Earlier this week, Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading in the U.K, and a climate scientist with over 200 pages on the subject claimed he had been bullied into leaving the Nigel Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) because people he had worked with were withdrawing support, others now refused to be co-author’s on climate papers with his name, and some scientists had resorted to calling him names on science blogs.
Today, Bengtsson told The Times (a U.K. Newspaper) that when he tried to submit a paper to a ‘top academic journal,’ it was rejected because a reviewer privately found it ‘unhelpful.’ (Read more here and here as The Times has a paywall). In Bengtsson’s (rejected) paper, he challenged the IPCC assertion that the global average temperature would rise by 4.5°C if CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were allowed to double. Rather, he suggested that the climate might be less sensitive to greenhouse gases and more work needed to be carried out to ‘reduce the underlying uncertainty.’
The response of IOP Publishing, the publisher of Environmental Research Letters, (the publication that Bengtsson submitted his paper to), commented that the paper contained (amongst other things) “significant errors” and “did not provide a significant advancement in the field.”
So, we already have an issue in science where ‘negative’ results are not readily published, leading scientists to test and retest ideas over and over again, and now journals don’t want to publish science that does not provide a “significant advancement” in the field? Quiet honestly, I think NASA recently announcing glaciers in Western Antarctica are retreating is not particularly advancing science either as that has been a given for a while! But it does support the theory that warming is occurring.
Suffice to say, Dr. Bengtsson has probably now received more coverage for his unpublished paper than if he had had it published in the Environmental Research Letters…
However, it does beg the question, why can’t Bengtsson and other Climate Realists ask the question, why isn’t warming occurring at the rate the IPCC favoured climate models predict without fear of being persecuted? If there was nothing to fear by asking this question, then there would be no need to resort to:
- Withdrawing co-authorship of papers
- Refusing to or delaying the publishing of papers that question or contradict an anthropogenic-only warming trend
- Emailing/talking to colleagues and being ‘critical’ to them for having a position different to their own
- Slagging scientists in scientific blogs
- Increasingly draw on the once discarded explanations* of climate change like the oceans absorbing heat and the sun as excuses for why the warming trend in the last 15 years hasn’t been quite been as modelled. Why, it’s surely just a matter of time now before Milankovitch Cycles, plate tectonics and cosmic dust will also be invoked to explain the cyclic variation of global temperatures…
*because at present, there is only mankind causing warming
- Distorting the truth (yes, a powder keg comment since I am not going to provide examples here!)
The persecution of Climate Realists is beginning to look like the persecution of Galileo for thinking there was something to Copernicus’ idea that the Earth revolved around the sun. Will history record a similar ending for Climate Realists? Only time will tell!