Slashdot Mirror
Climate Journal Publishes Referees' Report In Response To "Witch-Hunt" Claims
Sockatume (732728) writes "The resignation of Prof. Lennart Bengtsson from an anti-global-warming think tank has triggered widespread outrage in the British tabloids, with the University of Bristol Professor blaming his departure on a 'witch-hunt' environment amongst climate scientists and the rejection of one of his papers. The UK's Times quotes a passage from the reviewer comments in support of this, in which it is claimed that the paper was rejected for being 'unhelpful to their cause.' In response, that journal's publisher has taken the rare step of publishing the referees' report in full. The report describes Bengtsson's paper as a 'simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al [data sets], combined with the statement they they are inconsistent,' 'where no consistency was to be expected in the first place' and therefore is not publishable research. The referee adds a number of possible areas of discussion which would allow Bengtsson to make the same data into a publishable paper, but warns that publishing it in its current state 'opens the door for oversimplified claims of errors and worse from the climate sceptics media.'"
Step 1: Systematically ostracize, shun, bully, and threaten people who disagree with you.
[/quote]
Doesn't happen to anti-scientific people. I know that happen to climate scientists.
[quote]
Step 2: Make sure contrary views are never published.
[/quote]
Doesn't happen in the west. In fact those "contrary views" are frequently printed in the press and promoted by politicians.
Scientists instead look at the facts.
[quote]
Step 3: When people decide to be quiet instead of getting bullied, claim consensus.
Very sciency.
You wouldn't recognize a science if it painted itself purple and danced naked and screamed "SCIENCE!!!".
Sadly I'm currently out of moderator points so I'll post this instead.
They're opposed to thinking.