JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



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 Forget “withdrawn”, forget “retracted”, the new line in the sand is to write a paper so hot they have to terminate the whole journal!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:

Tallbloke is shocked at the censorship

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (225 votes cast)
Science paper doubts IPCC, so whole journal gets terminated! , 9.3 out of 10 based on 225 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/orobm8o

319 comments to Science paper doubts IPCC, so whole journal gets terminated!

  • #
    Chris

    Incredible. There must have been some enormous, undisclosed pressure for Mr. Rasmussen to make a decision so nakedly unscientific. What an awful tale of censorship.


    Report this

    593

    • #
      Radical Rodent

      Free speech: the first victim in the subjugation of the masses. Yet we are happy to let it go, one bit at a time: you cannot call the black person “black”, use “coloured” (then reverse that idea, and manipulate as desired); a joke where another nationality is the butt – “racist!”; identify a person by their apparent origins in a perceived derogatory way – “racist!” (except if they are white, then “Brit”, “Yank”, “Kiwi”, “Oz” or “Whinging Pom” are acceptable). Being British (by acceptance), I am immune to offence or insult, so believe that all others should be; that they appear not to be is NOT my fault, it is THEIR problem. To use the saying long accredited to Voltaire: “I do not agree with what you have to say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.”

      That this is a blatant assault on free speech has to be obvious: “You do not say what we want you to say, so we will take away your chance to say it.” If we do not protect any of our freedoms – even if it upsets us how others use them – then we are destined to lose it. Many, many of our forefathers were prepared to give up their lives to defend that principle, yet we are prepared to let them go for a bit more “Strictly Get Stars in Big Talent on Ice.” If we are not prepared to give up a little time in its defence then its loss is our fault, and it is our children and grandchildren who will suffer.


      Report this

      591

      • #
        Jon Reinertsen

        Ahh yes Rodent, but dare to say you are English! Irish, Welsh or Scots is OK, but the English must be British!


        Report this

        120

      • #
        crakar24

        Can you burn a journal like you can a book? About 70 odd years ago a lot of books were burnt to hide facts are we seeing a repeat?


        Report this

        180

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        Yes Radical Rodent, and on Bolta today is a story about a taxpayer funded magazine that refuses to publish POETRY written by poets wh o have dared to be published in the Quadrant magazine. Hard to believe such totalitarian subversives were encouraged in Dillard’s Australia.


        Report this

        130

        • #
          Radical Rodent

          Whether or not a magazine is funded by the tax-payer, its editors deserve the right to refuse to publish works that they do not like, and no reasons need to be given. As I said, we ALL have the rights to our own opinions, a point made more poignant when we see others expressing opinions that we do not agree with.


          Report this

          03

          • #
            Senex Bibax

            Fine, but there is no inherent right for magazines of any stripe to receive taxpayer funding. It’s a good place for governments to start when looking for unnecessary spending to cut.


            Report this

            100

          • #
            Sean McHugh

            its editors deserve the right to refuse to publish works that they do not like, and no reasons need to be given.

            Fine, I think the Government and the non-politically-correct taxpayer has been been given good reason to “not like” this editor and his leftist magazine.

            As I said, we ALL have the rights to our own opinions,

            Own? Err, wouldn’t it be the taxpayer who owns?


            Report this

            20

            • #
              Radical Rodent

              Both of you are giving a good example of the chipping away of our rights. Remember: a government cannot “give” you rights (thus expecting adulation at their largesse); they can only take them away – and the most effective way is to persuade you to give them away, hence, the publically-funded magazine. Who was it who said something along the lines of: “Those who would give up freedom for security deserve neither.”?


              Report this

              30

              • #
                Alan McIntire

                Who was it who said something along the lines of: “Those who would give up freedom for security deserve neither.”?

                That was Benjamin Franklin


                Report this

                50

              • #
                Radical Rodent

                Ah, yes. Thank you. A wise man, indeed. Shame that there are so few of his calibre in the present political circus; instead, we have O’barmy, Camoron, Millipede, Meerkat, and similar. Who will rid us of these troublesome pr***s?


