Scientists he may one day have co-authored papers with told him if he stayed with GWPF then they would no longer co-author.
He leaves GWPF and announces to the world:
“I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen.
So he cites "safety" but offers nothing other than " Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc." no statements about threats to mind and body. (he may of course had some but he certainly does not say what they were)
I would not co-author a document on racial tolerance with a the Imperial Wizard of the KKK.
And I hope I would have every right to remove my name if I had inadvertently co-authored with a KKK member.
Someone releases part of, part of one of the referees comments to the papers. This seems to suggest that there is nefarious things afoot in the climate world.
This is then negated by the complete review being published:
Bengtsson gives out this statement:
Professor Lennart Bengtsson, professorial research fellow at the University of Reading, said:
“I do not believe there is any systematic “cover up” of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics’ work is being “deliberately suppressed”, as The Times front page suggests. I am worried by a wider trend that science is being gradually being influenced by political views. Policy decisions need to be based on solid fact.
“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. Science relies on having a transparent and robust peer review system so I welcome the Institute of Physics publishing the reviewers’ comments in full. I accept that Environmental Research Letters is entitled to its final decision not to publish this paper – that is part and parcel of academic life. The peer review process is imperfect but it is still the best way to assess academic work“
I was surprised by the strong reaction from some scientists outside the UK to joining the Global Warming Policy Foundation this month. I had hoped that it would be platform to bring more common sense into the global climate debate.
“Academic freedom is a central aspect to life at University of Reading. It is a very open, positive and supportive environment to work in. I have always felt able to put forward my arguments and opinions without any prejudice.”
Which now suggests that they had every right to not publish.
Many also suggest that the work was not novel and therefore not worth publishing
Another mega manufactured storm in a teacup