Pierre Gosselin over at the excellent Germany based ‘No Tricks Zone’ has a hot story on the sudden shutdown of journal ‘Pattern Recognition in Physics’ by Martin Rasmussen of Copernicus (The innovative science un-publishers). He’s found a screen capture of the PRP website frontpage before the spurious excuses for the closure were added to create a figleaf for this profoundly anti-scientific and illiberal action:
The Real Motivation Behind PRP Journal Shutdown Exposed: It Challenged IPCC Science!
By P Gosselin on 14. Februar 2014
The original motivation behind Copernicus Publishing director Martin Rasmussen’s decision to shut down the new journal Pattern Recognition Physics had nothing to do with the alleged “nepotistic” behavior among editors and peer-reviewers, but appears to have had all to do with politically incorrect questioning of IPCC orthodoxy. You can see how Rasmussen’s accusations appeared on PRP on the morning of January 17, 2014 at Bigcitylib.blogspot.com.
Note how the…
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.
…that you now see here was added later. The accusation was dubious at best, mostly entails personal intrigue and was added later to cover up the real motivation to distract from the real reason behind the magazine’s shut down. Clearly this really gets down to suppressing alternative views that threaten the popular global warming science. It’s a sad example of Germany succumbing to behavior of darker times.
Please restrict comments to the issue of suppressing alternative scientific explanations and the efforts involved therein and the merits of the science presented in the banned journal. Roger of Tallbloke’s Talkshop recently had an interesting post on the suppression of science that’s well worth reading. The harboring of disagreement with a particular science is not a reason for shutting it down. –
__________________________________
I added the following comment:
Thanks for posting this Pierre. I made a webcitation of BigCityLib’s article last week to ensure it cannot be ‘disappeared’ Our scientific work challenges not only the AGW global warming theory, but also mainstream theory concerning the cause of solar variability, and also perturbation theory which is a set of heuristics which try to account for the way we see harmonic resonance affecting the orbits of related solar system bodies. All our papers from the special edition of PRP are available here: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/prp-special-issue/ They will also soon be available at the now restarted journal here: http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.com/ –
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Reblogged this on CraigM350.
Tallbloke, I tried following the links, but I still do not get the “before” and “after” versions. Can you make this a little clearer?
ToofseekerTruthseekerCo-mod thinks this is direct
1. link to independent copy of original page where you need to click or whatever the image.there to open/enlarge a png
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2014/01/copernicus-publishing-temrinates.html
2. link to journal online live right now
http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.net/index.html
tchannon … thank you. Clarity has been achieved.
Clearly name spelling becomes a bit wayward at 2:40am …
Oops, looks at keyboard, umm, mind have wondered. Sorry about that.
Can someone point out specifically the “smoking gun” text? We remain two nations separated by a common language.
You won’t believe it, folks. Germany, the home of intentionally fake “science” Copernicus Publishing, seems mysteriously magnetic ground for specious anti-scientific attacks by mainstream academics.
Stephen Crothers, my email buddy and friend from Australia, he’s demonstrating to self-selected high priests in academia that their highschool maths forbids mathematical prediction of Black Holes and Big Bang: by simply showing them their own contradictions and Einstein’s own words in Einstein’s own work.
Since the high priests in academia are always invited for rebuttal but cannot circumvent their own pal-reviewed mathematical contradictions nor the deep observational facts, Steve receives much hate mail instead of scientific argument.
The most recent blast came from Alexander Khalaidovski, a junior postdoctoral researcher employed at the Max Planck Institute for guaranteed invisible Gravitational Waves, that’s named the Albert Einstein Institute in Hannover (Lower Saxony, around the corner here at my place where Steve and I meet to discussing matter of facts).
Khalaidovski proclaimed (Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:50 PM) by email (!) that he will treat the death of scientist Stephen Crothers as a joyful fact and throw a party to celebrate Steve’s death.
dp,
I hope the following is correct, two images plus highlighting.
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/cop-diff.gif (258kB)
A Bit Off Topic.
There is a very interesting Post on Bishop Hill on “orbital forcing is a triggering and control mechanism” at
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/2/15/mini-paradox-major-paradox.html
AC Osborn – not sure who wrote that- Nic somebody , I do not look at Lucia’s blackboard as in the past most of those were lukewarmers with doubtful technical (engineering science and costing) knowledge. When I saw that he mentioned England’s paper my first thought was a lukewarmer trying to give a leg up to the alarmist or maybe a hole from him to crawl through. England is cites himself as a modeller but he has no engineering qualifications to understand what to put in models. I understand that most of the climate models are black box models with a weighting on the various boxes. This type of model is not a real model in engineering sense. One needs to have a relation between the variables to get some useful output from input data. One can group variables into dimensionless numbers. This is useful for scaling up plant from laboratory and/or a pilot plant to full scale. Many may have heard of a Mach number but how many know about the Nusselt number or the Prandtl number or even the Schmidt number (which Dr Gavan Schmidt admitted he did not know its use)
Just posted this comment at WUWT on the most recent flooding thread as a reply to Anthony’s reply to someone who noted that you had the flooding history story first …
Truthseeker says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 16, 2014 at 2:54 pm
REPLY: Didn’t know he had it. Ever since he started madly and irrationally dissing WUWT and me for taking a stance on the integrity issues around the pal review journal of his, I’ve stopped reading his blog. Willis once predicted he’d be all alone talking to himself; it seems to have started. – Anthony
———————————————————————————
Well maybe you should start again because there is now clear evidence that you and Willis fell for a three card trick and there were never any integrity issues at all with the articles that were submitted to a journal owned and run by other people. BTW, this is not OT – you brought it up.