                Report this

                40

              • #
                Sean McHugh

                I don’t believe I am chipping away at anyone’s “rights” and I am NOT charging you for that opinion. That last bit of that sentence is important and was the essence of the replies you received.

                We now have the situation in Australia where the Left have taken control of the universities, the public schools, the public TV and the science departments. How about the “right” to not have to finance their propaganda?

                I take it that consistency would have seen you opposing the closure of Tim Flannery’s Climate Commission.


                Report this

                31

              • #
                Radical Rodent

                Sean, we seem to be talking at cross-purposes. I was actually agreeing with you; sorry I haven’t managed to put that across.

                Yes, to establish a publication at public expense to spread your own propaganda (which might be at variance to the public good) is not a good thing. That governments are doing this – and quite blatantly – displays both the utter contempt they hold for us, and the reason for that contempt – that there are so many who are unable to see the erosion. Even worse, there are many who want such erosion to be faster; “Clamp these chains around me so that I may be safe!”

                To raise another quote: “If you want total security, go to prison. There you’re fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking is freedom.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Sean McHugh

                Apologies. I should have asked for clarification.


                Report this

                00

    • #
      Chuck Nolan

      I wonder if the team made him an offer he couldn’t refuse?
      Maybe “get-out-o-da-bidness..or else”?


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Konrad

      Chris,
      it appears there is a very good explanation for “some enormous, undisclosed pressure for Mr. Rasmussen to make a decision so nakedly unscientific”. Many of the papers in the Pattern recognition journal were discussing mechanisms behind solar cycles and possible links to climate.

      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.

      This casts a new light on events discussed on this thread. For the exit strategy to work, it needs to be “new science”. Pattern Recognition would have provided officially published scientific evidence of a group of sceptics who have been discussing the solar possibility for years. That would destroy claims that solar influence was “new science”. Rebutting the papers in Pattern Recognition using due scientific process would have taken too long. The Journal had to be destroyed.

      Need confirmation of the exit strategy in play? 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. Pattern Recognition and the many sceptics who have been looking at solar cycles are standing in their way. Rejecting climate scepticism and claims of pal-review are just the tip of the iceberg here.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        Konrad, it seems so.

        To save embarrassment call off all the bets. All the horses bar one fell.

        But do not fail to trumpet to the high heavens: “We told you so!. CO2 is clearly not the biggest factor in the warming we have seen”.

        And do not stop repeating it.


        Report this

        10

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Nice analysis.

        Time to resurrect those 1970′s Youtube clips with narration by Leonard Nimoy.

        They can’t claim it is new, if their parents and grandparents lived through it. So the implication must be that the climate is cyclic. Perish the thought.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Chris

        Thank you for your thoughts, Konrad. I think you raise interesting and valid points. It is worth noting, however, that most comments to date (including the peer/pal-review debate and the subtext of the need for some to “destroy” the journal) are conjecture and/or speculation. It seems to me that the ultimate “smoking gun” rests within the papers themselves, i.e., are they scientifically sound? Do they hold up to scrutiny? Can the conclusions be tested, can results be repeated? Everything else is just drama and window dressing, isn’t it?

        Again, thank you for your thoughts. This story is filled with intrigue!

        Chris


        Report this

        10

    • #
      Jon

      Who would have anything to do with a journal that is policy governed?


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Jon

      First climate scientist to document global warming gets trapped in, according climate models, non “existence” pack-ice.

      And now this a science journal calling people climate sceptics and not accepting scientific critique against the political established UNFCCC/IPCC?

      Ship of fools and a policy based journal?


      Report this

      10

    • #
    • #
      Steve

      Yes but I’m not surprised – recently I’d been arging against the church of the CAGW in a regional ( F*******x owned newspaper ) online, presenting balanced and fair arguements, citing references etc etc.

      Remarkably a few of my postings were published, but many were not.

      In “Letters to the Editor” we only get “local people” thundering their disapproval of climate deniers in true classic soviet agitprop style.

      The whole schemozzle is truly laughable, but its hows you how far the CAGW cult goes to protect itself.

