Sunday Times apologises for “Amazongate” misinformation

Three months after Simon Lewis laid a complaint with the UK’s Press Complaints Commission, which I reported here, the Sunday Timeshas retracted Jonathan Leake’s disgraceful Amazongate article and apologised to Dr Lewis. The article has been removed from their website. Here’s the apology:

The article “UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim” (News, Jan 31) stated that the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had included an “unsubstantiated claim” that up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest could be sensitive to future changes in rainfall. The IPCC had referenced the claim to a report prepared for WWF by Andrew Rowell and Peter Moore, whom the article described as “green campaigners” with “little scientific expertise.” The article also stated that the authors’ research had been based on a scientific paper that dealt with the impact of human activity rather than climate change.


In fact, the IPCC’s Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence. In the case of the WWF report, the figure had, in error, not been referenced, but was based on research by the respected Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) which did relate to the impact of climate change. We also understand and accept that Mr Rowell is an experienced environmental journalist and that Dr Moore is an expert in forest management, and apologise for any suggestion to the contrary.

The article also quoted criticism of the IPCC’s use of the WWF report by Dr Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at the University of Leeds and leading specialist in tropical forest ecology. We accept that, in his quoted remarks, Dr Lewis was making the general point that both the IPCC and WWF should have cited the appropriate peer-reviewed scientific research literature. As he made clear to us at the time, including by sending us some of the research literature, Dr Lewis does not dispute the scientific basis for both the IPCC and the WWF reports’ statements on the potential vulnerability of the Amazon rainforest to droughts caused by climate change.

In addition, the article stated that Dr Lewis’ concern at the IPCC’s use of reports by environmental campaign groups related to the prospect of those reports being biased in their conclusions. We accept that Dr Lewis holds no such view – rather, he was concerned that the use of non-peer-reviewed sources risks creating the perception of bias and unnecessary controversy, which is unhelpful in advancing the public’s understanding of the science of climate change. A version of our article that had been checked with Dr Lewis underwent significant late editing and so did not give a fair or accurate account of his views on these points. We apologise for this.

Leake’s article was not only celebrated ad nauseam in the denialist community but also taken up by mainstream media in many countries.  Here in New Zealand the Dominion Post used it in an editorial claiming that the ethics and integrity of climate scientists is being called into question. I wrote about that here. The editorial accepted that human activity is contributing to global warming, but drew this appalling conclusion about the IPCC:

“Why trust a panel that confuses opinion and fact, wrongly attributes that opinion, tries to shout down critics and displays a determination to make the facts fit the theory rather than the other way around.

“The IPCC should leave the spin to the politicians and get on with its real job – establishing the facts. By glossing over inconvenient truths and misrepresenting opinion as scientific fact, it has undermined its credibility.

“It now has a great deal of work to do if it is to persuade peoples and governments that its findings should be taken seriously.”

Jonathan Leake and the Sunday Times have a lot to answer for, but so do journalists in many places who allow themselves to be so easily misinformed. The credulity with which they have received accusations of malpractice by the East Anglia scientists, and alleged IPCC errors (beyond the acknowledged and regretted error relating to the Himalayan glaciers) is astonishing. Where on earth did the Dominion Post find the confidence to make such a declaration about the IPCC?  Not by reading the science, that’s for sure.  And that’s the nub of the matter: the media generally gives the impression that it has not ensured that enough of its journalists are informed about climate science. That’s why the mischief wrought by disinformers, especially when they’re backed by seemingly reputable papers, can reach global media proportions overnight.

Perhaps any of our readers who see the Dominion Post might consider writing to the editor and inviting them to retract their editorial, or at least to write another acknowledging that they have reason to reconsider their verdict on the IPCC.

The Sunday Times correction has been published on their website here, but be warned that you have to go through a full registration procedure to view it.

8 thoughts on “Sunday Times apologises for “Amazongate” misinformation”

  1. I see that the Dominion Post has printed a retraction (page B2 Thu 24 June 2010).

    Heading: Newspaper retracts report

    On February 1, The Dominion Post ran an article from the Sunday Times, which stated that the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) report had included an “unsubstantiated claim” that up to 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest could be sensitive to future changes in rainfall.
    It quoted criticism by Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at Leeds University and a leading specialist in tropical forest ecology, of the IPCC’s use of material prepared for the World Wildlife Fund on the Amazon rainforest.
    The Sunday Times has now retracted the article, and acknowledged the IPCC’s Amazon statement was substantiated and supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence.
    It has also apologised to Dr Lewis for misrepresenting him, saying its article did not give a fair and accurate account of his views.
    A Dominion Post editorial drew, in part, on that report to criticise the IPCC for relying on opinion. We acknowledge the Sunday Times’ retraction of it.

  2. Thanks Retsilla for reporting that. It wouldn’t have taken much to share the responsibility. They could have expanded their last sentence: “We acknowledge the Sunday Times retraction of it and consequently acknowledge that our editorial criticism of the IPCC was without foundation.”

  3. Was Jonathan Leake hung out to dry by The Sunday Times? George Monbiot, The Guardian
    “But the interesting question is how the Sunday Times messed up so badly. I spent much of yesterday trying to get some sense out of the paper, without success. But after 25 years in journalism it looks pretty obvious to me that Jonathan Leake has been wrongly blamed for this, then hung out to dry. My guess is that someone else at the paper, acting on instructions from an editor, got hold of Leake’s copy after he had submitted it, and rewrote it, drawing on North’s post, to produce a different – and more newsworthy – story. If this is correct, it suggests that Leake is carrying the can for an editor’s decision. The Sunday Times has made no public attempt to protect him: it looks to me like corporate cowardice.”

  4. Yes, it seems very possible that the Sunday Times was involved editorially. But I’m not sure that means Leake is off the hook. I posted on two other articles he wrote around that time groundlessly attacking the IPCC, one on natural disasters, the other on the so-called Africagate.

  5. Should LeakeGate be HellenGate? Independent newspaper names Nick Hellen, news editor of the Sunday Times, as real author of infamous Amazon story

    “The Sunday Times ran a prominent apology last week over a story by Jonathan Leake about rewriting the UN climate panel. ….. But is Leake entirely to blame?
    News editor Nick Hellen is said to have been particularly enthusiastic about rewriting the UN story. Is that what the correction meant when it said: “A version of our article…underwent significant late editing and so did not give a fair or accurate account of Simon Lewis’s views.” ?

  6. That is tendentious speculation from the Telegraph, not the Times.

    And bloody hell – it’s Christopher Booker! Here’s Monbiot – who has quite a history with Booker, including establishing his own version of the Booker Prizedemolishing this one.

    If the Telegraph is supposed to be a respectable paper aiming at a broadsheet audience why do they continue to publish tripe from Booker and Delingpole?

    It’s remarkable that this is the same paper whose former Environment editor, Charles Clover, produced the excellent The End of the Line. (I don’t know what he was like on AGW, though.)

Leave a Reply