The scientific community is just as biased and fragmented as any other group of human beings. There are scientists on both sides of any given issue, and those in power use their positions to discriminate, silence, and persecute the opposing side.
I point this out because of the arrogance and hubris of people in science who attack everyone else and claim to be somehow immune to human corruption. The truth is they are humans with all of the same flaws and problems as everyone else. Just because they say their interpretation of the data is “right” doesn’t mean they are correct or even telling the truth.
One thing my scientific training has taught me is to question everything and everyone. I don’t trust the scientific community because they are often wrong, are polluted with corruption and arrogance, and the majority aggressively attacks anyone with a different view point using the most repugnant means available. The modern scientific community is as bad as the Roman Catholic Church at the height of its corrupt power or any other community of human beings.
Here we have another example:
“Study suggesting global warming is exaggerated was rejected for publication in respected journal because it was ‘less than helpful’ to the climate cause, claims professor
- Professor Lennart Bengtsson claims his study on global warming has been rejected as it might fuel climate scepticism
- Says he suspects an intolerance of dissenting views on climate science
- Paper suggests that climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought”
Article here.
Here is an excellent article on corruption of science in America by J. Marvin Herdon, Ph.D.
“For the good of all, now is the time to rid science of the charlatans
and the science-barbarians, and to create an environment
where science can flourish in truth and where scientists can work
freely without fear of retribution or denouncement for challenging
extant ideas or for failing to adopt the ‘politically correct’
consensus-approved storyline.” – Dr. Herdon
Daniel Silas
Hold the Line 
With all respect to Prof. Bengtsson, his complaints, as you cited from the linked article, sound more like sour grapes. Near the end of the article the publisher is quoted:
“A spokesman for IOP Publishing said: ‘The paper, co-authored by Lennart Bengtsson, was originally submitted to Environmental Research Letters as a research Letter.
‘This was peer-reviewed by two independent reviewers, who reported that the paper contained errors and did not provide a significant advancement in the field, and therefore failed to meet the journal’s required acceptance criteria.”
Every respected scientific journal uses peer-review before determining whether a paper/article will be published. If I read Prof. Bengtsson’s paper, I know for certain that I don’t have the scientific knowledge or expertise to determine whether the methodology and the conclusions drawn are sound. Unless you’re a climatologist, with all respect, my guess is that you would be in the same boat.
I’m not denying that scientists have personal biases, bruised egos, rooting interests and whatever else. I am saying that the Scientific Method and peer-review are the best options available to encourage sound science. One can believe, as the professor does, that his paper was rejected due to bias. But since I (or you and I) am not in a position to comment knowledgeably on the paper, I have to accept the possibility that the two reviewers were correct when pointing out errors. Prof. Bengtsson is certainly welcome to refute the reviewers’ claims of errors.
Good points. As this has become international news, I would like to see the paper reviewed by other scientists in the field, but openly so we know who they are and their particular viewpoint on climate change. Would be interesting to see how it turned out.