Environment Journal Editor Responds To Conservative Media Storm Over Rejected Climate Manuscript

authordefault
on

THEREโ€™S an old proverb that suggests itโ€™s always the lie that gets half way around the world while the truth is still pulling its bootsย on.

But if evidence from the latest conservative media beat-up on climate science is anything to go by, even if the truth is only a couple of blocks behind, the myth can just keep onย running.

Weโ€™re talking about a story that sprinted out of the blocks from the offices of The Times newspaper inย Britain.

The newspaperโ€™s environment editor Ben Webster was writing about the University of Readingโ€™s Professor Lennart Bengtsson (pictured), who had a research manuscript rejected by the prominent Environmental Research Letters journal earlier thisย year.ย 

Websterโ€™s front page story claimed Bengtssonโ€™s research had been โ€œdeliberately suppressedโ€ because it didnโ€™t sit well with the views of the vast majority of climateย scientists.

Bengtssonโ€™s manuscript had reportedly concluded that the sensitivity of the climate to added carbon dioxide was on the lower end of projections, a conclusion one reviewer of the paper said โ€œsubstantially underestimated the committed [global] warmingโ€.

As DeSmogBlog and several others have written, as mainstream media outlets were following-up on The Times the storyโ€™s two main actors โ€“ Bengtsson and the journalโ€™s publisher IOP โ€“ were making it clear that the story was highly questionable. After publishing one of the reports from the reviewer of Bengtsson’s paper, now IOP has released the second reviewer’s report which described the manuscript as showing โ€œtroubling shallowness in theย argumentsโ€.

The UKโ€™s Science Media Centre (UK SMC), a service for journalists, issued a bulletin of statements from experts responding to the story.ย  One of those was from Bengtsson, who amongst other thingsย said:

I do not believe there is any systematic โ€œcover upโ€ of scientific evidence on climate change or that academicsโ€™ work is being โ€œdeliberately suppressedโ€, as The Times front page suggests. I am worried by a wider trend that science is gradually being influenced by political views. Policy decisions need to be based on solidย fact.

The Times followed-up their story and included a quote from Bengtsson, but left out the bit where he said he didnโ€™t believe the main thrust of The Timesโ€™ story. Funnyย that.

The statement from IOP Publishing included the full report from the reviewer of Bengtssonโ€™s manuscript.ย  The statement made it clear that Bengtssonโ€™s work had been rejected on scientificย grounds.

In the Mail on Sunday, climate skeptic reporter David Rose wrote as a statement of fact that โ€œEnvironmental Research Letters had rejected his paper because it would be seized on by climate โ€˜scepticsโ€™ in the mediaโ€ even after this had been demonstrated to beย false.

I asked Environmental Research Lettersโ€™ Editor-in-Chief Professor Daniel Kammen, of the University of California, about theย saga.

He explained his journal places reviews of submitted manuscripts into four categories. Reviews can recommend that a manuscript be โ€œacceptedโ€, โ€œaccepted with minor editsโ€, โ€œrevised and resubmittedโ€ for review or beย โ€œrejectedโ€.

I asked Kammen if Bengtsson and his co-authors were offered the chance to correct the manuscript. Heย said:

No, the authors were not offered the chance to correct their paper.ย ย 

This paper was rejected due to both factual errors identified in the review process, and an overall assessment – that as Editor-in-Chief I endorse – that the individual flaws were sufficiently significant that the paper was to beย rejected.

None of the reports in the mainstream media have explained that in scientific publishing, it is in fact common for journals to reject manuscripts. Kammen revealed that getting a rejection from ERL was in fact the norm, rather than theย exception.

Kammen pointed out that Bengtsson himself had said that rejection from journals was โ€œpart and parcel of academic lifeโ€.ย Kammenย added:

Environmental Research Letters, like many selective journals, rejects the majority of submitted manuscripts.ย The fact that the story appeared in The Times struck me as highly inappropriate. ย This rejection was based on problems with theย manuscript.

He said the recent news coverage appeared to be an attempt to publish research โ€œvia the mediaโ€ after it had been rejected through the academic peer reviewย process.ย 

He pointed out that even though Bengtssonโ€™s paper had been rejected by ERL, โ€œthey are free to submit the paperย elsewhereโ€.

The Times is, of course, also free to publish whatever it likes in the guise of โ€œreportingโ€. ย The paper’s follow-up story also included statements from Professor Mike Hulme, of Kingโ€™s College London, andย Professor Joanna Haigh, Co-Director of the Grantham Institute at Imperial College London.ย ย 

Both statements chosen happened to reinforce The Times’ angle that climate scientists were allowing their views to become politicised and both came from the same UK Science Media Centre bulletin.

But The Times’ follow-up ignored statements from five other experts coming from the same UK SMC bulletin that would all have undermined The Times’ angle or its originalย story.

Prof Mark Maslin, Professor of Climatology at University College London, said:ย โ€œAs scientists we rely on peer review to ensure that the very best science is published. ย You canโ€™t cry foul and run to the media when your manuscript is turned down โ€“ however famous youย are.โ€

Prof Myles Allen, Head of the Climate Dynamics Group at the University of Oxford, said the โ€œreal tragedyโ€ was that now reviewers of climate science papers would beย expected to check their comments in an anonymous peer review โ€œto ask themselves how they might โ€˜playโ€™ if repeated in the Times or theย Mail.โ€

Finally, when The Times’ quotedย Professor Joanna Haigh, they left out this part of herย statement.

This episode should not distract us from the fact that we are performing a very dangerous experiment with the Earthโ€™s climate.ย  Even by the end of this century, on current trends we risk changes of a magnitude that are unprecedented in the last 10,000 years.ย  How we respond to that is a matter of public policy but scientists clearly play a key role in providing policymakers with the evidence theyย require.

Picture credit: University ofย Reading.

Related Posts

The EU and many member states have set limits for how much manure farmers are allowed to apply in their fields, but crucial oversight is lacking.

The EU and many member states have set limits for how much manure farmers are allowed to apply in their fields, but crucial oversight is lacking.
on

Robert Wilkie was speaking at a conference co-hosted by the group behind the radical Project 2025 agenda.

Robert Wilkie was speaking at a conference co-hosted by the group behind the radical Project 2025 agenda.
on

Scope of corporate influence underscores concerns the technology will be used to prolong demand for planet-heating natural gas.

Scope of corporate influence underscores concerns the technology will be used to prolong demand for planet-heating natural gas.
on

A 1961 oil and gas well is the suspected source of a geyser eruption in the region where Permian wastewater disposal is causing a flurry of earthquakes.

A 1961 oil and gas well is the suspected source of a geyser eruption in the region where Permian wastewater disposal is causing a flurry of earthquakes.