A conclusion and its implication in the summary paper was: because our scientific investigation leads us to the prediction that the Sun is headed into a protracted minimum, the warming forecast by the IPCC might not happen.
This has led to the journal being axed by the parent Publishing house Copernicus. The papers are still available at this link
Please download and disseminate them widely.
Heres the letter sent to Coordinating editor Nils Axel Mörner and chief editor Sid Ali Ouadfeul:
Dear Sid-Ali, dear Nils-Axel, We regret to inform you that we decided to terminate the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics (PRP).
While processing the press release for the special issue “Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts”, we read through the general conclusions paper published on 16 Dec 2013. 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”. Before the journal was launched, we had a long discussion regarding its topics. The aim of the journal was to publish articles about patterns recognized in the full spectrum of physical disciplines. PRP was never meant to be a platform for climate sceptics. In addition to our doubts about the scientific content of PRP, we also received information about potential misconduct during the review process. Copernicus Publications cannot risk losing its excellent reputation in the scientific community. We therefore wish to distance ourselves from the apparent misuse of the originally agreed aims & scope of PRP and decided today to cease the publication. This decision must come as a surprise for you, but under the given circumstances we were forced to react.
We hope that you understand our reasons for this decision. We thank you very much for your cooperation and wish you all the best for your future career. Best regards, Martin and Xenia
**************************************************** Copernicus.org Meetings & Open Access Publications Dr. Xenia van Edig Business Development Copernicus GmbH Bahnhofsallee 1e 37081 Göttingen Germany
In a brief response to me, Sid-Ali wrote:
I can not realize that one sentence on a conclusion of a scientific paper, even if it is true/wrong, it remains an opinion and anybody who is not ok with it is welcome to send his/her paper for discussion, can stop a project/result of hard work.
No comments
Prof OuadfeulPRP editor In Chief
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
I’m shocked at this censorship of science. Please maintain decorum in discussion below. Thanks.
That letter could be quite valuable in a few years.
[…] 10:45 a.m. Eastern: Here’s a new blog post from Tattersall including a letter sent from Copernicus to the journal’s editors, and another with background […]
Wow. How can a publisher discern the thematic profile of a journal after just one issue, and a special issue at that?
“Copernicus Publications cannot risk losing its excellent reputation in the scientific community. ” “Best regards, Martin and Xenia”
I guess their boss was not pleased with the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics concept. YOU must toe the PARTY LINE to be published. Only published PEER reviewed work is acceptable science. Therefor you are not doing respectable science.
Submit…. “You will be assimilated”.. The borg hive of the UN will prevail as they control the media.. or not.
The Internet is the future! “The net that covers the world” is the only real peer review. Anyone that wants, can publish here. To live or die intellectually in the opinion of your peers. Pal review will not protect you here. What real scientist wants to hide behind a paywall ! pg
Thanks Richard T.
The only reference my own papers make to the wider climate question was to express the hope that more able people would work on the celestial mechanics observations I presented because of the policy relevance of being able to predict solar activity years ahead.
‘Copernicus Publications cannot risk losing its excellent reputation in the scientific community.’
Only conformist science allowed, here’s the proof. Anything that appears to challenge existing doctrines has to be excluded. Pathetic.
Worrying that an editor can write:
“A conclusion and it’s implication in the summary paper was because our scientific investigation leads us to the prediction that the Sun is headed into a protracted minimum, the warming forecast by the IPCC might not happen.”
Illiterate gibberish. “it’s”?
[Reply] Thanks. I was a bit shocked while writing. I’ll correct the error.
Hope you get them to back up the accusation of misconduct!! With some evidence..
and accusations.. are not proof of actual!!
Ha ha ha, you’re a bunch of nutters paying to publish your junk and pretend that its peer reviewed. Didn’t take long for you to be rumbled.
All we need now is for RP Sr to show up and say you ought to show your stuff to NSF.
This one is even better than “Dr*” Tisdale’s untimely end. ROTFL.
A remarkable coincidence is that the journal was closed down the day after climate scientist Oliver Bothe stated on twitter that he was “wondering” about the journal.
The link to PRP above doesn’t work for some reason – goes to another Tallbloke blog page. This link takes you to PRP: http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/volumes_and_issues.html.
I’m sure PRP will find an alternative publisher who is not concerned about ‘risking their excellent reputation within the scientific community’, which statement I believe is a mask for a motive rather less genuine in origin.
http://www.copernicus-gesellschaft.org/history.html
Here are three recent tweets from climate scientists:
O. Bothe @geschichtenpost Jan 16
Wondering about “Pattern Recognition in Physics” http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.net/home.html http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.net/general_information/editorial_board.html … http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/special_issue2.html …
Gavin Schmidt @ClimateOfGavin Jan 16
@geschichtenpost Are you recognizing a pattern here? I wonder what journal you can send that observation to… hmm.
@warrenpearce
Ari Jokimäki @AGWobserver 10h
Copernicus Publications sets up a whole journal devoted to climate change denial http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.net/home.html
Wm, Control yourself, the more interesting question is how this thing ever got launched.
@
Richard Tol (@RichardTol) January 17, 2014 at 4:05 pm
“How can a publisher discern the thematic profile of a journal after just one issue, and a special issue at that?”
By Pattern Recognition in Publishing?
Hi Paul: Yes, and Leo Hickman has been stirring the pot too. Linking tweets to a scurrilous page accusing Sid-Ali of the heinous crime of ‘plagiarising’ six lines of his own work in a paper he wrote, from a book chapter he wrote earlier.
Truly pathetic.
Ooops.
By Preemptive Pattern Recognition in Publishing
I’m going to stick my neck out and guess that Richard T was being ironic?
Joe: 🙂
I think the publishers need no assistance in ruining their reputation. Good, bad or silly, the publishers should have dealt with the issues. Now they show themselves to be weak and lacking in scruples or wits.
Doug: I think Richard Tol made a valid point. This was a ‘special edition’ of PRP, dealing with solar system dynamics and a new hypothesis of the causation of solar and terrestrial variation. In no way does it prevent the journal from publishing research from any other discipline as part of its scientific offerings.
“In addition, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing…”
Oooh you bad boys. RT: are you in favour of nepotism in review? Come on, don’t be shy.
[Reply] I asked for reviewers from outside our discipline, but with it being a small field, there was crossover. But because the papers are open access, anyone can download, review and comment, so I don’t think it’s a big problem. Let our scientific work stand on its merit, rather than impugning the honesty of the scientists.
Thanks Jaime, I’ve fixed the link. It goes direct to the special edition downloads page
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/special_issue2.html
‘Copernicus Publications cannot risk losing its excellent reputation in the scientific community.’
As far as I am concerned Copernicus Publications scientific reputation is mud. Not because
it allowed the special issue to go ahead but because it axed the whole Pattern recognition in Physics
Journal.
For the record:
My paper had nothing to do with climate change. It was a paper about solar activity and solar activity alone.
In my paper, I did not reference any of the other publications in the special issue.
I believe that scientific referees should remain anonymous unless their is a direct conflict of interest involved.
The general conclusions of my paper have been supported work that has been published in:
Astronomy And Astrophysics
Solar Physics
amongst others.
Will Copernicus be disassociating itself from these journals as well?
Ian, it’s the general conclusions end-note Copernicus has got its knicks in a twist over, not our individual contributions. Let’s maintain perspective.
Copernicus’ action is a sad commentary on the lengths to which so-called scientific media will go to protect the deeply flawed CAGW hypotheses of the IPCC.
> For the record: My paper had nothing to do with climate change
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:If_you_lie_down_with_dogs,_you_get_up_with_fleas
[…] https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/breaking-pattern-recognition-in-physics-axed-by-copernicus… […]
Jo Nova has posted
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/01/science-paper-doubts-ipcc-so-whole-journal-gets-terminated
Communication in Italy, my blog and climatemonitor
My moral support for all you !
http://daltonsminima.altervista.org/?p=27565
Michele
Dr Casati: Thanks so much for your support. Good science will always succeed in the end.
Rog,
I live in Tuscany, Florence, Pisa etc …
Home to Da Vinci, Galileo, Fibonacci … etc …
I can not accept this situation
Wow. You’d think a second paper completely and ruthlessly debunking the first would be a better tactic. This says to me that serious business or political interests are threatened.
Anger is all about a loss of or threat to power. Confusion or disbelief or amusement is the response to foolishness. Dumping the magazine is equivalent to turning over the checkerboard when you realise you are losing the game to someone you consider your inferior.
Coperinicus is not the party threatened, the party threatened is above and beyond Copernicus.
I warned you.
‘In addition to our doubts about the scientific content of PRP, we also received information about potential misconduct during the review process.”
[Reply] Well so far both these claims are unsubstantiated, so we’ll have to see what Martin Rasmussen comes up with.
“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”.
You broke the golden rule. It’s only proponents of CAGW and AGW pseudoscience who are permitted to cause “alarm” in relation to climate change, and then only in relation to warming; certainly not cooling. You must never ever alarm the alarmists. Copernicus was a dyed in the wool real scientist. He must be turning in his grave with the way these ‘scientific publishers’ have misappropriated his name.
> I live in Tuscany, Florence, Pisa etc … Home to Da Vinci, Galileo, Fibonacci … etc …
> I can not accept this situation
I live in Cambridge… Home to Newton, Hawking, …etc…
I think this situation is very funny.
Look on the positive side: at least some people have actually *heard* of this journal now.
Actually, I thought AGW obsessed PROFESSOR Chris Turney’s expedition getting stuck in the ice whose disappearance was the main impetus FOR that expedition was a lot funnier than this sad little episode. But that’s just me. Weird sense of humour I guess.
Why is a known pusher of fraud, phony reviews, fabricated quotes and deliberate misrepresentation strutting around as if he is not?
Rog, you mention the 10Be data in the summary at the end. Do any of the papers actually present a long time series of 10Be? Anyone know where I can get my hands on the data? There’s 600 y here
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/ngrip/ngrip-10be.txt
Never been able to find the full 9000 year series.
Look on the bright side: these papers are already getting far more attention than they would have done without this ‘incident’.
People hurling abuse are merely adding to the interest as everyone likes to know what a controversy is about.
And hope this is not a daft question from a dumb geologist. How are the 41,000 year obliquity and 100,000 year eccentricity cycles explained?
“Misconduct in the peer review process” is a pretty serious accusation against you and the other editors Roger. If you think this is unfair I think you should provide us all with some details about the reviewing of the climate change papers. What precisely do you mean by “crossover” – this sounds very strange? There is no shortage of experts in the physics of climate change, the atmosphere and the sun (none of these are small fields), so I cannot see why this should need to occur.
I shall look forward to your detailed explanation.
[Reply] Similarly, I look forward to the detailed accusation. All we have so far is an unsubstantiated innuendo.
This morning I have received the email from Copernicus.
This is a very sad story. This is the only way people like Connolley and company can think to win a scientific debate.
The motivation of Rasmussen published in the journal are laughable. See them here:
http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.net/
First he label the editor as “climate skeptic”. This first accusation demonstrates the political aspect of the decision because the label “climate skeptic” is political, and not scientific.
Second he accused the editors to have published papers focusing only on “climate science” while the scope of the journal was multidisciplinary.
I need to say that only one paper [Suteanu (2013)] focuses on climate science. All the other papers focus on solar science, astrophysics, geophysics, network science and ocean science and mathematical data analysis methods. A very few papers have addressed climate related issues only in one short section.
Then he accuses the editors of having added this sentence that he evidently disliked: “doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project”.
However, on this recent article on Nature:
“Climate change: The case of the missing heat. Sixteen years into the
mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an
explanation.” by Jeff Tollefson
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525
Here you will find that, as today well known to every expert in the field, global warming has halted since 1997 and the IPCC models have failed to reproduced this temperature standstill. In the Nature article one can read this clear sentence:
“On a chart of global atmospheric temperatures, the hiatus stands in stark contrast to the rapid warming of the two decades that preceded it. Simulations conducted in advance of the 2013–14 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the warming should have continued at an average rate of 0.21 °C per decade from 1998 to 2012. Instead, the observed warming during that period was just 0.04 °C per decade, as measured by the UK Met Office in Exeter and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK.”
So, the statement “doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project” is not at all questionable. Numerous papers published on numerous journals have similar sentences. Evidently, Rasmussen did not spend much time trying to understand the physical issue behind the statement. which also demonstrates the political aspect of the decision.
Finally he accused the editors of “nepotism.” I do not know how many nephews the editors have but, without demonstrating first that the published papers contain factual scientific errors, the accusation is empty and it is a libel.
My papers have received very good and professional reviews for what I am concerned.
But I do acknowledge that this is the political word of Connolley and company. Nature (not the journal, but the real thing) will fix the problem before or later.
What likely happened is that the usual defamers, unable to use scientific arguments to win a debate, have used “intimidation” instead of arguments. This is a story that is repeating again and again.
The published papers are great. Please read them:
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/issue1.html
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/2/issue1.html
Our special issue is here
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/special_issue2.html
Perhaps, concerned people and scientists should write to the journal to express their opinion.
Copernicus Publications: publications@copernicus.org
asking to forward to Rasmussen.
If you so decide, please be polite.
Euan good q. More later. Out at a meeting just now.
A letter sent from Giovanni Gregori to Nils-Axel Mörner which makes one ponder about what is going on in Europe relating to the the state of Science and its (non)importance.
Dear Niklas,
Yes, it is unbelievable, although I am not actually surprised, and I want to express my friendly understanding to you. I would like to stress a few points.
1) Science is not democracy, rather it is a rigorous dictatorship, and the dictator is Mother Nature. Nobody, in a VERY strict sense, is depository of absolute truth.
2) Solar-terrestrial relations are extremely complicate and cannot be explained by either one cause alone, or another.
3) Climate change is ongoing, and everybody can realize it.
4) The consequence of planetary effects on the Sun is one likely or possible cause, but among several others, maybe even much more relevant.
5) Claiming that everything is to be largely explained by one leading driver – identified with anthropic pollution – is manifestly simple-minded, unscientific, oversimplifying, and uncritical.
6) I recall an authoritative and very documented study by John Quinn, who did an authoritative, unbiased, exhaustive, and largely multidisciplinary investigation. He shows that several so-called “generally agreed” or “fully proven” results are evidently NOT confirmed by observational data.
7) In particular he shows that every effect of solar origin is first manifested inside Earth’s phenomena somewhat related to geomagnetic monitoring, much earlier than any other effect manifested by means of other climatic indicators.
8) Mostly, it must be stressed that science is made of IDEAS, both wrong AND correct, that must be debated, compared with observations, in order to find confirmation or denial by our severe and generous “dictator”. Measurements alone with no ideas make NO science. ALL ideas MUST be discussed, debated, if we want to approach truth that, however, will always remain beyond human reach.
9) Every approach that relies on paradigms (mostly when they are NOT supported by observations) is just unacceptable by every conscience-driven scientist. Consider the huge amount of causalities, tragedies, sufferance, damages, economic and not only economic, that – during few year – millions of people have to face as a consequence of natural catastrophes.
