Climate researcher rejects claims of “deliberate suppression”

A climate scientist has distanced himself from newspaper suggestions that his paper on global warming was rejected by a journal for political reasons

May 19, 2014

In a front-page story on 16 May, The Times claimed that a paper by Lennart Bengtsson, professorial research fellow at the University of Reading, and four others had been rejected by Environmental Research Letters because of a reviewer’s concern that it would damage what the newspaper called climate scientists’ “cause”.

In the paper, Professor Bengtsson casts doubt on the estimate by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the average global temperature would rise by 4.5 degrees if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were permitted to double.

The Times quoted a description of the manuscript by one of the reviewers as “less than helpful” and “harmful as it opens the door to oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate sceptics media side” [sic].

The paper likened the incident to the 2009 “Climategate” affair, in which hacked emails from University of East Anglia climate scientists allegedly revealed the manipulation and suppression of data – though a series of inquiries absolved the scientists involved of scientific misconduct.

Professor Bengtsson told The Times that “some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist”. 

But in a subsequent statement to reporters, he distances himself from suggestions that there was a “systematic ‘cover up’ of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics’ work is being ‘deliberately suppressed’”.

However, he remains “worried by a wider trend that science is gradually being influenced by political views”.

“I was concerned that the Environmental Research Letters’ reviewer’s comments suggested his or her opinion was not objective or based on an unbiased assessment of the scientific evidence,” he says.

He welcomes the release by the journal’s publisher, the Institute of Physics, of the full transcript of the review in question.

In a statement accompanying the release, Nicola Gulley, editorial director of IOP Publishing, rejects any suggestion of activism by the journal or the reviewers.

She says the paper was rejected because it “contained errors” and “in our view did not provide a significant advancement in the field”.

“Far from denying the validity of [Professor] Bengtsson’s questions, the referees encouraged the authors to provide more innovative ways of undertaking the research to create a useful advance,” she says.

“The journal … is respected by the scientific community because it plays a valuable role in the advancement of environmental science – for unabashedly not publishing oversimplified claims about environmental science, and encouraging scientific debate.

“With current debate around the dangers of providing a false sense of ‘balance’ on a topic as societally important as climate change, we’re quite astonished that The Times has taken the decision to put such a non-story on its front page.”

A spokesman for the IoP said the journal had also released the other referees’ report online this morning for people to view after permission from the writers was obtained.

You've reached your article limit

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 6 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most Commented

United Nations peace keeper

Understanding the unwritten rules of graduate study is vital if you want to get the most from your PhD supervision, say Kevin O'Gorman and Robert MacIntosh

David Parkins Christmas illustration (22 December 2016)

A Dickensian tale, set in today’s university

Eleanor Shakespeare illustration (5 January 2017)

Fixing problems in the academic job market by reducing the number of PhDs would homogenise the sector, argues Tom Cutterham

Houses of Parliament, Westminster, government

There really is no need for the Higher Education and Research Bill, says Anne Sheppard

poi, circus

Kate Riegle van West had to battle to bring her circus life and her academic life together