Leading Scientists Urge UK Newspaper The Times To Improve 'Sub-Standard' Climate Reporting

ABC News - Sara Phillips

The scientists say The Times has become a "laughing stock" for publishing poor quality science. (ABC News: Mark Doman)

Some of the world's most eminent scientists have written to the editor of UK newspaper The Times to complain about its coverage of climate science.
They suggest the newspaper may be unduly influenced by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which, despite its name, denies humans are causing climate change.
Baron John Krebs, a highly decorated biologist is behind the push, writing that the newspaper has become a "laughing stock" for publishing poor quality science.
"The implications for your credibility extend beyond your energy and climate change coverage," he said in the letter.

Key points: The scientists believe the paper is unduly influenced by a lobby group The claim the coverage has made the paper a "laughing stock" The say The Times has on occasions "misrepresented good science"

"Why should any reader who knows about energy and climate change respect your political analysis, your business commentary, even your sports reports, when in this one important area you are prepared to prioritise the marginal over the mainstream?"
The letter was signed by Krebs and 12 other peers, including:

• Baron Robert 'Bob' May, a former chief scientist of the UK
• Baron Martin Rees of Ludlow, the Astronomer Royal
• Baron Julian Hunt of Chesterton, former chief executive of the British Meteorological Office
• Baron David Puttnam, the Oscar-winning filmmaker behind Chariots of Fire and The Killing Fields

The peers took particular issue with two articles by environment editor Ben Webster, both of which were republished by The Australian.
One article - Planet is not overheating, says Professor - reported on science which was sponsored by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation, which has five peers of its own on its board of trustees, describes itself as "open-minded on the contested science of global warming".
"[M]any of the sub-standard news stories and opinion pieces appear to concern, in some way, GWPF," it said.
"Whether any newspaper should involve itself repeatedly with any pressure group is a matter for debate; it would be deeply perturbing to find that a paper as eminent as The Times could allow a small NGO, particularly one whose sources of financing are unknown, a high degree of influence."
They said the second article -Scientists 'are exaggerating carbon threat to marine life' - misrepresented good science.
A follow-up opinion piece from a Times columnist "in either ignorance or disregard" failed to mention the scientist's criticism of the Times' report on his work.
"As Editor, you are of course entitled to take whatever editorial line you feel is appropriate. Are you aware, however, how seriously you may be compromising The Times' reputation by pursuing a line that cleaves so tightly to a particular agenda, and which is based on such flimsy evidence?" the peers wrote.
"Climate science has proven remarkably robust to repeated scrutiny, and multiple lines of evidence indicate that climate change and ocean acidification pose serious and increasing risks for the future."

Links

• Environment ministers hold 'heated' phone hook-up on climate change, Great Barrier Reef concerns
• Coral bleaching leaves reefs off WA coast badly damaged
• Politics of climate 'more like religion than science': CSIRO boss