10) All scientists share the same human weakness and limitations – just like myself and everybody. And one has to accept everybody with a friendly feeling of understanding. BUT, owing to fundamental ethical and deontological reasons, nobody can feel IRRESPONSIBLE in front of her/his primary human obligation.
11) The situation is made even more serious – and deeply disappointing – by a large part of the so-called “science popularization” (“irresponsible” according to some very authoritative scientist) which is further amplified by mass media. It relies on catastrophism and sensationalism, often reporting incredible arguments. Let me just recall for instance the statement that atmospheric global warming causes the melting of the Antarctic ice-sheet …..
12) Managing and diffusing false information through the powerful present mass media – by taking advantage of the open-minded and cooperative feeling of several good parts of society – is just one true way to carry out “cultural terrorism”.
13) I guess that it is almost offensive for me to be included in the ensemble of “climate skeptics” (as stated in the reply you got from “Martin and Xenia”). Evidently, these “Martin and Xenia” are “victims” of this generalized feeling, and have been totally biased by the ongoing “cultural terrorism”. I can even understand their “human weakness”. BUT, for sure, absolutely I am NOT a climate skeptic, I am NOT related to any lobby either pro or con anything or anybody! I am sure that several true (NOT FALSE and self-claiming) scientists are related to NO lobby at all. They are just conscience-driven and they just want to “read the book written by Mother Nature” BEFORE reading the books written by savants. This statement is not by myself. It is by Leonardo, who was seriously concerned with the “Aristotelian scientists”. They were a very powerful lobby inside the establishment of his time (two centuries after Leonardo, also Giordano Bruno and Galileo knew very well how powerful they were). Leonardo called “trumpets” the self-claiming scientists who reported only opinions of others, instead of “reading the book of Nature”. Time elapses, definitions change, but human weakness and limitations are always the same ….
Evidently, several people of the present establishment have a different feeling about the way science ought to be communicated to society, in order to relief sufferance, causalities, etc. Everybody must respond to her/his consciousness, and she/he has to behave accordingly, independent of any other feeling or opinion. The great tragedies caused by natural catastrophes are a MUST in our conscience. A scientist is a scientist, and nothing else! I don’t fell offended indeed …… because my conscience knows that I am a “scientist”, while several other people evidently don’t even know the true meaning of “science”.
But, nobody of us can oppose the action of somebody who is apparently very well organized in pursuing her/his plans.
Very cordially yours,
Giovanni
I have to say, seeing William Connolley lecture people on ethical behavior is a new one.
It’s a German based publication. You would think that after Alfred Wegener that they would be a bit more open minded to ideas that differ from perceived wisdom.
The letter from Giovanni Gregori is inspiring.
For those who may not know him, Giovanni Gregori is a prestigious geophysicist.
http://www.ievpc.org/id64.html
Hey, a Conneolley (Don Colleoney) infestation! Congrats, Tallbloke, you have caught the eye of “Going at the throat of science” himself.
“Publications Dr. Xenia van Edig Business Development Copernicus GmbH Bahnhofsallee 1e 37081 Göttingen Germany ”
…Göttingen is about as leftist as it gets; a small town built around a federal prison and a university, with a high concentration of Red SA/ black bloc; the university is a leftist rat’s nest and mostly soft sciences. Nothing good can come from this town.
So,
If one perceives patterns in celestial dynamics
and similar patterns in solar dynamics
and similar patterns in changes to the distribution of Earth’s climate zones
that must be suppressed ?
Pattern recognition is just that. Why should it be in some way illegitimate to discuss such patterns in a Journal devoted to pattern recognition just because they have potentially adverse implications for the climate orthodoxy ?
A great way to get publicity though 🙂
William Connolley: I fight daily battles with nepotism in review. It is a reason to retract a paper. If it happens repeatedly, it is a reason to replace an editor. It is no reason to pull a journal.
If William Connolley opposes a Journal, then one is pretty safe to support it.
Tony.
As a mathematical physicist, I find the situation outrageous.
Recall the CRU email
[2007] Wils: What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably,
in which they realized that climate behavior looked more and more the natural periodicity.
I will write to each of the directors, suggesting that they change the name of their organization from
“The Copernicus Group”
to
“The Torquemada Group”
Please take action
http://www.copernicus-gesellschaft.org/history.html
This is outrageous. Have the new world order mafia paid a visit to the publisher with a threat?
Does this mean that Copernicus is no longer a scientific publishing house and and has decided to be a left wing political rag?
> I fight daily battles with nepotism in review
Splendid. But you’ve yet to make any comment about the nepotism problems here, other than to defend the journal. So that’s just a touch odd: its almost as if you want to avoid saying anything negative about it. Don’t be shy: you’re not normally loathe to criticise.
> It is no reason to pull a journal.
If the entire journal is infested with nepotism, then yes it is. Although that’s not why they say they pulled it – it was because of the “science” being pushed.
ps: its fun to note that Jo Nova initially and mysteriously failed to include the “nepotism” paragraph. I put in a comment pointing out her error, which she has fixed, but again mysteriously my comment didn’t appear.
[Reply] I’ll post the screencaps of my comments you’ve censored on your blog another day.
Copernicus is the publisher of the EGU journals. Scientists who disagree with censorship could complain to the EGU for their choice of publisher and refuse to review for those journals still published by Copernicus. After all, the publishing of scientific journals is a very lucrative business that depends on the unpaid work of peer scientists.
There is little point, the old man (b 1941) is I suspect past it, has lost control of what he did: –
“In a revision of the statutes of Copernicus e.V. in 2010, the office of president was abandoned and Sir Ian Axford was posthumously awarded the title honorary president. The executive board consists of the secretary and the treasurer. These offices are held currently (2013) by Dr. Arne Richter and Martin Rasmussen.”
That means the organisation was subsumed and possesses a trivial board.
However the devil in detail, in this ghastly document there is
“Succession & familiy tradition (M. Rasmussen) for benefit of EGU and other customers”
— http://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/pr_acp_poschl_arne_richter_wien2010_up31.pdf
Click to access CV_Rasmussen.pdf
Make of that what you will.
The hypocrisy couldn’t be more glaring: “PRP was never meant to be a platform for climate sceptics.” – IAW, if you had toes the line of the IPCC, this wouldn’t have happened.
If this is not a clear-cut case not just of censorship but of the Lysenkoism displayed in the climate “Science” community (people like Turney of Antarctic fame, for example …), then I don’t know.
I hope this will make a huge stink across the academic world – the one populated by real scientists, not activists.
Wow, the fact that the journal was pulled is incredulous but the appearance of the Rat and the Rabbit certainly means that a nerve has been severed. Keep up the good work you’re in the pool with the big fish now.
It appears that Mr. Connolley can spot other peoples fleas but cannot see his own.
William Connolley says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 17, 2014 at 8:32 pm
Jgc says:
January 17, 2014 at 8:56 pm
tchannon says:
January 17, 2014 at 8:59 pm
Jgc says:
January 17, 2014 at 8:56 pm
Lord Beaverbrook says:
January 17, 2014 at 9:12 pm
Hmmm. Indulging in a little light conversation control, eh. You don’t want to let through comments you dislike too quickly, it might upset the flow of sycophants.
[Reply] As I posted earlier, I’ve been out at a meeting, just back now. At the top of the thread I asked people to be polite. You’ve failed to discuss any science and have descended to ad hom insults, so out you go.
Here is the content of the letter I sent to Rasmussen and Richter.
Dear Professor ….,
I read with dismay about your decision to terminate the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics, because the editors “doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project.”
As you may have noticed, the IPCC climate models are already, after only 7 years, with 95% confidence, wrong.
Your decision puts to shame the idea of open publications, and is contrary to modern science in general.
In particular, it is very much against the spirit of Copernicus.
Your legacy in science will consist of earning for your group the nickname “Torquemada Publications.”
[signed]
PS The consensus climate scientists were aware of the periodicity described in your journal issue. They wrote
[2007] Wils: “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably”
The people who terminated the journal are
Martin Rasmussen, Director, Copernicus Publications
martin.rasmussen@copernicus.org
Arne Richter, Founding Member and General Secretary of the Copernicus Gesellschaft e.V.
“A multi-talented character who has made a difference in scientific publishing”
(and how!)
Click to access pr_acp_poschl_arne_richter_wien2010_up31.pdf
akrichter@linmpi.mpg.de
@ Stephen Wilde 7:43pm
Exactly so. There appears to be more than a hint of paranoia at work in ‘official climate science’ at present. Hence the ad homs get louder as the scientific arguments get weaker in the face of a climate system that refuses to conform to the beloved computer models.
[…] Breaking: Pattern Recognition in Physics Axed by Copernicus. […]
The home page of PRP has now been set to forward directly to
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/volumes_and_issues.html
Ours is under ‘special editions’
Which means that Martin Rasmussen’s statement regarding the termination of the journal including his vague and unsubstantiated accusations are no longer visible. I expect someone with some legal knowledge advised him to remove access to it.
Fortunately Jo Nova preserved it.
Here’s James Annan crowing http://julesandjames.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/recognising-pattern.html
Thanks Richard. Comment left at James Empty(headed) Blog
Hi James,
Maybe a it early to start crowing?
It seems Martin Rasmussen may have had second thoughts, the homepage which carried his statement about closure is no longer visible and redirects to the page where our special edition is linked. All papers are still freely downloadable as of now.
Regards
Rog Tallbloke
Dr Scafetta sent me his great research paper several days ago, a validation and AMPLIFICATION of Milankovitch 1914 “Astronomical Theory of the Ice Ages”. I was struck by the elegant symmetry of the solar system harmonics and the high corollations to climate. I CCed this to dozens of top scientists on all three sides of the debate, the Darth BIG Warmers, the Luke LITTLE Warmers and the Obie NO Warmers. I was STUNNED at the overt censorship by PRP in defiance of the Traditional Scientific Method. By their actions you will know them. Please download this excellent work and share with others.
Truth will Triumph.
Giovanni’s comments above, as Nicola Scafetta says, are indeed inspiring; some of the most lucid and insightful I have read on climate change blogs.
We do seem to forget that Nature holds all the trump cards here and the ‘science’ which we so often elevate to such dizzying heights and enshroud in the false aura of academic ‘respectability’ is but the mode of expression which we as humans choose to convey Nature’s inner workings, even when, as the case may or may not be, Nature’s measurable response to our own activities. Nature speaks, we interpret, often falteringly or incorrectly. A good scientist never trusts his/her interpretation, he/she merely works to hopefully improve upon that interpretation or discard it when it begins to look like it is not correct.
The arrogance of a mere publisher discarding a whole series of interpretations (an entire journal) on the basis that it does not accord with another, far more politically acceptable interpretation plus unspecified ‘potential’ irregularities in the review process is complete anathema and glaring evidence of politically motivated censorship.
Another epic ship of fools garners attention for skepticism just as Mother Nature vindicates it. That the Mann-supported, headline-grabbing Marcott 2013 faux hockey stick established peer review in climatology as being utterly broken, puts this extreme measure in perspective as being desperately totalitarian, a truly bad PR move. Yippie!
Looks like Rasmussem’s lawyer read the letter and said ‘what the hell have you done.’
I have no dog in this fight, too much for an old engineer to grasp. But life experience and scars leaves me wary of those who allow themselves the luxury of arrogance.
Immediate arrogance, bluster and lack of substance are symptoms of concern over certainty.
The reactions to this announcement sure makes me think somebody, somewhere, is running scared, but of what? Time will tell!
We live in interesting times!
Tallbloke,
while I understand this may be disappointing news in the short term, I would have to agree with Richard111’s comment. This letter is of considerable value.
That “ Copernicus Publications cannot risk losing its excellent reputation in the scientific community.” is actually in the body text is just too delicious 😉
I believe you should communicate immediately with Copernicus Publications politely requesting a hard copy on company letterhead.
First, as Richard111 suggests, a nicely framed copy will be quite valuable in the very, very near future. I suspect Copernicus Publications would be the highest bidder.
Second, a request for hard copy often makes the recipients of the request stop and think. Often along the lines of “did we just do something so incredibly inane that it beggars the imagination?”.
Konrad: I don’t think Copernicus will supply any hard copy. Indeed Martin Rasmussen’s comment has already disappeared from the PRP website…
Hopefully our printed special edition copies will make it to us.
Anthony Watts has posted
William Connolley says:
January 17, 2014 at 5:25 pm
“In addition, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing…”
Oooh you bad boys. RT: are you in favour of nepotism in review? Come on, don’t be shy
————————————————————————————————————————–
Need reminding? From Climategate –
“we’ll keep these papers out, even if it means we have to redefine what peer-review means”
You can edit the “history” in little Jimmy’s sand pit, but not in the real world. It is said that History is written by the victors. This is no longer strictly true in the age of the Internet. History is now written as it happens. But how it is interpreted will still be framed by the victors. In the climate debate that is the sceptics. The corpse of global warming cannot be re-animated, nor can it be hidden.
Over 5000 pro-consensus climate edits was it? Hmmm….
tallbloke says:
January 17, 2014 at 11:38 pm
“I don’t think Copernicus will supply any hard copy. Indeed Martin Rasmussen’s comment has already disappeared from the PRP website…”
——————————————————————————
No hard copy? Awwww….
Is someone wincing and biting his fist so hard he swallowed his eyes and lost a few fingers? 😉
Interesting times, the whole CAGW side of it in particular.
But what ever happens to this journal in the future I would encourage a move away from the appearance of PAL review that this journal has been criticized for. It does our cause no good.
I have a particular gripe with the just published I. Charvátová and P. Hejda paper in Pattern Recognition in Physics. The reviewers (tallbloke being one) .
Charvátová for decades has been talking about the disordered orbit and how it aligns (roughly) with times of solar slowdown. It is now known what exact planetary configuration causes the SINGLE disordered orbit of around 10 years which disturbs the balanced trefoil arrangement around the SSB and it is also known how to quantify the planetary alignment and the SINGLE disordered orbit in respect to predicting solar downturn at the solar cycle level. This new knowledge allows more accurate predictions of single grand minima type cycles which has shown to be more accurate than Charvátová’s 2007 prediction for solar cycle 24 of 140SSN.
This new knowledge was first made available in 2008 and then published in 2010 at arxiv.org and then later published (2013) in the peer reviewed International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics.
The paper is titled:
Are Uranus & Neptune Responsible for Solar Grand Minima and Solar Cycle Modulation?
Click to access 1005.5303.pdf
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=36513#.Utm85fZ9Jz8
As Editor and peer reviewer Roger Tattersall failed in his duty to science and should have instructed Charvátová and Hejda to include the new science in their paper as it is directly relevant and is a new discovery that explains the disordered orbit.
Roger has been aware of my work for years but has refused to discuss it at the “talkshop” or indeed include it in the scientific literature where it is directly relevant where he had direct control.
A new paper in press at Solar Physics by esteemed authors will soon be available which is in full agreement with the basic principles I have outlined in my paper.
Comment left at WUWT (Currently awaiting moderation)
Blimey. Good job my papers aren’t about a tidal theory then. In fact the majority of the papers in the special edition don’t espouse a tidal theory. Pity Anthony didn’t take the trouble to read before dismissing them. But never mind. Scientists are reading them, judging by the number of downloads.
