Yet Another “Peer-Reviewed” Cover-Up for Global Warming

It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the [computer] models. Therefore, if people are proposing to do major changes to the world’s economic system we must have much more solid information.” —Climate Change apostate, Professor Lennart Bengtsson

Pay no attention to the man behind that curtain!” —Eco-religionists and power-hungry politicians, in unison.

I will keep pounding the podium, and saying it over and over: This whole Global Warming/Climate Change agenda is political and economic, and has very little to do with real science. There is no crisis!

From the Global Warming Policy Foundation: “Scientists in Cover-Up of ‘Damaging’ Climate View.”

In an echo of the infamous “Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s 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 Bengtsson’s paper challenged the finding of the UN’s Inter-governmental 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 Blaby’s climate sceptic think-tank this week after being subjected to what he described as McCarthy-style pressure from fellow academics.

The world was created to be much more resilient than these climate-bloviators want to admit. There is a proper place for earth-care, but practically everything out of the Climate Change movement has nothing to do with it.

Consider also this telling of the story from the Daily Mail:

“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 told the Times.

Prof Bengtsson’s paper suggests that the Earth’s environment might be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought.

If he and his four co-authors are correct, it would mean that carbon dioxide and other pollutants are having a far less severe impact on climate than green activists would have us believe.

Environmentalism is the Trojan Watermelon of the age—on the outside it appears a respectable and responsible Green, but that’s simply hiding an ideological reality that is tyrannically and deceptively Red to the core. —Bob “Cassandra” Allen