Last Saturday, the Daily Mail issued an apology for an article it published earlier this year that claimed American climate scientists were manipulating data. After a condemnation by the IPSO (the Independent Press Standards Organization), the Mail admitted that the article was "unverified" and "misleading." Those are the Mail's own words; most impartial observers would describe the article as a pack of lies.
For example, the article claimed that NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) had "failed to archive its data" and claimed that conclusions based on it "can never be verified," darkly implying that fudged data had been erased to hide evidence. But as the Mail begrudgingly admits in its apology, that data was archived and has always been publicly available.
Other items in the article the Mail now admits were inaccurate include claiming there was "irrefutable evidence" that a significant climate change study was based on fudged data; claiming world leaders were "duped" by this study; and a deceptive chart on which the Mail somehow "fail[ed] to plot the lines correctly."
In short, the Daily Mail admitted that the article had violated the very first clause of the IPSO's "Editors Code of Practice," which forbids against publishing "inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images."
The article was featured here on IAB back in February. It stank to high heaven and a number of IAB'ers didn't believe its claims. Kudos to DrCribbens, NormalFreak2, M3dm3d, and a few others for recognizing bullshit when they saw it. Source