Copernicus’ Martin Rasmussen’s statement about shutting down PRP on the homepage is now no longer accessible, as the page immediately redirects to the ‘issues’ page, where our special edition is still linked. All the papers are still available for open access free download. So interested WUWT readers can make up their own minds about our work.
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/special_issue2.html
Our curve fitting model now successfully replicates 400 years of solar observations to R^2=0.91. The model shows good correspondence with 14C reconstruction back to the C11th.
When I accessed the website just now, Mr. Rasmussen’s statement was still there.
http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.net/
Yes, statement by Rasmussen is there. But let’s look at the first 2 sentences:
“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.”
A Göttingen publication (as maoist-red-green orthodox as imaginable) and CLIMATE SKEPTICS!!!! ROTFLMAO!!! That’s like a succubus in the Vatican!
Thanks RJ: Amazing, there seems to be a battle going on. Anyway, page duly grabbed and will appear at:
http://www.webcitation.org/6Mhpi0uiZ
Richard Tol uttered: “How can a publisher discern the thematic profile of a journal after just one issue, and a special issue at that?”
Maybe because they have a whole lot of other journals and if one tanks their reputation it would hurt their business model? C’mon Richard, you know better than that.
Piers Morgan while slightly vilified by meteorologists everywhere, even Anthony Watts, is correct in the blatantly obvious conclusion that the sun (you know, the main source of heat in the heat driven system) is the primary driver of climate.
solar/lunar/axial tilt/magnetic fields/orbital cycles have remarkable correlation to climate shifts and weather events.
To claim a trace GHG with a logarithmic forcing and no causal correlation to past climate shifts/temperature trends is the primary driver is idiotic in the extreme.
To censor a paper that points out the irrefutable fact that models exaggerate the observed warming 3 fold is Orwellian and corrupt to say the least.
I would like to know what they consider corruption of the review process because the criminal peer review process that has allowed many shoddy, fallacious, flaw-filled alarmist papers through via a who’s who of Alarmist scientists on the payroll of governments everywhere definitely dwarfs any skeptic like-mindedness amongst the reviewers of the paper in question.
The arrogance of the alarmist establishment and their complete confidence in their political power is mind-blowing. Years ago they would not contemplate such Communist-style censorship.
No body expects the Spanish inquisition. Math hard, reality is a bitch.
I’ve honestly been having this little conversation with myself for the last month:
“I really want a copy of PRP. I know it’ll be good. It’s got all the stuff I’m interested in. Trouble is I don’t wanna pay online, don’t like it. I wonder if Rog’ll take a cheque? Nah! Cheques are old fashioned. Don’t wanna look old fashioned. Maybe I can go round his gaff and give him the cash? I’d better make my mind up soon cos all the copies will be gone and anyway it’s a win win situation cos I can read it, put it in the cupboard and wait….and in 20 years time after all the furore it’s caused has run its course I can open the cupboard, get it out and sell it for a FORRRRRTUNE!”
And I was thinking about the furore in solar physics, Leif and co., not climate change!
Oh well, there goes my pension.
By the way Rog, I don’t like this untrue description of my world:
“doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project.”
“Continued” means it has been happening in the recent past not 13 years ago and counting. Using that word is misleading people to think that the Earth is warming.
Please change to “resuming for no particular reason at some unspecified time in the distant future”.
Thanks
Rog,
Sorry to sound like the guy in “The Meaning of Life” that said: “But, I didn’t eat the pate!!!..” as Death led all the party goers away.
I feel more like one the elated Greek soldiers hiding in the Trojan horse INSIDE the Gates of Troy.
Rasmussen and the other catastrophic warmists are like Hector and Paris, the leaders of Troy. They think that by axing the PRP Journal [i.e. accepting the Trojan Horse within the city’s walls], the skeptics will be defeated and they will go home with their tail between their [collective] legs.
Little does Rasmussen know that his odious act of axing the PRP Journal has focused the World’s attention on our merry-band of warriors who are about to emerge from the Trojan Horse and sack the sacred temples and walls of the impregnable IPCC….. I mean Troy.
P.S. Does that make Nils a modern day Agamemnon and you the modern day Ajax?
Typical Streisand effect.
Otherwise I am absolutely sure Copernicus Publications has greatly improved its already excellent reputation in the scientific community by publishing the story of the little Grünmithut, which is cared for as a foundling for a day of many meadow nature. So Hannah grasshopper, spider leg Polina, Edward the Paramäulchen, Miss Maja silk spring and all the other friends lovingly take care of the little ones. Hannah grasshopper asked all her friends to learn in the hope something about the whereabouts of his mother. Unfortunately, their search is fruitless and only in the evening, after a long day of searching, Grünmithuts Mama is found.
Committed Climate Scientists must have loved zis stuff.
Does anyone here have a concept of what “pattern recognition” may mean? Please show any better way to distinguish chaotic from random. Even the definitions of the two words is always chaotic, never random. Please distinguish?
If Wikipedia vandal and general alarmist “Stoat” Conelly is dancing with delight, it seems to me it must have had a very great deal going for it.
“PRP was never meant to be a platform for climate sceptics.” 🙂 🙂 🙂
As satan is my witness, I can’t remember the last time I choked with laughter. And you know, TB, I’m not laughing at you.
1. This was the most extraordinary way of stopping publicity for these papers. The views of the various authors will be read around the world. I have downloaded all the .pdf’s for careful reading, and I am sure that many others who were never aware of them have done likewise.
2. “the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis” would disturb Mr. Rasmussen’s lawyer.
Nepotism is a strange word to use unless the referees were indeed related, and if not true then it could appear libellous. In the absence of any evidence have you thought of consulting a lawyer?
3. Thank you for allowing William Connolley some space to demonstrate his character to those, including myself, who have never had any contact with him. I need say no more.
Best wishes to you and the other authors for a happy new year.
Congrats Rog, somehow you have a way of rocking the boat like nobody else can. The rabbit and the weasel caring enough to post are an unexpected bonus.
This is the sentence that shuts down a journal:
“This sheds serious doubts on the issue of a continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project.”
Will Janoschka says:
January 18, 2014 at 2:13 am
“Does anyone here have a concept of what “pattern recognition” may mean? Please show any better way to distinguish chaotic from random. Even the definitions of the two words is always chaotic, never random. Please distinguish?”
———————————————–
“Patten recognition” is a term most coonlmmy aatessocid with hmaun vuaisl or auordity ptioercepn. It can be sowhn that the eybaell can only see two deeegrs of cooulr vioisn yet we peiverce a far grateer vuaisl field in coulor. This is bausece our brian pantis in what our eye does not see thugroh a prceoss of paerttn recotiognin. This is also true for obctjes and comomn imgeas such as wodrs. 😉
Eli Rabett says:
January 18, 2014 at 12:49 am
————————————–
This sorry incident is just part of pattern of atrocious behaviour by the defenders of the consensus. Attacking science within the field of climate is one thing, attacking work in other disciplines to defend the faith is quite another. That is not scraping the bottom of the barrel, that is digging in the feculent slime below it.
It doesn’t look like AGW can survive till the end of 2014. Even now the BBC is frantically trying to engineer their “solar minimum” exit strategy.
But things have gone way, way too far for a “soft landing”.
When the smoke clears from the crater of global warming, a lot of stories are going to come to the attention of the general public. Attacking other science disciplines to defend the faith is something the public can easily recognise as grossly unethical, venal and craven.
Svensmark comes to mind.
So too does Makarieva 2010 meteorology discussion paper.
When bolting for the bushes, little bunnies should watch out for the shining wire 😉
Hans Jelbring says:
January 17, 2014 at 7:12 pm
————————————-
Great comment!!!
Connolly shows his class. Again. “Free fall” comes to mind.
I have been fighting Connolly for some time on his insistence to maintain that Landscheidt called the current grand minimum (if it happens) after himself.
WIKI says:
In 1989, Landscheidt forecast a period of sunspot minima after 1990, accompanied by increased cold, with a stronger minimum and more intense cold which should peak in 2030 [1], which he described as the “Landscheidt Minimum” [2]
I pointed out to him several times when trying to amend the record that in no place in the referenced paper [2] does Landscheidt name any grand minimum after himself.
Connolly just says bad luck and refuses to correct the record or allow anyone else to correct.
A true Bastian of science in action?
Comment post on WUTW:
I think that Anthony get a little bit too excited. This is a blatant case of censorship.
As Anthony states, proper rebuttals of the issues addressed in the papers would have been the right scientific way to do this. But this option was evidently dismissed. Too dangerous to write rebuttals that are then soundly rebutted by a proper reply.
As the things are now, only one paper published in PRP has been fully rebutted. I will talk about this below.
About the papers of the special issue that only briefly address the climate issue (I have published two papers in the special issue and only one section in one of the two addresses the interpretation of climate change), none has been rebutted. So, contrary to Anthony statement there was no “planetary theory fiasco” but only a political decision by the publisher to terminate the publications of this journal that evidently do not fit his scientific views that clearly opposes having as editors of a journal people that he defined as “climate skeptics”. He was very clear. In brief, “climate skeptics” cannot serve as editors of a science journal belonging to Copernicus.
However, all papers are free and can be downloaded from the web-site of the journal
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/issue1.html
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/2/issue1.html
The special issue is here
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/special_issue2.html
My papers are here to everybody to read:
1) Multiscale comparative spectral analysis of satellite total solar irradiance measurements from 2003 to 2013 reveals a planetary modulation of solar activity and its nonlinear dependence on the 11 yr solar cycle
Click to access prp-1-123-2013.pdf
2) The complex planetary synchronization structure of the solar system
Click to access prp-2-1-2014.pdf
Ironically, paper number 2 is a review of multisecular literature that starts with Copernicus’s De revolutionibus orbium coelestium of 1543. Poor Copernicus! He is revolting in his tomb. The paper can be hardly rebutted without rejecting also Copernicus, Kepler and so on up to modern times. Please read it, it is quite informative.
About Anthony’s bias based on his two points, my reply are the following:
“1) The gravitational effects at distance are simply too small to exert the forces neccessary,”
This issue is extensively discussed in my publication:
Scafetta N., 2012. Does the Sun work as a nuclear fusion amplifier of planetary tidal forcing? A proposal for a physical mechanism based on the mass-luminosity relation. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 81-82, 27-40.
Click to access ATP3610.pdf
Moreover, if Anthony had read my papers, he would know that also an electromagnetic influence may be possible. This is made of electric current connections between the planets and the sun, which do not depend on the distance.
“2) The methodology employed often results in hindcast curve fitting a theory to data, where the maxim “correlation is not causation” should have been considered before publishing the paper.”
This again is erroneous. The methodology employed at least in my papers is equivalent to the methodology used for predicting the ocean tides on Earth. Here harmonic models that use astronomical harmonics are used to reconstruct the solar and climate patterns. At least my models are tested on their hindcasting forecasting capability and are successful for centuries, and are supported by several physical arguments.
See here for the correct forecast of the temperature I made in 2010:
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model_1
Anthony simply does not understand the tidal ocean model by Kelvin et al.
But now lets go back to the main point. Above I said “As the things are now, Only one paper published by PRP has been fully rebutted. I will talk about this below.” Which paper am I talking about?
Well, it was a paper by Benestad:
Comment on “Discussions on common errors in analyzing sea level accelerations, solar trends and global warming” by Scafetta (2013).
Click to access prp-1-91-2013.pdf
Here Benestad tries to rebut my paper:
Discussion on common errors in analyzing sea level accelerations, solar trends and global warming
Click to access prp-1-37-2013.pdf
Benestad’s comment was soundly rebutted in my reply:
Reply to Benestad’s comment on “Discussions on common errors in analyzing sea level accelerations, solar trends and global warming” by Scafetta (2013)
Click to access prp-1-105-2013.pdf
The issue discussed here was the fragrant mathematical errors made in a paper by Benestad and Schmidt (2009) on JGR that was extensively discussed also on WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/04/scafetta-benestad-and-schmidt%E2%80%99s-calculations-are-%E2%80%9Crobustly%E2%80%9D-flawed/
Thus, I think that Anthony got it wrong. This journal, PRP, was terminated simply because it was too dangerous to allow a scientific dialectic of rebuttals and replies. To do that one needs editors that publish the rebuttals but not the reply which would not have happened with the current editors. So, the publisher decided to close the journal. But no paper published there has been rebutted, only Benestad’s one was. So, those papers stand as they are.
Anthony, it would be nice if you start reading these papers.
Anthony reply:
REPLY: I’ve read your papers in the past, and decided they were junk. I don’t expect these to be any better, but I’ll have a look. – Anthony
Looks like someone at Copernicus is rapidly earning a spot in the Hall of Shame?
Their hasty mumbling about “nepotism” is a major double standard for the field of pulp Cli-Sci. But there is nothing to stop every paper in the special issue being reviewed by an entirely new anonymous panel. This is a delay in planetary theory but not a show-stopper.
The mainstream climate science consensus is clear: the Talkshop is where all the cutting edge science will have to remain! 😉
Please let Mr Connolly have some airspace as that is what keeps a blog going well. You can delete some of the invective but the puissance go the man is just begging to be shown here.
Otherwise you are acting a bit like Copernicus.
Give him a go and shoot down his arguments, if he has any.
Konrad. says:
January 18, 2014 at 3:31 am
Will Janoschka says:
January 18, 2014 at 2:13 am
“Does anyone here have a concept of what “pattern recognition” may mean? Please show any better way to distinguish chaotic from random. Even the definitions of the two words is always chaotic, never random. Please distinguish?”
———————————————–
“Patten recognition” is a term most coonlmmy aatessocid with hmaun vuaisl or auordity ptioercepn. It can be sowhn that the eybaell can only see two deeegrs of cooulr vioisn yet we peiverce a far grateer vuaisl field in coulor. This is bausece our brian pantis in what our eye does not see thugroh a prceoss of paerttn recotiognin. This is also true for obctjes and comomn imgeas such as wodrs. 😉
Good God: “Does anyone here have a concept of what “pattern recognition” may mean?
Not your concept of some earthling definition of the two words, But the “meaning” of those same two words. The US-NSA does this “so” well. Find a pattern in the noise. Ignore the noise itself. Try to find the “pattern” or “meaning” within that same noise. The noise is here called “heat”. The meaning of heat is now corrupted by a few., This is the the whole issue of AGW or CC. What is the pattern?, that we now recognise? Who are the few? Takes lotsa computer “goat power”
Connolley coming here is rather curious, gloating that the shutting down of an opposition is a victory. That is a sign of defeat, Connolley and all his fellow travelers have lost the plot.
In science you come out on top when your science is better. 2013 was not a good year for his cause, this year young though it be not a day has passed without some disturbing news or back pedaling by governments. Looks like he may have a very bad year for even Gaia seems to be not on his side. Poor dear.
Alleging ‘Malpractice’ With Climate Skeptic Papers, Publisher Kills Journal
Some strange comments here from the proponents of AGW … It makes me think of the Lewandowski “Paper” where claims that Skeptics think Princess Diana was murdered and Commit Suicide at the same time which was of course immediately debunked by those that know the flaws in the statistics used to come up with such ridiculous claims.
