Tol Decision

The Scott Trust Ltd Registered in England No. 6706464

Registered office: Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG

Page | 1

Decision of the Review Panel into complaints by Professor Dr Richard Tol Ref: RT/1/2014 &

RT/1/2015

Date of Complaints: 11 November 2014 & 20 January 2015

Blogposts complained of:

1. “Economics is clear on the need for climate action, now it’s time to act” by John Abraham &

Dana Nuccitelli. Published on 30/04/14.

2. “New Argument from climate change deniers: global warming is a good thing” by Greg

Harman. Published on 08/05/14.

3. “IPCC reports ‘diluted’ under ‘political pressure’ to protect fuel interests” by Nafeez Ahmed.

Published on 15/05/14.

4. “The GWPF bemoans state of climate change debate – while promoting antagonism” by

Graham Readfearn. Published on 23/05/14.

5. “IPCC corrects claim suggesting climate change would be good for the economy” by Bob Ward.

Published on 17/10/14.

6. “Economics supports immediate action on global warming” by Dana Nuccitelli. Published on

08/01/15.

Introduction

1. Throughout this decision, Professor Dr Richard Tol will be referred to as “the Complainant”,

Guardian News & Media as “GNM”, the former Press Complaints Commission Code as “the

Code”, and the Review Panel as “the Panel”. For ease of reference, each complained about

blogpost will be referred to by reference to the order in which they were published (e.g.

“Economics is clear on the need for climate action, now it’s time to act” will be referred to as

blogpost 1). The authors of each post will be referred to by their initials.

2. This decision concerns complaints by the Complainant against six separate blogposts

published on the GNM environmental webpages. The majority of the blogposts appear in a

section of the website entitled “Climate Consensus – the 97%”. This area of the site hosts DN

and JA’s blog. As such, the various posts, some of which have been the subject of complaint

from the Complainant, are essentially opinion pieces.



Page | 2

3. Each blogpost will be dealt with in this decision in chronological order. After summarising each

blogpost, the complaints under clause 1 of the Code made in relation to each post, will be

dealt with. The Complainant has made allegations of breaches of clause 2 (right to reply) and

clause 4 (harassment, persistent pursuit) in respect of five of the six blogposts. These aspects

of the complaints will be dealt with at the end of this decision, before a summary of our

conclusions.

Background

4. The area of climate change generally, and of the economic impact of climate change

specifically, are hotly debated topics. There is much dispute as to the effects of global

warming. Academic papers and studies into these areas are published by numerous experts

on a regular basis. Statistics in the relevant disciplines are produced and then at times revised

as the situation changes. The science in this area is thus constantly changing and so too, it

appears, is the earth’s atmosphere. As a result, as time moves on, predictions contained in

various reports/academic papers are at times proved, disproved or become out-dated,

prompting further research.

5. The experts are not agreed on every aspect of global warming. Opinions are highly polarised

and disagreements can last for years. There are disputes over interpretations of conclusions

contained within respected academic papers. Differences of opinion can be misinterpreted as

errors of fact. This is the nature of academic discourse. The use of blogging and other social

media tools in this area of science is, it seems to the Panel, an ideal forum for such debates.

Blogs are used in the main, to disseminate the personal views and opinions of the author. The

nature of a blog therefore is, in the view of the Panel, important to keep at the forefront of

one’s mind when considering these complaints.

The complained about posts

Blogpost 1

6. This post is authored jointly by DN and JA. It recites the ongoing, and very public dispute

between the Complainant and BW, who is the author of a later blogpost, also the subject of

complaint. The Complainant, a world-renowned economist specialising in the economics of

global warming, has produced a number of academic papers published over the years in

respected journals. Both the Complainant and BW appear to agree that the world’s climate is

becoming warmer. However, the Complainant has asserted in some of his published works,

that a moderate change in the world’s climate could have potential positive benefits to the

global economy. BW has publicly pointed to errors contained within one of the Complainant’s



Page | 3

papers published in 2009 (Tol 2009). The two disagree as to the actual number of errors found

by BW and whether they alter the overall conclusions of Tol 2009.

7. In the course of rehearsing the arguments, the blogpost quotes substantially from BW’s

critiques of the Complainant’s published works. These critiques are freely available online and

as such are in the public domain. Blogpost 1 concludes by calling for an end to “these endless

debates” and suggests a collaborative approach to dealing with the effects of climate change.

