Prof.Bengtsson of Reading University put under "enormous pressure" for
daring to say that Global Warming may have been exaggerated. I don't carry
a brief for either camp and keep an open mind, but that really is
deplorable. Do we have a scientific community motivated by the spirit of
scientific enquiry, or do we have The Spanish Inquisition? His paper was
rejected because the editor said it contained errors, but that sounds mighty
like a rationalization to me; he just expressed an opinion that was out of
favour. The scientific community has sunk pretty low when that sort of
thing can happen.

Ian Bingham,
Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.

On Saturday, 17 May 2014 18:11:23 UTC+1, Ian Bingham wrote:
Prof.Bengtsson of Reading University put under "enormous pressure" for daring to say that Global Warming may have been exaggerated. I don't carry a brief for either camp and keep an open mind, but that really is deplorable. Do we have a scientific community motivated by the spirit of scientific enquiry, or do we have The Spanish Inquisition? His paper was rejected because the editor said it contained errors, but that sounds mighty like a rationalization to me; he just expressed an opinion that was out of favour. The scientific community has sunk pretty low when that sort of thing can happen.

Ian Bingham, Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.

Did it contain errors? Did Prof Bengtsson say that Global Warming had been exaggerated or that the anthropogenic contribution had been exaggerated? Where does this information come from?

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

On Saturday, May 17, 2014 6:11:23 PM UTC+1, Ian Bingham wrote:
Prof.Bengtsson of Reading University put under "enormous pressure" for

daring to say that Global Warming may have been exaggerated. I don't carry

a brief for either camp and keep an open mind, but that really is

deplorable. Do we have a scientific community motivated by the spirit of

scientific enquiry, or do we have The Spanish Inquisition? His paper was

rejected because the editor said it contained errors, but that sounds mighty

like a rationalization to me; he just expressed an opinion that was out of

favour. The scientific community has sunk pretty low when that sort of

thing can happen.



Ian Bingham,

Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.

It's only Bengtsson's pleading that he's been put under pressure. How do you know that the article wasn't just poor science? It would certainly be deplorable, if it were true, but the journal turned his article down for simply not being good enough.

I suspect a bruised ego.

On Saturday, May 17, 2014 6:11:23 PM UTC+1, Ian Bingham wrote:
Prof.Bengtsson of Reading University put under "enormous pressure" for

daring to say that Global Warming may have been exaggerated. I don't carry

a brief for either camp and keep an open mind, but that really is

deplorable. Do we have a scientific community motivated by the spirit of

scientific enquiry, or do we have The Spanish Inquisition? His paper was

rejected because the editor said it contained errors, but that sounds mighty

like a rationalization to me; he just expressed an opinion that was out of

favour. The scientific community has sunk pretty low when that sort of

thing can happen.


======

This is speculation based only what Prof Bengtsson has said himself, spun by the Daily Mail (who very much have a dog in the climate fight) and picked up by other sympathetic media outlets (some Murdoch's).

It ill behooves Prog Bengtsson to scream "McCarthyism" when he himself stated: "It's a shame that the GDR disappeared otherwise would have been able to offer one-way tickets there for these socialists. Now there's unfortunately not many orthodox countries left soon and I surely do not imagine our romantic green Communists want a one-way ticket to North Korea. But if interested I'd gladly contribute to the trip as long as it is for a one way ticket."

I see no evidence of a Spanish Inquisition, and a claim that "the scientific community has sunk pretty low" is purely imaginative extrapolation from a shaky premise.

To counter such claims, IOP - which rejected the paper "*in its present form*" - took the unusual step of publishing the full reports of the reviewers, which you can see he http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails...y-in-the-times

What Prof. Bengtsson could have done, in the way many who have initial submissions rejected, is rewrite and re-submit rather than crying to the press about "unbearable pressure".

Moreover, he claims to have been "bullied" for joining the GWPF (where his complaints naturally were aired); by which I'm sure he means been subject to criticism for, as a respected and eminent scientist, throwing his lot in with a purely politically motivated and fossil-fuel-funded pressure group.

