Science scandal: paper retracted on lack of evidence for climate crisis

One of the world’s largest scientific publications retracted a journal article claiming it had found no evidence of a climate crisis.

According to The Guardian, Springer Nature said it had withdrawn the paper by four Italian physicists after an internal investigation found the findings “are not supported by the available evidence or the data provided by the authors.”

Climate skeptic groups heavily publicized an article that appeared in the European Physical Journal Plus in January 2022, a journal not known for publishing scientific papers on climate change.

Nine months later, the article was published uncritically on the front page of an Australian newspaper and advertised in two segments on Sky News Australia, a channel described as the global climate science misinformation hub. These segments have been viewed over 500,000 times on YouTube.

The article argues that the data analyzed did not reveal trends in extreme rainfall, floods, droughts, or food production productivity.

“In conclusion, based on observational data, the climate crisis that many sources say we are experiencing today is not yet clear,” the article says.

Several climate scientists told the Guardian newspaper and later the AFP news agency that the article misrepresented some scientific papers, was “selective and biased” and contained “selective” information.

After these concerns were raised, Springer Nature announced in October that it was launching an investigation into the article.

In a statement, Springer Nature said its editors launched a “thorough investigation” that included post-publication review by experts in the field.

During the investigation, the authors of the article also submitted an addition to their original work, the statement said.

“After careful consideration and consultation with all parties involved, the editors and publishers have concluded that they are no longer confident in the results and conclusions of the article,” the journal says.

“The addition was not deemed appropriate for publication and retraction was the most appropriate course of action to preserve the credibility of the scientific data.”

The article’s retraction states that concerns were raised “regarding the choice of data, analysis, and conclusions of the article.”

The note states that the article’s conclusions “have not been supported by the available evidence or data provided by the authors.”

“In light of these concerns, and based on the results of the post-publication review, editors-in-chief no longer trust the results and conclusions presented in this article,” the note adds.

The article is still available for download, but every page of the manuscript is now stamped “REVIEWED ARTICLE”. According to the magazine’s website, the article has been viewed 92,000 times.

The Guardian asked why the paper’s issues were not addressed prior to publication. Springer Nature stated that it could not discuss “the specific history or review process of an article with anyone other than the authors.”

The publisher and editors “have striven to maintain the highest possible level of integrity of the content published in the journal, and we are taking steps to ensure that similar issues do not arise in the future.”

“For example, we support our editors-in-chief in increasing control over editors and guest editors to ensure that our policies and best practices are followed,” the statement said.

Professor Stephen Sherwood, a climate scientist at the University of New South Wales, who was among those who criticized the paper, said it was important that the journal allow the authors to defend their work.

“It shows that the magazine was slow to condemn the article,” he said. “I thank the journal both for providing the authors with this initial benefit of the doubt and for their determination to withdraw the paper when the authors failed to substantiate their claims.”

Two of the study’s four authors, retired nuclear physicist Renato Ricci and prominent climate science skeptic Franco Prodi, signed a declaration in early 2022 that “there is no climate emergency” and that “enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.”

Lead author of the study, nuclear physicist Professor Gianluca Alimonti, argued in 2014 that there is no consensus among climate scientists that global warming is caused by human activities. At least six separate studies have shown that 90% to 100% of climate scientists agree that the warming is caused by humans.