Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on May 20, 2014
Global warming research suppressed due to intolerance of scepticism
A professor claims his paper questioning the speed of climate change was deliberately rejected for publication due to intolerance of views seen as “sceptical”
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.”
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 publicatoin 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which challenged findings that global temperature would increase by 4.5C if greenhouse gases were to double, should not be published in a respected journal because it was “less than helpful.”
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.”
The paper, co-authored with four other scientists, challenged the findings of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) but was rejected by Environmental Research Letters published by the Institute of Physics, one of the most highly regarded journals in the area.
Professor Bengtsson said he accepted emissions would increase the global temperature but questioned the rate at which this would take place and suggested more work needed to be done to determine this.
However he said it was unacceptable that a paper was rejected on the basis it might advance the argument of climate sceptics, as he suggested scientists were losing their impartial role.
He added: “It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views.”
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.”
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.”
Prof Bengtsson, who is a former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, resigned as a member of the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s academic advisory council this week after spending just a month in the post.
In his resignation letter he described “enormous group pressure” which had become “unbearable.”
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), which was founded by former chancellor of the exchequer Lord Lawson, was established because of concerns that government policies to combat climate change may be too radical.
The think tank describes itself as ‘open-minded on the contested science of global warming’.
Lord Lawson has agreed that Professor Bengtsson’s references to McCarthyism were “fully warranted.”
10 Comments on "Global warming research suppressed due to intolerance of scepticism"
keith on Tue, 20th May 2014 2:50 pm
99 of every one hundred agree on climate change. Every time there is the discussion of climate change the media has one climate change scientist debating one denier, who is usually a weather man. Giving the impression that there is a legitimate debate raging. All opinion’s are not equal, crappy science doesn’t get published in top journals, it gets published in crappy newspapers.
bobinget on Tue, 20th May 2014 3:37 pm
Keith, look how scientists of that 99% have come.
Only a year ago deniers would not admit CC even existed. Today, arguments have come down to timing,
severity, and causes. That’s progress.
Reminds of tobacco use. “Sure, smoking isn’t ‘good’ for ya but it won’t kill till a person gets real old, like 60” In 1950 we knew smoking would eventually kill our friends and relatives, but surly, not ourselves.
When babies born today reach 60, AGW deniers will have died hanging on to old beliefs, “it was all government’s fault for not warning us”.
Whatever evil genius concocted the idea of politicizing
AGW should have a special place in history.
Americans were not always anti-science, but, we all were smokers.
Northwest Resident on Tue, 20th May 2014 3:41 pm
“Whatever evil genius concocted the idea of politicizing AGW should have a special place in history.”
And, may I say, a special place in hell.
synapsid on Tue, 20th May 2014 3:53 pm
The Bengtsson hoo-haw has been getting extensive coverage at Rabett Run. Two of the reviewers’ comments are there.
bobinget on Tue, 20th May 2014 6:21 pm
“News of the Warm”
WASHINGTON (AP) — Once again, the world hit record heat levels. The average global temperature last month tied the hottest April on record four years ago.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Tuesday say last month’s average temperature was 58.1 degrees Fahrenheit (14.5 degrees Celsius). That was 1.39 degrees F (0.77 C) warmer than the average last century.
The last time the globe’s monthly temperature was cooler than normal was February 1985.
NOAA scientist Jessica Blunden said April’s heat was driven especially by Siberia and Eurasia. She said the United States and Canada were the few exceptions. Canada was a bit cooler than normal and the United States was a tad warmer than normal.
Mike999 on Tue, 20th May 2014 10:19 pm
The Right Wing has turned everything into the Tobacco fight which lasted 40 years.
As for this guy, Greenland and Antarctic Ice sheets sliding into the sea, predicted to occur 90 years from now. His laughable position that climate change is not as fast as the conservative climate models is laughable.
We don’t need another dumb ass debate.
GregT on Wed, 21st May 2014 12:25 am
In reality, scientists are saying that the science has been watered down. The IPCC governmental editors have changed the wording, and the severity of the evidence, to make things appear much better than they actually are.
In Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has destroyed libraries of research papers, and cut funding and grants for further studies.
The scientific community is extremely concerned. The FF industry is winning this one, so far.
Kenz300 on Wed, 21st May 2014 9:39 am
Who is funding Climate deniers………….
Koch Brothers Exposed: 2014 Edition – Brave New Films
http://www.bravenewfilms.org/koch2014?utm_campaign=koch14reminder&utm_medium=email&utm_source=bravenew
Gene on Wed, 21st May 2014 1:48 pm
Sean Hannity doesn’t believe Man is causing global warming.
Newfie on Wed, 21st May 2014 8:39 pm
Climate change is a no-brainer. The geological history of the Earth is peppered with Ice Ages and Super Greenhouse eras. Ice Ages are correlated with low levels of CO2 and super greenhouse eras with high levels of CO2. Humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate 10,000 times higher than at any time in the past. So it shouldn’t be surprising that the climate is headed for another one of it’s periodic extremes. Although this time perhaps we might outdo Nature.