The scientific publishing house Springer Nature has withdrawn the study by four Italian physicists which denied the impacts of the climate crisis

Springer Nature, one of the major scientific publishers, said he withdrew a peer-reviewed study by nuclear physicist, Gianluca Alimonti, agricultural meteorologist, Luigi Mariani, and physicists Franco Prodi and Renato Angelo Ricci, because it presented misleading conclusions on the impact of climate change.Prodi and Ricci are among the signatories of the World Climate Declaration, which states that "there is no climate emergency" and that "enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is advantageous".Franco Prodi is one of the so-called "false experts", or "pseudoexperts" - in the sense that despite being scientists (in Prodi's case, atmospheric physicists) in their career they have never dealt with climate change and cannot be considered experts of the matter - often interviewed in the general media giving the misleading impression that the scientific debate is still open.

The study's lead author, Alimonti, he argued in 2014 that there is no consensus among climate scientists that global warming is caused by human activity.But, how we reconstructed recently in this article by Antonio Scalari, the debate about the scientific consensus on climate change is long over.

The scientific debate on climate change is over

The decision to withdraw the study came after an investigation prompted by an investigation of AFP, about a year ago.Springer Nature explained that, following an internal review process, it found that the study's conclusions were not "supported by available evidence or data provided by the authors."And therefore he withdrew the article.

The study – entitled "A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming" – was published in January 2022 on theEuropean Physical Journal Plus, a journal not known for publishing scientific articles on climate change, and stated that based on observation of data regarding possible changes in the frequency or intensity of rainfall, cyclones, tornadoes, droughts, and other extreme weather events, “ the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today is not yet evident."

The study was then widely taken up by groups of climate deniers (or skeptics) and relaunched in two videos (with over 500 thousand views on YouTube) on Sky News Australia, a channel that has been known for its misinformation about climate science.

Several climate scientists contacted by AFP And Guardian claimed that the study had manipulated data, selected some information and excluded information that contradicted the conclusions reached by the authors, thus prompting the publisher to launch the internal review, conducted by Springer Nature's Research Integrity Group in compliance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The article was reviewed by climate science experts while the four authors were asked to submit an addendum in response to the criticisms raised.“After careful consideration and consultation with all parties involved, the editors and publishers have concluded that they no longer have confidence in the findings and conclusions of the article,” he declared Springer Nature a AFP.The editors of the magazine have published an online note in which they explain that the article was retracted because there were reservations about the “data selection, analysis and resulting conclusions”.The addendum – continues the note – “was not considered suitable for publication” and, therefore, “retraction was the most appropriate course of action to maintain high levels of scientific content published in the journal”.

The article is still available for download, but the manuscript now bears the words "RETRACTED ARTICLE" on every page.According to the magazine's website, the article has been accessed 92,000 times.

The Guardian asked the editors why the study's critical issues were not noted before publication.But Springer Nature offered no further explanation, responding that it cannot discuss “the specific history or peer review process of an article with anyone other than the authors.”The publishers added that they are "taking steps to ensure similar problems do not arise in the future", such as increasing the number of supervisors and reviewers.

The crux of the matter, explains ad AFP Stefan Rahmstorf, head of Earth Systems at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, is that the study "was not published in a journal dealing with climate change", and therefore the review process may not have involved experts in the first place of climate science.“This is a path commonly taken by 'climate skeptics' to avoid peer review by real experts in the field,” adds Rahmstorf.

Another survey published by AFP in April 2023 showed that scientists who deny the anthropogenic cause of climate change have had several misleading studies published in peer-reviewed journals.

The Retraction Watch blog, which tracks the retraction of academic papers, counted 5,000 cases similar to Alimonti (et alii)'s study in 2022 alone, amounting to about a tenth of the total number of published studies.

The prof.Alimonti and Sky News Australia were contacted by the Guardian for comment but did not comment.

Preview image via phys.org