Lets see if it gets past moderation …
I had a discussion with Poptech here
http://notrickszone.com/2014/02/14/the-real-motivation-behind-prp-journal-shutdown-exposed-it-challenged-ipcc-science/#comment-918533
which may be interesting.
Poptech claimed that there was an agreement between the publisher and the editors about not covering climate change issue and in particular not to publish anything against the IPCC.
If it was true that Rasmussen asks his editors to not publish papers that may question the IPCC, that would be a big scandal.
Truthseeker says:
February 16, 2014 at 10:59 pm
…..
Anthony and Willis do tend to get very emotional about the slightest criticism and have difficulty ever accepting and admitting they may have got something wrong. As for “ending up on my own”, I’ve gained another 80 twitter followers since the PRP shutdown story broke, daily visits to this blog have increased around 30% and around 30 new people a week have signed up for new post notifications.
Moreover the scientific papers we wrote have been downloaded thousands of times, and I’m busy with correspondence from people who know an awful lot more than Anthony and Willis about tidal theory, resonant orbital harmonics, solar wind – magnetosphere interaction and exoplanetary systems.
In short, their whining and whingeing is a cover for their rash judgement, poor logic, censorship and bad maths. WUWT is still a great site for keeping up with the copies of stories they republish from elsewhere though. Willis writes some entertaining stories too.
In due course, Professor of Geophysics Sid-Ali Ouadfeul (who has never written contentious papers in the climate debate) will be putting an editorial online at the relaunched PRP journal covering the excuses made by Martin Rasmussen for Copernicus (The Innovative Science un-Publishers) axing the original. At least he hasn’t had the temerity to deny access to our papers, which are still published.
Tallbloke please explain to me why you not interested in serious of meteorologists that the polar vortex is blocked us from Siberia from autumn! After all, in the eyes of is beating. It is the cause severe of winter in the USA from October (snowstorm in South Dakota). I show at a glance:
1 Now the polar vortex a height of 30 km.
2.Now polar vortex height of 17 km.
3 Circulation at 850 hPa.
On the final graphic can be seen as a weak polar vortex “lets” the warm air above the polar circle.
1.http://oi60.tinypic.com/vmsjyw.jpg
2.http://oi60.tinypic.com/jsfrbl.jpg
3.http://oi60.tinypic.com/so4n7d.jpg
A beautifully shows a cosmic rays. 100 hPa.
Do you really can not see what is happening with the polar vortex? After all, it takes all winter.
Hi ren, trust me, I am interested. We will have a new discussion soon.
Climate McCarthyism 2014: http://s6.postimg.org/kdr0qt181/Climate_Mc_Carthyism.jpg
Hi Nik: Love the graphic. Surely Copernicus’ logo and location in Germany needs a mention too?
Potsdam is global warming central, home of the ridiculous Rasmus Benestad
My comment did get past moderation and got the following reply …
REPLY: Cyclomania aside, I don’t think Willis and I “fell” for anything. PMP Journal had reviewer rules, and those rules weren’t followed. That isn’t a debatable issue. I note Monckton has now distanced himself from it all, despite his claim of resurrecting the journal, which now isn’t going to happen under him. – Anthony
Anthony is ignorant of the background discussion . Not that this will stop him pontificating.
REPLY: Didn’t know he had it. Ever since he started madly and irrationally dissing WUWT and me for taking a stance on the integrity issues around the pal review journal of his, I’ve stopped reading his blog. Willis once predicted he’d be all alone talking to himself; it seems to have started. – Anthony
I saw this over there and could not believe Anthony is still at it.
I told Willis several times in one thread how disappointed I was in his gleeful trashing of the Physics Journal and Willis just whined that I should quote what I did not like. Oh my.
However, I must say that whole dust-up led to me finding this fine blog. For that, I am grateful. I don’t think “the tall bloke” need worry about only talking to himself as at least I will be listening. 🙂
– Mark
MarkS: Welcome and thanks for the support. I’ve tried pretty hard to keep things civil between WUWT and the talkshop over the last few years. It appears now that Anthony has taken the scientific disagreement to a personal level, impugning the integrity of eminent scientists and co-authors such as professor Giovanni Gregori, Willie Soon, Ollie Humlum, and his erstwhile friend David Archibald among others. Regrettable, but I have plenty of ammo saved up if he escalates hostilities around the ‘pal review’ angle. Willis will be most unhappy.
@markstoval and welcome also from me. I’m here because Rog is attracting intellectual power sports (people who e.g. can discuss the merits of alleged “Relativity Theory” without taking refuge in the role of insane academic buffoons), and from your article Libertarianism and Tolerance I know that Rog does a damned god job 😎
Posting here as the last PRP post I found.
No comment on the following from WUWT:
peer review is no guarantee that one paper is necessarily better than another. The problem with peer review is that it relies on volunteerism, and I suspect many scientists asked to review are often too busy to give the level of commitment required to fully analyze, test, and/or replicate a paper’s data/methodology they are asked to look at.