On Sunday, May 18, 2014 3:21:23 PM UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Sunday, 18 May 2014 08:25:14 UTC+1, Martin Brown 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.







The paper was basically a rehash of someone elses 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,



Martin Brown



I'm sure you and they are right Martin/ I mean just look at Prof. Bengstssom's track record why you make him look like a amateurish novice.

Hardly. Bengtsson, who you have never heard of before you stumbled across this thread and used Wiki, to find something so you could try to look intelligent (it failed, of course) has made himself look like a poor amateur. Read the review comments and see. I agree completely within Martin. Bengstssom's hubris at being turned down and complaining about it in this way, instead of going back to the drawing board and improving his research, has done his scientific colleagues no favours at all.

I do hope, when he is next asked to be a reviewer, that he publishes his own comments to compensate. Bet he doesn't.