The Complaint against blogpost 1

8. Clause 1 of the Code states,

“Accuracy i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures. ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published… iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact. iv) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.”

9. The Complainant makes a wide-ranging complaint alleging 17 separate inaccuracies against

blogpost 1. Despite the number of separate allegations made, the crux of the complaints is

that in repeating the quotes from BW, the authors have repeated inaccurate allegations about

the Complainant and his work.

10. As the complaint about blogpost 1 is largely against quoted text, the Panel reminds itself that

in relation to a complaint raised under clause 1 of the Code, the enquiry must, initially at least,

be directed at whether the quotes are accurately reproduced. That is to say, do the words

appearing in quotation marks accurately reflect what the author of the quote (in this case BW)

said.



Page | 4

11. While the Panel acknowledges that the Complainant argues that most of BW’s quotes are

incorrect/inaccurate, it does not necessarily follow that there has been a breach of clause 1.

The piece is reporting on a dispute between the Complainant and BW. It stands to reason

therefore that the Complainant will disagree with the majority of the words quoted. However,

the quotes attributed to BW are accurately reproduced in the blogpost1. The Panel therefore

considers it unnecessary to set out in this decision, every complaint made against this post.

As to the allegations actually contained in the words complained of, the Panel finds that they

are supported elsewhere2. The Panel therefore finds that there is no breach of clause 1 in

relation to the quoted text in this post.

Complaints about words properly attributed to the authors

Use of the word “significant”

12. The Complainant asserts that the following words are incorrect “…there was only one of Tol's

studies that showed a significant positive impact.” He argues in his complaint form that none

of the studies remark on “significance” and that in fact two studies showed positive impacts.

In using the word “significant” here, the authors are merely expressing their opinion, as they

are entitled to do, on the findings as reported in Tol 2009. They are not, it seems to the Panel,

purporting to use the word in a scientific or statistical way. Although this is a piece co-

authored by an academic, the Panel notes it is not published in any academic journal aimed

purely at a scientific audience. Rather, this is aimed at the wider general public and so the

authors must be assumed to be using the word “significant” in its everyday meaning.

Two studies showed positive impacts

1 See “Errors in the estimates of the aggregate economic impacts of climate change” by Bob Ward dated 02/04/14 available at http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/errors-in-estimates-of-the-aggregate-economic-impacts-of-climate-change/ 2 For example, BW’s commentaries on this topic dated 02/04/14, 15/04/14 & 08/05/14, emails between the complainant and BW on the topic of errors in Tol 2009, other commentaries/critiques of Tol 2009, e.g. http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/05/01/richard-tol-and-wild-imaginations/ and the Complainant’s own errata entitled “The author regrets that three errors crept into “Targets for global climate policy:” which can be viewed at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165188914000840.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/errors-in-estimates-of-the-aggregate-economic-impacts-of-climate-change/

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/errors-in-estimates-of-the-aggregate-economic-impacts-of-climate-change/

http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/05/01/richard-tol-and-wild-imaginations/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165188914000840



Page | 5

13. Further, in relation to this particular quote, the Complainant asserts that there were in fact

two studies showing positive impacts. This is accurately and fairly reported later in the piece

when the authors state:

“When I challenged Professor Tol on this point, he identified a second paper

which showed a very small potential positive economic impact of 0.1% as

climate change progresses which I think we can agree is not significant.”

14. This may well be a reference to the second positive impact study relied upon by the

Complainant in furthering this aspect of his complaint. In the view of the Panel, the authors,

while maintaining their view that there was only one positive impact study, have fairly and

accurately reflected the fact that the Complainant’s view is that there are two. The

Complainant takes issue, again, with the use of the phrase “significant” in the text quoted

above and in his seventh complaint against this post. For the reasons set out in paragraph 12

above, the Panel reject these complaints against the use of the word “significant”.

Multiple errors

15. Complaint is made by the Complainant about the following “Ward found that Tol made

multiple errors in his 2013 publication.” He says this is incorrect. He states BW identified only

one error. It is not clear to the Panel, in making his complaint, whether the Complainant is

here referring to Tol 2009, 2012 or 2013. In any event, it is clear to the Panel that the “multiple

errors” allegation is directed at Tol 2013. BW asserts that Tol 2009 contained four errors.

Three of these four errors, according to BW, are repeated in Tol 2012 and Tol 2013. According

to the Complainant’s own erratum3, there were three errors in both the 2009 and 2013

papers. It is therefore accurate in the Panel’s view, to state that BW found multiple errors in

Tol 2013.

