Skip to comments.Study rejected for publication because it was 'less than helpful' to the climate cause
Posted on 05/16/2014 11:47:16 AM PDT by Mount Athos
A scientific study which suggests global warming has been exaggerated was rejected by a respected journal because it might fuel climate scepticism, it was claimed last night.
The alarming intervention, which raises fears of McCarthyist pressure for environmental scientists to conform, came after a reviewer said the research was less than helpful to the climate cause.
Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of five authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dissenting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published.
If he and his four co-authors are correct, it would mean that carbon dioxide and other pollutants are having a far less severe impact on climate than green activists would have us believe.
The research, if made public, would be a huge challenge to the finding of the UNs Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the global average temperature would rise by up to 4.5C if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were allowed to double.
The five contributing scientists submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters a highly regarded journal but were told it had been rejected. A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process reportedly wrote: It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of errors and worse from the climate sceptics media side.
Prof Bengtsson, 79, said it was utterly unacceptable to advise against publishing a paper on the political grounds.
He said: It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasnt been keeping up with the [computer] models.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Well knock me over with a feather...
Ah, yes, we don’t want anything but politically-charged, agenda-driven conclusions falsely called “science.”
truncated title to fit
You must submit.
The “peer-reviewed” journals have been rejecting papers that question AGW/Climate-change for decades. The entire peer-review process has become a joke.
Regardless of their occupation!
...media, education, science, entertainment
The true beauty of nature and by extension the laws that describe it can’t be nullified/modified by fiat to fit our whims. No matter how the left huffs and puffs they won’t have the last word.
You stole my thunder...
If I was on CCTV you’d have seen my chair flip over backwards. /s
The science IS settled, after all...
and the truth is always detrimental to the cause of lies.
Well, there is no grant money in “False alarm! Everything is okay.” Don’t want to de-rail the gravy train...
“A scientific study which suggests global warming has been exaggerated was rejected by a respected journal because it might fuel climate scepticism”
The assertion that the paper had been rejected because it "contained errors and did not sufficiently advance the science," was not supported in the article.
It sounds like a flimsy excuse to reject the paper. The people who believe in man made global warming have few, if any at all, papers that clearly present their assumptions, methodology, and data. This is not done because they would have no supported scientific case for man caused global warming, other than questionable claims of consensus and claims of "settled science."
Because there are $ billions being spent to prove that mankind is the cause of climate change, those benefiting from the flow of money have a vested interest, and thus should be disqualified from making claims. We have the situation of the fox guarding the hen house. The consensus is based on Chicken Little's version, and no one else's findings and questions are permitted.
A scientific study which suggests global warming has been exaggerated was rejected by a respected journal because it might fuel climate scepticism
Wheoever called that journal “respectable” is as much a scientist as Al Gore.
:: the research was less than helpful to the climate cause. ::
And Galileo, Copernicus, et.al. were “less than helpful” to the geocentric theory.
Leftist "intolerance" LOL
Submit Data for a report....
Goes against the Orthodox Climate Change Priests....
“SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!!!!”