      Thankfully many are waking up, so the cult heoracrchy are doubling their efforts. I suspect this is a main reaosn many regional news papers have been bought up by the Establishment to keep the plebs in the backwoods in the dark and “on message”.

      The truth will come out though.


      Report this

      10

    • #
  • #
    ATheoK

    It has certainly been an amazing start to the New Year.

    I wonder if they’re willing to sell the now closed online journal? Cheap, like free.


    Report this

    200

  • #
    Ed Caryl

    We should be grateful to Copernicus for so spectacularly breaking the paradigm. Now we have a graphic example we can point to of the censoring of skeptical views. This might even get MSM attention. (I won’t hold my breath.)


    Report this

    620

    • #
      Winston

      This sort of puts a lie to the whole “if you knew what you were talking about, you would have done a peer reviewed paper”, or “the vast majority of papers support CAGW”(even when only 0.3% explicitly do) truism.

      Peer review is a crap game played with loaded dice, and the house always wins.


      Report this

      280

    • #
      Vic G Gallus

      Please remember, nobody actually gave Copernicus this sort of grief (before his death). Pope Clement (VI I think) gave a colleague of Copernicus a not insignificant gift for presenting Copernicus’s theory in a lecture. No information of what it was or whether it was shared with Copernicus but a good chance that it was the money used to publish his book.


      Report this

      50

      • #
        ExWarmist

        However Giordano Bruno certainly did come to grief!


        Report this

        01

        • #
          Vic G Gallus

          True, but do read the link. He was burnt at the stake for;
          holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith and speaking against it and its ministers;
          holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about the Trinity, divinity of Christ, and Incarnation;
          holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith pertaining to Jesus as Christ;
          holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith regarding the virginity of Mary, mother of Jesus;
          holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about both Transubstantiation and Mass;
          claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity;
          believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes;
          dealing in magics and divination.

          I think pantheism rather than heliocentric beliefs was what got him into strife. While I don’t agree with the punishment (and neither does the modern church) life was difficult and cheap back then. A break up of social order would result in many deaths and people were being hung for stealing handkerchiefs in 18th century England.


          Report this

          61

        • #
          marius

          I think his undoing had more to do with his definition of the nature ‘God’
          No religion worthy of its salt could possibly tolerate that, provided they had the power to do somet about it.

          By his time the church could live happily with an heliocentric universe.


          Report this

          21

  • #
  • #

    Down the memory hole it goes!


    Report this

    61

  • #
    Greg

    The truth hurts in this case. The truth would have been ‘We have decided to suspend publication of this journal because we are afraid of being shunned by the CAGW establishment, which would cost us a lot of money’.


    Report this

    410

  • #

    The Visigoths yet again scaling the walls of scientific objectivity. If I were the editor and the contributing authors, I’d see this as an opportune piece of PR to launch a blog or even a paysite. Who ever heard of the periodical anyway.

    Pointman


    Report this

    371

  • #
    Tom

    So the IPCC is supposed to be a summary of the current literature. However, if you go against the IPCC in the literature your journal will be canceled.


    Report this

    360

    • #
      SuffolkBoy

      No wonder Gore, Oreskes, UCS and others can boldly assert that the alleged paper publication ratios of warmist::sceptic is 2258::1, which is down from 928::0 eight years ago ;-) . They are making sure that no sceptical papers can be published! Are they bullying the editors not to publish sceptical papers, and then forcing their closure if they refuse? This story will run for months. The fig-leaf of “nepotism” is just a cosmetic tweak.


      Report this

      70

    • #
      Jon

      IPCC is mostly making a summary of current UNFCCC policy based literature.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    How very odd. In cut-n-pasting from http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.net/ you unaccountably failed to include this 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.

    Doubtless just an oversight. Ctrl-C Ctrl-V isn’t an easy sequence to type accurately.