Chapter 10 of the IPCC report

16. The Complainant states that blogpost 1 is inaccurate when it states “…chapter 10 had a section

which was largely based on Tol's own work.” The chapter being referred to is chapter 10 of

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report on Impacts, Adaptation and

Vulnerability (the IPCC report). The Complainant argues that the relevant part of chapter 10

reviews 18 studies, only two of which are authored by the Complainant. Therefore, he argues,

it is inaccurate to state that the chapter was based largely on his work. The Panel notes that

neither the quote nor the Complainant states which section of Chapter 10 is the subject of

dispute.

3 See https://www.aeaweb.org/jep/app/prev_28020221.pdf and http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165188914000840.

https://www.aeaweb.org/jep/app/prev_28020221.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165188914000840



Page | 6

17. The Panel have seen a bundle of documents prepared by GNM when the now defunct Press

Complaints Commission was investigating these complaints. A number of those documents

refer to the IPCC report. The Panel is therefore in a position to make a number of findings

relevant to this aspect of the complaint. First, the Complainant is one of two Coordinating

Lead Authors of chapter 10. Secondly, the Complainant, in his online biography, describes

himself, inter alia, as “an author (contributing, lead, principal and convening) of Working

Groups I, II and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”.

18. Third, Chapter 10 contains 10 separate sections including the introduction. Section 10.9.2 of

chapter 10 is entitled “Aggregate Impacts”. Fourthly, the final draft of section 10.9.2 contained

a statement allegedly based upon incorrect figures in Tol 2013. The statement was apparently

removed from the final draft of chapter 10.

19. In an article entitled “IPCC author brands upcoming climate report ‘alarmist’” published by

Reuters on theguardian.com on 28 March 2014, the IPCC chapter is described in a quote from

BW as, in effect, being the work of the Complainant4. It also quotes a statement from the IPCC

to the effect that the report, as a whole, is the product of the scientific community and not of

any individual author.

20. In their response GNM point out that table 10.b.1 in the IPCC WD2 report contains eight

entries which are aggregated by the Complainant. The figure contains a link to a database at

Sussex University where the Complainant is Professor of Economics. The database bears the

Complainant’s initials.

21. It may be, that the IPCC report including chapter 10, is indeed based upon the work of a

number of experts. However, the words complained of do not refer to the entire report or to

the whole of chapter 10, but rather a section of chapter 10. The preponderance of evidence

seen by the Panel supports the assertion that section 10.9.2 was based largely on the

Complainant’s work. Therefore the words complained of are, in the view of the Panel

accurate.

4 The relevant words from the article are: “Another expert criticised Tol, saying his IPCC chapter exaggerated possible benefits. “Of the 19 studies he surveyed only one shows net positive benefits from warming. And it’s the one he wrote,”…” Emphasis added.



Page | 7

New or revised material?

22. The post states “This material had not appeared in previous drafts of the report.” The

Complainant asserts that the material was moved from Chapter 19 to Chapter 10 of the IPCC

report, and additionally the wording was revised in response to comments. He says, therefore

that the above quote is inaccurate. This topic – the moving or not of material from one IPCC

chapter to another - appears to have been hotly debated among the climate change

community online.

23. Brandon Shollenberger5 has written two blogposts6 which address, among other issues, whether material was moved from one chapter to another or whether the material did not appear at all in previous drafts of chapter 10. The first post, entitled “Richard Tol Abuses the IPCC Process” sets out in full section 10.9.2 of chapter 10 of the IPCC report (running to two paragraphs and a figure) and the first paragraph of section 19.6.3.5. A comparison of the two sections shows that they are different.

24. Further, it appears from a later post by the same author entitled “Richard Tol, Hiding Data”

that the Complainant himself has accepted that due to comments on the second order draft, a complete revision of the chapter was necessary. The Panel notes that there is dispute as to whether comments did in fact call for such a revision. However the Panel finds that there is sufficient evidence, publicly available, to support the words complained of as being accurate.

Multiple errors 25. The Complainant argues that the sentence “The final draft contained multiple errors in Table

10.B.1 and in Figure 10-1; some of which stemmed from the Tol 2013 article” is inaccurate and

repeats, essentially, his assertion that BW found only one error. For the reasons set out in this

decision at paragraph 15 above, the Panel is of the view that there is ample evidence to

support the words as being accurate.

