The view from my bedroom window yesterday morning
There’s nothing like a good strong ethics controversy to sort out friends from foes, and the last five days have been decisive in laying out the battle lines. The trouble started when James Annan whipped up an email campaign directed at science publisher Copernicus, complaining about our Special Edition of Pattern Recognition in Physics. Although the various proponent authors of the Planetary Solar Theory have different ideas about viable mechanisms we came to the same conclusions via different phenomenological methods: that an imminent solar slowdown is upon us, and it is likely to be deeper than the Dalton Minimum, possibly stretching until the latter decades of this century.
In the General conclusions paper all the contributing authors signed, we agreed that “This sheds serious doubts on the issue of a continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project”. This did not please the proponents of the ‘trace gas levels control Earth’s climate’ theory, AKA cAGW, and emails trickled into Copernicus headquarters in Gottingen, Germany.
Copernicus chief Martin Rasmussen over-reacted, shutting down the whole journal and sending an email to PRP chief editors Sid-Ali Ouadfeul and Nils-Axel Morner saying he was “alarmed” at the sentence in the conclusions paper, and anyway, PRP “was never intended to be a platform for climate sceptics.” (Shock! Horror!)
He also added a secondary excuse for shutting the PRP journal down: “we also received information about potential misconduct during the review process.”
Astonishing. ‘potential misconduct'(?) means he needs to axe an entire journal on the spot, without the professional courtesy of having a discreet discussion with the editors?
I blogged the breaking news and started to handle my rapidly swelling inbox. Stunned authors were emailing each other, bewildered by the turn of events. What had we done wrong? Then the front page of the journal acquired an update:
In addition, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing and not in accordance with our publication ethics we expect to be followed by the editors. Therefore, we at Copernicus Publications wish to distance ourselves from the apparent misuse of the originally agreed aims & scope of the journal as well as the malpractice regarding the review process, and decided on 17 January 2014 to cease the publication of PRP.
“Nepotistic”? What did this mean? Clearly Rasmussen wasn’t saying the reviewers and authors were related by blood and birth, so what exactly was the problem? That some authors had reviewed other authors work, along with other non-authoring reviewers? This is common practice in special editions with a theme and wouldn’t be noticed if the papers had been published months apart, so surely that couldn’t be it. We were left with no further clarification from Rasmussen.
Then the condemnation started, from an unexpected quarter. Anthony Watts posted a nonsensical piece, mixing up our predicament with a story about a rebuttal paper (already itself rebutted by another paper (in)conveniently hidden ‘behind a paywall’), which purported to falsify the work of a different group of solar-planetary theorists. He was using the peer review issue as a stick to beat the solar planetary theory, and also to stick the boot in on me and my fellow editors and authors.
Other luke-warmist and rabid-warmist blogs followed up and started swelling the ranks of the growing cyber-lynch mob. Greg laden, David Appell, and the other ‘usual suspects’ followed Anthony Watts lead, all forgetting the infinitely worse peer review shenanigans of climategate as they waved their pitchforks and torches around ; hypocrites on holiday.
A few bloggers saw through the whole charade. Lubos Motls posted a good humoured piece. Pointman was on the case. Even at WUWT a fair percentage of commenters were telling the hysterics to get a grip and a sense of perspective. Anthony saw the need for a second round of hate, whipping up a froth which had the first twenty commenters braying for our heads. But wiser counsel was soon in evidence there too, and early the following day, Jo Nova posted an excellent article calling for some sense and focus. Lord Monckton weighed in, issuing an ultimatum to Copernicus by letterheaded document attached to email, good on him. Pierre Gosselin has carried two pieces by Nicola Scafetta while staying carefully neutral. Maybe he thought Watts snipping Scafetta for asking whether he thought Leif Svalgaard would give his work fair peer review was too much. Such arrogant hypocrisy.
Surveying the smoking remains on the battlefield tonight, I see some bridges are irreparably burned. Anthony emailed to say I am now, officially “a Pariah” – gee thanks Watts. I replied saying that was a bit too biblical for my scientific approach and that I’d await mother nature’s judgement on our science. So far as the peer review HooFlungDung is concerned, joint chief editor Nils-Axel Morner (with nearly 600 papers to his name) summarised what we did that some others see as egregious and unethical in an email earlier today:
“Dear Jo, Many thanks for your excellent site
(why does Anthony Watt try to drag us into the mud?)
It is very sad that the focus it dragged from our scientific contribution
to the reviewing process.
Besides there are things to clear up.
In the mails from Rasmussen it is stated (bold italics):(1) We were alarmed by the authors’ second implication stating:
“This sheds serious doubts on the issue of a continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project”So what? This is the direct inference of the 12 research papers (especially Papers 1,4,5,7,9,11,12).
(2) “the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis”
Nepotism is to favor friends and relatives without respects to qualifications. We did the opposite; the reviewer chosen were all specialists on the topics in question.
It is true that they primarily were chosen among the authors of the special issue with some additional from outside. This does not mean “pal-reviewing”, but serious colleague reviewing. Most members of the author-team only new each other superficially or as authors. It is common practice when printing proceedings or collective volumes to seek the reviewers within the group, not in order to make the reviewing process less serious, but because those persons are the true experts within the field.
And almost always they do a tremendously good job to improve the papers in constructive ways. So also in our case: our reviewing was simply excellent, which I am sure all persons involved would happily testify. This includes strong points and forces for relevant changes and updating.
And what we achieved was a wonderful collection of papers that together make a very strong impact of elevating an old hypothesis into a firm theory saying that the solar variability is, indeed, driven by the planetary beat.
Amen to that Niklas, you did 100 hours a week for several months to make this happen, and I’m with you all the way.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Roger, may you send me Lord Monckton letter to Rasmussen?
Note that the web-site of the Journal the accusations have been modified.
Before the charges were:
***
Copernicus Publications started publishing the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics (PRP) in March 2013.
