Dear Daily Mail
March 29, 2012
Yesterday’s public statement by Dr. Zunli Lu indicated that his work on climate proxies and global temperature had been completely taken out of context and distorted by the Daily Mail, and in turn by the dozens of climate denial bloggers who had republished the bogus article.
Contrary to the Daily Mail’s headline, Dr. Lu affirmed that “Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend. Reader Martin Lack has written to Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail, to inquire as to how it is the paper sees fit to let falsehoods remain on their website.
Dear Mr Dacre,
Why is it that in addition to allowing your newspaper to become an anachronism, you also seem content to publish falsehoods even when the people (such as Dr Zunli Lu) whose views your journalists willfully misrepresent warn you against doing so. Will you, I wonder, publish a retraction/correction in an equally prominent place as your original misrepresentation of the research findings?
I’ll report here if there is any response.
Climate Denial Crock of the Week 
March 29, 2012 at 5:30 pm
I wouldn’t hold out for a reasonable response from Mr Dacre. He has a notoriously bad temper. His staff refer to meetings with him as “The vagina monologues” because he uses the c*nt word so often during them.
March 29, 2012 at 6:30 pm
This does not surprise me, as he behaved like a complete arrogant [insert word for female genitalia of choice] at the Leveson Inquiry…
March 29, 2012 at 7:08 pm
He had to get special coaching for his appearance at the Levinson Inquiry. Apparently he was missing from the office for days beforehand as his lawyers coached him in staying calm and not swearing. The staff at the Mail said it was the calmest week they’d had in years.
March 30, 2012 at 9:12 am
Someone (with Motorcycle Helmet and Body Armour) needs to tell Dacre that, if he thinks swearing is the answer, he doesn’t understand the question.
For f*ck’s sake, does the c*nt not realise; it ain’t big and is not bl**dy clever either (the tw*t)… ;-p
March 29, 2012 at 7:23 pm
Amazingly the Daily Fail won newspaper of the year – probably because it avoided the scandals that affected the Murdock rags. But when this story came out I did email Dr. Lu to ask if it was a fair representation of his work, clearly it wasn’t but this newspaper does have a reputation for mangling science stories as I have reported on my own blog from time to time;
http://lazarus-on.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/daily-fail-putting-lives-at-risk-again.html
http://lazarus-on.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/daily-jekyll-and-mail-hyde.html
http://lazarus-on.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/christopher-bookers-brain-is-more-jelly.html
http://lazarus-on.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/daily-fail.html
http://lazarus-on.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/how-many-republicians-does-it-take-to.html
http://lazarus-on.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/oil-company-covertly-funds-organisation.html
March 30, 2012 at 8:59 am
Hi Lazarus. You appear to have been as obsessed by the Daily Mail as I have been by Lindzen and Delingpole. Well done.
Can I ask you please to get Dr Lu to turn his protest into a demand that the Daily Mail publish a correction? Then, if they don’t do it, he should submit a formal complaint to the pathetic excuse for a regulator that is the Press Complaints Commission (or whatever it is called this week).
In reality, it does not matter who I copy my emails to, there is simply no point a third party doing any of this; it must be the aggrieved author who complains.
April 2, 2012 at 8:04 am
Hi Martin, have done suggesting that since the Daily Fail won Newspaper of the year, some might be led into thinking that all articles are of a good journalistic standard, but clearly the reporter Ted Thornhill, has shown poor journalistic vigour, and he, his paper and it’s readership really need to be aware of that.