Six complaints or four?

5 Brandon Shollenberger is described by some as both a “climate blogger” and a “climate denier”. He has published a number of online critiques including a negative critique of Dana Nuccitelli’s work. 6 http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/richard-tol-abuses-the-ipcc-process/ and http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/richard-tol-hiding-data/

http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/richard-tol-abuses-the-ipcc-process/

http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/richard-tol-hiding-data/



Page | 8

26. Finally in relation to the complaint against blogpost 1, the Complainant takes issue with the following “…of the six complaints I posed to him, he agreed with four.” The Complainant says, that these words are incorrect and that he only agreed with two complaints put to him by JA. This passage has already been the subject of correction following a complaint by the Complainant to the Reader’s Editor7. That correction was made based upon an email exchange between JA and the Complainant, which the Panel has seen. However, there remains a dispute, as the Complainant insists in his complaint form, that he only agreed with two of the complaints put to him by JA. Even if the Complainant is correct (and, the Panel notes that he has produced no evidence, for example in the form of an email, to support his contention) it is the Panel’s view that while the statement may then be inaccurate, it is not so significant so as to warrant correction.

Blogpost 2

27. This blogpost suggests that climate change deniers have taken up a new argument to support their cause. It gives a brief history of arguments deployed on behalf of the so-called “deniers” and concludes that in reality, the arguments are not new. During the course of the post GH, the author, refers to the Complainant in the following way

“Enter economist Richard Tol. In March8, Tol, a professor at the University of Sussex, resigned his position with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change team producing the working group's Summary for Policymakers in the most recent report on the environmental, economic and social vulnerabilities associated with climate change. He remains the contributing9 lead author on the group's chapter about economics.”


28. In another complaint under clause 1, the Complainant first states that this piece wrongly labels him a climate change denier. Secondly, he makes complaint about the assertion in the article that his work is being actively challenged. Thirdly, again alleging inaccuracy, the Complainant argues that the article entitled “Why climate change is good for the world” by Matt Ridley (the Ridley article) does not draw upon work that is being actively challenged.

Climate change denier

7 The word “four” has been replaced with “three”. 8 “March” has since been changed to “September” following a complaint by the Complainant to the RE. 9 Changed from “contributing” to “coordinating” during the RE complaints procedure.



Page | 9

29. Far from labelling the Complainant a climate change denier, it is clear on a proper reading of the post, that GH accepts, indeed asserts, that the Complainant agrees that the world’s climate is changing. For example, GH quotes the Complainant as saying

"It is pretty damn obvious that there are positive impacts of climate change, even though we are not always allowed to talk about them," Tol told the Guardian.”

and

“…Tol's suggestion that a little warming may actually be good for us, as recently relayed by Bloomberg Businessweek,…”

In both these quotes it is implicit that the Complainant agrees that the earth is getting warmer but maintains that this may not be a bad thing. The Panel finds that this aspect of the complaint against this post is unsustainable.

Tol’s work actively challenged

30. The Complainant is on record as saying that global warming may have a positive impact on the world’s economy. That this opinion, as expressed in the Complainant’s published papers and elsewhere, is the subject of active challenge, is a matter of public record. A review of the dispute between the Complainant and BW illustrates this point. The Panel therefore finds that a certain aspect of the Complainant’s work was and is being actively challenged.

Ridley does not draw upon the challenged work

31. In the third and fourth paragraphs of the Ridley article, the author sets out the Complainant’s findings following his (the Complainant’s) review of 14 different studies. He then goes on to refer to specific findings of the Complainant in 2009, the year he wrote his paper. This is a clear reference to Tol 2009 which was the first paper in which BW is said to have found errors. The Panel therefore finds that the Ridley article draws upon the challenged 2009 paper. The statement is therefore accurate.

Blogpost 3

32. This blogpost centres on alleged attempts by Saudi Arabia and other interested countries, to dilute the summaries of the IPCC report. During the course of the post, the author NA, sets out some of the troubled recent history in relation to the drafting of the IPCC report. He refers to Professor Stavins who wrote a letter to the IPCC as a result of what he (Prof. Stavins) described as his frustration with the governmental approval process.



