The treatment of Bengtsson is typical of the alarmist camp who censor and lie and exaggerate and bully with gay abandon.

Other great scientists like Bob Carter, Murray Salby, Richard Tol, Miskolczi, David Bellamy, Don Aitkin, Clive Spash and many others who work in government bureaucracies all have lost their jobs when they argued against the alarmist propaganda.

The censorship and bullying permeates the entire alarmist structure from the top with people like US Interior Secretary Sally Jewell when she said she hoped there are “no climate change deniers” at her agency, to the key scientists advocating AGW like Jones and the others who were caught in the email scandal plotting to stop sceptical scientists from publishing.

In the case of Bengtsson the journal which rejected his ground-breaking paper on temperature we have on the editorial staff the infamous Peter Gleick:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/01/new-evidence-released-in-fakegate-global-warming-scandal/

And how many times have we seen alarmists want to jail sceptics like this Lawrence Torcello chump:

https://theconversation.com/is-misinformation-about-the-climate-criminally-negligent-23111#comment_333276

And alarmists of course think sceptics are mad:

http://www.examiner.com/article/oregon-professor-climate-change-skeptics-diseased-need-treatment

The tactics of the alarmists have been deplorable from day one and as their great cause is increasingly revealed as the rubbish it is we can expect these tactics to become even worse.

"Whatever your view on global warming and its causes, I feel certain you'll agree that this is too important an issue to approach with anything less than the highest levels of integrity, on all sides of the debate." Mal little that I've seen of the debate so far gives me any confidence that is a likely scenario.

I think there are far to many vested interests on both sides of the debate combined with a seeming broad acceptance of a whatever it takes mentality. Those vested interests don't have to be strictly about personal financial (or status) gain either. They tie to broader social objectives that people perceive the AGW issue as either helping or harming.

I don't know how the argument moves beyond that, my impression is that both sides have bunkered down and try very hard to not give any ground that may help the opposing view. In the process that will alleniate those whose suspicions are raised when it's clear that they are being mislead at least in part.

R0bert

Well the Abbott Government by nailing its colors to the wall on science, with around a 170 billion clawed back from CRSIO, (science) and an additional 250 billion rolled out for school chaplains!? Religion!
PM Abbott needs to take such credit a is due for this absurd and asinine decision?
Just one of many!
Rhrosty.

The other asinine approach, is related to some of the carbon free energy assets we could have rolled out as income earning infrastructure; including cheaper than coal thorium.
Ideal for military bases, small towns and their industrial estates, where deep burial, makes them as small models, extremely safe!
The fact that these can be mass produced and rolled out where and when needed, should provide a huge economic boost for the entire non-mining economy, which really does need to one which still makes things.
We have plenty of money for such projects!
All that is required is to eliminate welfare for the rich! And then means test service delivery!
We should all put the shoulder to the wheel to make a much bigger economy, that would then make all of us better off!
We could then crack on with real tax reform and massive simplification, which would then confer the least costly tax collection model!
Australia would then become the flame to the moth, that has high tech companies, and millions of self funded retirees, queuing to relocate here, particularly, if we act to return affordability to the housing market!
Which also boost the non mining domestic economy.
Retirees make no demand for schools or education, and as an entry requirement, need to also carry self sufficient health cover; which would then allow us to more fully use up our vastly underutilized private health industry, and for profit nursing homes?
None of which would need to roll out additional maternity care as part of the compact!?
As for remote water, well we do have the Great Artesian Basin; and we can use huge northern water surpluses, to inject billions of litres into it, at its northern most borders.
Besides, providing more localized power, would make it far more reliable, and vastly less costly than maintaining the great white elephant of a national grid, which given transmission line losses, makes such energy as it transmits, already twice as expensive as the localized models would provide!
Rhrosty.

A scientific journal rejected a manuscript after review. This happens to every working scientist, and sometimes it will seem unfair. Instead of whingeing about it, most scientists just revise their paper, and submit it for publication elsewhere. If it has merit it will get published.

Rather than revising and resubmitting, this Bengtsson fellow decides to have a hissy fit and go crying to the newspapers instead. He really should just harden up and work on getting his manuscript accepted somewhere else. End of story.

JBSH; your comment is disingenuous. The paper was not rejected on merit; it was rejected for these reasons:

"Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause, it was claimed last night.

In an echo of the infamous “Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as “harmful"…

From:http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4091344.ece

That's just straight censorship. Science should not be run on the back of a bunch of ideologically driven scientists censoring and bullying other real scientists.