Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Study rejected for publication because it was 'less than helpful' to the climate cause
Daily Mail (UK) ^ | May 16th 2014 | Ben Spencer

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 UN’s 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 hasn’t been keeping up with the [computer] models.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: badscience; climatechange; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; glowbullwarming; hoax; intolerance; media; mediabias

1 posted on 05/16/2014 11:47:16 AM PDT by Mount Athos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

Well knock me over with a feather...


2 posted on 05/16/2014 11:49:56 AM PDT by Texican72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

Ah, yes, we don’t want anything but politically-charged, agenda-driven conclusions falsely called “science.”


3 posted on 05/16/2014 11:50:47 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

truncated title to fit


4 posted on 05/16/2014 11:51:14 AM PDT by Mount Athos (A Giant luxury mega-mansion for Gore, a Government Green EcoShack made of poo for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

You must submit.


5 posted on 05/16/2014 11:54:23 AM PDT by IC Ken
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

The “peer-reviewed” journals have been rejecting papers that question AGW/Climate-change for decades. The entire peer-review process has become a joke.


6 posted on 05/16/2014 11:54:42 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government." --Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos
All Liberals are ACTIVISTS by act or omission !!

Regardless of their occupation!

...media, education, science, entertainment

7 posted on 05/16/2014 11:55:27 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

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.


8 posted on 05/16/2014 11:58:14 AM PDT by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texican72

You stole my thunder...

If I was on CCTV you’d have seen my chair flip over backwards. /s


9 posted on 05/16/2014 11:58:36 AM PDT by logi_cal869
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

Well...

I mean...

The science IS settled, after all...

/s


10 posted on 05/16/2014 12:02:40 PM PDT by WayneS (Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

and the truth is always detrimental to the cause of lies.


11 posted on 05/16/2014 12:02:41 PM PDT by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

Well, there is no grant money in “False alarm! Everything is okay.” Don’t want to de-rail the gravy train...


12 posted on 05/16/2014 12:09:51 PM PDT by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it getting so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Free Republic


Click The Pic To Donate

Please Donate!

13 posted on 05/16/2014 12:10:38 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

“A scientific study which suggests global warming has been exaggerated was rejected by a respected journal because it might fuel climate scepticism”


14 posted on 05/16/2014 12:12:29 PM PDT by haroldeveryman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos
The publisher of the Environmental Research Letters journal last night said Professor Bengtsson’s paper had been rejected because it contained errors and did not sufficiently advance the science.

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.

15 posted on 05/16/2014 12:18:05 PM PDT by olezip (Time obliterates the fictions of opinion and confirms the decisions of nature. ~ Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: haroldeveryman

“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.


16 posted on 05/16/2014 12:21:07 PM PDT by haroldeveryman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

:: the research was ‘less than helpful’ to the climate cause. ::

And Galileo, Copernicus, et.al. were “less than helpful” to the geocentric theory.


17 posted on 05/16/2014 12:22:03 PM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alterations - The Acronym explains the science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos
suspects an intolerance of dissenting views on climate science

Leftist "intolerance" LOL

18 posted on 05/16/2014 12:23:06 PM PDT by MulberryDraw (Repeal it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

Submit Data for a report....

Goes against the Orthodox Climate Change Priests....

“SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!!!!”


19 posted on 05/16/2014 12:29:22 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

20 posted on 05/16/2014 12:30:23 PM PDT by JPG (Yes We Can morphs into Make It Hurt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

History repeats itself - many articles were rejected in the Germany of the thirties as being ‘unhelpful’ to the cause of Hitler.


21 posted on 05/16/2014 12:32:33 PM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

The columns of warm air surrounding cities affects climate MORE than CO2, but since liberals live in Giant cities they would never want those torn down....


22 posted on 05/16/2014 12:34:12 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

Oh yeah?

Well you’re a racist!

/sarc(????)


23 posted on 05/16/2014 12:39:45 PM PDT by Tzimisce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce
LIBs are a cancer metastasizing our civilization.
24 posted on 05/16/2014 12:52:49 PM PDT by hal ogen (First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

I have news for you. It’s not just AGW/climate change with the problem. It’s endemic.

Peer review == pal review.


25 posted on 05/16/2014 1:16:16 PM PDT by Black Agnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Black Agnes

I was trying to get that point across. Thanks for emphasizing it.


26 posted on 05/16/2014 1:17:14 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government." --Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JPG

1.) IF we assume that CO2 is the root problem to Global Warming and Climate Change, THEN consider what would happen if atmospheric CO2 were, somehow, to be eliminated:

The process of Photosynthesis, defined chemically as follows:

6CO2 + 6H2O + (n)photons = C6H12O6 + 6CO2

would cease to generate carbohydrates, (C6H12O6), for most plants and the animals that eat the plants and eat the animals that eat the plants.

2.) To the best of my research, there has never been a cause and effect experiment that establishes that a change* in the concentration of CO2 has had a measurable effect on the temperature of the air.
*Note: at atmospheric concentrations of CO2 approximating maximum to minimum living conditions for most plants.

3.) All known published speculations on the effect of CO2 on temperature are based on the false assumption, as proven by # 2 above, that there is a measurable effect of the change in atmospheric concentration of CO2 on the temperature of the atmosphere.

It is Scientists such as Dr. Lennart Bengtsson who are willing to oppose the peer pressure of emotion-based politics, and stand, resolute, for what can be proven by fact-based Science.

Such men inspire other Scientists to continue the never ending search for Truth, regardless of the severity of peer-pressure inquisition at the time.