Page | 10

33. NA states in the post that climate change deniers have misrepresented the Stavins letter for their own ends and in doing so have equated Stavins’ concerns with those allegedly held by the Complainant. The author then uses quotes from an article by Dimitri Zenghelis, entitled “Richard Tol’s flawed claims about the Stern Review” (the Zenghelis article) in the following way

“Tol's claims about IPCC alarmism are riddled with "significant errors and misrepresentations," "selective" and "misleading" quoting, and based on his own paper containing "a number of mistakes", as well as a "fundamentally flawed" understanding of "the risks of climate change."

The post contains a link to the quoted Zenghelis article.


34. In summary, and again deploying clause 1 of the Code, the Complainant makes three

complaints about this post. First, he says that NA has picked unrelated remarks from the

Zenghelis article and presented them as if they were all about his (the Complainant’s)

accusation as to alarmism of the IPCC. Second, he asserts that the author incorrectly refers to

a number of mistakes but neglects to mention the impact (if any) of these mistakes upon the

findings. Finally the Complainant is unhappy that the post makes no reference to the fact that

he has far more experience in the field of climate change and economics as compared to Mr

Zenghelis.

35. The post states that the Complainant’s article entitled “The Conversation” is “riddled with "significant errors and misrepresentations,". The Zenghelis article however, states that The Conversation “contains a number of significant errors and misrepresentations”. NA’s use of the word “riddled” rather than “a number” suggests more errors than the latter and so, in the view of the Panel is inaccurate. As to the Complainant’s second complaint against this post, the Panel does not consider that it was incumbent upon NA to state what impact the alleged mistakes had upon the conclusions.

36. As far as the Complainant’s final complaint about this piece is concerned, the Panel is of the view that it is unnecessary for NA to set out the respective experience of Mr Zenghelis as compared to the Complainant. The absence of such a comparison does not make the post inaccurate.

Blogpost 4



Page | 11

37. This post examines the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s (GWPF) record in relation to treatment of its critics. It does so against the backdrop of the GWPF’s complaints about the apparent intolerance of other opinions among some in the climate science community. It examines the public quotes and actions of individuals connected with the GWPF, including the Complainant, and essentially asks whether those quotes/actions could be considered to be examples of tolerant behaviour.


38. The Complainant complains that this post falls foul of clause 1 in the way in which it sets out a public dispute between him (the Complainant) and another economist Frank Ackerman. He complains that blogpost 4 fails to state, as a matter of fact, that Mr Ackerman was guilty of libelling the Complainant.

39. As far as the Panel is aware, and, the Complainant has produced no evidence in support of this aspect of his complainant, the allegations and cross-allegations that made up the Tol/Ackerman dispute have never been the subject of formal libel proceedings before a court. As such it would have been inaccurate and improper for GR (not a lawyer or libel law specialist) to state as a fact that Mr Ackerman was guilty of a libel against the Complainant. The Panel therefore dismisses the complaint against blogpost 4.

Blogpost 5

40. This blogpost, authored by BW, focuses on the removal of an apparent controversial statement from a section of the IPCC Report. The statement apparently suggested global warming may be beneficial whilst climate change remains moderate but may become negative if warming increases. The post rehearses allegations made by BW about errors in Tol 2009 as, according to BW they formed the basis of the disputed statement.


41. The Complainant says that the post is inaccurate. He says the IPCC did not correct or remove the statement, but that it was merely reformulated. He asserts that the statement was not based on faulty data but on the contrary, it was based upon data that has not been the subject of any challenge. He repeats his assertion that BW did not discover errors in the plural, but only discovered one. He says he did not withdraw from the writing team to the IPCC due to disagreement but stepped down to preserve his credibility. Finally, the Complainant says BW did not submit any comment and was not listed as one of the report’s referees. So, he says the author is wrong to hold himself out, as he does in the post, as an independent reviewer of the report.

Remove, revise or reformulate?



Page | 12

42. It is clear to the Panel that the final draft of the IPCC report contained changes or revisions as compared to earlier drafts. This is hardly surprising. In common with other reports created as a result of the collaborative efforts of a number of experts, the text clearly changed over time. It also appears to the Panel that section 10.9.2 of chapter 10 of the report contained both revisions and new material that had not appeared in some earlier drafts of the report.

43. The disputed statement appears to have been removed from the final draft of the report. Blogpost 5 (and this is not the subject of challenge by the Complainant) states that the IPCC acknowledged that the sentence was removed due to mistakes in the draft. It appears to the Panel that the only “mistakes” referred to in relation to the IPCC report and chapter 10 are the alleged errors in Tol 2009, 2012 and 2013. Therefore the post is accurate when it refers to removal or correction of the claim contained in the disputed statement.