    ——————————–
    Dear William, Willie Soon emailed me the original copy of the page and I cut and pasted it accurately. When I notified him of the post, he immediately told me the page was updated, and I updated my post. One of my moderators binned your comment, I assume because they could not figure out what you were on about. They know I would not bother doing something as pointless as you suggest. Meanwhile I was emailing authors of the papers and I have a full copy of what the editors sent with timestamps, and it’s clear their “nepotism” excuse was an afterthought, probably when they realized how inadequate their primary objection was (ie “doubting” the IPCC). Your apology is accepted. Thanks for trying to help, perhaps next time if you write with goodwill instead, your comment will prove helpful. – Jo


    Report this

    634

    • #
      bullocky

      Nice to see you posting here, William.
      -
      Don’t underestimate Jo: she may have more traps set for you!


      Report this

      280

    • #
      Konrad

      Odd indeed that the “Winston Smith” of wikipedia chose not to mention that the “nepotism” accusation was added as a frantic band-aid by Martin Rasmussen after his inane comments clearly indicated that rejecting climate scepticism that was his true motivation.

      But the WikiWeasel has quite the reputation for editing “history” and climate gatekeeping on wikipedia. Over 5000 edits smearing sceptics and defending the collapsing consensus.

      And who might be behind pressuring Rasmussen? The crowing of Eli Rabitt and William at Talkshop tells a story -

      “William Connolley says:
      January 17, 2014 at 4:27 pm
      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.”

      What possessed Rasmussen to even try that “nepotism” band-aid after Climategate? –
      “we’ll keep those papers out even if we have to redefine what peer review means”
      Drawing attention to pal review problems. Not smart. Not smart at all.

      So how did this turn out for the WikiWeasel? Rasmussen and Copernicus Publications shamed and desperately editing their excuses, and downloads of the pdfs increasing.


      Report this

      350

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        Pal review! May I use that?

        It has been clear for a very long time that a great many of the people citing “peer review” do not know what a peer is.

        Then there are the people who say that so and so, (lets say David Evans, who I saw mentioned last week in this way), is not a climate scientist.

        They refuse to see that David Evans, the example I nominate, is a scientist so highly qualified that climate scientists hired him as an expert to do work for them

        Long ago I observed that many insecure professional people, especially in the public service, protect their own patch by not only never dipping a toe into some other professional’s patch, but also by condemning others that do.

        Their measure of the expertise is the boundary of the nominal academic qualification. Experience, related expertise and performance record don’t count.

        Meanwhile, the Pal review issue is one that the general public must be made to understand. Especially those with an Arts degree.


        Report this

        30

    • #

      How’s it feel to be on the receiving end for a change Willy? All those people whose entries in Wiki you helpfully amended must be enjoying the moment. I include myself in that group by the way.

      Pointman


      Report this

      360

      • #
        Konrad

        Pointman,
        what makes this blowing up in the WikiWeasel’s face so delicious is that he just destroyed the very thing he was trying to aid.

        The BBC has been working very hard on an exit strategy that will save their skins. A “hard landing” for the global warming hoax means that the evidence of 28Gate and the evidence of their collusion in the “cause” from Climategate2 will enrage the UK public and the BBC’s lifeblood, TV licences, are at risk. The BBC are now fighting for their very survival. Their exit strategy is reporting the coming deep solar minimum. There have been a flurry of recent mentions in BBC documentaries and news items, both video and text. This allows them to claim that they were right about CO2 causing warming, but explains the coming cooling.

        The BBC have their pet solar scientist, Mike Lockwood, who is prepared to play along and pretend that this is “New science” and that was why all the climate scientists in the world were unaware of it. He gets his “time in the sun”, they get their exit strategy.

        But the problem is that certain sceptics have been talking about solar cycles, the Maunder minimum and the little ice age for years. Those sceptics successfully predicted a weak cycle 24 where NASA failed. The “Lief Blower” has successfully suppressed this at WUWT, but had no traction at Talkshop. The Talkshop had to be discredited. So in charge the WikiWeasel and Bunny Boi, armed with their Gleick 9mm’s. What could possibly go wrong? ;-)

        Well, after they tripped over the front step, grabbed at the “Streisand” control knob for support and twisted it all the way to 11, things just went down hill from there…

        But the pain for the WikiWeasel is just going to keep on coming. It will never end. He is first and foremost a “political scientist”, which as we all know is a very polite euphemism for “squealing leftardulent foamer”. But his actions at have not just stitched the BBC’s only exit strategy, oh no, he has to live with so much more! He has been instrumental in the destruction of the IPCC, WMO, UNEP, the EUSSR parliament, and the total discrediting of the UN and every activist, journalist and politician of the left from one side of the globe to the other. A truly spectacular effort!