Stephen.

On Saturday, 17 May 2014 19:04:47 UTC+1, Stephen Davenport wrote:
On Saturday, May 17, 2014 6:11:23 PM UTC+1, Ian Bingham wrote:

Prof.Bengtsson of Reading University put under "enormous pressure" for



daring to say that Global Warming may have been exaggerated. I don't carry



a brief for either camp and keep an open mind, but that really is



deplorable. Do we have a scientific community motivated by the spirit of



scientific enquiry, or do we have The Spanish Inquisition? His paper was



rejected because the editor said it contained errors, but that sounds mighty



like a rationalization to me; he just expressed an opinion that was out of



favour. The scientific community has sunk pretty low when that sort of



thing can happen.





======



This is speculation based only what Prof Bengtsson has said himself, spun by the Daily Mail (who very much have a dog in the climate fight) and picked up by other sympathetic media outlets (some Murdoch's).



It ill behooves Prog Bengtsson to scream "McCarthyism" when he himself stated: "It's a shame that the GDR disappeared otherwise would have been able to offer one-way tickets there for these socialists. Now there's unfortunately not many orthodox countries left soon and I surely do not imagine our romantic green Communists want a one-way ticket to North Korea. But if interested I'd gladly contribute to the trip as long as it is for a one way ticket."



I see no evidence of a Spanish Inquisition, and a claim that "the scientific community has sunk pretty low" is purely imaginative extrapolation from a shaky premise.



To counter such claims, IOP - which rejected the paper "*in its present form*" - took the unusual step of publishing the full reports of the reviewers, which you can see he http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails...y-in-the-times



What Prof. Bengtsson could have done, in the way many who have initial submissions rejected, is rewrite and re-submit rather than crying to the press about "unbearable pressure".



Moreover, he claims to have been "bullied" for joining the GWPF (where his complaints naturally were aired); by which I'm sure he means been subject to criticism for, as a respected and eminent scientist, throwing his lot in with a purely politically motivated and fossil-fuel-funded pressure group..



Stephen.

Yes that's why other scientist are supporting him; jesus you lot are brainwashed.


You feel you need to defend the 'science' well AGW is the most hijacked science in human history all you are defending in stuff that AGW is based upon like the 'hockey stick for example which when all is said and done is dodgy selected tree data.

On Saturday, 17 May 2014 18:11:23 UTC+1, Ian Bingham wrote:
Prof.Bengtsson of Reading University put under "enormous pressure" for

daring to say that Global Warming may have been exaggerated. I don't carry

a brief for either camp and keep an open mind, but that really is

deplorable. Do we have a scientific community motivated by the spirit of

scientific enquiry, or do we have The Spanish Inquisition? His paper was

rejected because the editor said it contained errors, but that sounds mighty

like a rationalization to me; he just expressed an opinion that was out of

favour. The scientific community has sunk pretty low when that sort of

thing can happen.

What? Where does this analysis come from because it certainly doesn't chime with the reality of scientific life.

Other professionals might want to chip in with their percentages and views, but at a rough guess I'd say that the breakdown was as follows: Only 1 in 3 papers submitted get accepted for publication with only minor revisions; another 1 in 3 only get accepted after substantial rewrites to correct serious criticisms from the peer review process; and the final third - as apparently in this case - never see the light of day at all, because they contained major flaws which the author(s) weren't either willing or able to address. Been there, done that myself for the last one!

That's not to say that the peer review process is perfect - it does make some mistakes as the recent row-back by the BMJ on the paper exaggerating the side-effects of statins shows. But this was actually an error of judgement where the peer review was too lenient on letting a flawed paper pass. IME if the conclusions of a paper are at all controversial then the relevant editor will try hard to give the paper a fair hearing (eg by calling in extra referees if the initial opinion is split) and may well publish against their better judgement rather than be accused of blocking some controversial elements. But the paper still has to stand up scientifically.