Now, lets look at the other side of the coin … what was it, AGW causes hot weather and cold weather and drought and floods ALL at the same time.. Time for another paper Lew ?
Is that the complete letter? It makes no mention of “In addition, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis” ( http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.net/ ) . For the publishers to make such an allegation public without having put it to the editors seems very odd.
It doesn’t seem to me that those crying “censorship” are correct. Censorship would involve, for example, removing the papers in question, which doesn’t appear to have happened. Instead, the publishers are simply cancelling the journal. Their reasoning could certainly do with some further explanation (in my opinion), but I don’t think they would be outside their rights to cancel further issues for no reason whatsoever. So move along. If you’ve got a good study, just publish it elsewhere. Why all the drama, unless you’re *concerned* about losing control of the editor / peer-review process?
Martin A: Yes. That’s the whole letter. The accusations got tacked on to the web statement later. Preumably to justify the action.
Rog, at risk of sounding a little controversial. 12 papers in special issue, 1 authored by Morner, 2 by Tattersal and 2 by Solheim – the 3 editors account for 42% of the content. This struck me as a bit high, but my wife who worked for decades in academia tells me there is nothing unusual about that. If there were some analogous special issues published by “The Team” it could be worthwhile documenting the level of editorial involvement in those.
I’ve also had a look through all the papers trying to find out who the authors are. There seems to be a shortage of mainstream academics, but for example finding this for Morner
http://www.sasnet.lu.se/institutions/unit-palegeophysics-and-geodynamics-stockholm-university
says he is a retired professor from the University of Stockholm. I think it could be beneficial to post CVs for all those involved. You have an affiliation at Uo Leeds – what as? I am an honorary research fellow at Uo Aberdeen – where the honour is derived from the fact they are not allowed to pay me for any of the teaching I do there.
I like the theme of this collection of papers since I am already receptive to the notion that the planets stir The Sun and so it is helpful to see how this may be quantified. I downloaded Scaffeta’s paper from WUWT a couple of days ago. His Figure 9 is going to cause The Team all sorts of problems since it likely projects a version of reality that climate science is just getting to grips with. Censoring work like this is pretty outrageous and will come back to haunt climate science.
Euan: Nils Mörner has 580 peer reviewed papers to his name. I didn’t do any editing as such. More an honourific for helping find contributors I think.
PRP – Special Issue now on Wayback Machine at http://web.archive.org/web/20140118123946/http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/special_issue2.html
Haha! Good move Eugene, thanks. Still a good move to download local copies of the pdf’s
Euan Mearns says: January 18, 2014 at 11:34 am
“I downloaded Scaffeta’s paper from WUWT a couple of days ago. His Figure 9 is going to cause The Team all sorts of problems since it likely projects a version of reality that climate science is just getting to grips with. Censoring work like this is pretty outrageous and will come back to haunt climate science.”
Similar figures have been published in numerous other papers I published since 2010 in other journals.
The argument advanced by Rasmussen “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” is unreasonable and contrary to the understanding of climate science. A lot of people have acknowledged that the models are overestimating the warming.
Rasmussen’s statement just demonstrates the ignorance of Rasmussen and of the other members of Copernicus about this particular topic.
They just believed in the projections of the IPCC without checking the facts and without reading the relevant scientific literature. Then, starting from that wrong assumption they attacked “climate skeptics” and later questioned the peer review process, and worried about the good name of Copernicus, and took action to stop the journal.
Their entire argument is based solely on their misconception of the current scientific findings that is found out that the IPCC models have overestimated the warming.
Rasmussen should be challenged in this scientific point.
The biggest error that Rasmussen did was not seek an explanation from the editor first. Before doing anything he should have contacted Morner and ask him to respond his perplexities.
But he did not do that and acted with rush.
Rasmussen’s accusation are only based on his misconceptions.
A bit of humor…
@ William Connolley says:
January 17, 2014 at 6:12 pm
“….I live in Cambridge… Home to Newton, Hawking…”
I have solution for Rog, Nicola and their group.
A good political society…..subscribe to the company of the Da Vinci, Galileo..
and your Newton of the Cambridge.
For example the Rosacruces !
Do you know their website ?
🙂
Nicola, your paper says this;
This is pretty much identical to my view of the world. I’d be interested to know what “climate sensitivity” you use in your model? And how do you introduce volcanic forcing? One big eruption every 20 years? IMO this kind of integrated natural + anthropogenic model has substantially more scientific credibility and merit than much of the CO2 only junk that has been published.
Your Figure 9 doesn’t quite jive with Figure 8 that indicates a possibly longer period of low solar geomagnetic activity, going beyond 2030. Missing from all of this collection of papers is potential influence of solar system tides on ocean currents on Earth (which i assume may be dominated by the Sun – Moon). From what I can tell, the Solar system acting on Sun doesn’t explain everything. You mention Bond 2001 in your paper. While Bond’s (deceased) work is contested it is claimed the drift ice index correlates with 10Be and oscillates on 1500±500 y – so it is not perfectly synchronous with the regular planetary beat. The interpretation is linked to the Labrador current periodically cutting across the N Atlantic, truncating the Gulf stream. It is also claimed that 10Be correlates with Monsoon cycles in Oman (Neff et al 2001) and with a meta analysis of pollen records in N America
Click to access Willard_et_al_2005.pdf
My modified Bond chart can be found here where I add known historic events:
The Ice Man Cometh
Your work suggests that current cooling is temporary with a new temperature maximum around 2060 – which is good news for my family 🙂
Copernicus web site states the following:
“We serve the Owner: (NAM?) This advanced business model includes the advantage for the initiators that they own the journal, its title and the registrations with regard to ISSN and the web domains.”
I have written to Martin, suggesting that he launch another publication called Tolosani Publications. Tolosani it will be remembered condemned Copernicus’ mathematical equations arguing that mathematical numbers were a mere product of the intellect without any physical reality, and as such “numbers could not provide physical causes in the investigation of nature.” This was basically a denial of the possibility of mathematical physics. Very large Foot in Mouth anyone.
We are being libeled over at WUWT with statements like.
“It is obvious the editors, authors, and reviewers colluded to attempt to make this into a curve fitting skeptics coup d’état.”
I for one did not collude with anyone. I treated the submission of my paper with all the scientific gravitas that is required in these situations. I did the same with any paper that I was asked to review. I did my best to respond in full to any modifications or clarifications which were requested by my referees. I did not hold back if I felt that modifications or changes needed to made before an article was suitable for publication.
As a reviewer I gave what I considered was my best scientific advice to the Editor so that they could collectively evaluate whether or not a given manuscript was suitable for publication in the Special Edition.
Above all else, I believe that the Editor that I dealt with at the PRP Journal maintained the high professional standards that are required of this difficult job. I have nothing but praise for the way in which he dealt with my submission and my reviews.
Ian, thanks for your testimony. I think Watts, Rotter and his sidekick Mosher need to remember that experts in small fields of study inevitably know one another. This is only a problem in peer review if there is a lack of integrity, such as that displayed by Caspar Amman and his reviewers. We have nothing ro be ashamed of in the way we have conducted our work.
Tallbloke wrote “need to remember that experts in small fields of study inevitably know one another. ”
There are however, plenty of experts in statistics, pattern recognition and solar physics who are not a member of this group of experts. If you ever want your research field to be more than a small group of experts that are ignored by everybody else, you need to make sure that your arguements can stand up to the review from experts outside the group. Experts in statistics and pattern recognition are easy to find, just ask the associate editors of the journal.
Could you say how many of the reviews originated from those who were not an author of a paper in the special issue (including the contentious summary)?
Dikran: I tried unsuccessfuly to attract more outside reviewers. They told me it was outside their area and couldn’t help. Have you read our work yourself?
tallbloke I’ve only skimmed a couple in the special issue, but I have read several papers before on this general topic, however that is evading the issue of the integrity of the review process, which is not affected by whether I have read the papers.
Many of the papers on similar topics in the past have received peer reviewed comments. Did you ask any of the authors of those comments (or authors of articles that cited them) to act as reviewers. Those would be experts that would probably be intererested in reviewing the papers.
Could you say how many of the reviews originated from those who were not an author of a paper in the special issue (including the contentious summary)?
Dear Ian,
Be proud of your contributions. Personally I am proud of both my articles and my peer reviews since I know that I have done this as well as I can according to my professional skill in an honest way and I have nothing to hide. Mörner´s editorial work was excellent and so was the work by the people at PRP. Something is just wrong with powerful people behind the scen at Copernicus. Otherwise they have to speak up what is wrong and who has behaved badly. Personally I am insulted by a group penalty of a type which is unheard of relating to correct scientific behavior.
I will investige if I am paying taxes to EU for the maintenance of Copernicus. If so (which is very probable) I might press charges aginst them for a political censorship of correct scientific work.
Why should they get governmental funding in they are abusing their duties?
Dikran, sorry, no. l don’t have that info. Nils-Axel Mörner as handling editor acted very properly and kept identities of reviewers who preferred to remain anonymous a secret from authors.
[…] A number of websites have thoroughly and deservedly thrashed Germany-based Copernicus Publications for terminating one of its scientific journals: Pattern Recognition in Physics. Read here, here and here. […]
@tallbloke,it might be worth Prof. Morner approaching the reviewers for permission to publicly say whether they had reviewed a paper for PRIP (but of course not which papers they had reviewed). Some journals publish a list of reviewers that had reviewed for them each year, mostly as acknowledgement of a rather thankless task, so this would not be unprecedented.
If the list contained the names of non-climate skeptics, or especially experts who had expressed critical opinions in the past, or experts in statistics, pattern recognition or solar physics from outside the group, that would go a long way in answering the questions regarding the integrity of the review process.
Dikran: Thanks, I’ll pass that comment to the senior editors for their consideration. Currently they have no access to the journal interface, because Copernicus has locked them out. So I doubt any info will be forthcoming immediately. Rasmussen needs to be specific and elevate his innuendo and smears to specific allegations so the Editors can defend themselves.
Great post from Pierre Gosselin at no tricks zone. See link above.
LOL, does anonymity only apply to reviewers then tchannon? Poor form indeed.
LOL, a post by tchannon seems to have disappeared!
I’m sorry, I gave this blog a chance, even offered some conrtuctive advice, but if this is the sort of thing that goes on here, I think I’ll not bother in future.
Perhaps. Search which anyone can do.
An apology would be better. While I am not too bothered about anonymity (my name is given on other blogs), but some people are, and with good reason. For this reason revealing personal details about other blog users is against the terms of use for many blogs and can get your posting rights rescinded. For an organiser of a blog to do so is quite reprehensible and your lack of an appology (after deleting your post) speaks volumes.
If I misjudged that yes an apology is in order, I apologise.
Oh. I thought Tim was posting a link to someone he thought might have made a possible peer reviewer for PRP. 😉
@tchannon Appologies accepted.
@tallbloke Had you asked, I would have agreed, pattern recognition is one of my research interests and scientific applications are particularly interesting. Note while I have tried to make a constructive suggestion here, that doesn’t mean that I am not critical of the journal, the editors or the special issue, I am, but I also want to be fair about it.
Great. Download and review my papers please. Anyone with a moustache like that is clearly his own boss. 🙂
I’m reading”The Hum” as I write (but only got as far as section 3)
Rog, you got a credit in this paper for the work that I did on Uranus’s orbital parameters which took months to work out, which I pointed out to you.
Sparks, which paper? R J Salvador’s?
Dikran: Thankyou for your interest. We’ve made new discoveries about harmonic resonant ratios since writing that paper. The next paper will have more technical numerical analysis in relation to numbers of obs.
Yes “Roger Tattersall
for pointing out the Uranus one-quarter frequency”.
I’d also recommend Ian Wilson’s paper as more representative of the quality of the special issue. He’s a qualified astrophysicist.
Sparks: I’ll apologise to you on R J’s behalf. I mentioned your analysis to him in the thread he partipated in during his model development. He must have forgotten who was the originator and remembered the messenger. In my own paper I thanked all at the talkshop who had contributed relevant material.
Rog,
Nicola and I are getting mauled over at WUWT
To Euan Mearns (17/1, 18:49).
On the NCDC FTP site :
GRIP Be10 data, from 386kya
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/grip/cosmoiso/grip_10be.txt
GRIP Depth-Age data
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/grip/depthage/gripage.txt
GISP2 Be10 data, from 40kya to 3.2kya
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/cosmoiso/ber10.txt
Taylor Dome (Antarctica, the dataset I prefer), Be10 data from ~220kya
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/taylor/betd.txt
Thanks Rog.
Ian, I’m deeply unimpressed by the way Anthony gleefully tried to kick us with his irrelevant tidal nonsense while we are under attack from the climate orthodox church.
I think the message is clear. WUWT has passed beyond reasonable scientific debate regarding our field of study. Anthony is utterly ignorant of real celestial phenomena well known and published about in long established literature. Svalgaard has convinced him i’ts all woo.
He’s a lost cause who has confused scepticism with ignorance and, sadly, denial of well known astrophysics.
When the science text “Slaying the Sky Dragon” was published, one co-author, Dr Claes Johnson, Pdh Applioed Mathematics was ordered by the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm to NOT teach the formulas required by engineering students for a century as prerequisite in Thermodynamics. This discussed in “Carbon Warfare Rules of Engagement” in archive at Canada Free Press. When math formulas and astronomical alignments cannot be discussed, you no longer have science…you have OCCULTISM.
tallbloke, sorry, I have to say that this blog is unlikely to be much of a place for reasonable scientific debate either if the discussion is going to be factionalised using terms such as “climate orthodox church.” (presumably I am placed in that congregation).
Svalgaard is just the sort of person you need to convince, listen to his criticisms and address them, and where you can’t admit it. That is how science makes progress, sometimes it is confrontational and you need a thick skin, but the people willing to spend time criticising you are the ones doing you a favour, not the ones that accept what you say uncritically.
Ian – I would recommend ignoring WUWT, life is short, and your time is better spent doing something more productive.
Dikran: Only you know whether you are or not. In one breath you tell Ian to ignore WUWT, in another you tell me to respond to Svalgaard’s arguments. I have done many times, but no matter how often I point out to him that a roiling mass of plasma with energy pouring from its heart into space is not the same thing as a Newtonian point mass, he still trots out the same old tired crap about ‘perfect freefall’.
tallbloke, the phrase still encourages factionalism and hence stifles chance of reasonable scientific discussion, and is an ad-hominem (suggesting that someones position is a matter of faith rather than arrived at through rational thought) which is antithetical to science.
As to Svalgaard, the best response would be the maths and observations that demonstrate that a point mass approximation is inadequate for the purposes of the argument.
BTW, it *is* worth posting at WUWT, I do so myself sometimes, however there is a point where further discussion there is pointless, it is generally the point where the insults/personal attacks etc. start in earnest. It sounded like Ian had reached that point.
Climatology meets one of the sociological definitions of Ghetto – an insular ethnic enclave which is resistant, and at times hostile, to outside ideas or influence.