        Report this

        390

    • #

      The snivveling smirky smart arse of wiki fame picked the wrong gal to smear.
      I’m hopeful that you will apologise William, lest people think you’re just a sniping bitter old prigk (sic).

      Go on William, show us you’re a man and apologise.


      Report this

      140

      • #
        Sean McHugh

        Go on William, show us you’re a man and apologise.

        That won’t be enough. He then needs to redirect his attack against those he was defending. But whom are we kidding? He is Jihad Warmist and won’t do either.


        Report this

        40

    • #
    • #

      Why is the Wikipedia climate criminal allowed to post here and abuse Jo?

      Wikipropaganda On Global Warming

      Wikipedia’s climate doctor: How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles

      Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug. 11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

      All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

      Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

      5.6) William M. Connolley is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3.
      5.6) William M. Connolley is permitted to edit within the topic area of Climate change, but is prohibited from editing relating to any living person associated with this topic, interpreted broadly but reasonably. William M. Connolley is reminded to abide by all applicable Wikipedia policies in editing on this topic and that he remains subject either to further action by this Committee or (like all editors in this topic-area) to discretionary sanctions should he fail to do so. *

      Passed 7 to 0, 14:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
      * Amended by motion, 8 to 2, 21:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Jon

      WC wrote:
      “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.”

      Does this also apply to UNFCCC policy based literature?


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Teddi

      Coming from the wiki nepotistic malpractice all-time king of bias and censorship !

      Yeah, we’ll file you comment in the “history” section…


      Report this

      10

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      One has but to look at Connolley’s antics at Wiki to understand Goodwill is not in his repertoire.


      Report this

      10

  • #

    Thanks Jo.
    I hope in all the hullaballoo around the overt biased reasoning and unsubstantiated accusations that people will download ALL the papers and enjoy them. Once they see the breakthrough we’ve made in predicting changes in solar activity many years ahead, they might understand the scientific validity of the statement in the summary paper.


    Report this

    740

  • #
    jgc

    star commentThis is really bad.
    Copernicus is the publisher of all the journals of the European Geophysical Union (EGU), and I bet this is a great business for them.
    In the past I have worked for free for Copernicus, by publishing and rewiewing for the EGU. But after this apalling act of censorship, I will be writing to them to ask for my data to be removed from their database and informing them that I will not be submitting to or reviewing for their journals in the future


    Report this

    1042

    • #
      AndyG55

      Well done, sir..

      I hope many others take your path.


      Report this

      390

    • #
      Peter Miller

      Like most reasonable people, I obviously abhor censorship of this type. The alarmist community has been far too successful in imposing its often fantastic beliefs on the world at large and censorship has been one of its main tools.

      However, some of these articles – to be polite – are a bit of a stretch. I would never have bothered to read them had it not been for this unwarranted action by Copernicus, who were obviously got at by the Climate Inquisition.

      I would be interested to know the circulation of this publication, which I doubt is more than a few hundred – there could be some perfectly good economic reasons for closing it down. What I find interesting is that these reasons were ignored in favour of some alarmist nonsense.

      Anyhow, here is some really screwy ‘science’, by a global warming true believer:

      http://www.expanding-earth.org/


      Report this

      40

  • #
    hunter

    If a specialty is very narrow, why would it not be relatively ‘nepotistic’ in the selection of reviewwers? In climate science it is not unusual at all, according to the record, to have very close relationships between reviewers. And this is apparently true in other fields of science. As to shutting down an entire journal over a secondary implicatin being too controversial, that is downright odd.
    If the merits of the paper are dubious, then let the paper crash and burn on its merit or lack thereof. Cliamte scince is far too delicate if its apologists cannot even withstand a secondry implication being permitted to be put in writing.


    Report this

    341

    • #

      One would imagine (quite incorrectly it seems) that an open publication has the objective of disseminating ideas for wide readership and to incite thoughtful responses from people that haven’t necessarily been chosen to comment.