The journal idea was brought to Copernicus’ attention and was taken rather critically in the beginning, since the designated Editors-in-Chief were mentioned in the context of the debates of climate skeptics. However, the initiators asserted that the aim of the journal was to publish articles about patterns recognized in the full spectrum of physical disciplines rather than to focus on climate-research-related topics. Recently, a special issue was compiled entitled “Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts”. Besides papers dealing with the observed patterns in the heliosphere, the special issue editors ultimately submitted their conclusions in which they “doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project” (Pattern Recogn. Phys., 1, 205–206, 2013). Copernicus Publications published the work and other special issue papers to provide the spectrum of the related papers to the scientists for their individual judgment. Following best practice in scholarly publishing, published articles cannot be removed afterwards. In addition, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing and not in accordance with our publication ethics we expect to be followed by the editors. Therefore, we at Copernicus Publications wish to distance ourselves from the apparent misuse of the originally agreed aims & scope of the journal as well as the malpractice regarding the review process, and decided on 17 January 2014 to cease the publication of PRP. Of course, scientific dispute is controversial and should allow contradictory opinions which can then be discussed within the scientific community. However, the recent developments including the expressed implications (see above) have led us to this drastic decision.
***
Now on their web-site it is written:
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/volumes_and_issues.html
***
Copernicus Publications wishes to distance itself from the apparent misuse of the originally agreed aims & scope of the journal as well as the malpractice regarding the review process, and decided on 17 January 2014 to cease the publication of PRP.
***
The accusation “However, the initiators asserted that the aim of the journal was to publish articles about patterns recognized in the full spectrum of physical disciplines rather than to focus on climate-research-related topics.” is baseless. It is not true that the aims & scope of the journal were misused. In its 10 months of life the journal published multidisciplinary papers in many fields of research. Just one paper fully focused on climate-research-related topics and did not belong to our collection.
Our collection is here:
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/special_issue2.html
or the general issues
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/volumes_and_issues.html
and tell me if it is true that all or most of the papers focused on climate-research-related topics, as Rasmussen claimed!
On it’s way to you Nicola. Thanks for all your hard work countering the negative spin.
Must sleep….
Phil Jones wrote: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi.
The solution is very simple. Set up your own on line journal, indeed there is really no difference between a blog and a journal except the management procedures for review.
If you are interested, I would be happy to help.
Maybe Twatts tapped into the mother load of cash at Big Obama.com.
Paper and Ink are going the way of the dinosaurs. The World Wide Web is the future! “Publish” your journal where every one can read and comment, true peer review. The push of Liberal Progressive thought required the “capture” of all media to control the all the “information” propaganda published. They are too late. The “Net that covers the world” is the wave of the new future. The old Elite way of control of the argument by control of print is over. The “Good Old Boy” closed shop is finish by their cold dead grip on dissent. Science advancement requires bright light of argument and display, not cover up and limits on discussion
Anthony Watts and others want to join the Good Old Boys Club. Respectability is more important to them then the science so they will vilify you to keep their imagined respectability. The joke is on them as the “Good Old Boys” disrespect them all the time.
WUWT is a “news-gossip” site and does a very good job at that. The Talkshop exchanges real discussion of the leading edge of examination of the mysteries of our solar system and planet. Work with what you have all ready created.
An example – The A.Rossi site:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/
publishes papers that the Main Steam journals refuse to publish on matters of physics because they deal with lines of inquiry that are not acceptable to establishment dogma. Some of the people that comment at that site actually read the papers. 😎
The TallBloke has a following all ready, build on that. “The Journal on Pattern Recognition in Physics” is now known world wide! You don’t need paper and ink. Publish on the net! pg
That was one hell of an advertising campaign, and mostly for free! 🙂
But by printing the letters I P C C the snakes tail was trodden on.
Jet stream moves to already very far to the south.
http://earth.nullschool.net/jp/#2014/01/25/2100Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-349.12,64.55,277
Richard111: Pariah scientists are unafraid to publish honest opinions which derive from honest research.
Seems practically everyone has got the meaning of “nepotism” wrong, staring with Martin Rasmussen .
The term “nepotism” derives from the Italian word for “nephew” and in modern English has been generalized to apply to any family member.
“Nepotism” is being conflating with “cronyism”, derived from the word “crony” meaning “old friend”, obviously derived from Greek, now used in reference to corruption arising from collusion between persons in government and their friends outside government.
References follow:
nepotism (n.) “favoritism shown to relatives, especially in appointment to high office,” 1660s, from French népotisme (1650s), from Italian nepotismo, from nepote “nephew,” from Latin nepotem (nominative nepos) “grandson, nephew” (see nephew). Originally, practice of granting privileges to a pope’s “nephew” which was a euphemism for his natural son.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=nepotism
cronyism (n.) 1840, “friendship,” from crony + -ism. Meaning “appointment of friends to important positions, regardless of ability” is originally American English, from c.1950.
crony (n.) 1660s, Cambridge student slang, probably from Greek khronios “long-lasting,” from khronos “time” (see chrono-), and with a sense of “old friend,” or “contemporary”
Thanks PG: I’m unsure about Rossi’s stuff, too much commercial interest. But the important thing is discussion, critique, and openness in a respectful environment. Ideas should be allowed to develop, not be strangled at birth by people with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. New and better theories do not spring forth fully formed, like Athena from the brow of Zeus. They come together gradually, as disparate people find the common threads and collaborate to improve on individual efforts.
We have achieved the production of our special issue, wherever it is to be maintained. Next we need to get people together at a conference/workshop. Niklas and I are considering the possibility of a summer retreat high in the Pyrenees, where I know of a beautiful ski lodge, unused in the summer, that we can rent for a few Euros each. There’s room for 25-50 people, and other accommodation nearby. The stargazing at altitude in the clear Andorran air is wonderful.
‘the recent developments including the expressed implications (see above) have led us to this drastic decision.’
Translation: ‘next time, just don’t expressly mention the IPCC’.
Implication OK, expression bad. ‘Understand the unwritten rules of the game’ looks like the take-home message here.
[…] 1. wattsupwiththat 2. tallbloke’s talkshop […]
OB: Maybe so. Norsemen and Yorkshire folk don’t observe such niceties. “The IPCC project” is accurate. It was set up to confirm man’s alleged influence on global climate, and had unlimited funding thrown at the project to achieve that. It’s not primarily about science. If it was, competing explanations for climatic variation would be given prominence for rational debate, not censured, vilified, misrepresented or unPal-reviewed under the carpet.
