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 gradually being influenced by political views. Policy decisions need to be based on solid fact.
No, the authors were not offered the chance to correct their paper.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 be rejected.
Environmental Research Letters, like many selective journals, rejects the majority of submitted manuscripts. The fact that the story appeared in The Times struck me as highly inappropriate. This rejection was based on problems with the manuscript.
This episode should not distract us from the fact that we are performing a very dangerous experiment with the Earth’s climate. 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. How we respond to that is a matter of public policy but scientists clearly play a key role in providing policymakers with the evidence they require.