      Superficially, it appears that the copper nickers got themselves in a twist over a few phrases in the summary of a special issue “General conclusions regarding the
      planetary–solar–terrestrial interaction
      ” (links to 2-page PDF)

      The “objectionable” section says:

      Implication 2
      Several papers have addressed the question about the evolution of climate during the 21st century. Obviously, we are on our way into a new grand solar minimum. This sheds serious doubts on the issue of a continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project.

      Are the publishers trying to suppress the observations of a new solar minimum simply because it contradicts the IPCC’s politically-biased computer models which take no realistic account of a myriad of known and significant factors?

      The answer seems to be in the letter published by Tallbloke:

      PRP was never meant to be a platform for climate sceptics.

      At what point should scientists (and Engineers, etc) tell other people that they have got the wrong end of the stick? Is it before or after all the resources necessary to deal with the consequences have been squandered in vain efforts?

      I have my doubts that one is able to deal rationally with people whose professional decisions are based on their beliefs and how they feel (including self interest) instead of using the information that is in front of them.


      Report this

      140

  • #
    Mindert Eiting

    This is amazing,Jo. The editors must have an editorial statute that guarantees their editorial and scientific independence from the owner. If the owner would have finished the journal for financial reasons, it would have been another matter. This seems a direct violation of a statute, worth going to court. Let’s see.


    Report this

    360

    • #
      Mindert Eiting

      After reading some comments on the internet, focussing on censorship, I have got the impression that the Netherlands is the only country in the world where boards of editors have statutes, perhaps with the exception of school-newspapers run by children. These statutes are legal documents in which, among others, the independence of the editors and the owner are settled. To give an example of a standard article (in my translation)

      ‘The owner (publisher) will never decide without consultation of the chief editor about matters of which he knows or may suspect that decisions may influence directly or indirectly editorial policy’.

      Does anyone know whether PRP did not have a statute and was from the Dutch point of view an amateurish product? Was the decision to terminate the journal endorsed by the chief editor and the board?


      Report this

      40

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    Will there be calls to shut down the BBC after producing this video that suggests Global Cooling may lie ahead soon?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25771510

    It’s well worth the watch and possibly copying in case it disappears.


    Report this

    210

  • #
    Jud

    Methinks someone high up in the climate scare community has had a word in the ear of the publishers.

    I’m intrigued by the use of the term ‘nepotism’.
    As far as I know its definition is quite specific and requires the involvement of relatives.
    Is that really what they are saying?

    It’s a pity Jones and Mann aren’t cousins.
    It would have saved us a lot of trouble apparently


    Report this

    200

  • #

    Since the ipcc’s inception in 1988, as the foundation of their theory, they had maintained that the ice core data showed that there was a proven causal correlation between CO2 & temperature. Yet in 1999 a peer reviewed paper disputed this, looking more closely at the ice core data, and showing that in fact the correlation was the opposite of what the ipcc portrayed, that temperatures led CO2, not the opposite. Well, the ipcc fought this tooth and nail, and only in 2003 did the ipcc finally have to concede the issue. Nevertheless, Al Gore in his 2005 movie went ahead and took the discredited ipcc position on CO2 in a willful deception, see an outstanding 3 minnte portrayal of Gore’s deception on CO2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg&ii=CO2Lag


    Report this

    240

  • #

    This anti-life watermelon nonscience is finally being crushed by the vise of quantitative physics .

    Living my adult life in Array Programming Languages , I only claim to understand that which I can compute . My AGW.ppt works thru the highschool level computation of the equilibrium temperature of radiantly heated uniformly colored balls . But that alone is enough to calculate that for Venus to have a surface temperature its 2.25 times that of a gray ball in its orbit , given its 0.9 albedo , it would have to be 10 times as reflective as aluminum foil in the IR . CO2 sure doesn’t fit that bill .

    Ergo , Hansen’s claim that Venus is an example of a “runaway greenhouse effect” does not compute . He should have been laughed out of his dissertation orals or wherever his peers were reviewing him .