Speaking of misrepresentation, for the latest disingenuous bollox from Team Wassup’s Willis White’n’black see here:
He’s been rumbled within the first few comments, but you can be sure that won’t give him pause for thought. Cowboys like Willis don’t do self-critical thinking very often. Unlike Jan-Erik Solheim, who he is attacking. Professor Solheim did a superb review of my one of my papers running to eight pages, which I found invaluable in helping me improve my work.
Just in case he decides to delete them like he did the last time he got a drubbing, here’s a sample:
===================================
temp says:
January 21, 2014 at 10:30 pm
“Well, the R2 between sunspots and sea level is a mere 0.13, very little relationship. And even worse, the p-value of the relationship is 0.08 … sorry, no cigar. ”
On what years are you getting those values because from the paper they have a bunch of different cycles pointed out. I’m assuming your getting those values from the whole data set which both you and the paper point out starts with the data in question as an opposing force. Thus pointing out again through these values makes no sense since the paper clearly states as such. I only briefly skimmed the paper since its late but I can I can already see some problems with this whole line here assuming your using the whole data set.
========================================
Kuhnkat says:
January 21, 2014 at 11:04 pm
Willis says,
“And I’d have shut it for business reasons because Copernicus, as a publisher of scientific journals, cannot afford to become known as a place where reviewers don’t review and editors don’t edit. It would make them the laughing stock of the journal world, and being the butt of that kind of joke is something that no journal publisher can survive.”
You mean like Nature and the rest of the Believers Climate papers??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
===========================================
Bernd Felsche says:
January 21, 2014 at 11:05 pm
Willis,
The next paragraph says:
The coastal sea level variation cannot be explained as due to expansion/contraction of the oceans due to heating/cooling during a solar cycle as proposed by Shaviv (2008) simply because, near the shore, the thermal expansion becomes zero since the expansion is proportional to the depth (Mörner,
2013b). The good correlation and nearly in-phase response between solar activity and sea level indicates that this is a direct mechanical response – and not a thermal response that needs time to heat up and cool, and therefore shows delayedresponse. This may be seen comparing Figs. 1 and 2.
The author appears to have used Fig 2 to illustrate the de-coupling between solar activity and sea levels; specifically noted the phase inconsistency and then reasoned that oceanic thermal mass is the reason for phase shifting and a reduction in response for “weak” cycles.
I can’t see how you got the idea from the paper that the author was trying to indicate a simple relationship between solar activity and sea level. Admittedly, I haven’t read the paper in as much depth as you must have before draughting your article.
==========================================
Agust Bjarnason says:
January 21, 2014 at 11:42 pm
I would like to thank professor Jan-Erik Solheim, a specialist in astrophysics, for an interesting article.
Please read the article with an open mind.
Regards
Agust
========================================
Alex says:
January 22, 2014 at 1:07 am
I think you have completely misconstrued the argument into a strawman. Sunspots are an effect, not a cause. No one says ‘Sunspots caused this anomoly’. They are a just a proxy for sun’s magnetic activity and nothing else. And whatever magnetic event that might be affecting earth’s climate could easily precede the change in sunspots. It is absurd to try to disprove the paper based on a claim the authors weren’t even making.
========================================
Stephen Wilde says:
January 22, 2014 at 1:41 am
Note that the author actually draws attention to the problems in the analysis as a precursor to further investigation.
The author makes some attempt to suggest a possible explanation in the millennial solar cycle and oceanic thermal inertia.
That is a more scientifically valid approach than most of AGW theory which appears to try and hide or adjust inconvenient data.
I think Willis is being unfair here.
=========================================
Paul Westhaver says:
January 22, 2014 at 2:05 am
Willis,
Notwithstanding your gripes about the overall paper and the journal review process, If someone placed the curves in front of me, I;d be very interested i knowing why they are related. They are related without a doubt. So why?
Is the sea level data repeatable? The sunspot data looks right.
I’d say there is something there.
========================================
tallbloke says:
January 22, 2014 at 3:41 am
While I agree with Greg Goodmans points to Willis I’ll just say that like Willis, he wasn’t banned from the talkshop for his science.
Goodman teaches Eschenbach manners – more popcorn please.
TB the way this has been handled on Watts is fairly abysmal imho, Whilst I understand the discomfiture felt, if events and motivations, as well as intent were as some commentators have indicated, there is no evidence to support any deliberate wrongdoing on your and others parts that has so far seen the light of day from what I have seen.
Most disappointing of all has been the apparent personal slant that some have indulged in, very disappointing that had to creep in on the major Skeptical resource, worse still the posters responsible for this direction wholly fail to see they are doing more damage than the infractions of which they complain.
Dark days on the Skeptical side of the debate imho!
I just posted this on BH: “It has become well established that scientific progress is only ever possible when there is broad and unbreakable consensus. I was therefore bemused to witness such vehement disagreement between different factions of sceptics.”
@ Scottish Sceptic – this is a good idea, but it would need to be properly resourced. I have long experience of high level voluntary effort, it ultimately fails. Currently, I’m running on wine vapour ;-(
It should be called “The journal of natural climate variability”
I’ve been following this “saga” with growing incredulity and anger, given the way a certain ‘best science blog’ reported on it.
The comments there by certain people who shall be nameless turned into a concerted witch hunt about ‘pal preview’, without ever looking at the timeline of Mr Rasmussen’s e-mails.
Others have already pointed out that in a small and specialised subject the number of competent reviewers is of course small, as I can confirm form personal experience in another subject.
The attitude of Mr Watts and some commentators on his blog seems to be that because they don’t agree with what the call ‘wriggle matching’, all who contributed to that Special Edition had to be cranks and thus ‘abused’ poor innocent Copernicus Publishing by pal-reviewing each others cranky papers. So they deserved what was coming to them, and never mind what others like JoNova had been writing in their blogs, never mind what you, Rog, and what Mr Scafetta had to say.
