Wéér censuur bij milieutijdschrift
Het houdt niet op! Niet vanzelf!
Onder de titel, 'Scientists In Cover-Up Of Damaging Climate Research', schreef Ben Webster in 'The Times':
Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was less than helpful to their cause, it was claimed last night.
In an echo of the infamous Climategate scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the worlds top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as harmful.
Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of the authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dissenting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published. The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist, he added.
Professor Bengtssons paper challenged the finding of the UNs 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.
It suggested that the climate might be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September, and recommended that more work be carried out to reduce the underlying uncertainty.
The five contributing scientists, from America and Sweden, submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters, one of the most highly regarded journals, at the end of last year but were told in February that it had been rejected.
A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process wrote that he strongly advised against publishing it because it was less than helpful.
The unnamed scientist concluded: Actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of errors and worse from the climate sceptics media side.
Professor Bengtsson resigned from the advisory board of Lord Lawson of Blabys climate sceptic think-tank this week after being subjected to what he described as McCarthy-style pressure from fellow academics.
Lord Lawson, the former Conservative chancellor, said that the pressure exerted by other climate scientists had been appalling and the comparison with McCarthyism was fully warranted.
The claims are a stark reminder of events at the University of East Anglia in 2009. Scientists there were accused of manipulating data and suppressing critics of global warming predictions in the run-up to the crucial Copenhagen climate change conference.
They were later cleared, though the IPCC was found to have misrepresented their research by failing to reflect uncertainties over raw temperature data.
Professor Bengtsson, the former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, said he accepted that emissions would increase the global average temperature but the key question was how quickly.
He added that it was utterly unacceptable to advise against publishing a paper on the ground that the findings might be used by climate sceptics to advance their arguments. It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasnt been keeping up with the [computer] models. Therefore, if people are proposing to do major changes to the worlds economic system we must have much more solid information.
Scientists from around the world sent messages of support to Professor Bengtsson.
In an echo of the infamous Climategate scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the worlds top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as harmful.
Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of the authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dissenting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published. The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist, he added.
Professor Bengtssons paper challenged the finding of the UNs 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.
It suggested that the climate might be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September, and recommended that more work be carried out to reduce the underlying uncertainty.
The five contributing scientists, from America and Sweden, submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters, one of the most highly regarded journals, at the end of last year but were told in February that it had been rejected.
A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process wrote that he strongly advised against publishing it because it was less than helpful.
The unnamed scientist concluded: Actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of errors and worse from the climate sceptics media side.
Professor Bengtsson resigned from the advisory board of Lord Lawson of Blabys climate sceptic think-tank this week after being subjected to what he described as McCarthy-style pressure from fellow academics.
Lord Lawson, the former Conservative chancellor, said that the pressure exerted by other climate scientists had been appalling and the comparison with McCarthyism was fully warranted.
The claims are a stark reminder of events at the University of East Anglia in 2009. Scientists there were accused of manipulating data and suppressing critics of global warming predictions in the run-up to the crucial Copenhagen climate change conference.
They were later cleared, though the IPCC was found to have misrepresented their research by failing to reflect uncertainties over raw temperature data.
Professor Bengtsson, the former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, said he accepted that emissions would increase the global average temperature but the key question was how quickly.
He added that it was utterly unacceptable to advise against publishing a paper on the ground that the findings might be used by climate sceptics to advance their arguments. It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasnt been keeping up with the [computer] models. Therefore, if people are proposing to do major changes to the worlds economic system we must have much more solid information.
Scientists from around the world sent messages of support to Professor Bengtsson.
Lees verder hier (moet voor worden betaald).
De discussie over de Bengtssonaffaire is inmiddels in alle hevigheid losgebarsten. Verschillende blogs schenken hieraan uitvoerig aandacht met vele verwijzingen naar het blog van Marcel Crok, waar voor en tegenstanders elkaar in de haren vliegen.
Voor een overzicht van enkele andere blogs, zie hier.
Zonder wie dan ook tekort te willen doen, kies ik enkele passages uit het commentaar van Bishop Hill (Andrew Montford):
Bengtsson and the left
As Judy Curry notes, the Bengtsson affair is going to be very damaging for the climatology profession. From the press reports today it seems clear that Bengtsson was threatened with ostracisation from the rest of the "community" because of his temerity in offering to provide scientific advice to GWPF. It seems that at least one climatologist demanded that his name be removed from a forthcoming joint paper with Bengtsson.
As a result, the word "McCarthyism" has been bandied about. The behaviour of climatologists does not carry an official stamp of course (although I can't say I've noticed any protests from Ed Davey either) but the effects look rather similar: you toe the line or you will be cut off. A senior scientist like Bengtsson could perhaps consider carrying on regardless hard, but not impossible. For younger scientists it would of course be the end of their career.
Lees verder hier.
Fascinerend leesvoer voor klimatofielen van alle gezindten!
Voor mijn eerdere DDSbijdragen zie hier.
Ga verder met lezen
Dit vind je misschien ook leuk
Laat mensen jouw mening weten
Lees ook