As we look to our own US Society, now in the watershed battle between the adherents of the original, empirical-based, US Constitution, and the proponents of emotion-based Socialism, let us pause now and then to refresh our courage by remembering the bravery of men such as true Scientist Dr. Lennart Bengtsson.


27 posted on 05/16/2014 1:21:27 PM PDT by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos
So here is the chart of CO2 concentrations over the past 50+ years...

Setting aside the fact that this is measured from a volcano, the point I want to make here is that the difference in concentration over these 50-ish years is a mere 100 parts per million (rounded UP).

That's a change in one part per 10,000 - or 1/100th of 1% (.01%).

It's going to take a lot of convincing to prove to me that .01% of anything could impact the climate at all.

28 posted on 05/16/2014 1:53:19 PM PDT by alancarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

This is the mentality breeding on college universities worldwide with the academic left. If it doesn’t fit the narrative or conform with the current groupthink it doesn’t exist.

To the left, you win an argument by destroying the other differing argument or opinion. You criminalize the opposition.


29 posted on 05/16/2014 1:56:57 PM PDT by headstamp 2 (What would Scooby do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
"Study rejected for publication
because it was 'less than helpful'
to the climate cause"


GW Mixed Up photo GWMixedUp.jpg

Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


30 posted on 05/16/2014 1:57:04 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: alancarp

             

31 posted on 05/16/2014 2:03:55 PM PDT by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: alancarp

Consider, most all of those recording sites have seen adjacent, nearby and/or regional development. Therefore, it follows that there would most certainly be an increase in CO2 locally if for no other reason. How do you back that out of the data? You can’t. And, with that the increase in CO2 is still tiny.


32 posted on 05/16/2014 2:35:05 PM PDT by Fitzy_888 ("ownership society")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

the media doesn’t report obama scandals so it looks like there are none. Even though Obama’s is the most corrupt dictatorial presidency in US history.


33 posted on 05/16/2014 3:09:05 PM PDT by Cubs Fan (liberalism is a cancer that spreads everywhere, even to the republican party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cubs Fan

oops wrong thread


34 posted on 05/16/2014 3:09:59 PM PDT by Cubs Fan (liberalism is a cancer that spreads everywhere, even to the republican party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

Unsettling science.


35 posted on 05/16/2014 3:20:15 PM PDT by william clark (Ecclesiastes 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos
"The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the [computer] models."

That's a very strange turn of phrase indeed. The missing word is "political", as in "the political reality...".

When you consider that computer power/dollar has increased by at least 6 or orders of magnitude, since the whole IPCC thing began, it makes perfect sense. If you look back at the earlier versions of the IPCC reports, you'll be struck with how very crude and incomplete the models were. Even IPCC acknowledges that, in later reports. In part, that was due to the lack of input data -- but, it was also due to the inadequacies of the computer power available at the time. If it takes a modern supercomputer(say) one day to run a particular climate simulation -- it would have taken about 2,700 years to run that same model, on computers available 30 years ago. Hence, the early models were very crude. Too crude to justify the claims made for their predictive power. With a million times more computer power available to run them, modern models can have more variables, more resolution, more data. It should surprise no one that these models produce different results than the older, cruder models. The little graphic below shows how the resolution of climate models has changed over time.


36 posted on 05/16/2014 3:49:57 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...
Thanks Mount Athos.
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.

37 posted on 05/16/2014 4:26:48 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
The entire peer-review process has become a joke.

I guess it depends on whose peers are doing the reviewing.

Unfortunately, the current bunch in climate science should be reviewing sixth grade political position statements, not scientific papers.

38 posted on 05/17/2014 12:08:33 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos
Easy to see how the warmists keep that much vaunted ‘consensus’... What's next? Maybe they'll just take the people who disagree with them ‘out back’ and shoot them.
39 posted on 05/17/2014 8:10:22 AM PDT by GOPJ (Obama - when will you tell radical muslims to stop clinging to their guns & religion?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos
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.

It is not unusual for scientific papers to be rejected following the peer-review process. But if this was the reason given--if the paper was not rejected on the basis of sound science--then this is troubling.

There have been many papers published which went against the scientific consensus of the time. Scientists have published papers describing evidence for new ideas that were so contrary to the accepted science of the time that they were called crackpots by their peers--yet they persisted with their research and kept publishing. In at least two cases that I can think of, the "crackpots" got Nobel prizes for their novel discoveries.

There are other papers, however, published in peer-reviewed journals or not, that are not worth the paper they are printed on. Sometimes, critical information was overlooked, or was only discovered later, that changed the interpretation of the data. Sometimes, the data itself is not very compelling or accurate. Science progresses not in huge leaps, but in fractions of a millimeter.

I can't tell from this article whether we are just seeing sour grapes, or whether this paper was rejected because it was solid but did not fit an agenda.

40 posted on 05/17/2014 8:17:55 AM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
The purpose of peer-review is for university professors to channel grant money to researchers they agree with, and away from researchers that they disagree with. That's what Michael Mann and Christopher Jones did in the climate "science" journals. The famous "emailgate" texts document it. (Climate "science" is not science because it does not use the scientific method, but that's a separate issue.)

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

Related: Most scientific papers are probably wrong

41 posted on 05/17/2014 9:30:23 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government." --Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

The climate hoaxers should be tried in a court for willful deception and theft.


42 posted on 05/19/2014 3:11:09 PM PDT by lormand (Inside every liberal is a dung slinging monkey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson