The Daily Mail and Sunday Times are at the centre of a row over the accuracy of their climate reporting. They have been accused of "making things up".
The Daily Mail and Times are at the centre of a row with scientists over the accuracy of their reporting on climate science. They have been accused of “making things up” and “printing misleading claims”.
Two leading climate scientists, Murari Lal and Mojib Latif, have accused the Daily Mail of misquoting and misrepresenting them. Dr. Latif said, ‘”I don’t know what to do. They just make these things up.” Similarly, the US-based National Snow and Ice Data Centre, a part of the University of Colorado, supported by NASA and National Science Foundation, have accused the Daily Mail of printing “nonsense” and of “very lazy journalism.”
One particularly misleading story in the Mail said:
“According to the National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado the warming of the Earth since 1990 is due to natural oceanic cycles, and not man-made greenhouse gas emissions.”
An NSIDC spokesman said:
“This is completely false. NSIDC has never made such a statement and we were never contacted by anyone from the Daily Mail. We hope that this is simply a case of very lazy journalism and nothing more.”
At Realclimate.org, a group of leading climate scientists have written a blog post titled ‘Daily Mangle,’ rebutting recent misleading claims from The Mail. The scientists write:
“Unfortunately, these kinds of distortions are all too common in the press nowadays and so we must all be prepared to respond to those journalists and editors who confuse the public with such inaccuracies.”
Left Foot Forward supports the advice of the web’s foremost climate blogger, Joe Romm, who writes:
“Scientists should refuse to grant interviews to the paper without a third-party present or an agreement to allow a review of any quotes used.”
Leake-gate
More recently, following Left Foot Forward’s blog by Joss Garman revealing the “pseudo-science” with links to Big Oil behind a Sunday Times story, Environment Editor Jonathan Leake is facing new claims of shoddy journalism.
A story headlined, ‘IPCC Shamed By Bogus Rainforest Claim’ was eventually changed to, ‘The UN climate panel and the rainforest claim.’ Thus, the newspaper accepted it had over-egged the story. But by that time the damage had been done and the story – which became known as “Amazongate” – went around the world. In fact, the content of the Sunday Times story was plain wrong. The WWF report which Leake disputed was completely backed up by peer-reviewed literature. ClimateSafety.org traces how the story seems to have begun on a blog from well-known climate sceptic Richard North. As Deltoid explains:
“Leake deliberately concealed the fact that Dan Nepstad, the author of the 1999 Nature paper cited as evidence for the IPCC statement about the vulnerability of the Amazon had replied to Leake’s query and informed him the claim was correct. Leake didn’t report what Nepstad told him. Instead he claimed that the IPCC statement was “bogus”, even though he knew it wasn’t.”
It now emerges that in the same story Leake completely misrepresented the views of another leading climate scientist, Dr. Simon Lewis of Leeds University who called it “An outrageous piece of journalism.” (In contrast Lewis gave a similar interview to the BBC’s Roger Harrabin who reported his views accurately.) It also turned out Leake didn’t bother to contact the author of the report at the centre of his story.
The New Republic has now picked up the story, asking ‘Why is the British press so sloppy on climate issues?’ and adding:
“The guy fanning most of the allegations against the IPCC is Jonathan Leake of the London Times, who appears to print whatever misleading claims climate skeptics tell him to report and then actively ignores the scientists he talks to who try to set him straight.”
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
18 Responses to “Facing the heat: Daily Mail and Sunday Times climate journalism”
Alix
There seems to be a “growing body of evidence”, as our chums in the media would probably put it, that the Sunday Times is not a serious newspaper. You probably saw the story a few weeks back about a Sunday Times journalist apparently making up some quotes to support a “science” story about blonde women being more warrior-like or some such?
Well, there’s more. The article I’ve linked below discusses the blonde women thing, but even more interestingly the writer of the article mentions – almost in passing, it’s easy to miss – having an interview with himself entirely invented by a Sunday Times journalist. And then at the bottom, there’s an update wherein Da Fink has contacted him, and is at pains to point out that the *Sunday* Times has totally different staff from the Times and is a different paper. Which makes one suspect there’s some bad blood there, and that the Times writers don’t have a terribly high opinion of the Sunday Times either.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201001/british-newspapers-make-things
Robert Virding
RT @dontgetfooled: Turning up the heat on 'dodgy' Sunday Times journo, #JonathanLeake: http://bit.ly/9Mqk84
Robert Virding
RT @dontgetfooled: Turning up the heat on 'dodgy' Sunday Times journo, #JonathanLeake: http://bit.ly/9Mqk84
uberVU - social comments
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by IWILLNOTGOAWAY: RT @wdjstraw: Facing the heat: Daily Mail and Sunday Times climate journalism called into question http://bit.ly/bLM7mt…
More Mail climate change misreporting | Left Foot Forward
[…] recently reported on Left Foot Forward, the Daily Mail and other right-wing papers are conspicuously failing to […]