Mark BLR – thanks very much for data links! My PhD was in isotope geochemistry. I actually set up the first lab in Scotland to do Sm-Nd isotope analysis as part of my PhD and went on to set up a similar lab in Norway as part of my post Doc. This evolved to apply isotopic and mineral provenance tracing techniques applied to sedimentary basin fill around the circum N Atlantic. I ran a company for 12 years doing isotope geochemical provenance tracing for the oil industry. I still sit on the worlds biggest proprietary data base of this kind of information. Frequently told I know nothing about climate science, I feel I can stake a claim to some expertise in the interpretation of isotopes and petrologic tracers 😉
Dikran: If you’re not one of the faithful (and there are many who are), then you have no need to be offended on their behalf. They are all busy pontificating on their favourite sites about how right Rasmussen was to shut down the ‘platform for sceptics’ at PRP.
On the other hand, if you are one of the faithful, I don’ give a monkeys whether you’re so thin skinned as to be offended by such a mild insult or not.
Hope that’s clear.
Oh and I just put two comments on WUWT. One on the science and one on the smears.
Whenever the idea that the sun or the rest of the solar system has any effect on the variability of the earth comes up, Anthony picks up an egg in each hand and smashes them on his face.
dirkan, I agree with you.
Euan, Mark, would you like a new article to move away from what is a hot thread?
@Tallbloke January 18, 2014 at 11:32 am
Martin A: Yes. That’s the whole letter. The accusations got tacked on to the web statement later. Preumably to justify the action.
Thanks for confirming.
“In addition, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis”
It reads to me as if the publishers felt that their statement sounded a bit weak, so they grubbed around for something to sex it up a bit – but that’s all that they could come up with.
This accusation is not mentioned in the letter to the editors as posted by Tallbloke. It is clearly an item added as a grubby afterthought, without apparently having first been discussed with the editors.
Making an allegation without no evidence to be seen, and which is inherently incapable of being refuted (because of the anonymity of referees) makes me feel that those making the allegation put themselves in a poor light.
Tim, for some reason the 10Be data has eluded me for years. I’ve written to Bond’s co-authors with requests etc. Personally I like to have data to plot to check on claims made. In weeks to come I will likely do a post on cosmogenic isotopes and climate change. Handy thing with a high interest thread like this is to make connections. Who is Mark? You can maybe put us in touch. Thanks. E
Mark BLR, 10BE data?
And I thought I was the one with matchsticks holding eyes open. 🙂
Not very with it today.
Fuji Dome is relatively easy but has been criticised over wet extraction. Not sure that was a sensible objection. Lot of politics.
Mybe it’s better I go and catnap.
Tim, keep your matchsticks on. It’s not possible for everyone to know everything. I thought you were here to help? I’m seeking data.
Rog,
Please check your lines of communication…. sorry to be so cryptic
Tallbloke,
I have just posted two comments to Dr. Svalgaard on the WUWT thread on this issue. I believe they may be relevant here as well. I suspect it was not just climate scepticism that meant “Pattern Recognition” had to go, but also that it would be evidence of sceptics discussing solar influence on climate in a scientific journal. The AGW believers appear to be up to something, and you were standing in their way…
“Dr. Svalgaard,
I would agree with much of what you write at WUWT about problems with “Cyclomania” and insufficient evidence for actual mechanisms for solar influence on climate. At WUWT you are communicating with sceptics even if you would consider some of them to be “fringe”.
But the problem for solar science is no longer sceptics, “fringe” or otherwise, it’s former AGW believers and promoters.
It is looking increasingly like AGW will not survive 2014. Many of the fellow travellers are now looking for an exit strategy. In particular the BBC.
The BBC have the megaphone. The BBC have a fistfull of tax dollars. And they want to keep it.
They cannot have an end to AGW that shows CO2 was never a problem. That would bring 28Gate and the collusion with the “Team” evidenced in Climategate2 too much public attention. Compulsory UK TV licensing, their money stream, would be under threat. They need an exit strategy that involves some “new science” big enough to outweigh all the claims about CO2 disaster they have made to date. Heat hiding in the oceans or Aerosol masking are not going to fly. The BBC have made their choice and they are going with “it’s the sun”.
From late 2013 the BBC have produced a sudden flurry of documentaries and news items for TV, radio and internet discussing possibility of an extended solar minimum, mentioning the Maunder minimum, the little ice age and showing pictures of ice fairs on the Thames. Conclusions started low key, “it won’t offset global warming”. Then to “it may slightly reduce global warming”. Then “it’s hard to say”. Now “the planet may not cool, but Europe could expect harsher winters”.
The BBC have chosen their exit strategy, “it’s the sun”. Where the BBC lead, the ABC (Australia) and CBS (Canada) will follow. How much air time did these government broadcasters give to AGW sceptics? How much online comment did they allow from AGW sceptics? Are they likely to give any solar scientist who stands in the way of their “it’s the sun” exit strategy a voice?”
“Dr. Svalgaard,
Further to my previous comment, I have just seen another confirmation. This news item just got top spot on news.com.au –
http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/scientists-baffled-as-sun-activity-falls-to-century-low/story-fnjwlcze-1226805090679
“The Sun’s activity has plummeted to a century low, baffling scientists and possibly heralding a new mini-Ice Age.”
While news.com.au is a Murdoch owned site, the editor is a fervent AGW believer. I say it’s a definite. The fellow travellers is have chosen “it’s the sun” as their exit strategy.
As I say, the problem for solar science is no longer sceptics, it’s now the full might of the BBC, ABC, CBS and every activist, journalist and politician of the Left now desperate to save their hides.
This also casts a new light on events discussed on this thread. For the exit strategy to work, it needs to be “new science”. A group of sceptics who have been discussing the solar possibility for years may be a bit of a problem.”
Ian, working on it but outgoing email server is down.
his also casts a new light on events discussed on this thread. For the exit strategy to work, it needs to be “new science”. A group of sceptics who have been discussing the solar possibility for years may be a bit of a problem.”
Good point Konrad.
It is my impression that many ex AGW supporters are slowing changing mind and looking for an exit strategy to save face. The point is that they do not want to acknowledge the merits of a group of scientists (e.g. like myself) that has been saying and demonstrating these things for years.
They want to present these results as a “new science” that only they would have recently discovered. For this reason they need to continue to defame those a few scientists that advanced this research first and to whom goes the merits. And they need excuses for not referencing their work etc.
Awww, you guys are just discussing science now. It was much more fun with Con Alley and Brer Wabbit slandering people!!
Nicola Scafetta says:
January 19, 2014 at 2:39 am
“They want to present these results as a “new science” that only they would have recently discovered. For this reason they need to continue to defame those a few scientists that advanced this research first and to whom goes the merits. And they need excuses for not referencing their work etc.”
————————————————-
Nicola,
there is a considerable body of circumstantial evidence mounting that this is the case. But the important word there is “circumstantial”. As is the way of the web, I am being incautious in leaping to conclusions. Therefore I would urge caution about such conclusions, especially to those emotionally involved in this sorry incident.
Coincidence is a possibility. An alternate explanation could easily be that this was just an effort to deny known sceptics a peer reviewed platform, that just happened to attack a journal addressing solar cycles just at the time when the “it’s the sun” exit strategy was being launched. This is a possibility. If it is the latter then William Connolley the WikiWeasel and his partners in carbon crime just did a very foolish thing. Because the public are going to ask whether this solar minimum effecting climate is really “new science”. And the answer will be “well there was a few people researching it for over a decade who were going to publish in a new journal, but then…”.
Dr. Svalgaard may not be your best ever pal right now, but he was one of the few that did predict a weak cycle 24. Some of his concerns about mechanisms for solar cycle influence are valid. However it is noted that some object to what they perceive as “gatekeeping” regarding any possibility of solar cycles influencing climate.
Right now there is a distant thunder of hooves and dust on the horizon. Every fellow traveller in the AGW hoax is charging towards the only exit they can see, the solar influence gate. Mouths foaming, hooves flailing, eyes rolling and flanks steaming. Like a panicked herd of stampeding wildebeest. They want out and they want out now.
I’m not sure this is the best time to be the gatekeeper. The AGW scammers don’t care about science and they’ve proved they will stop at nothing. If I were Dr. Svalgaard I’d get someone else to take over guarding the gate for a bit and go for a very long lunch break 😉
Comment left at WUWT
Funny how Svalgaard attacked the quality of Usoskin’s Oulu data last year when it didn’t suit his argument, but defends Isoskin’s flawed analysis of Abreu et al this year when it does. Poor Ilya must be feeling dirty.
Anthony, get your hand in your pocket and pay for a copy of Abreu et al’s rebuttal of Usoskin’s comment. Given the gravity of the smears you are supporting here, you owe it to your readers as due diligance.
And they are just smears. We’re still awaiting some kind of specific accusations from Martin Rasmussen we can defend ourselves against
Konrad says: ‘It is looking increasingly like AGW will not survive 2014. Many of the fellow travellers are now looking for an exit strategy. ‘
See this from ‘fellow travellers’ NASA January 2013.
‘…the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle.
There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate.’
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
Yes, a dawning realization that AGW/CO2 theory doesn’t cut the mustard in the face of basic observations and they had better find something else ASAP 😉
The strategy could be to claim that once the ‘quiet sun’ phase is over (possibly decades ahead) the old arguments can come back into play. In other words, kick the can so far down the road that all the current generation of ‘believers’ will probably have finished their careers before the controversy can re-ignite.
Anthony Watts has snipped Nicola Scafetta for ‘defamation’. Irony is probably something he thinks steely is made from by the addition of lukewarm carbony.
I think..next step antony..closed therad.
Rog, you comeback science on tallbloke.
😉
michele
The biggest problem with this whole fiasco is the perceived perception of pal-review that gives the opposition so much canon fodder.
The science in the special edition of PRP is most likely all above board and the ambitions of the editors and authors all above reproach.
But perhaps unknowingly to themselves they formed a weakspot that will be jumped on by the warmist crowd who are now desperate to find any handhold possible before ultimately plunging into a place no one wants to be remembered.
The right thing to do for the PRP guys is to just admit they left the door open and their practices left them and us open to criticism.
Reform, regroup and present your findings in another journal, not of your own making.
Termination of the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics http://www.webcitation.org/6Mhpi0uiZ:
“… 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…”
So who were “the nepotistic referees”?
Pennnn: Don’t know. Rasmussen has only smeared us. He hadn’t made any specific allegations we can defend ourselves against.
Geoff: See my reply to Pennn. The noise being made on the usual blogs is just noise. Until the specific allegations are forthcoming so we can defend ouselves it’s just an unfounded smear.. If they’re not forthcoming, Rassmussen will likely find himself in court for defamation. Keep calm and carry on.
Geoff Sharp says: January 19, 2014 at 9:40 am
“The biggest problem with this whole fiasco is the perceived perception of pal-review that gives the opposition so much canon fodder.”
We, the authors of the articles in PRP Special Issue did not form a group in advance to advocate any specific conclusion from the articles.
Every single author chose the subject of his/her own article as far as I know. Every single author is responsible for what is written in their own article and wish the content of the articles to be read and criticized on the basis of what is written and claimed in the article. You should also understand that the major purpose of peer review is to save the publisher the embarrassment of publishing scientific BS. This has not happened this time.
You will grasp this point when you observe how much scientific BS that has been published in journals where the conclusions follow the political correctness norm instead of resulting from correct science (Just think of the Mann hockey stick article published in Nature). Hence, many peer reviewed scientifically inferior article are actually meant to pass an inferior peer review due to a number of corrupt reasons. Unfortunately this is too common.
I was asked to peer review another two articles by N-A Mörner both heavily dealing with signal processing. It happens that I have a degree, MSc, at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm (specializing in electronics) before achieving my PhD in climatology based on another exam (BSc in meteorology). Good knowledge in advanced signal processing was a basic requirement for a good peer review in these cases and I guess that Mörner wanted to use my competence in this field.
Having said that, it is sad that all focus is now on what PRP has claimed as malfunctioning editorial work and nepotism whatever that means in this case. Personally, I am patiently waiting for PRP to be more specific. PRP has insulted me degrading the work I have done without valid reasons since my work stand up to a high scientific standard and I am pretty sure the same is valid for the other scientists, too. To be accused (as one of a group of scientists) for scientific misconduct by a director of an editorial staff is an unprecedented action in the history of science. The whole point with the PRP close down action might be to change focus from the content of the articles to this type of discussion that now is taking place.
Besides, according to Geoff´s opinion, it is very probable that all of Einstien´s articles are heavily flawed since he did not even needed to deal with “nepotism”. They were not peer reviewed at all.
Best
Hans Jelbring
Rog, I think you are too deeply involved.
Rise above it and look down.
Tallbloke says: January 19, 2014 at 9:08 am
“Anthony Watts has snipped Nicola Scafetta for ‘defamation”
This is a very strange action by Antony since he let his favorite cowboy Willis defame my work over and over again some years ago. Anthony´s comprehension is somewhat limited or maybe directional is the correct word.
Hans Jelbring says:
January 19, 2014 at 10:42 am
Besides, according to Geoff´s opinion, it is very probable that all of Einstien´s articles are heavily flawed since he did not even needed to deal with “nepotism”. They were not peer reviewed at all.
Geoff’s opinion?
Tell me what that is?
Geoff Sharp says: January 19, 2014 at 9:40 am and January 19, 2014 at 10:50 am
“The biggest problem with this whole fiasco is the perceived perception of pal-review that gives the opposition so much canon fodder. “
A reply to Richard Courtney at WUWT
richardscourtney says:
January 19, 2014 at 12:12 am
Friends:
For all those who have ‘lost sight of the ball’ I remind that
peer review is solely for the protection of a journal Editor
and pal-review removes that protection.
Peer review is not – and has never been intended to be – an indication of a paper’s quality.
Agreed Richard. But I would add that peer review by peers of integrity; especially those with the most intimate knowledge of the field of enquiry, is the best way to ensure it.
This hullaballoo of smears whipped up by Rasmussen, Mosher, Svalgaard, Trotter and Anthony Watts is just a smokescreen diverting attention from the science. Mama nature is vindicating our observations and dynamic harmonic model output going forwards.
Man supposes, nature disposes. Time will tell.
Richard, please email me. I have something rather shocking to discuss with you in private.
Geoff says:
Rog, I think you are too deeply involved.
Rise above it and look down.
I already did.That’s why I’m keeping calm and carrying on while some around WUWT and Jo Nova and the usual blogs are running around squawking like chickens. Our science stands up. If it didn’t, they’d be attacking that rather than us. After all, no-one wants to be seen as an ad-hom merchant rather than a scientific thinker, do they?
talbloke wrote: “Dikran: If you’re not one of the faithful (and there are many who are), then you have no need to be offended on their behalf. They are all busy pontificating on their favourite sites about how right Rasmussen was to shut down the ‘platform for sceptics’ at PRP.
On the other hand, if you are one of the faithful, I don’ give a monkeys whether you’re so thin skinned as to be offended by such a mild insult or not.”
It is not the insult that is the issue, it is the use of rhetoric, which is the antithesis of science. Either you are interested in science or you are interested in rhetoric. If it is the latter, there is no point discussing science here.
