Get Laughs, Get Attention, Get Your Message Across

I already have a climate bet with a Brian Schmidt, I’d like to do another » Weekend Unthreaded Science paper doubts IPCC, so whole journal gets terminated! In extraordinary news, the scientific journal Pattern Recognition in Physics has been unexpectedly terminated, a “drastic decision” taken just ten months after it started. The publisher appears to be shocked that in a recent special issue the scientists expressed doubt about the accelerated warming predicted by the IPCC. For the crime of not bowing before the sacred tabernacle, apparently the publishers suddenly felt the need to distance themselves, and in the most over-the-top way. The reasons they gave had nothing to do with the data, the logic, and they cite no errors. There can be no mistake, this is about enforcing a permitted line of thought. I must say, it’s a brilliant (if a tad expensive) way to draw attention to a scientific paper. It’s the Barbara-Streisland moment in science. Forget “withdrawn”, forget “retracted”, the new line in the sand is to write a paper so hot they have to terminate the whole journal! Skeptics could hardly come up with a more electric publicity campaign. Naturally, as with all good Barbara-Streisland-moves intended to suppress information, as soon as I heard, the first thing I did was to seek out and download copies of all the papers. Right now, people everywhere would be starting to do the same, curious to know what could be so unsayable. (See the links at the bottom). In the official announcement the excuses are amazingly transparent. There is little attempt to cover up the reasons. The publisher pays the usual lip service saying science needs disputes and discussion of controversial topics. But some things are apparently too awful to contemplate — like pointing out how the high priests of the IPCC might be incorrect. http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.net/ Termination of the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics Copernicus Publications started publishing the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics (PRP) in March 2013. The journal idea was brought to Copernicus’ attention and was taken rather critically in the beginning, since the designated Editors-in-Chief were mentioned in the context of the debates of climate skeptics. However, the initiators asserted that the aim of the journal was to publish articles about patterns recognized in the full spectrum of physical disciplines rather than to focus on climate-research-related topics. Recently, a special issue was compiled entitled “Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts”. Besides papers dealing with the observed patterns in the heliosphere, the special issue editors ultimately submitted their conclusions in which they “doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project” (Pattern Recogn. Phys., 1, 205–206, 2013). Copernicus Publications published the work and other special issue papers to provide the spectrum of the related papers to the scientists for their individual judgment. Following best practice in scholarly publishing, published articles cannot be removed afterwards. We at Copernicus Publications wish to distance ourselves from the apparent misuse of the originally agreed aims & scope of the journal and decided on 17 January 2014 to cease the publication of PRP. Of course, scientific dispute is controversial and should allow contradictory opinions which can then be discussed within the scientific community. However, the recent developments including the expressed implications (see above) have led us to this drastic decision. Interested scientists can reach the online library at: www.pattern-recogn-phys.net Martin Rasmussen

January 2014 UPDATE: I hear that there is a newer version of this note which added an extra paragraph: “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.” Copernicus is a large publishing group which also publishes many other journals. I wonder if “nepotism” is the word for pal-review which occurs all the time… UPDATE #2: So no one misses it, the Editors primary objection was “doubt of the IPCC” and this shows in their original Termination page as well as in their emails to authors. The “nepotism” excuse appeared later, probably when they realized how pathetic their reasoning was as the authors pointed out in their replies. The Unspeakable special edition was authored by the following (skeptics will recognise many names): N.-A. Mörner1, R. Tattersall2, J.-E. Solheim3, I. Charvatova4, N. Scafetta5, H. Jelbring6, I. R. Wilson7, R. Salvador8, R. C. Willson9, P. Hejda10, W. Soon11, V. M. Velasco Herrera12, O. Humlum13, D. Archibald14, H. Yndestad15, D. Easterbrook16, J. Casey17, G. Gregori18, and G. Henriksson19. If you would like to thank the editor for guaranteeing that this paper will now be discussed in magazines and newspapers (when it might have been ignored) or if you’d like to suggest a different title for their business (Not Copernicus, perhaps) you can write to him martin.rasmussen AT copernicus.org. As always, be polite, please. Nils Axel Morner has published 580 papers and presented 550 talks at major international conferences. He was the editor of the special issue which includes 14 papers and 20 authors. He writes to Martin Rasmussen: “I can do nothing but condemn your decision as unjust, unethical and ultra anti-scientific.“ Make no mistake, the editors wrote to Nils and their main reason was that anyone could doubt the IPCC: We were alarmed by the authors’ second implication stating “This sheds serious doubts on the issue of a continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project”. So the editors were alarmed that scientists were not alarmed. It’s in writing. Who decides which papers have scientific merit these days? Skeptics do not need the rusty clanking gears of peer review paper journals. We have free press, we have the Internet. It’s time we got back to what science is supposed to be. Science is not “peer review” — it’s reasoning and evidence. It’s not about the paper, the editors, the brand name or the color of the print. It’s about the truth. Where are the real scientist, and the real science journals? Peer review is broken, scientists need a better system – it’s time to boycott any journal which does not speak up against this weak act of caving in to the dominant paradigm. It is not about whether they agree with the scientific conclusions, it’s about free speech. It’s about science. (1) all the individual papers can be downloaded (free of charge) at: http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/special_issue2.html Tallbloke is shocked at the censorship VN:F [1.9.22_1171] please wait... Rating: 9.3/10 (230 votes cast) , 9.3 out of 10 based on 230 ratings Tweet The short killer summary: The Skeptics Handbook. The most deadly point: The Missing Hot Spot.

: : : : : : : : : : : : :