Paper that found 'climate crisis' to be 'not evident yet' retracted after re-review - Retraction Watch

Paper that found ‘climate crisis’ to be ‘not evident yet’ retracted after re-review - Retraction Watch

An article published last January in a physics journal attracted attention for its conclusion that–contrary to mainstream climate science–extreme weather events have not become more intense or more frequent as the temperature of the earth’s surface has increased.

Now, the journal’s editors have retracted the article after a post-publication review found “that the conclusions of the article were not supported by available evidence or data provided by the authors.”

In the abstract of “ A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming,” published in The European Physical Journal Plus, the authors wrote:

On the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.

That conclusion found favor on social media, as well as in The National Review, The Epoch Times, and other outlets, but articles in The Guardian and AFP quoted climate scientists who said the authors had “cherry-picked” the data they analyzed and the paper should be retracted.

Soon after the critical coverage was published, on Sept. 30, 2022, the journal added the following editor’s note to the paper:

Readers are alerted that the conclusions reported in this manuscript are currently under dispute. The journal is investigating the issue.

Nearly a year later, on August 23, as AFP first reported, the journal pulled the paper. According to the retraction notice:

The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article. Concerns were raised regarding the selection of the data, the analysis and the resulting conclusions of the article. The authors were invited to submit an addendum to the article, but post publication review of the concerns with the article and the submitted addendum concluded that the addendum was not suitable for publication and that the conclusions of the article were not supported by available evidence or data provided by the authors. In light of these concerns and based on the outcome of the post publication review, the Editors-in-Chief no longer have confidence in the results and conclusions reported in this article.

The authors disagree with this retraction.

The first and corresponding author of the paper, Gianluca Alimonti of the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare and Università degli Studi in Milan, Italy, has not yet responded to our request for comment.

A spokesperson for Springer Nature, the publisher of the journal where the paper appeared, told us:

The Editors-in-Chief of the European Physical Journal Plus have retracted this article. When they became aware of concerns, the Editors — with advice and assistance provided by Springer Nature Research Integrity Group — launched a thorough investigation following an established process in line with best-practice Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. This process included a post-publication review by subject-matter experts of the article and an addendum submitted by the authors during the investigation.

After careful consideration and consultation with all parties involved, the Editors and publishers concluded that they no longer had confidence in the results and conclusions of the article. The addendum was not considered suitable for publication, and retraction was the most appropriate course of action in order to maintain the validity of the scientific record.

The paper has been cited 23 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.

Update, 1630 UTC: In response to our request for comment, Alimonti did not answer our specific questions but pointed us to a blog post published by Roger Pielke Jr.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.