I’m not offended, I just choose where to discuss science according to whether it is likely to be productive.
Hi Dikran: OK, shall I set up a separate thread for discussion of our papers where we clearly state at the outset that rhetoric and speculative assertions about review processes are off limits and it’s science only?
Thank you for the offer, but I don’t think it would be a useful activity. Someone is either interested in science, or they are interested in rhetoric, as I see it, you can’t be both. Science is a search for the truth, whatever it might be; rhetoric is about winning an argument whether the truth is on your side or not. Temporarily putting rhetoric to one side doesn’t change that.
I’ve been on too many blogs that throw around allusions to religion as an ad-hominem, and my experience of trying to discuss science in such venues has been uniformly dissapointing.
mew post here. Roger may you open a new article on the issue mirroring this?
http://notrickszone.com/2014/01/19/scientists-react-sharply-to-copernicus-publishing-censorship-of-alternative-scientific-explanations-do-you-realize-what-you-have-done/
I think that Anthony did a good job to misleading the web, by the way. The Copernicus publisher objection was not on the planetary theory but on the secondary implication that it could have on the climate projections for the 21st century. Rasmussen did not like it and only it.
This is IPCC AGW censorship!
Dikran: fair enough. Thanks for nearly but not quite getting around to discussing our science. Do drop by again if you change your mind. I’m certain someone with your skills could make a positive contribution to this field of enquiry, but clearly we need to find someone better inured to brickbats such as ‘denier’, ‘believer’ etc.
“Anthony Watts has snipped Nicola Scafetta for ‘defamation”
Yes, Anthony get upset simply because I wrote him that he cannot accuse the editor for pal-review without first demonstrating that the papers were fraudulently reviewed to let flawed papers to be published.
To demonstrate pal-review one needs first to demonstrate that the papers contain evident scientific errors that a normal review process could have highlighted.
It is evident that accusing somebody of a misconduct without proving that a misconduct actually occurred is “defamation”, But Anthony did not get this simple logic.
I am quite displeased by the double standard applied by Anthony.
Hi Nicola: I tried to leave a comment at Pierre’s site, but it disappeared when I submitted it. Maybe he will find and post it. I have been getting private emails of support from scientists and science publishers. This is very encouraging and I think it marks the turning of the tide.
It’s Sunday, the Sun is shining, I’d I’m taking my good lady for a walk to enjoy the Sun’s warming and inspiring rays.
Nicola: please ask Pierre to add the link to our papers to his post http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/special_issue2.html
Rog, you are in good company, Mann has had a go at Judith Currie calling her Congressional Testimony “Anti-Science” and she has challenged him to Rebut it Point by Point.
See
Mann invoking ‘anti-science’? Amusing 😉
ACO: Yes indeed. Comment left at WUWT
tallbloke says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:00 am
Mickey Mann has described Judy Curry’s senate testimony as ‘anti-science’. He clarified this meant ‘ignorance’ rather than deliberate deception (presumably for legal reasons). Mann also admitted he hadn’t read Judy’s deposition.
We’re still at the “Your paper that I haven’t read isn’t worthy of rebuttal” stage with team WUWT too.
I hope Svalgaard and Watts stop to consider what having this trait in common with Micky Mann does for their rep amongst sceptics.
Oldbrow are you surprised?
Could you find anyone more experienced and famous for practising anti-science than Mann?
Shortly after his famous hockey stick article in Nature he was invited to Stockholm by the Swedish Academy of Sciences (which decide who will become Nobel Prize winners) to be the head speaker at a short conference. I prepared some nasty questions to ask him.
He never showed up.
There’s a lot of nutters in this World, mostly of a “green” persuasion.
You, Connolley, come pretty close to the top of that list.
Are you still taking your meds?
I wrote this in reply to Connolley on the JoNova site: http://joannenova.com.au/2014/01/science-paper-doubts-ipcc-so-whole-journal-gets-terminated/
“But, William, the so-called IPCC theory, originating with Sagan then Houghton and finally Trenberth, called the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect, assumes that the Earth’s surface emits real IR energy to the atmosphere as if it were an isolated black body in Space in radiative equilibrium with its zero point energy. Then it assumes that the atmosphere radiates heat energy to the warmer surface.
No competent scientist or engineer accepts this to be true. Unfortunately, Meteorology now Climate Alchemy imagine it is. The reason is that they think the output of a pyrgeometer is a real energy flux when it is a Radiation Field, the aforesaid hypothetical black body flux to Space. Only the difference of RFs drives radiative energy transport.
This explains the failure of the IPCC models to account for 17 year 4 months no warming, a period of 1.02 Santers. They are broken from the very start in respect of heat generation and transport. Closing down journals which question your illogical religion won’t stop it being based on science fiction. What’s more, it will not stop the reaction by real scientists and engineers to this form of Gresham’s Law applied to Science, bad physics driving out good.
Just be a good boy and accept that because you and your mates have failed to be professional and/or were taught incorrect physics, you can’t throw all the toys out of the pram. Very soon, if you continue to behave like a spoilt brats, which is what you lot are, your trousers will metaphorically be taken down and you will be belted out of any contact with real science to punish you and your ilk.
Be off with you and leave the field to the honest majority.”
[…] 2. JoNova: whole-journal-gets-terminated/ 3. Tallbloke: pattern-recognition-in-physics-axed 4. http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/special_issue2.html […]
To Euan Mearns (18/1 at 21:00 and 21:50) and tchannon (18/1 at 21:38 and 22:06).
I’m just an “interested amateur”, not an expert in the domain !
I looked into “Solar activity vs Temperature / Climate” in the early- / mid-noughties, and the Taylor Dome data had the best compromise between length and resolution I could find at the time (there may well be more recent ice-core data that are even better, but I’ve not looked for them).
In addition to having a short attention span, I also tend to hoard things rather than throw them away, so the links were still in the “Junk (?)” folder of my bookmarks file, ready for a quick “Copy -> Paste” operation.
In the 15 years or so since I first came across “climate change” (or “global warming”, as it was called back in the 20th century) I’ve downloaded various datasets to look at (amongst other things) :
– Thermohaline circulation (for the “We’re going to enter the next glacial phase ! ! !” nutters)
– CO2 vs Temps (for the “We’re all gonna FRY ! ! !” nutters)
– Solar (in)activity (for both of the above …)
– The Chandler Wobble (for the “Pole Shift” nutters)
The only conclusions I have reached (so far) are :
1) The probability that someone is wrongis proportional to how loud they shout
2) “Climate” is complicated ! The notion of “One forcing to rule them all” is contradicted by the data
3) However the current “pause” ends, it will probably be interesting (whichever way it “breaks”, it will very likely do so in a way, and at a date, that nobody predicted …)
Just an addendum prompted by Mark BLR.
The concept of ‘Forcing’ does not have the claimed basis in real science because it is a Radiation Field. It adds vectorally to the surface RF and the difference of RFs gives the real IR energy flux, Radiative Physics 101 (which, interestingly, Claes Johnson was told in 2010 he could not teach).
The net IR absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere is the 23 W/m^2 (2009 K-T Energy Budget) in the non self-absorbed H2O bands near the CO2 15 micron wavelength range. That partial irradiance is near zero. The 40 W/m^2 is in the ‘Atmospheric Window’, in equilibrium with the 2.7 deg. K. cosmic microwave background. When a ~10 deg. C cloud passes, that flux falls by ~85% so the surface warms up. This is the origin of the ‘Forcing’ or ‘back radiation ‘ myth from Meteorology.
If you increase pCO2, because it is mostly self-absorbed, there is little increase in ‘Forcing’. Increase pH2O and because there are quite a few non self-absorbed bands, some in the AW, there is an increase in ‘Forcing’ which reduces net surface IR so it warms to increase convection so that plus net IR is constant.
You can experiment on coupled conduction and convection with a beach windbreak. It’s a pity that the Meteorologists and Climate Alchemists don’t so that so they can get the physics right.
This is from an ancient Metallurgist who worked in the days when we created GHG physics and who has measured these effects in many situations. Climate Alchemy is Junk Science.
@ Hans J (‘Oldbrew are you surprised?’)
Of course not, but these accusers – who often admit they haven’t even read the stuff they complain about – are treading on very thin ice (pun intended) legally. Some of their claims may well require more evidence than they could muster, if they have any evidence at all.
As for the ‘nepotism’ claim, this has already been debunked by others here but just as a reminder here’s the Oxford handy dictionary definition:
“Favouritism to relatives in conferring offices.”
Unless the Copernicus publisher knows of any author’s relative who was involved in the PRP papers, they are already sunk with that assertion unless there’s a legal definition of it that doesn’t match the dictionary one.
I’ve posted this comment at WUWT:
lsvalgaard says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:03 am
tallbloke says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:00 am
We’re still at the “Your paper that I haven’t read isn’t worthy of rebuttal” stage with team WUWT too.
You are still shrinking away from and evading explaining in your own words [reflecting your understanding(?)] what the rebuttal is. Put up or shut up.
I was referring to our special edition papers, not Abreu et al’s explanation of Usoskin’s mistakes in the methods he used to critique their 2012 paper.
Here they are:
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/special_issue2.html
Still published, open access, free to download.
Anthony raised the subject of Abreu et al, not us. I’ve sent him the Abreu et al response to Usoskin. Get him to tell us in his own words what it says, now he no longer has the paywall excuse to hide behind.
=========================
Anthony has told me by email that I’m now “A pariah”.
I replied by saying the accuracy or otherwise of the dynamic model we’ve derived from our understanding of the observations will be proved by time.
Perhaps much of this can be tied together in a comment left at Rabett Run by evening person
So now we have the spectacle of the Sky Dragons, vs the Scafettas vs. the Langscheidts vs the WUWT crowd just to name a few.
Rog, I don’t know if it is helpful or not but in litigation the most intense and most emotional exchanges occur immediately prior to the collapse of one party or the other.
Stay brave and keep the faith 🙂
Mind you, adopting my New Climate Model might not be a mistake if Eli thinks that sceptics do need an alternative model to the observationally flawed AGW scenario.
See here:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/
I currently have Alec Rawls and through him, Anthony, on side.
From my point of view it matters not how solar variability occurs and your ideas are fine by me.
Can I help to either bridge the gap or separate the issues so that they do not really matter ?
‘So now we have the spectacle of the Sky Dragons, vs the Scafettas vs. the Langscheidts vs the WUWT crowd just to name a few’
Nothing wrong with a battle of ideas – survival of the fittest if you like. The other approach of trying to suppress all but one body of opinion, then claiming the others don’t matter, is anti-science. Unfortunately that seems to be the reality these days, perhaps always was.
In reality, the nepotism lies in the successive ownership of Copernicus, not the editorship of PRP.
Actually Eli, we are some good way to an alternative model now. Your commenter and you are way out of your depth, go back to beancounting bunnydroppings.
A bit late Stephen, Anthony has ostracised me and ostrichised himself. Svalgaard will be happy with a good day’s work.
Rog,
Svalgaard may be happy for the moment but history moves on 🙂
Your PRP journal now has way more recognition than would otherwise have been the case.
Stephen, If the visibility of the special edition has been increased for all the wrong reasons, then I hope the excellent work of all my collegiate author’s will eventually be recognised for all the right reasons. Every cloud has a silver lining as they say. I certainly hope so.
Eli Rabett says:
January 19, 2014 at 5:59 pm
“So now we have the spectacle of the Sky Dragons, vs the Scafettas vs. the Langscheidts vs the WUWT crowd just to name a few.”
While the warmist orthodoxy counts its ill-gotten gains and plays no role on the battlefield anymore. No new models are coming forward, the warmists have stopped trying to explain reality. A purely political movement now. Having learned to suck at the taxpayers teat, they are now all smoke and mirrors.
•“In 2006, a group of UK academics launched the online journal Philica, which tries to redress many of the problems of traditional peer review. Unlike in a normal journal, all articles submitted to Philica are published immediately and the review process takes place afterwards. Reviews are still anonymous, but instead of reviewers being chosen by an editor, any researcher who wishes to review an article can do so”
The problem is that open journals and open peer-review are yet to establish hard and fast clear rules.
We need to figure out what “peer-review” is and what is its purpose. The whole definition has been bought into question by “climate science”, where pal-review is rife.
The idea of “publishing” is to provide an article for discussion. THAT IS WHAT SCIENCE IS ALL ABOUT !!!!!
The first step of peer-review is to make sure that the article is suitable for publishing, that there are no obvious errors, stupid typos etc.
If papers are put to hostile reviewers, many possibly important ideas may be rejected.
I have no issues with papers being thoroughly vetted by someone in the same field, someone who actually understands what the writer is trying to say, and isn’t going to reject it on some spurious grounds that the reviewer doesn’t agree with or understand.
If papers are truly nonsense, then they will be destroyed AFTER publishing, as many climate change papers are.
So, how about we let these papers stand and be brought down in the proper scientific manner, if that be the case, and stop trying to destroy them before they can be bought to the mainstream scientific field, just because they may contain truths that the AGW proletariat don’t like.
Why are the climate bletheren SO SCARED that they have to act in this manner ??
Is this work too close to the truth ??
Thanks AndyG55: Please feel free to download and review the papers yourself. We’re happy to have peoples views on our work self published here at the talkshop by you or anyone who actually reads our work.
… Copernicus Publications cannot risk losing its excellent reputation in the scientific community. ..
Oh Dear! Well, that’s gone, hasn’t it…
Hi Roger,
I have downloaded, I hope to get around to looking at them soon.
Tad busy with nice surf weather at the moment though 🙂
Oh and doing some student organisation stuff up at Uni,
Its nearly time to switch the brain out of holiday mode again 😦
@ Mark BLR
As mentioned before, I have been trying to track down the 10Be data used in various papers for years (on and off). Here is the ice core gateway for Greenland:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/greenland/greenland.html
The GISP2 10Be data link that you posted does not appear to be there (unless I’m missing it). I’ve spent the whole day trying to make sense of the Greenland ice cores – and so far nothing makes sense. Thanks very much for the links!
Strong stuff on this from Professor Fritz Vahrenholt here.
http://notrickszone.com/2014/01/19/scientists-react-sharply-to-copernicus-publishing-censorship-of-alternative-scientific-explanations-do-you-realize-what-you-have-done/
Nicola Scafetta also writes, plus a comment from TB. The journal editor must be wishing he had handled the matter differently but it’s too late for him now.
Nice to see Lubos Motl picked up on what was really happening:
http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/agw-inquisition-burns-journal-pattern.html
Welcome to the Pariahs club Lubos!
Eli Rabett says:
January 19, 2014 at 5:59 pm
————————————-
“So now we have the spectacle of the Sky Dragons, vs the Scafettas vs. the Langscheidts vs the WUWT crowd just to name a few”
Bwwahahaha!
You think you have started sceptics fighting amongst themselves? Sceptics have be arguing with each other since day one. They never stopped!
That is why you can never win. All your resources are targeting a “well funded denialist machine” funded by ‘dark money” that doesn’t even exist 😉
“no other explanation accounts for the whole body (or standard model) of current climate change science and it is notable that there is no body of ‘skeptics’ building and refining an alternative model.”
