Was a scientific journal canned for disagreeing with the IPCC?
By Jonathan H. Adler, Published: JANUARY 20, 12:51 PM ET
Copernicus Publications, “the innovative open access publisher,” recently announced it was terminating one of its journals, Pattern Recognition in Physics due to concerns about the journal’s editorial practices
PRP was not even one year old. It seems the problems began when the journal’s editors agreed to a special issue on “Patterns in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts,” in which the issue’s editors had the temerity to “doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project.”(*)
According to the original explanation offered by Martin Rasmussen of Copernicus Publications, as reported by JoNova, the expression of this conclusion was a motivating factor for the “drastic decision” to terminate a journal. A letter to one of the editors also expressed “alarm” that a paper in PRP would question the IPCC.
Ful story here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/
______________________________________________
(*) See this webcitation, which confirms the original primary reason for the closure of the journal.
The Original papers are still published and although they cannot be accessed via the front page of PRP they are available at this link http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/special_issue2.html
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Yes.
Roger, slightly off topic, but quite revealing, see this Comment on Eschenbach’s latest attack on PRP
Paul Westhaver says:
January 24, 2014 at 11:16 pm
With respect to the 2008 paper above, WUWT ran a thread in 2010:
a later version of the work…
Willis E did not contribute to the commentary at that link.
Note that Post in 2010 on Cycles was by David Archibald and was not attacked by either Anthony or Eschenbach.
Ironically the paper quoted by Eschenbach as good Science is by Keeling.
‘the issue’s editors had the temerity to “doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project.” ‘
The editors of Copernicus can find pretty much the same information in the widely-read science journal ‘Nature’. Will someone be calling for it to be punished?
Title: ‘Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation.’
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525
Ah yes, but wheras the plan is to let the public down so slowly they won’t realise they’ve been conned, by e.g. wheeling out solar physicist Mike Lockwood on newsnight to say there might be a slim possibility of a 20% chance of a long solar slowdown that might conceiveably have a small effect on temperature notwithstanding the dangerous trace gases we’re emitting, our suppressed research shows a strong possibility of a big dip in solar activity spanning decades.
Yeah, looks like slow regime climbdown, also in Germany – Greens say nothing at all about CO2AGW anymore, only about homosexual bliss and unlimited immigration; Spiegel online forum populated completely by skeptics whenever they say Global Warming; The molluscs who form our government (Socialist-“conservative” coalition) climb down from their renewables subsidation.
Climbdown as the EU tries to avoid collapse.
It is interesting that Willis is less willing to consider that this affair was a push back by climatocrats than the WaPo.
Hunter: It is isn’t it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/01/20/was-a-scientific-journal-canned-for-disagreeing-with-the-ipcc/?tid=auto_complete
That’s the liink to the original article.
Volokh Conspiracy just moved to WAPO. To read the discussion in comments on the blog post Tall blocked linked, turn off auto forwarding and go here:
http://www.volokh.com/2014/01/20/scientific-journal-canned-disagreeing-ipcc/
[Reply] Thanks Lewd Jeer, link fixed. 😉
By the way: Jonathan Adler is the ‘conspiracist’ at Volokh who blogs on climate. So if you want to set up your RSS and catch the climate related posts, he’s the one to watch. (Otherwise, if you follow the full blog, you’ll see stuff on gun control, 4th amendment searches, free speech, obama care and so on.)
What would peer-review mean if a confirmed IPCC follower said “No!” to a paper that questioned the IPCC narrative?
Can you actually have a balanced peer-review on a topic that is so politicized and emotional and based much more on ideology (including the Precautionary Principle) that reason does not make the case?
The warmist will not admit that the Precautionary Principle trumps “normal” statistical determination of best-course for action. I note that all “low likelihood” cases of something like increases in extreme weather is also the case of HIGH likelihood of NO increases in extreme weather. Which is to say, the narrative fails. But that is not said.
The difference is very significant: only observations that support the hypothesis are discussed, the others being pushed to the side. The corollary – that observations falsify the hypothesis – if discussed, would weaken their position.
Hi Doug: Well yes.
At least sense seems to be prevailing in some quarters. In the US there have been some prosecurions for killing birds with subsidy farms. In the EU the subsidy farms have killed the subsidy tree.
The irrational economics and failing science fall foul of Stein’s Law: “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop,”
[…] here we have it yet another example of pattern recognition in physics – hard at […]