Source: BBC Radio 4: Today Programme
URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9597000/9597092.stm
Date: 22/09/2011
Event: An interview with Collins Geo's Sheena Barclay about the Times Atlas error
People:
James Naughtie: What's to be done about the Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World, and its map of Greenland? Some scientists have told the publisher, HarperCollins, that the map is misleading, greatly exaggerating the disappearance of ice in the Arctic. In the Atlas, about 15% of the ice sheet around Greenland - that's an area about the size of the UK and Ireland put together - is shown in green rather than white, suggesting that it's gone, it's no longer ice. Now a group of Cambridge scientists, as you all know by now, wrote a letter this week, saying the Atlas should be pulped, because it displayed what they described as a GCSE error. Sheena Barclay is managing director of Collins Geo, the imprint which publishes the Atlas at HarperCollins. Good morning.
Sheena Barclay: Good morning.
James Naughtie: Now, let's be very clear about this. Is the map accurate or not, in your view?
Sheena Barclay: I think this is a deeply complex issue, and I think the controversy highlights that, that actually depicting the ice in a - with a level of clarity is something very difficult to achieve. What we have endeavoured to do is actually bring greater clarity to the area of the Arctic and Greenland, by utilising the latest data made available to us at the time, and then to depict the ice sheet accurately at the scale that we render the map in the Atlas -
James Naughtie: Well -
Sheena Barclay: - so, in terms of that, it's - if you take the Atlas in its entirety, we do actually represent Greenland as white. What has been misleading is that the press statement that was released by us - we accept now that there was an [sic] information in there, including the 15%, which doesn't relate to what's in the Atlas. That is misleading.
James Naughtie: Right. So the point that the scientists picked up from the press release, saying that the ice sheet had been reduced by 15% in size was not - let's be absolutely clear about this - was not something that is in the Atlas. Is that correct?
Sheena Barclay: It's not something that is in the Atlas. What I think we have done over the last few days is we have engaged directly with the scientific community, and I think the scientific community themselves would accept that this is a very complex issue, and defining the, kind of, de facto information and picture on this is not easy to render on a cartographical map -
James Naughtie: Sure. But the question is: do you think that any clarification, which has been asked for by some of the scientists, in the Atlas, is required or not? If you are confident that it is accurate, on the basis of all the information that's available, and that the press release was wrong, but the Atlas is correct, presumably you're going to continue to publish, and there'll be no correction, no explanation, nothing.
Sheena Barclay: I think the wider cartographic community have wrestled with the issue of what's happening in the Arctic for many years. I think, if you look at all products of this type that are out there, none of us produce anything with the level of clarity that we would all desire to do so. Having engaged with the scientific community and had a very positive response, we feel now at the Times Atlas that we can create a much more detailed map of Greenland, that will represent more effectively the ice cover as it is -
James Naughtie: Well -
Sheena Barclay: - and the changes that are happening. And that's what we are going to do.
James Naughtie: - When you say "more effectively", do you mean "more accurately"?
Sheena Barclay: It's a case of actually how you define the ice itself. And at the scales that we show Greenland, it's actually quite difficult to achieve that -
James Naughtie: Well, you see, what I'm just trying to get to is a very simple point -
Sheena Barclay: - can I -
James Naughtie: - because we know what the arguments have been, in the last few days. It's very simply this: do you stand by the Atlas, and the map of Greenland as it is? Or are you going to either change something, or put in some explanatory material, which will interpret what's there? Are you happy with it as it is, standing on its own? Or not?
Sheena Barclay: We are going to put in some interpretive information, to clarify what's there. I think we accept that when you look at this in its entirety, while we've not had a change of editorial policy, I think, given the changes that are happening in the Arctic, it would be - we want to represent this area to the best of our ability, and display the de facto situation, and as a result, we are going to work with the carto- the scientific community to come up with an explanation that is satisfactory to that community, and relay that information on a map to the wider audience.
James Naughtie: So you accept that -
Sheena Barclay: We'll endeavour to - at the Atlas, we're going to endeavour to do that as quickly as possible. I mean, in the last couple of days, we've been offered data that's not currently published at a high enough resolution, to enable us to much more effectively to do that -
James Naughtie: I can see that. But, just finally, I mean, you are accepting the thrust of their criticism that the map as it stands, without any explanatory material, is misleading.
Sheena Barclay: I think we are accepting that ice cover in general is not depicted to the level of clarity that the wider audience deserves. And we are looking to try and get the best information we can to display that, and yes we will be producing a much more detailed map that, along with the Atlas, will explain the situation in full. And we're going to do that as swiftly as we possibly can.
James Naughtie: Right. Sheena Barclay of Collins Geo, thanks very much for joining us. And Tom Feilden, our science reporter, is here. Tom, what do you make of it?
Tom Feilden: Well - wow! is the first thing to say. I think most contortionists would probably be defeated by the convoluted knot HarperCollins seem to have got themselves into, here. Now if I understand Sheena Barclay correctly, they've still don't accept there's a problem with the Atlas. There was a problem with the press release, and: hey, if people don't like it, let's get together and draw a new map - that seems to be the message. That having been said, the offer to produce a new, revised map, based on all the available data - a consensus map, if you like - on a separate sheet, that can be slotted into the Atlas with an accompanying explanation, is really an unprecedented concession, and should go a long way to addressing the concerns expressed by the scientific community. The question remains whether that technical fix is going to be enough to mollify more sceptical critics, who've seized on the map as yet another example of these exaggerated claims being made about the extent of global warming. And of course it is still pretty damaging for HarperCollins's reputation.