No, sceptics don’t need a full climate model. The null hypothesis still stands for both AGW and it’s very foundation the radiative GHE hypothesis.
Therefore all that is needed is one little empirical experiment. Just one…
Some good news today that is off topic but resulted from discussions here and on Jo Nova’s blog.
For years I have been fighting with Connolley to correct the WIKI record in relation to Landscheidt. Connolley has maintained that Landscheidt named the “Landscheidt Minimum” after himself and also provided a reference. I have pointed out to Connelley several times the reference makes no such claim but he has refused to budge.
On Jo Nova’s blog I challenged him directly and he eventually folded. The WIKI record for Landscheidt now does not state that Landscheidt named the minimum after himself.
Some justice has prevailed at least, albeit it a small victory.
Konrad. says:
January 19, 2014 at 11:42 pm
“Therefore all that is needed is one little empirical experiment. Just one…”
No, not even that. Rather the opposite: Before anyone should even consider the warmist’s models seriously, predictive skill has to be demonstrated. Which entails at least a 30 year waiting period. As climate is the average of weather over 30 years.
The fact that UN/UNEP/IPCC and all the other globalist orgs have endorsed the models without any such validation is simply a violation of basic principles and was done for purely political reasons.
BTW, after such a waiting period it would also be possible to tell WHICH of the model parameterization/code variants is worthy. We STILL have the notorious “ensemble averages” because warmism has to this day refused to even categorize the models into “wrong” and “wronger”.
It is not even the beginning of a science; and for a propaganda exercise, rather ineptly done.
Wattsup has another looong moan about PRP’s reviewing procedure here
I left a comment 🙂
tallbloke says:
January 19, 2014 at 4:49 pm
I believe Jo Nova will be posting a counterview to the WUWT peer review panic tomorrow.
Meantime, anyone who prefers interesting science to hatchet jobs can freely download and review our open access papers here.
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/special_issue2.html
Please leave comments about the scientific content of our work over at my website. Comments about peer review can stay here on WUWT.
Cheers
I left this comment at WUWT
Nicola Scafetta says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 19, 2014 at 5:18 pm
The above post by Anthony is a complete nonsense. The only way to question the peer review process is to find evident error in the science discussed in the papers. Discussing the science is not what Anthony is doing.
I have written a full comment on on the Copernicus affair on
http://notrickszone.com/2014/01/19/scientists-react-sharply-to-copernicus-publishing-censorship-of-alternative-scientific-explanations-do-you-realize-what-you-have-done/
About Anthony, I have a question for him. Tell me Anthony, do you think that Leif could serve as a fair peer reviewer for my papers, or do you think that he should refrain from peer reviewing my papers because of his personal hostility demonstrated in this site many times?
Please respond my question.
Nicola has asked an interesting question that Anthony has ducked.
Has Svalgaard himself broken the rules as outlined?
Anthony is not allowing any conversation on this issue on WUWT
Rog, from your recommendation I bought Dr Tom Van Flandern’s book “Dark Matter, Missing Planets & New Comets (Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated) that presents plenty of evidence about the influences of the sun and the planets contrary to comments on WUWT and the views of opinion makers on that site. Your papers can not just be dismissed because they may not agree with orthodox views.
I take your point about the difficulties of finding reviewers. I note that Dr Makarieva (here http://www.bioticregulation.ru/contacts.php ) had difficulties in finding reviewers (I suggested some to her -such as Prof Claes Johnson who is a maths expert). To avoid criticism of “pal review” maybe you should have asked through some blogs as did Anastassia.
I am on the editorial board of a respected journal (based in UK) and a reviewer. A few times I have reviewed articles somewhat outside my field. i recall rejecting one (associated with Geology) which was outside the scope of the journal and had nothing new, and accepting another (about new measurement techniques incorporating some difficult maths) from a top Chinese University (recommended the paper for a prize)
I would be happy to help although I think there are many who are more clever than myself.
You should have my name and email address from past correspondence (I have lost those due to a recent computer crash)
I have downloaded all the papers but have not read them all so far. Keep up the good work.
Yes, Geoff,
Anthony has censored my reply to him.
Anthony has, therefore, demonstrated his own hypocrisy.
Anthony knows well that Leif Svalgaard himself has reviewed some of my papers despite his personal and public hostility against me. Thus, according Anthony’s rules Leif could not serve as a referee of my papers and he had to inform the editor that he could not serve as a referee because of his hostility.
But he did not inform the editor, and provided very unfair reviews forcing me to change journal, where the paper was published after a fair review.
Let us see if Anthony publish my comment:
I replied
****************************
Ok Anthony, you do not want to respond my question about Leif.
On another topic:
Contrary to what you claim, I have no responsibility at all in the Copernicus-Affair. I was not an editor of the journal.
I have simply received an email from Morner in the Summer about the special issue inviting me, as well as many other people, to contribute to the special issue. I thought it a good idea, and I submitted a couple of papers that, for what I know, have been professionally reviewed by specialists in the field and I am happy for the entire handling of my papers. I received very constructive and detailed reviews both by the reviewers and by the editor.
Moreover, please note that my main paper which is also the first paper of the collection
“The complex planetary synchronization structure of the solar system”
Click to access prp-2-1-2014.pdf
was a simple review of already published papers published on numerous other journals by numerous authors starting with Copernicus and Kepler’s works. So, the topic of every section of it had been already fully peer reviewed at the original journals (which include all most presigious journals beginning with Nature) and/or you can find some of the addressed issues even in every astronomy textbook.
My second paper:
Multiscale comparative spectral analysis of satellite total solar irradiance measurements from 2003 to 2013 reveals a planetary modulation of solar activity and its nonlinear dependence on the 11 yr solar cycle
Click to access prp-1-123-2013.pdf
was an extension of other papers published on other astronomical journals.
I invite the readers to read my papers to verify my claim.
Rog, Nicola Prof Claes Johnson has mentioned the publication shutdown here http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/questioning-global-warming-not-allowed.html
At his post here http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com.au/search/label/2nd%20law%20of%20thermodynamics he copies a comment from Konrad Zeuse
“The work which follows stands somewhat outside the presently accepted method of approach, and it was for this reason rather difficult to find a publisher ready to undertake publication of such a work.” in Calculating Space 1969 which you can download in an recent English translation
cementafriend says:….
Interesting
thank you
I wish to modify my recent comment on Steve Mosher:
I was mistake in my belief that he is the Benedict Arnold of the 21st Century Climate Wars. He is the George III of the 21st Climate Wars during one of crueler moments
“If papers are truly nonsense, then they will be destroyed AFTER publishing, ”
No, it mostly gets ignored.
Having read the comments at WUWT titled “The Copernicus-PRP fiasco: predictable and preventable” It seems that Anthony is having second thoughts. He like many others don´t read before they judge so now he has to defend his too quick judgement in his first thread. Unfortunately his verbal womitting and focus on pal-review (actually called nepotism from start by PRP) is not reaching the heart of the problem. Besides he has no interest to discuss what is written in the articles of PRP Special Issue at all. To comment on and check the scientific standard of the content of the articles should be a prime interest if he cared about correct science.
But some of the comments are real gold nuggets.
Based on the discussion in the thread Jeff Albert says: January 19, 2014 at 6:12:
“So we can expect all science journals to be shut down now. Cool.”
which is commented by Manfred january 19, 2014 at 6:18:
“That nails it. Reviewing ones own and each others work is actually state of the art of climate science peer review at the IPCC.
These two guys sum up this WUWT thread quite well but not in the way Anthony intended.
So Rog, there are several reasons for the shut down. The big ones don´t want us to copy their own successful method!?
DirkH says:
January 20, 2014 at 12:50 am
—————————————
Dirk,
Dr. Spencer has done a good graphical analysis of climate models against reality and it has had an impact, but not enough. Climate is complex and noisy. The AGW believers just claim the heat is hiding in the oceans or behind aerosols while they hide their failure in the noise.
One little empirical experiment can strip away all the noise and leave the global warmists with nowhere to hide.
All climate models based on the radiative GHE assumption fail because they have been applying Stephan-Boltzmann equations to transparent mobile fluids in a gravity field.
The simplest way to disprove the hypothesis of a net radiative GHE is to run a simple experiment that strips the atmosphere off the planet. All accept for one feature, surface pressure. (this avoids the oceans boiling into space problem).
The reason for this is it removes all the complex and confounding radiative and non-radiative energy transports within the atmosphere.
Now we can see what happens to the oceans if they are heated by SW at depth and can only cool by LWIR from the surface.
This simple (but expensive) set-up will do the trick-
The water sample is heated at depth by SW and can only cool by LWIR from the surface. Conductive and evaporative cooling is eliminated as is incident LWIR back to the water sample surface.
By eliminating all aspects of the atmosphere (except pressure) we can then see what the NET effect of all atmospheric processes are on ocean temperatures.
The radiative GHE hypothesis says the water should freeze due to lack of LWIR from the atmosphere, that the NET effect of the atmosphere on the oceans is warming.
If the water does not freeze, but instead does something like this –
Then we know that the NET effect of all atmospheric processes on the oceans is cooling. And the atmosphere has only one effective means of cooling, radiative gases. That would be curtains for global warming and all the fellow travellers right there.
Do you think the water sample will freeze Dirk? Or could it rise to near 80C?
(note to Tallbloke – Willis and Robert Brown at WUWT went to great lengths to avoid answering, which speaks volumes to me 😉
Having read the comments at WUWT titled “The Copernicus-PRP fiasco: predictable and preventable” It seems that Anthony is having second thoughts. He like many others don´t read before they judge so now he has to defend his too quick judgement in his first thread. Unfortunately his verbal womitting and focus on pal-review (actually called nepotism from start by PRP) is not reaching the heart of the problem. Besides he has no interest to discuss what is written in the articles of PRP Special Issue at all. To comment on and check the scientific standard of the content of the articles should be a prime interest if he cared about correct science.
But some of the comments are real gold nuggets.
Based on the discussion in the thread Jeff Albert says: January 19, 2014 at 6:12:
“So we can expect all science journals to be shut down now. Cool.”
which is commented by Manfred january 19, 2014 at 6:18:
“That nails it. Reviewing ones own and each others work is actually state of the art of climate science peer review at the IPCC.
These two guys sum up this WUWT thread quite well. So Rog, there are several reasons for the shut down. The big ones don´t want us to copy their own successful method!?
I have deleted all of my URL links to WUWT. I will never visit that site again. My only hope is that Anthony Watts will live long enough to know that what he has done is wrong.
That was live long enough….
If the concept of Catastropic Anthropogenic Global Warming had a shred of scientific validity no form of censorship would be needed. If CAGW “Science” was valid it would simply defeat its opponents in open debate.
When the facts are on your side there is no need for censorship so Tallbloke does not interfere with William Connolley’s posts here.
Message to William Connolley:
The scientists you trust are corrupt. They love Money more than Truth.
Internecine Politics: IBM, Sun Systems and Watts Idealism Co. strongly disapprove of eBay, YouTube and LSD, baby.
My final word on Watts lynching party:
tallbloke says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 20, 2014 at 12:12 am
Poptech says:
January 19, 2014 at 10:18 pm
Willis Eschenbach says: January 19, 2014 at 10:00 pm
That’s the problem in a nutshell. For example, after Roger Tallbloke has provided much support in public for Hans Jelbring’s claims, and has given Jelbring space to publish his ideas on Tallbloke’s Talkshop. They also are both among the co-authors of a study published in the Special Editions … then Jelbring reviews Roger’s paper?
While that may not be a conflict of interest, it certainly provides that appearance.
Exactly and I have been trying my best to avoid posting further damning evidence out of respect.
Hans Jelbring’s review of my paper is twelve pages long and begins with the words
“I’m sorry, this is really going to piss you off, but….”
I’m incredibly grateful to Hans Jelbring, who doesn’t comment at the talkshop so much these days, for his forthright criticism, detailed and useful analysis, and helpful suggestions for improvements to my main paper. I damn near had to rewrite the whole thing against a tight deadline.
All I would have got from Svalgaard is: “This paper is of low quaility and I recommend it is rejected because of preremptory and briefly stated reasons 1&2”
The only circle jerk (TM Charles Rotter) going on round here is the Team WUWT gleeful attack on a branch of science they don’t understand, using the pretext of an issue with peer review which they are utterly wrong about.
Handling editor Nils-Axel Morner (a scientist with over 540 peer reviewed papers to his name), did an excellent job of providing a mixture of tough-cop friendly-cop reviewers, and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves for your premature, ill informed and prejudiced attack on honest people who did their utmost to provide useful and critical reviews of other contributors work.
I’d also like to thank LdB for his criticism of my paper on this thread. Indeed I have been thinking about ways to quantify the energy passed between planets, and this has led in new and intersting directions which have already borne fruit. Buts that’s for the next paper I’ll be publishing in PRP once we have wrested it from Copernicus’ control (Lord Monckton has offered his assistance with that), and turned it into the success it is going to become.
Right, I’m off to work on my planetary spin-angular momentum calcs. The joy of scientific discovery beats whipping up lynch mobs into a cocked hat for job satisfaction.
All I would have got from Svalgaard is: “This paper is of low quaility and I recommend it is rejected because of peremptory and briefly stated reasons 1&2″
Perhaps. I certainly don’t imagine he’d go with “I recommend this paper is rejected because it might overturn my satellite insurance apple cart.” 😉
OK, My final final word on the WUWT peer review frenzy:
tallbloke says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 20, 2014 at 1:55 am
AndyG55 says:
January 20, 2014 at 12:51 am
Anthony, sorry, but I think your attitude to this is misdirected.
Your antagonism toward these papers leaves me wondering about your agenda.
Are you trying to push your OWN ideas, or are you truly an OPEN scientific blog..
I am really beginning to wonder. 😦
No, Anthony is not trying to push his own ideas. And no, this is not an open scientific blog. Discussion of our solar-planetary theory is banned, except when Anthony thinks Leif has come up with a slam dunk refutation of it.
This is because Anthony knows tidal effects of planets on the Sun are tiny, and he knows that ‘Barycentrism’ is crackpottery. What he doesn’t know is that there’s a whole established branch of astrophysics out there which studies the energy transferred in stellar-planetary systems by harmonic resonance. If he did, he wouldn’t toss out the baby with the bathwater, because he’s a good guy under all the misunderstandings and grievances that have built up around this subject over the last 5 years here at WUWT. I’m responsible for some of them, Leif is responsible for a bunch of them too.
My dearest hope is that I can make the breakthrough with the science which will bring us all back together. I’m working hard to achieve that, along with a couple dozen talented and intelligent researchers.I’m tremendously grateful for their input and for the support displayed by many people on this thread.
Best wishes to all, and bye for now.
Jo Nova has posted. 🙂
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/01/science-is-not-done-by-peer-or-pal-review-but-by-evidence-and-reason/
Jo Nova has written a humdinger:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/01/science-is-not-done-by-peer-or-pal-review-but-by-evidence-and-reason/
“The only circle jerk (TM Charles Rotter) going on round here is the Team WUWT gleeful attack on a branch of science they don’t understand, using the pretext of an issue with peer review which they are utterly wrong about.”
