"The Sunday Times and the IPCC: Correction", si intitola così l'articolo con cui il giornale inglese ritratta un suo precedente pezzo ("UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim", pubblicato lo scorso 31 gennaio e ora rimosso) in cui venivano mosse forti critiche all'IPCC, l'International Panel on Climate Change, che riunisce climatologi di tutto il mondo nello studio dei cambiamenti climatici.
Il Sunday Times aveva sentenziato come "inaffidabili" le basi scientifiche dell'IPCC e "inesperti" gli autori di tale rapporto a causa di un refuso sulle foreste apparso sul IV Rapporto dell'IPCC sul clima del 2007. A quasi cinque mesi da quella affermazione, il giornale ammette l'errore e chiede scusa riconoscendo la validità delle fonti scientifiche utilizzate dall'IPCC, che sono soggette in realta' a una accurata revisione da studiosi di pari credibilita' ("peer-review"). Qua il testo delle scuse:
"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 the World Wildlife Fund (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."