Not a word about the papers themselves, and worse, not one of them questioned how come “someone” pointed out the sacrilege of disagreeing with the IPCC to Mr Rasmussen, with the spurious ‘pal review’ being used in a second attempt to discredit the editor and contributors to that Special Edition before it even got out of the starting blocks.
One has to wonder how Mr Rasmussen and his editors hadn’t noticed that before. After all, I suspect this Special Edition didn’t suddenly fall into his lap, out of the blue …
Having robust debates about issues is what happens – or should happen – in science. Sadly, discrediting those who dare offer a divergent view on pet subjects is also nothing new.
What is new is that we now seem to have an established coterie of sceptics who defend their patch against others tooth and nail, not shying from using the same tactics used so successfully by the AGW religionists.
What is also new and very disturbing is that this same coterie looks as if they’re happy to make common cause with those who twisted Mr Rasmussen’s arms to stop the Special edition and indeed the whole journal.
I am upset and saddened that they did not ask or investigate who it was that pointed out the IPCC blasphemy and then, as second line of attack, the ‘pal review’ issue to Mr Rasmussen, and why.
TB: ‘Norsemen and Yorkshire folk don’t observe such niceties. “The IPCC project” is accurate’
That’s fine but the peer reviewed science paper scene is essentially a club with its own unwritten rules. It seems there’s no appeal process or even a right to a proper explanation of the reasons behind the charges, so no opportunity to counter any accusations.
Democratic it ain’t.
OB: Science isn’t a democracy. I recommend you read the late Paul Feyerabend’s brilliant books ‘Against Method’ and ‘Science in a Free Society’.
Especially the chapter in AM entitled:
‘Aristotle not a dead dog’
CM: There’s a wider agenda. Watts thought he could use Rasmussen’s cowardice to deliver a coup de grace to the solar-planetary theory and this troublesome blog. But grand manouevres undertaken with less than pure intentions have a habit of backfiring bigstyle. You’d think he’d know that after the number of times he’s covered the same sort of foot-shootings delivered by the orthodox church of global warming.
Looks like Willis is on an all night bender of sleep depriving substances:
Perhaps he hopes this newly minted junk will distract attention from the failed attack on Professor Solheim.
Roger did you nick Poptechs Sweeties at school or something?
This guy really really doesn’t like you does he, its all getting very silly over there now,
TB,
” Ideas should be allowed to develop, not be strangled at birth by people with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. New and better theories do not spring forth fully formed, like Athena from the brow of Zeus. They come together gradually, as disparate people find the common threads and collaborate to improve on individual efforts.”
How many years have I said the very same similar words?
Instead, YOU keep my posts in “moderation” constantly…are you too not being a hypocrite?
[Reply] You post a lot of O/T comments Joe. Sometimes they go through, sometimes they don’t. Them’s the breaks. WordPress.com is —> that way.
Whilst not being knowledgeable enough or qualified sufficiently to comment upon the quality of the various papers which constitute the PRP Special Edition, it seems glaringly obvious to me what is going on here:
1. Copernicus, under the magical influence of James Annan’s fabled email(s) – was it one or many, not too sure? – decided to pull the plug on PRP. Their reasons for doing so were, according to their own words, blatantly censorial of a journal which they considered had become ‘a platform for sceptics’. Secondarily, they blamed ‘nepotism’/’potential irregularities in the review process’. No mention of the quality of the papers themselves. therefore seemingly not an exercise in quality control, which, if it were, could have been dealt with via rebuttal procedures, not by closing down the entire journal.
2. The usual suspects have jumped on the incident with delight and are not unexpectedly crowing across the blogosphere, distorting the facts about this incident by claiming it was quality control, not censorship which did for PRP. I’m sure their joy will be short-lived as they are all dead men walking.
3. With the imminent demise of the ‘trace gases theory of global warming’, the united sceptic front, which has prevailed remarkably against the concerted efforts of Big Green, Big Fraudulent Science and Big Politics, is now starting to show cracks and factions within it are jockeying for position on who will be there at the front to deliver the ‘killer blow’. Those less enamoured with their own egos work on tirelessly in the background, concentrating not on the denouement of phoney climate science, but on what will replace it.
Tallbloke, I have been following most of the Sceptic Blogs for about 6/7 years now.
I remember Mr Watts falling out with Geoff Sharp, Steve Goddard, your good self and the Dragons.
Although they claim to be a Sceptic site, they are only sceptical about Cagw, not about AGW.
They believe in the main stream science and cannot abide any kind of criticism of it or new/revived science.
Konrad, through empirical evidence questions the science, none of them on WUWT are prepared to repeat the experiments or try to improve on them, so whats up with that.
Mr Watts of the Thermometer fame has not made one mention of Steve Goddard’s latest revelations about the adjustments to the current dataset. Although he is happy to post plenty of other forum owners (favourites) analysis.
Not Invented Here comes to mind.
I fully expected his attack on you an the journal and was not disappointed.
God where did the time go, make that
I have been following most of the Sceptic Blogs for about over 10 years now
Rog,
On JoNova, I have asked for the name of TEN other people who should have been used as alternate reviewers.
It might be interesting to watch to see if there are any takers and maybe comment on the names that arise… if any !!
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/01/science-is-not-done-by-peer-or-pal-review-but-by-evidence-and-reason/#comment-1376420
comment #102
Rog, I know you are very busy with the kerfuffle and this is Off Topic but have you had time to glance at the Link posted by
DirkH says: January 21, 2014 at 6:20 pm
O/T Weber vs. Maxwell. Weber electrodynamics, relativism, Gauss, Riemann. A cover-up.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html
I have started reading it and it may well contribute something to your historical understanding of science.
A C Osborn on WUWT
(January 22, 2014 at 12:49 pm)
“Although they claim to be a Sceptic site, they are only sceptical about Cagw, not about AGW.
They believe in the main stream science and cannot abide any kind of criticism of it or new/revived science.”
I regard WUWT as pro-AGW MSM. I can live with this so long as I am not stalked, harassed, & maliciously misrepresented when I visit there.
Shame about the disagreements, Watts also fell out with Delingpole.
But maybe cAGW theory is dead and there’s some posturing going on as to who is going to claim all the credit later.
