Italian skeptical physicists caught in «sedition»
One of the world's largest scientific publications has retracted a journal article claiming it 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According to The Guardian, Springer Nature said it had withdrawn the paper by four Italian physicists after an internal investigation found the findings «are not supported by the available evidence or the data provided by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 have been widely 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 that has been described as the global hub for climate science disinformation. These segments have been viewed more than 500,000 times on YouTube.
The article claims that the analyzed data showed no trends in extreme rainfall, floods, droughts, or food productivity.
“In conclusion, based on observational data, the climate crisis that many sources believe we are experiencing today is not yet clear,” the article says.
Several climate scientists told the Guardian, and then and 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 this article.
In a statement, Springer Nature said its editors launched a «thorough investigation,» which included post-publication review by experts in the field.
During the investigation, the paper's authors also submitted an addendum to their original work, according to statement.
«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 addendum was not considered appropriate for publication, and retraction was the most appropriate course of action to preserve the credibility of the scientific data.»
The retraction of the article 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 post-publication review, editors-in-chief no longer trust the results and conclusions of this article,” the note adds.
The article is still available for download, but on each the page of the manuscript is now stamped «REVIEWED ARTICLE». According to the magazine's website, the article was accessed 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 problems do not arise in the future.»
«For example, we support our chief editors in strengthening oversight of 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 article, said it was important that the journal let the authors defend their work.
«This shows that the journal has been slow to condemning 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, a nuclear physicist at retired Renato Ricci and renowned climate skeptic Franco Prodi signed a declaration in early 2022 stating that «the climate emergency does not exist» and that «enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.»
The lead author of the study, a physicist Professor Gianluca Alimonti, a nuclear scientist, argued in 2014 that there is no consensus among climate scientists that global warming is caused by human activity. At least six separate studies have shown that 90% to 100% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing the warming.