article in yesterday's Times featured claims that a
climate scientist's work was "censored" because it "questioned the
accuracy of computer models used to predict global warming".
Rather less excitingly, what actually happened was an
"utterly, utterly normal" example of peer review in action,
scientists tell us.
The scientist involved agrees that the journal's
comments were correct, and his paper was subsequently published -
it's available here.
So what's the story?
Accusations of censorship
article - entitled 'Voices of dissent drowned out by
climate change scientists' discusses research German climate
scientist Vladimir Semenov submitted to the Journal of Climate in
Ben Webster, an experienced environment correspondent,
suggests parts of Semenov's paper were "deleted" before publication
because they represented a "voice of dissent". Webster says:
"The paper suggested that the
computer models used by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) were flawed, resulting in human influence on the
climate being exaggerated and the impact of natural variability
Semenov is quoted as suggesting the journal's
intervention amounted to "some kind of censorship". Had the paper
not been revised, it could have had "profound implications", the