Anyway, I won’t be commenting on the Watts site any more, Tallbloke was always the best site if you wanted to get your teeth into complex issues. Watts’s site has lost its sparkle and the comment section is always full of lame one-liners from his echo chamber gallery.
I’ve been at this for 9 or 10 years now and I think it’s coming to an end, we have these setbacks and we have to stand up, dust ourselves down and continue but I don’t think we’ll be doing so for much longer, hopefully we can get back to the Science.
A C Osborn says:
……………
When I was at university some decades ago, we had professors who had gravitas and gave theoretical lectures, then we had ‘docent’s who often had a Phd or minimum MSc, in charge of more ‘menial learning tasks’ where you could ask, discus or propose anything. Some of the ‘forgotten’ ideas of the pioneers of electro-magnto-dynamics were occasionally topics. There I learned out of box thinking and that the ‘observation data’ is stronger than any theory. All this took place under penetrating glaze immortalised in a bronze statue of Nicola Tesla at the buildings entrance, the world’s by far the best ‘out of box’ thinker, engineer and scientist in the field of electro-magnto-dynamics. Suffice to say that he was our unquestionable hero, something that the cabal of the ‘establishment science’ would never understand but are more than happy to enjoy boundless benefits of his non-conformist thinking.
Interesting is that Willis and poptart have made up after poptarts recently attempted and recycled character assassination technique…
Hah! This should be good 🙂
tallbloke says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 22, 2014 at 5:54 am
Willis says:
“I guarantee you I can make the curves fit no matter what the six other constants you might hand me. “
OK, game on.
278 days
1.3 years
8.4 years
98 years
for the four planets orbital periods. Now, not all the other parameters are completely free, as you would know if you’ve read R.J.s paper carefully. Some of their cyclicities are bound to the planetary orbital periods. So bearing that in mind, off you go, play fair, and don’t forget to show your working.
TB. WUWT is one of a number of sceptical websites that have not moved on with the changing face of AGW scepticism. Watts and his helpers did a wonderful job of showing up the surface stations, and bringing to the world’s attention the difference between collecting data for a weather forecast and data that can be used as part of a study in to changes in climate. What Watts was never able to accept or allow being discussed was that AGW was not a scientific argument but a political argument. We should all be grateful for the work put in by Watts and the many many people that highlighted flaws in the AGW argument, but we now have to turn to others to understand the reasons why our climate changes. One thing is blindingly obvious; it’s not caused by trace gases.
So a choice has developed. Get involved in the political argument or open up to true scientific discussion and that means everyone and every idea, other than those obvious cranks. Watts has done neither and has slipped into the same mire as all the other “respectable” science sites or more correctly non science sites; he has become mainstream. He forgets it doesn’t matter what he believes, it doesn’t matter what he thinks causes climate change, it only matter what people see in the data.
I stopped reading WUWT 2 or more years ago because it had become boring and they stepped on anyone suggesting AGW was not real and totally political. I wouldn’t mind putting a wager on that Watts regrets the last few days where he seems to have alienated so many. If he does not butch up and admit he was wrong we will witness the inevitable decline of one of the pioneers in AGW Scepticism.
Sadly, it seems bloggers on either side fall victim to the “I want to be the winner. I want to be top blogger” syndrome and lose sight of the goal (or maybe that was the goal in the first place?). I more or less stopped reading WUWT, mostly after a disagreement with Willis over his lack of scientific language, due to the blog’s distain for other skeptics. It was fast becoming “agree or we don’t let you comment”, which is the policy of warmist blogs.
It’s sad the Journal was shut down, but it does very clearly indicate the mindset of the warmists, probably more so than anything to date. Thankfully, the warminsts have not been able to silence the internet.
These actions taken against PRP are not just about censorship of the publication, it is far more serious. It s about denying any of the authors recognition in the future.
It is increasingly evident that solar physics is going to take a far bigger slice of the scienctific research cake in the near future, the sun will be the focus of the media’s interest. It is easy for the man in the street to understand and relate to. With this change in focus, comes a change in the scientists that the media will look to for information and guidance. This is where this event comes into play.
The authors of PRP have the allegations hanging around their neck, so if they have the temerity to make an appearance, those who wish them harm have a stick to which to beat them and those that invite them to appear/advise. “No smoke without fire” will be the call that goes out every time. Media groups that are always very sensitive, will only need telling once.
No doubt Rog and the gang have plans, I and no doubt many others wish them the best of luck. KBO
p.s. The comments following the Willis post on WUWT, are encouraging, not everyone is enjoying this event, and don’t appreciate someone trying to take pleasure in others problems.
Good lord, he is gravitating to deep conspiracy theories now, how long before you morph into one of the “lizard people” TB?
I am off that thread now, this is more than I can stomach (especially as I had several slice of Deep pan pizza at lunch).
Guam: Which thread/comment? Got a linky?
Reality Check: I don’t want to be top blogger, too much else to do with my life. I’m standing for political office in May. I just want people to be allowed to develop their own ideas without being dragooned by Team Wassup into conformity. What’s wrong with plurality and mutual respect I want to know? As you can see from Niklas Morner’s statement above, OUR PEER REVIEW PROCESS WAS FINE.
The ongoing one here
At the end
I had to respond with a sardonic post as this guy has issues I believe!
Guam: Heh, I couldn’t resist. Gotta stop doing that.
The real issue is that with Mike Lockwood having broken cover to point out that this solar minimum is the 189 year solar barycentre cycle, the game is on to show that CO2-AGW, if any, is but one of multiple causes of climate change.
The Marxists behind IPCC Climate Alchemy are desperate to head this off because to admit it would be to kill their attempted scientific monopoly. Interestingly, Lockwood went out of his way last week on the BBC to emphasise that he still accepted significant CO2-AGW. However, this was probably a political response, as he has to exist in one of the most rabidly pro IPCC environments in the UK.
The reality, of course, is that CO2-AGW is virtually zero. What’s more the atmospheric mechanism that causes this is shared with the mechanism that keeps lower atmospheric temperature within a narrow range as cloud cover changes, the way variation of solar magnetic field affects the atmosphere.