Faulty data

44. For reasons set out elsewhere in this decision in relation to similar allegations made by the Complainant about other posts, the Panel does not consider it inaccurate for this post to state that the statement was removed because it was based on faulty data. The IPCC appears to have accepted this by withdrawing the statement from the final draft of its report.

1, 2, 3 or 4 errors?

45. The Panel considers that the alleged errors or mistakes in Tol 2009 are well documented and that it is clear that more than one error was found. Indeed, the complainant has publicly accepted that his 2009 paper contained more than one error. The Panel therefore finds that it is not inaccurate for this post to refer to the discovery of errors in the plural.

Reasons for stepping down

46. Publicly the Complainant has stated that the drafts of the report became “too alarmist” for his liking and that other authors strongly disagreed with him10. The Panel therefore finds that it is accurate to state that the Complainant did not agree with other authors and that is why he withdrew.

BW an independent reviewer?

47. The Panel caused further enquiries to be made on this issue. The Panel’s complaints officer contacted the IPCC asking for their comment on BW’s description in the post as an independent reviewer. The Panel has seen documents confirming BW’s registration as an

10 See “IPCC author brands upcoming climate report ‘alarmist’”



Page | 13

expert reviewer for the relevant section of the IPCC report. BW was not listed as a reviewer as he did not formally submit comments during the relevant period. The IPCC confirmed that in their opinion, there is no difference between an independent reviewer and an expert reviewer. Michael D. Mastrandrea, of the IPCC stated in an email dated 18 February 2015 sent to the Panel’s complaints officer, “The IPCC does not use the term "independent reviewer," but it is reasonable to describe expert reviewers who are not connected with the IPCC (i.e., that are independent) as independent reviewers.” The Panel therefore finds nothing wrong with the words used by BW to describe himself.

Blogpost 6

48. Blogpost 6 is another comment post authored by DN. The topic, in common with many other

posts on this blog, is the climate change/global economics debate. It is written from DN’s

viewpoint (well documented in other posts) that the “climate change denial” community have

moved away from actually denying that the world’s climate is changing as a result of human

behaviour, and is moving towards an argument asserting that though the climate may be

getting warmer, this may be good for global economics. DN then goes on to examine briefly

why economics is not the only answer to the issues raised by global warming.


49. The Complainant makes an inaccuracy complaint about the following words appearing in this blogpost authored by DN,

“…in modeling, economists only consider the value of the Great Barrier Reef in terms of its monetary value.”

50. The Complainant disagrees with the above assertion. In summary, the Complainant sets out in his complaint form that since as far back as N Bernoulli and D Bernoulli both from the 1700’s, economists have considered factors other than money. DN’s error remains an error, the Complainant argues, even when one considers the fact that the assertion is made in relation to the climate change debate.

51. The Panel note that the original text of the blogpost stated

“…economists only consider the value of the Great Barrier Reef in terms of its tourism and fishing dollar values”

Additionally, there was a link to a piece written by the Complainant, and in doing so, blogpost 6 essentially attributed this view to the Complainant. Following the Complainant’s complaint to the Reader’s Editor, the sentence was replaced with the words appearing above, removing



Page | 14

the link and inserting at the end of the blogpost a footnote explaining the corrections. The Complainant however pursues his complaint to this Panel. He complains also about the description in the blogpost of Chris Hope as a “climate economist”, asserting that this description is inaccurate and that Dr Hope is in fact a physicist.

Economic modelling

52. Although the words complained of may be couched in terms suggesting a factual assertion, they, in the collective view of the Panel, merely represent DN’s interpretation of the term “economic modelling”. Many experts in the area of climate change maintain blogs. Many of these blogs contain opinions expressed as if fact. However, this must be seen under the umbrella of the very concept of blogging, the essential tenet of which, the Panel notes, is the proliferation of a particular opinion. As such, we do not consider the words complained of to fall foul of clause 1 and do not consider there to be any need to make further changes to this aspect of the post.

Chris Hope – physicist or economist?

53. In relation to DN’s description of Chris Hope as an economist, this is properly described as a factual assertion which, if found to be materially inaccurate, would fall to be corrected despite appearing in a blogpost.