You are completely missing Watts’ point. He is not criticizing the paper, but pointing out that the eminent controversy that climate skeptics as a whole will face, was preventable and predictable.
Let’s quote one of the Copernicus’ obligation for reviewers:
“4. A referee should be sensitive even to the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the referee’s work in progress or published. If in doubt, the referee should return the manuscript promptly without review, advising the editor of the conflict of interest or bias.”
“5. A referee should not evaluate a manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with whom the referee has a personal or professional connection if the relationship would bias judgment of the manuscript.”
Now, there was certainly an APPEARANCE of a conflict of interest (A.K.A. the alleged pal review). So the rule certainly applies, but the reviewers were completely oblivious to that rule, somewhow.
It is predictable that if climate skeptic reviewers break the rules of a peer-reviewed journal, a controversy will ensue. It could have been prevented if the reviewers were more careful.
[Reply] As I said in my first response to Anthony on WUWT, comments on our science here, comments on peer review there. I’ll let this one through, and just point out that special editions are a different kettle of fish, due to time constraints and the collaborative nature of the enterprise. Twist the meaning of that comment as you will, but not here.
Comment left at Jo Nova’s site
Bravo Jo! A cracking post, well said!
“As far as dashing “…any chance of any sort of climate skeptic or citizen science based journal coming into existence…”. I would say, No. Not at all.”
After this debacle it will be our pleasure to wrest Pattern Recognition in Physics from the dead hand of Coppernickers control and set it up as an independent journal with open peer review along the lines Jo suggest in her excellent post.
Lord Monckton has indicated that he will help with this, so god help anyone who tries to prevent, thwart or denigrate it. Martin Rasmussen is on thin ice legally.
I have a feeling good honest scientists will be queuing up to submit papers to it, partly as a clear signal to the corrupt and shoddy controllers and gatekeepers of the overblown and over the hill mainstream big hitters such as ‘Nature’ and ‘Science’. They are already being boycotted by many scientists who are sick of their approach to real science and real scientists.
I am writing to you on behalf on the Scottish Climate & Energy Forum, we are conducting a survey of those interesting in the climate debate which should be of interest to all involved.
The main focus is on the education and work experience of participants, but it will also assess employment and social factors for their relationship with views on climate.
We would be very grateful if you would take the time to complete the survey. The responses are confidential.
The url is: http://scef.org.uk/survey/index.php/868721/lang/en.
regards,
Mike Haseler
[Moderation note] Mike’s a good guy (Thanks for that lift Mike!) so you’re safe with this request.
Everybody pile over to Jo’s place! This is going to be fun!
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/01/science-is-not-done-by-peer-or-pal-review-but-by-evidence-and-reason/
I have to go out for a few hours, enjoy the turkey-shoot. I’ll join in as I can from the cellphone.
Roger, It is a pity that you can not have some replies, such as JoNova or Pierre, to individual comments
Konrad above replies to DirkH about an experiment. Maybe that is worth a separate post. i have commented that I had a floating thermometer in our pool where we also have a bubble (plastic) pool blanket. I have measured over 50C at the thermometer depth 2-3 ins down while deeper down (say 1m) the temperature is 20C lower. The temperature at the surface (top few mm) is hard to measure because when you move the pool blanket evaporation occurs immediately. Even with the pool blanket on there is some evaporation around the edges. I do not believe in the 100m depth for the SW radiation. I will leave it there as this experiment is not relevant to your post.
[Reply] As I said in my first response to Anthony on WUWT, comments on our science here, comments on peer review there. I’ll let this one through, and just point out that special editions are a different kettle of fish, due to time constraints and the collaborative nature of the enterprise. Twist the meaning of that comment as you will, but not here.
—
How does that remark invalidates what I am saying? Special edition or not, that behavior is unproductive, and rather silly (breaking norms in a way that will inevitably create an unfortunate controversy). Anyone can see the reddit comments transcribed on WUWT, and it proves my point.
Also, why you’d restrict comments for this post just for positions on the special edition’s scientific content, instead of the incident itself? The journal is somewhat obscure and not everyone is interested in your scientific adventures, tallbloke. People might want to talk about the incident, the actions involved and the backslash it will spark, which means Watts’ commentary still stands on and is actually helpful.
As a sidenote, the post content doesn’t even have an explicit label saying “just discuss the science, instead of the incident”. That means I felt compelled to answer, as you accused Watts’ of creating a “peer-review panic”.
cementafriend says:
January 20, 2014 at 12:43 pm
————————————
Another thread, another day I think. The flack hasn’t downed the Enola Gay yet…
But one thing I know is Talkshop is where I’ll get the best answers 😉
Dear Tallbloke, One good thing that has come out of this affair is that it got me reading your blog. Anyone who puts Dayton Miller at the top of the hall of fame and puts Robert Shankland alone in the Hall of Shame is OK.
You even say something nice about Ellsworth Huntington. In the 80’s I was working at a non profit in southern California which housed most of his records. I poured over them. They depicted a very consistent pattern, one much like what shows up in your special volume. I summarized the results.
I downloaded all of the articles. My first conclusion is that most of the critics haven’t even perused them. As far as peer review, many journals are nothing more than clubs anyway. I’ve participated in special issues where the editing was nothing more than a round robin. They’re making too much of that. It’s content that matters.
I will post specific responses to the papers as I finish them.
Marty
Konrad. says: January 20, 2014 at 1:42 pm
One thing I know is Talkshop is where I’ll get the best answers
I agree, along with Tim Cullen’s MalagaBay, they are where the most actual Science is being done.
Have you noticed how many posts at WUWT are now by Paul Homewood, Justthefacts and Bob Tisdale.
The first two do good Analysis and Bob does Science as well.
I thought that Eschenbach’s latest “CO2 and CERES” threads were getting somewhere, but when I looked in to the accuracy of the data it was obvious that the data could be too course for looking for 2 W/m2 change in a Trend line.
[…] here. Roger, the fellow most of us know as Tallbloke, is in the center of the tempest, post here. He encourages all to come and read the science, which can be found […]
Was the setup of this journal ‘Pattern Recognition in Physics’ for “open” peer review?
Sparks: No.
So, the evaluation (review) was undertaken by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers) and are considered qualified for the review process?
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
Yes.
I wonder if the whole thing was a set-up, a trap? (comment from my husband)
“After this debacle it will be our pleasure to wrest Pattern Recognition in Physics from the dead hand of Coppernickers control and set it up as an independent journal with open peer review along the lines Jo suggest in her excellent post.”
Bravo. I hope it has great success. I hope the wounds will heal. Science and the scientific method needs everyone, even with passionate disagreements.
Since this appears to come up here now and again, it is worth pointing out that whatever Dayton Miller did or found (and there are lots of reasons to think that it was recognition of a pattern that was noise), single frequency laser interferometers which are inherently orders of magnitude more accurate than what Miller used, find no ether drift to level better that 1 part in 10^14
In regards to repeats of Dayton Miller’s experiment. No one has repeated the actual experiment in its entirety. For the repeats of michelson-morely-miller, non null results are much more common than null, it’s just easier to get the null results published. That’s the lesson for today.
Eli: link?
Marty: Yuri Galaev replicated Miller’s experiment with more modern equipment a decade ago. As you say, there’s a strong bias in the publication of results.
[…] attracted the ire of climate-change sceptics. “I’m shocked at this censorship of science,” responded Roger Tattersall on his blog after the decision on Friday. Tattersall, a web content editor at the School of Education of the […]
@ Ian Wilson (January 20, 2014 at 6:04 am)
Even California-based cultural imperialism has its limits.
17:10
“and so from being created in his likeness
to being banished for wanting to be too much like him
we were cast out
and the Garden of Eden transformed
into the Garden of Evil
Los Angeles
the city of angels
the land of gods and monsters
the in between realm
where only the choices made from your free will
will decide your soul’s final fate
some poets called it the entrance to the underworld
but on some summer nights
it could feel like paradise
paradise lost”
17:55
Lana Del Rey – Tropico (Short Film) (Explicit)
For a good follow up to Dayton Miller try [ this Amazon item –mod]
Many thanks Marty. Higly interesting.
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
(crossposted from other thread. Don’t want to spam you but JP at NTZ gave me the Weber hint and I find it a very tantalizing story that could have great repercussions on the stagnant/convoluted state of physics.)
Roger, why don’t you start a new updated post?
http://notrickszone.com/2014/01/21/lynch-mob-science-scafetta-accuses-publisher-of-skipping-trial-conducting-academic-lynching/#comment-914832
Konrad. says:
January 20, 2014 at 5:44 am
“If the water does not freeze, but instead does something like this –
Then we know that the NET effect of all atmospheric processes on the oceans is cooling. And the atmosphere has only one effective means of cooling, radiative gases. That would be curtains for global warming and all the fellow travellers right there.
Do you think the water sample will freeze Dirk? Or could it rise to near 80C?”
Given that the atmosphere can be seen as a heat engine my guess would be it helps to cool the oceans, ergo the oceans would be hotter without an atmosphere in your setup.
Personally I think Miskolczi got it right; CO2 and H20 cannibalize each other energetically; rising CO2 leads to lower H2O vapor content, and that is what measurements show. Positive water vapor feedback doesn’t exist; it’s the Big Lie that keeps the CO2AGW scare alive.
Thanks Nicola, I’ll do a roundup very soon.
Hi everyone
I am more than happy to disagree with lot of what written in the papers i.e. gravity, tidal forces, angular momentum, origin of the 60ish year cycles, etc etc, since I am an ‘electro-magnetic’ hypothesis sceptic. I couldn’t care less who reviewed whose article, what maters to me it is what is in the article. The whole publicity overkill is just a plain nonsense. I just hope something positive comes out of it, perhaps on lines as Jo Nova suggested, and if it does I would willing to contribute.
Thanks Vuk: I’m now firmly in the orbital harmonic resonance plus heliomagnetic+IMF plus gravity as the carrier fields camp myself. But the correlations which can be achieved with tidal-torque/spin-orbit coupling are undeniable, and fit the scheme too with some solar amplification. So everything is still in play so far as I can see. We’ll narrow it down eventually.
Why don’t you start a new thread like Nicola suggested and make this one on the content of the papers themselves, not how they got published.
If anyone still thinks that Dayton Miller was analyzing noise, Isuggestthey look atMaurice Allais’s plots of Miller’s data on page 17 of
http://www.amazon.com/Should-Laws-Gravitation-Reconsidered-Scientific/dp/0986492655/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1390356724&sr=1-1&keywords=hector+munera It sure doesn’t look like noise to me.
@ marty
Tom van Flandern and X.S.Yang give their explanation of the Allais eclipse effect in the paper below.
‘Here we show that an unusual phenomenon that occurs only during solar eclipses, rapid air mass movement for the bulk of the atmosphere above normal cloud levels, appears to be a sufficient explanation for both the magnitude and behavior of the anomaly.’
Click to access paper01.pdf
[…] oldbrew on Breaking: Pattern Recognition… […]
@oldbrew
Please note that I was referring to the General Allais Effect not the Allais Eclipse Effect.
I have known the late Van Flandern for 20 years, have the greatest respect for him, and am familiar with his arguments. The argument you reference does not explain observations like the Pugach Torsion and the phase is wrong.
OK, noted Marty.
In essence the issue of Lorentz invariance and the naivety of the correspondents here and in PRP is simply an affirmation that you guys are playing well out of your league. For a summary of the state of play in testing Lorentz invariance, take a look at the fifth and sixth sections of David Mattingly’s summary of theoretical and experimental issues. He has a bunch of other papers on the issue.
Children should not play with scientific journals.
Condescension is the last line of defense for dishonest or conflicted debaters.
Eli. Explain how any of the speed of light discussion affects anything in PRP or withdraw the remark.
I think Eli is out of his league 🙂
The level of sophistication about pattern recognition was ~1920. You are stuck on Dayton Miller, and Gurnov, the world is way ahead.
Eli: In some fields it is. In others it has got a lot further up a narrowing creek of crap and lost its paddle. This is the reason for the observations first approach.
You think your theory and models are more advanced. But then attempt to force the obs to fit them with tobs adjustments and fudged up aerosol imaginings. This will not do.
And in my own field, we find plenty of astrophys papers which attempt to model stellar system evolution with grav only theory which clearly fails. Perturbation theory is a nightmare of heuristics.
But our simple 1920s (or even neoclassical) methods of interrelating spin and orbit finding harmonic resonant ratios tells us energy is being stored and transmitted not only in the gravitational field but must involve e.m. too. So a rethink is in order, because axial rotation variation clearly drives oceanic cycles and consequently a ‘stadium wave’ of other climate variation as Wyatt and Curry show.
Regular beach ridges with larger ridges at longer cyclicities shout ‘celestial’.
Hey Brer Wabbit, go argue it with Miles Mathis:
http://milesmathis.com/phon.html
Snicker.
Brer Wabbett, you mean way ahead like in Linear No Threshold, Nuclear Winter, Gorebull Warming, God particles, Black holes…
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
Y’all ain’t even way ahead of witch doctors with chicken gizzards.
Eli Rabett says:
January 22, 2014 at 9:56 pm
“The level of sophistication about pattern recognition was ~1920. You are stuck on Dayton Miller, and Gurnov, the world is way ahead.”
Way ahead into epicycles (protective hypotheses to save the core theory from falsification).
Lots of wasted lifes.
[…] Fonte : https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/breaking-pattern-recognition-in-physics-axed-by-copernicus… […]
[…] 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 […]
To Euan Mearns (19/1 at 21:36)
Starting from your link, click on “Listed by Data Type” (at the top of the page), which takes you to …
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/icecore-varlist.html
Then click on the “GISP2” link in the “Other” section (at the bottom of this page) …
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/document/gispdata.htm
Finally, click on the “Cosmogenic isotopes” link (second bullet point) …
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/document/gispcosm.htm
The first link on this page is to the “ber10.txt” file that I linked directly to in my first post.
I agree that the web-site designers have done virtually everything possible to prevent people from finding this data “intuitively” …
[…] the GISP2 ice core from the Greenland summit. Hat tip to Mark BLR who posted links to the data in this comment on Tallblokes Talkshop a couple of weeks ago. Some of the questions being asked […]
[…] Christopher Monckton wrote a letter to Martin Rasmussen at Copernicus Publishing, to protest the preremptory closure of journal ‘Pattern Recognition in Physics’, following its publication of our special […]
[…] labour, which he has asked us to share with the Solar-planetary community. Since the venue at Pattern Recognition in Physics was axed by Copernicus (The Innovative Science un-PublisherTM), he says he is not sure where to get this […]
[…] with his New Climate Model and those scurrilous ‘climate sceptics’ over at the now infamously censored Pattern Recognition In Physics also contributed some very interesting theories linking Planetary […]
Reblogged this on CRIKEY !#&@ …… IT'S THE WEATHER CYCLES and commented:
Copernicus publications BAN and CENSOR climate and solar system research
Thanks WC: The more this is reblogged, the more Copernicus will feel the heat…