So, it is no wonder that your special issue was hammered. The Marxists know they are losing so are resorting to ever more desperate measures to achieve their Eugenic, eco-fascist society., Pol Pot II, the European dimension.
On Willis post on WUWT
*********
Willis, as usual, criticizes without reading a paper. He just picks up something extrapolated from the contest as the famous guy that jumping around the Bible concludes that the Bible says “There is no God. ” while the full sentence says:”The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. ” .
The same graph discussed above by Willis was discussed with Anthony’s great approval here:
and here
The graph is essentially taken from Shaviv (2008):
Shaviv, N. J.: Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing,
J. Geophys. Res., 113, A11101, doi:1029/2007JA012989, 2008.
which has been properly referenced by Solheim and where a lot of details are present. Solheim does not need to repeat the details given the fact that those are in the referenced work.
The uncertainty noted by some above is also discussed in Solheim’s paper
Click to access prp-1-177-2013.pdf
and it is due to the fact that the decadal climatic cycle may be due to a soli-lunar oscillation at about 9.1 year and to the 10-12 year solar cycle. This is clearly show in numerous figures of the paper such as figure 7 which is taken from one of my papers, which are these
Scafetta, N.: Solar and Planetary Oscillation control on climate change hind-cast, forecast and an comparison with the CMIP5 GCMs, Energ. Environ., 42, 455–496, 2013a.
Scafetta, N.: Discussion on climate oscillations: CMIP5 general circulation models versus a semi-empirical harmonic model based on astronomical cycles, Earth-Sci. Rev., 126, 321–357, 2013b.
Cowboy Willis, unfortunately, does not know how to read a scientific paper.
The WUWT response: he wants to be the primary anti-CAGW, mainstream-accepted voice. The type that gets interviewed about the fall of the IPCC. He wants no controversy that is not in his favour. In essence, he wants to replace the consensus of the IPCC with the consensus of Meteorology. His errors are just in the questioning; he doesn’t want any problems to come up in the answering.
He also wants the end of the IPCC to be American-inspired. The War will be won by his Special Forces, not those of others.
@Doug Proctor: it’s a bit more complex than that. The problem with WUWT is that Meteorologists who, for 70 years, have taught false ‘back radiation’ physics and the incorrect interpretation for 50+ years of their instrument of choice, the pyrgeometer, stand to lose control of Climate Alchemy when it becomes a science.
So, it’s a turf war, just slightly different in that he apparently wants to control the backfire into his own group.
Doug: I don’t want to get into psychologising Anthony Watts, no matter how pissed off with his attitude I am. I’m certain that in a few years time, he’ll get plenty of airtime to tell his story with. I expect in the UK, Andrew Montford might fill a similar role. It’s too much of an embarrassment to the establishment to have me on the scene, the guy with the history and philosophy of science degree they set the cops on.
Mind you, If I get myself elected to parliament in 2015, they might just have to grin and bear it. 😉
As my husband said. This was a set-up to get skeptics going for each others throats.
You now have Watts banning Tallbloke, Ian Wilson saying he will never comment at WUWT again and Willis is putting up sarcastic essays about each of the papers. However those who would defend those papers are not likely to be present at the trial and lynching.
A sad day for scientific enquiry.
Thanks Roger lol
now about those nicked sweeties, must have been a lot of them for this level of bile 🙂
Muussttt Resisst 🙂
tallbloke says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 22, 2014 at 8:31 am
Nicola Scafetta says:
January 22, 2014 at 7:43 am
[snip – you are welcome to resumbit without the ad homs – mod]
Yes Nicola, behave yourself on his Nibs thread. Here’s an example of the sort of thing you can’t say:
“Copernicus, as a publisher of scientific journals, cannot afford to become known as a place where reviewers don’t review and editors don’t edit”
And since I’m repeating this at the talkshop I can edit to add:
What a
n arseholestranger to the truth that guy Willis Eschenbach is.Guam: All I did was check his last list of links to ‘pal review’ comments on the talkshop.
None were by me, and one was a cartoon caption competition entry.
When I pointed this out, he went tropo.
tallbloke says: @ January 22, 2014 at 9:25 am
…..Speaking of misrepresentation, for the latest disingenuous bollox from Team Wassup’s Willis White’n’black see here:
……………….
Seems Feynman’s sister Dr. Joan Feynman linked Aurora to the levels of the Nile river. A comment I make repeatedly at WUWT.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=1319
and another paper on ocean SST and the nile
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618207001449
Lief Svalgaard has most of the people @ WUTT brain washed when it comes to the sun’s influence on climate.
colliemum says:
January 22, 2014 at 10:30 am
….Others have already pointed out that in a small and specialised subject the number of competent reviewers is of course small, as I can confirm form personal experience in another subject….
>>>>>>>>>>
Well I am glad someone can confirm my point about that. AW got a bit hot under the collar when I tried to be the voice of reason.
Peer-review is useful but the real sticking point is
DID THE RESEARCHER HIDE HIS DATA!
If Eschenbach wrote a science paper and had it reviewed by Svalgaard and Watts, would that be malpractice and/or ‘nepotism’? We should be told 😉
Hah!
tallbloke says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 22, 2014 at 8:56 am
REPLY: That’s not ad ad hom, it isn’t directed at a specific person. You really don’t have much integrity to stand on her Mr. Tattersall, since you don’t allow Willis to comment at your own blog. And then there’s that other incident where you violated my trust. – Anthony
That violation of trust was over Willis’ ad hom attacks too, remember?
Here’s Niklas Morner’s statement on the way we conducted peer review:
(2) “the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis”
Nepotism is to favor friends and relatives without respects to qualifications. We did the opposite; the reviewer chosen were all specialists on the topics in question.
It is true that they primarily were chosen among the authors of the special issue with some additional from outside. This does not mean “pal-reviewing”, but serious colleague reviewing. Most members of the author-team only new each other superficially or as authors. It is common practice when printing proceedings or collective volumes to seek the reviewers within the group, not in order to make the reviewing process less serious, but because those persons are the true experts within the field.
