing, it was also hot in the Middle Ages." Following further correspondence from the complainant, the publication then amended the reference again to read “For one thing, it was just as hot in the Middle Ages.“

10. Turning to the specific alleged inaccuracy, the publication said it did not amount to a significant inaccuracy. It said the column was not a factual news report and that it was a satirical piece designed to be provocative and amusing. To this end, it said the article contained outlandish statements which could never be interpreted as statements of fact. It said the author questioned “how can we stop weather hyperbole” and then using hyperbole and humour as a response to that question indicated it was clearly a joke. While the publication accepted some readers might not appreciate the joke, it did not consider the reference to the climate being “just as hot in the Middle Ages” was significantly inaccurate. Therefore, it said no remedial action was required.

11. The publication further said that the column appeared in the Lifestyle/Features section of the newspaper; rather than, for example, the science or news sections. It said the article included further examples of humour in the article, such as the writer’s contemplation of whether badgers would be permitted to enter the House of Lords. This, it said, also set the tone of the article as a humorous and hyperbolic one, and the disputed reference should be read in that context. The publication noted that publications are expressly allowed to publish material which may inform, shock, challenge or entertain. It said this was a vital part of a free press.

12. The complainant believed the inaccuracy was significant and therefore warranted a footnote correction notice on the online article and a printed correction notice as required by Clause 1 (ii). It said the publication appeared to accept the article was significantly inaccurate given it had amended the reference. The complainant suggested the following correction notice: “An earlier version of this article stated that “the climate hasn’t changed” and that “it was just as hot in the Middle Ages”. Scientific data shows these claims to be incorrect. We are happy to correct the record.”

13. The complainant disputed there was any indication in the article that the reference under complaint was a joke. It said the use of quotes from old literary texts in the following sentences did not indicate hyperbole and satire. Rather, this made it clear the reference was a statement of fact, with supporting evidence - which was inaccurate and misleading. The complainant questioned why the publication had originally amended the article after receiving the complaint if it was a joke. It also noted that a previous IPSO ruling said that “columnists are free under the Code to campaign, be partisan, and express strong opinions using hyperbole, melodrama and humour. However, there remains an obligation under the Code to take care over the accuracy of any claims of fact”. It said that this obligation applied in this case.

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

14. The Code makes clear that newspapers have the fundamental right to be partisan, to challenge, shock, be satirical and to entertain. In this instance, it noted that the article was clearly presented as a satirical piece which aimed to mock “eco activists”. References to “cooking food on cobblestones” and statements such as “[t]here are still no badgers in the Lords; though who knows what will happen under Sir Keir’s proposals for that chamber” indicated the article was meant to be humorous and hyperbolic rather than a news item or a report on the science of climate change. The claim under complaint would therefore be read in that context, and the Committee duly considered it not in isolation, but in conjunction with the article – and its satirical tone – as a whole. The Committee was satisfied that the claim was intended to be humorous and absurdist, given it appeared alongside other imagery such as badgers in parliament, people cooking food on the pavement, and Tudors “wilt[ing]”.

15. As such, the Committee was satisfied the article had clearly distinguished the reference under complaint as a humorous expression of the writer’s opinion on the merits of the arguments advances by “eco zealots”, rather than a statement of fact. There was no breach of Clause 1 (iv).

Conclusions

16. The complaint was not upheld.

Date complaint received: 18/10/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 26/03/2025

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.