On Sunday, 18 May 2014 08:25:14 UTC+1, someone's left foot wrote:
On 17/05/2014 18:57, Tudor Hughes 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.



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.



Apparently it did contain errors and lacked novelty. The Times article

contained lots of errors, selective quoting to mislead and innuendos

against the IOP. The IOP have therefore issued a rebuttal of the Times

politically motivated attack on the integrity of the peer review system:



http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails...y-in-the-times



The entire review comments are online as a result of this debacle. Read

them and make up your own mind about who is politically motivated.



This has opened a can of worms as anonymous reviewers do not normally

expect to see their comments given to anyone other than the authors of

the paper and the editors of the journal.

So?

What kind of worms are those. Night crawlers or trash digesters?

The paper was basically a rehash of someone else's idea filtered with

rose tinted glasses to fit a political agenda. He might be right but if

he is then he will have to make his case a lot more convincingly to the

scientific community. If he feels *so* hard done by he could always

publish the existing preprint online and let anyone who wants to see it.



--

Regards,
Dawlish

Let's get it straight shall we?

I know you don't like to consider things too clearly but isn't it a fact that he might be right and has made his case no less convincing than that of the so called scientific community.