And almost always they do a tremendously good job to improve the papers in constructive ways. So also in our case: our reviewing was simply excellent, which I am sure all persons involved would happily testify. This includes strong points and forces for relevant changes and updating.
And what we achieved was a wonderful collection of papers that together make a very strong impact of elevating an old hypothesis into a firm theory saying that the solar variability is, indeed, driven by the planetary beat.
Amen to that Niklas, you did 100 hours a week for several months to make this happen, and I’m with you all the way. The 580+ peer reviewed papers you have to your name in the geophysics and oceanology fields enabled you to get some superb outside reviewers such as the very eminent Physicist Prof. Giovanni P. Gregori, who has written a brilliant letter to Martin Rasmussen. Anthony should read it.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/giovanni-p-gregori-scientific-freedom-paradigms-and-dogma/
A C Osborn says: @ January 22, 2014 at 12:49 pm
Tallbloke, I have been following most of the Sceptic Blogs for about 6/7 years now.
I remember Mr Watts falling out with Geoff Sharp, Steve Goddard, your good self and the Dragons.
Although they claim to be a Sceptic site, they are only sceptical about Cagw, not about AGW.
They believe in the main stream science and cannot abide any kind of criticism of it or new/revived science…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Anthony Watts is from California as are his side kicks, L.Svalgaard and W. Eschenbach. I do not think I need to say much more.
Actually I am surprised they are as skeptic as they are. Watts seems to be trying to stay ‘Main Stream’ from what I can see.
oldbrew says:
January 22, 2014 at 4:52 pm
If Eschenbach wrote a science paper and had it reviewed by Svalgaard and Watts, would that be malpractice and/or ‘nepotism’? We should be told.
**************
That depends on whether Eschenbach’s paper is free of evident errors or not.
Because Eschenbach’s papers on WUTW are “reviewed” the WUTW editor-in-chief Anthony Watts and because Eschenbach’s papers present evident errors my conclusion is that the WUTW review process is highly flawed and rooted on “malpractice” and/or ‘nepotism’.
See for example Eschenbach’s latest paper
and my easy rebuttal
demonstrating the presence of “evident errors”
“This is insanity Max.”
“Or maybe it’s genius!”
What is under appreciated by more conservative beaurocratic minds is how many book length special editions and books themselves come from physicists who present intensely speculative brainstorming affairs, on purpose. University libraries are full of them, and as I recall they were usually conferences of presented papers with back and forth discussion transcribed too. Really wild stuff like consciousness theories and holographic organization of causation. Hypothesis presentation is a vital part of science in general. Doing it on a shoestring budget is even more commendable.
Nik: thank you. Appreciated.
Gail: I understand why Anthony takes the stance he does on AGW given his locale. But trying to bludgeon everyone else into toeing his line using blatantly nasty and shabby tactics I don’t.
@ Nicola Scafetta
Interesting comments. With WUWT I imagine they would like their science points to be taken as seriously as if they were in a ‘real’ science paper. However the readers have little or no idea what, if any, the review process is.
Maybe they don’t care as long as they like what they find. That’s probably true of most blogs too so it’s not a criticism, just the way it is.
Another front has opened up here. Narrative and comments from Pierre Gosselin, Anthony Watts and Nicola Scafetta, plus a few others.
http://notrickszone.com/2014/01/22/david-and-goliath-nicola-scafetta-fires-back-at-harsh-willis-eschenbachs-criticism/#comments
For everyone’s sake, maybe a cooling off period is in order?
Anthony Watts (22. Januar 2014 at 22:04)
“[…] didn’t meet WUWT policy becuase it contained ad homs […]”
Well there’s a a policy that doesn’t get applied evenly. But whatever. What does it really matter?
Personally, I want to get back to reading papers about land-ocean contrasts in seasonal cycles. (I hope there will be opportunity to discuss that here sometime in the weeks ahead…)
All the Best
A perceptive person on No tricks zone says:
DLW 22. Januar 2014 at 13:31 | Permalink | Reply
My understanding of the referee issue is that the primary editor had difficulty in recruiting external volunteers, so had to use suitably qualified “internal” candidates. Instead of burying this fact behind the usual anonymity it would appear that the editor chose to publish the name of the “internal” referee (presumably with their agreement) in each paper this occurred. Normally it would have taken an internal investigation by the publishers to find out this information It is therefore the publication of the names that has led to accusations of pal review.
The very fact of publication implies that the editor acknowledges the referee situation was not ideal. However he has not attempted to cover this up or to mislead anyone and should be given due credit for that. In the end the real test of these papers will be time and further research. – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/01/21/lynch-mob-science-scafetta-accuses-publisher-of-skipping-trial-conducting-academic-lynching/#sthash.cERPL2Js.dpuf
==============
In fact we got some very highly qualified external reviewers who were used to the anonymity of reviewing at other journal, and which we were happy to respect their wishes.
More fun at WUWT. By the way, R.J. Salvador emailed me this morning to say he had no intention of becoming an extra in Watts and Willis’ car crash of a soap opera. 🙂
tallbloke says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 22, 2014 at 11:33 pm
Hey Willis,
getting anywhere with the reproduction of the 350 yr SSN record with the randomly chosen orbital periods I gave you yet? Yo said you could do it easily with all the extra ‘free parameters’. Y’know, wiggling trunks and all that? Don’t forget R.J. Salvador’s model also reproduces the Maunder minimum well, Svalgaards previously stated acid test.
Talk is cheap. A little less condescension and a little more action baby.
“Pop at you” is still at it on Jo Novas site, beginning to think he needs help, he just disregards anything regarding his approach to this and the fact he may have proportionality issues with what occurred!
I think Antony may have locked the other threads, unsurprising given the damage that is being caused over there.
He just turned up here too. I don’t have time for his kind of ‘debate’ so I dumped the comment and stuck him in the foolbin.
I think someone should point him at a dictionary and advise him to look up the term “overkill” 🙂
tallbloke says: @ January 22, 2014 at 9:34 pm
… But trying to bludgeon everyone else into toeing his line using blatantly nasty and shabby tactics I don’t.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes the threads and comments were very much over the top and quite distasteful.
Everyone doing the attacking is missing the real point.