To imagine automatically that the Bengtsson paper was rejected for ideological reasons is ill-informed to put it mildly. That really isn't typical of how the scientific process works, despite skeptic propaganda.

On Saturday, 17 May 2014 19:24:59 UTC+1, prodata wrote:
On Saturday, 17 May 2014 18:11:23 UTC+1, Ian Bingham wrote:

Prof.Bengtsson of Reading University put under "enormous pressure" for



daring to say that Global Warming may have been exaggerated. I don't carry



a brief for either camp and keep an open mind, but that really is



deplorable. Do we have a scientific community motivated by the spirit of



scientific enquiry, or do we have The Spanish Inquisition? His paper was



rejected because the editor said it contained errors, but that sounds mighty



like a rationalization to me; he just expressed an opinion that was out of



favour. The scientific community has sunk pretty low when that sort of



thing can happen.



What? Where does this analysis come from because it certainly doesn't chime with the reality of scientific life.



Other professionals might want to chip in with their percentages and views, but at a rough guess I'd say that the breakdown was as follows: Only 1 in 3 papers submitted get accepted for publication with only minor revisions; another 1 in 3 only get accepted after substantial rewrites to correct serious criticisms from the peer review process; and the final third - as apparently in this case - never see the light of day at all, because they contained major flaws which the author(s) weren't either willing or able to address. Been there, done that myself for the last one!



That's not to say that the peer review process is perfect - it does make some mistakes as the recent row-back by the BMJ on the paper exaggerating the side-effects of statins shows. But this was actually an error of judgement where the peer review was too lenient on letting a flawed paper pass. IME if the conclusions of a paper are at all controversial then the relevant editor will try hard to give the paper a fair hearing (eg by calling in extra referees if the initial opinion is split) and may well publish against their better judgement rather than be accused of blocking some controversial elements. But the paper still has to stand up scientifically.



To imagine automatically that the Bengtsson paper was rejected for ideological reasons is ill-informed to put it mildly. That really isn't typical of how the scientific process works, despite skeptic propaganda.



From Simon Buckle

Policy Director, Grantham Institute for Climate Change, Imperial College London


"Professor Lennart Bengtsson's resignation from the GWPF Academic Advisory Council has received wide coverage and raises important issues.

Whatever anyone's views are on the role, motivation and integrity of the GWPF in this matter, it is up to individual academics whether or not to associate themselves with it in an advisory role.

It is regrettable that perceived political stances on the climate issue are apparently so affecting academic activity. The Grantham Institute at Imperial has always opposed such behaviour, believing that scientific progress requires an open society. We try to engage with a wide range of figures, some with radically different views on climate change.

The outcome in this case is probably a reflection of the "us and them" that has permeated the climate science debate for decades and which is in part an outcome of - and reaction to - external pressure on the climate community. But we must be clear: this is not a justification. Concerted external pressure - if that is what it was - on Professor Bengtsson to resign from his GWPF role was wrong and misjudged."



That's from an actual climate scientist.

On Saturday, May 17, 2014 7:21:31 PM UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:


Yes that's why other scientist are supporting him; jesus you lot are brainwashed.


Well, I'll ignore your usual inaccurate and desperate abuse and argumentum ad hominem (whoever "you lot" are). But "scientist" in the singular? Which scientist?


You feel you need to defend the 'science' well AGW is the most hijacked science in human history all you are defending in stuff that AGW is based upon like the 'hockey stick for example which when all is said and done is dodgy selected tree data.


===

The science speaks for itself, to anyone who understands it. Which you, a priori, do not.

Stephen.

On Saturday, 17 May 2014 19:02:34 UTC+1, Dawlish... say no more...


Do me a favour.
FOAD.

On Saturday, 17 May 2014 19:04:47 UTC+1, Stephen Davenport wrote:

This is speculation Snipped
Stephen.

I'm glad you were the first to lopside an ad hominem without actually mentioning Hitler. Well done.