We all know that Warmists would never suppress science, right?
(UK Telegraph) A climate change researcher has claimed that scientists are confusing their role as impartial observers with green activism after his paper challenging predictions about the speed of global warming was rejected because it was seen as “less than helpful.â€
Professor Lennart Bengtsson says recent McCarthy-style pressure from fellow academics forced him to resign from his post on a climate sceptic think-tank.
The research fellow from the University of Reading believes a paper he co-authored was deliberately suppressed from publication in a leading journal because of an intolerance of dissenting views about climate change by scientists who peer-reviewed the work.
“The problem we have now in the scientific community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of climate activist,†he told the Times.
Professor Bengtsson claims a scientist advised that the paper, which challenged findings that global temperature would increase by 4.5C if greenhouse gases were to double, should not be published in a respected journal because it was “less than helpful.â€
The unnamed scientist, who was asked to peer review Professor Bengtsson’s paper, said in his comments: “Actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate sceptics side.â€
It true, we should not be surprised in the least. Warmists are, at their hearts, fascists, un-interested in science, but heavily invested in pushing their pseudo-religion.
Told ya. They will not let him get away with the “jumping ship”. Any differing opinion is shunned and attacked. This from the so-called “tolerant” left.
Science used to be about research, finding answers, asking questions. Now it’s computer models all the way down.
This, like his GWPF fiasco, smells fishy.
All Professor Bengtsson (or whomever the lead author was) needs to do is to disclose the written reviews detailing the reviewer’s ‘activism’. The journal would then be obligated to have the manuscript re-reviewed.
Or, he could distribute the manuscript broadly and have thousands review and discuss it. In that case, more people will be exposed to his ideas than if it had been published in ERL! I prefer open publication and having thousands discuss the data, but journals are first and foremost private businesses and have a right to publish what they choose.
It may be a good idea for the elderly Professor Bengtsson to sit with a trusted friend and discuss what’s going on in his life. First he joined the GWPF SAB (which would be like Bernie Sanders joining the John Birch Society), then abruptly resigned when he found out what it was, blaming others for this fiasco. Then he blames bias for his manuscript not being accepted for publication (in his defense, many scientists blame bias for a poorly reviewed manuscript or grant proposal).
Here’s how the journal responded (which Mr. Teach neglected to supply):
IOP Publishing, which publishes Environmental Research Letters, said the paper was rejected for publication because two independent reviewers found errors and that the work did not represent a “significant advancement in the field.â€
Dr Nicola Gulley, editorial director, said the decision not to publish “had absolutely nothing to do with any ‘activism’ on the part of the reviewers or the journal. She said those selected to do the peer review, the referees, were of the “highest calibre and are respected members of the international science community.”
She added: “As the referee’s report states, ‘The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low.’ This means that the study did not meet ERL’s requirement for papers to significantly advance knowledge of the field.
“Far from denying the validity of Bengtsson’s questions, the referees encouraged the authors to provide more innovative ways of undertaking the research to create a useful advance.
“As the report reads, ‘A careful, constructive, and comprehensive analysis of what these ranges mean, and how they come to be different, and what underlying problems these comparisons bring would indeed be a valuable contribution to the debate.
“Far from hounding ‘dissenting’ views from the field, Environmental Research Letters positively encourages genuine scientific innovation that can shed light on complicated climate science.â€
Jeff,
The peer review process in your religion is broken. The high priest will destroy a peers reputation if he in any way steers from the true faith.
Fascists ? Teach deniers are fascits. Fascits are rightwing . Fascitits are rightistist. Fascits are the people who we fought in WWII. The rightwing fascits are the ones who tried to kill all the European Jews. This is one of teh reasons American Jews vote en bloc for liberal Democrats.
Perhaps you might enjoy reading some of the articles people have written on global warming and Jewish religion.
http://fore.research.yale.edu/climate-change/statements-from-world-religions/judaism/
Teach these Jews, the 70% that vote Dem, are these the “miserable” people you hate?
Reminds me of whoever said it here earlier- “The science is settled. The alarmists are fascists.”