1. Peer-review says nothing about the science.
2. The real test of a decent paper is that ALL the data and ALL the code and ALL the methods are shown.
All peer-review does is (hopefully) catch grammar mistakes, make sure there is no glaring errors and the report is readable and not plagiarized. This last point is why someone familiar with the field is absolutely necessary.
Placing so much ‘weight’ on peer-review is a major mistake.
With researchers reporting “up to 72% for other questionable research practices,” the ONLY thing that prevents that sort of misconduct is insisting on ‘Show Your Work’ verification and validation. Peer-review does diddle squat.
[…] Gail Combs on Peer Review Debacle: Friends a… […]
Gail,
We can longer upload supplementary information to PRP as was intended, so I’m putting together a page here with the papers and such data code and data source references as are required for replication work.
I would like to point out this kerfuffel about curve fitting and pattern recognition is a basic misunderstanding in finding a “constant” that helps balance an equation to come up with predictable results. Constants are found throughout basic formulas in science and engineering because we don’t know all the variable(s) but those variable(s) are responding in some predictable manner that allows them to be simplified sometimes as a raw unitless number, like Avogadro’s constant or in the Ideal Gas Law where R in PV=nRT is a constant (n being the moles which is also based on Avogadro’s constant). Meaning in effect that we are forced to use 2 constants to calculate a known empirically tested outcome.
I would also like to point out that even though the sun contains 99.85% of the solar system’s mass, because it is in freefall (which critics frequently cite to discredit that Landscheidt might have been on to something) it therefore has a weight of zero similarly as any object would that has a stable orbit around the earth, in over simplified layman’s terms: it floats. Because the sun floats, it can be moved with minimal force compared to it’s mass. With the result, the Bari-center motion of the sun around the solar system center caused by the motion of the planets can be calculated into the future with reasonable precision. Now because certain people dispute the cause for the bari-center motion of the sun then clearly it is no stretch to understand their resistance to any thought process that intimates that sun’s output and behavior may in some small measurable way be influenced by forces outside of it. Think of their objection based on the sheer mass of the sun as just another version of the Imprimatur Fallacy.
“Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.” – Archimedes
Being a long time but infrequent commenter on WUWT I too have noticed the undo influence of celeb status of certain people to the point that alternate theories or hypotheses are dismissed out of hand using the magic wand of the Imprimatur Fallacy of “Expert”.
Well the whole sorry affair has made me ‘leave’ teamwt̶f̶wossup… Maybe there will be a little better toleration here and hopefully without Mr popshot
Dear god, is this lunacy catching? I have just been accused on Jos thread of “hindering the recovery” from this spat, who knew I had such pull?
Maybe my (significant girth and attendant mass) is impacting the tides lol.
I dont break from lurking too often on these blogs as you know TB, preferring my own little pond in that backwater which we both occassion.
Perhaps I should if these “great brains” cant handle basic logical discourse.
All I can say to the players over at Antony’s place is “whats up with that” ?
Roger did you notice that Willis posted his response to your challenge on the 20 tunable parameters, he posted a nice chart, but of course no workings at all.
That guy is class act.
ACO: I did notice and asked Willis for the values for his additional parameters. I smell a rat, or maybe two rats.
tallbloke says:
January 23, 2014 at 12:14 am
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 22, 2014 at 6:34 pm
For what it’s worth, tallbloke, the Fourier transform of the sunspot cycle has no long-period peaks.
Which sunspot cycle did you transform Willis? you have 24 to choose from. Or do you mean the the fourier transform of the entire sunspot record? Surely you wouldn’t use such a blunt instrument on such delicate data. Actually, you would, to ‘show’ there’s ‘nothing there’. The same technique used in your analysis here:
I saw your reconstruction, well done. How well does it hindcast back past the Maunder Minimum?
Can we see the parameters you ended up with please.
===========================
Here’s the reply
Unconvincing, to say the least.
Alex says: ‘It is absurd to try to disprove the paper based on a claim the authors weren’t even making.’
Clear evidence of a pre-determined decision to go on the offensive, by the look of it.
OB: Not very scientific is it? An unedifying spectacle to say the least.
Tallbloke, I am glad you will be posting data and methods.
As I have said elsewhere that is what counts in science. The ability of an outside lab to replicate at least the math and preferably the whole experiment.
“Peer-review” isn’t worth the powder to blow it to the sun in my opinion. It is just the stamp of approval of the ‘Ole Boys Club the way it works now a days.
P.S. Glad to hear Lord Monckton has ridden to the rescue.
After my recent astounding exchange With Richard Courtney, who seems to believe I am the one with an issue rather than Poptech, he seems to continue to fail to grasp that my complaints are over the tactics being used on you and others and discomfort in seeing our side resorting to behaviour such as this
Given he has been subjected to the exact same treatment as you have at the hands of Poptech, there and elsewhere, One would surmise he would understand my point, the fact he doesn’t does make one wonder just what is going on over at Watts these days?
Time to leave these guys to it as the hypocrisy is getting to be more than mortal flesh can stomach!
Well said Pointman!
“In addition, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing and not in accordance with our publication ethics we expect to be followed by the editors. Therefore, we at Copernicus Publications wish to distance ourselves from the apparent misuse of the originally agreed aims & scope of the journal as well as the malpractice regarding the review process, and decided on 17 January 2014 to cease the publication of PRP.”
It seems to me that Mr. Rasmussen has handed the scientific publishing world a very sharp knife with his ‘kiss of death’ letter – it seems to establish some kind of a precedent. It will be interesting to see who gets the Rasmussen Razor next and how this one unfolds over time. Will it be Ras the Knife? or Ras the Knifed?
If it’s any consolation to you TB, knowing that I am likely wrong about a great many things I believe to be correct, I come to your Talkshop to reduce that number. I don’t expect to learn much new at WUWT, just keep up with current events. I don’t know about many of the theories presented here, I simply don’t know, but it very interesting to watch how these ideas are hashed out over time. As for Willis, definitely not someone I have learned to trust to be correct most of the time, he seems to have many more weak moments than bright moments. You can take that however you want.
Thanks for your all of efforts and keep up the good work.
Regards,
W^3