Study rejected for publication because it was 'less than helpful' to the climate cause

Daily Mail (UK) ^ | May 16th 2014 | Ben Spencer

[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.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

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

[lormand]

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