54. Dr Chris Hope is a Reader in Policy Modelling and a Fellow of Clare Hall, Cambridge University. He holds a BA from the University of Oxford and a MA and PhD from the University of Cambridge. On the Cambridge University website his profile states, among other things

“Dr Hope was the specialist advisor to the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs Inquiry into aspects of the economics of climate change, and an advisor on the PAGE model to the Stern review on the Economics of Climate Change.”

The Panel is therefore of the view, that DN’s description of Dr Hope in this post is accurate.

The complaints under Clause 2 of the Code

Clause 2 of the Code provides:

“Opportunity to reply

A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be given when reasonably called for.”



Page | 15

55. In each of the complaints against blogposts 1 through to 5, the Complainant complains that he has been refused a right to reply. As it is the unanimous view of the Panel that the overwhelming majority of the inaccuracy complaints against these blogposts ought to fail, we do not consider that GNM is in breach of clause 2 in respect of blogposts 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. With regards to blogpost 3, the Panel is of the view that given that the complaint was upheld only in relation to one word in the post, a right of reply is not reasonably called for.

56. In any event, the Panel notes that the Complainant made full use of the Reader’s Editor Complaints Procedure and some corrections were made as a result of his complaints. Additionally, the Complainant has used his own blogposts to reply to posts with which he took issue11. Links to the Complainant’s posts have appeared in some of the complained about blogposts following his complaints. For example, Tol’s 18 point criticism of blogpost 1 was linked to the corrected post. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the Complainant wrote his own blogpost hosted on the GNM Environmental webpages on 6 June 201412. This is further evidence, in our mind that there has been no breach of clause 2.

Clause 4

Clause 4 of the Code provides:

“Harassment

i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.

ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on their property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom they represent.

iii) Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources.”

57. In his complaint forms relating to blogposts 1 to 5, the Complainant concludes with an allegation that GNM is in breach of clause 4. The Panel notes that Clause 4 provides protection to the public from intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit by journalists. Clause 4 ii) is

11 http://richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/mr-wards-fantastical-claims.html, http://richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/john-abrahams-wild-imaginations.html# 12 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

http://richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/mr-wards-fantastical-claims.html

http://richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/john-abrahams-wild-imaginations.html

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming



Page | 16

particularly aimed at preventing persistent questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals who have asked to be left alone.

58. In support of his complaint under clause 4, the Complainant relies upon a below-the-line comment appearing below blogpost 1 left by gpwayne. The comment (which was blocked by moderators on 6 May following complaints by the Complainant) was as follows:

“which only goes to show how little expertise was required to nail your sorry arse”.

59. The author of the comment, Graham Wayne, is according to GNM’s reply to these complaints, a very occasional GNM contributor (four pieces in total, last one dated August 2013). Mr Wayne is not a staff journalist. This comment must be considered in context. It was posted in response to a below-the-line comment posted by the Complainant stating

“Please note that Mr Ward is not an academic. He failed his PhD and is now a PR man.”

60. The Panel finds that this is an isolated comment clearly not at the behest of GNM. We fail to see therefore how, either standing alone or taken together with all five posts, it could constitute harassment. Incidentally, the Panel observes that the Complainant’s below-the-line comment is another example of him using social media to have his reply.

61. Further, although the Panel is aware that it is entirely possible within civil law to be harassed

by the very publication of an article or articles13, the evidential threshold is very high and the publication of a series of articles containing press criticism, even if robust, is unlikely to be deemed harassment either in law or, we observe, under clause 4. It is the Panel’s opinion that GNM are not guilty of any behaviour falling within clause 4.

Summary of decisions/recommendations

62. It is the unanimous view of this Panel that the complaints against blogposts 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6

must fail. The Panel notes that today’s readership of GNM and the public at large, understand

and accept that blogs represent the personal views of the author. The Panel observes that

clause 1 iii) states, “The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between

comment, conjecture and fact”. The Panel is of the unanimous view that in ensuring these

13 See Esther Thomas v. NGN Ltd [2002] EMLR 4



Page | 17

comments appeared as blogposts, GNM have distinguished clearly between comment,

conjecture and fact.

63. The complaint against blogpost 3, in the unanimous view of the Panel will be partially upheld

to the extent that we recommend that the word “riddled” should be removed from the

blogpost and replaced with the words “a number”.

Dated: 13th March 2014

Signed:

John Willis, Chair to the Review Panel

Geraldine Proudler, Panel Member

Elinor Goodman, Panel Member

Tol Decision

Documents