    Because of my interest in creating a model of the earth in a few pages of succinct array language definitions explaining the approximately 3% warmer we appear to be than the approximately 279k of a flat spectrum ball in our orbit , I am particularly interested in Dr Scafetta’s algorithmic planetarium . Our position with respect to the sun is by far the most accurately known parameter determining our temperature . And therefore the first thing which can be subtracted from our uncertainty .

    Exactly fitting a journal named Pattern Recognition in Physics .


    Report this

    210

  • #
    Stuart Elliot

    Reading the comments over at Tallbloke’s site, I was struck by how annoying that Connolley character is, the one who scrubbed Wikipedia clean of any dissenting thoughts on CAGW over the years. The contrast with the dismayed and serious scientists who also commented in the same thread is striking.

    Truth will out. But it must force its way through some considerable accretions of dogma.


    Report this

    410

  • #
    Adrian O

    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 like a 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


    Report this

    310

  • #
    bullocky

    .
    …..” Forget “withdrawn”, forget “retracted”, the new line in the sand is to write a paper so hot they have to terminate the whole journal!”
    -
    Gergis and Karoly …….Take note!


    Report this

    130

  • #
    handjive

    Proof this is type of totalitarian behaviour can be directly related to Hitler!
    Don’t Laugh!

    The Distraction.
    Bob Brown wonders why aliens aren’t calling
    “”FELLOW Earthians,” asks Greens leader Bob Brown, “Why aren’t the intergalactic phones ringing?”

    Bob asks the important questions, distracting skeptical journalists as they roll around the floor laughing, whilst the dribbling congo line of believers faithfully fill columns.

    The whistle blower.
    Enter Edward Snowden.

    Now it gets interesting, as Iran’s news service reports.

    Snowden Documents Proving “US-Alien-Hitler” Link Stun Russia
    (T)he American ex-patriot Edward Snowden states that this information is providing “incontrovertible proof” that an “alien/extraterrestrial intelligence agenda” is driving US domestic and international policy, and has been doing so since at least 1945, Whatdoesitmean.com reported.
    .
    The aliens were here all along and are running the “stop the climate change” agenda!
    Ok. Now you can laugh!

    Bob Brown, Professor ‘I see conspiracies’ Lewandowsky will see you now.


    Report this

    100

    • #
      Adam

      A slight derail, but apparently an alien form was directing US policy for quite some time:

      http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2014/01-02/america-big-dumb-ox/


      Report this

      30

    • #
      policycritic

      FSB experts in this report say, was confirmed this past weekend by former Canadian defense minister Paul Hellyer who was given access to all of Snowden’s documents by Russian intelligence services and stated they were, indeed, “accurate.”

      HUNH? How did “Russian intelligence services” gain access to “all of Snowden’s documents?” Greenwald has enumerated who has the full set; I believe it’s three: himself, Laura Poitras, and the Guardian editor who went with them to Hong Kong. The Guardian newspaper smashed the hard drive instead of handing it over to the UK government. The Washington Post writer (Gellman?) has a subset. Greenwald said he gave chunks of the docs to other reporters who are helping them vet the material.

      However. A condition of Snowden’s entry to Russia was that he not release any documents. Snowden said at the time that he no longer had them. He gave them to Greenwald.

      So how did Russian intelligence services obtain a copy?

      Also, the Paul Hellyer thing about UFOs is not news. He gave a talk two or three years ago where he discussed Canadian government involvement in UFO technology. It’s on youtube somewhere.

      AHHH! I just clicked on the source: “By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers.”

      This is BS, imo. “Sorcha Faal” is the source of a lot of internet nonsense. So wonder this article was not sourced properly.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Colin

    Great story!
    OT and BTW, I believe the singer’s name is “Barbra Streisand”.


    Report this

    70

  • #

    From
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/breaking-pattern-recognition-in-physics-axed-by-copernicus/comment-page-1/#comment-65881

    star comment

    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.


    Report this

    481

  • #
  • #
    Susan Fraser

    Like a blowfly dying on a windowsill, the death throes of CAGW is unpleasant in every way.

    Book burning never works.


    Report this

    210

  • #
    diogenese2

    “a small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history”
    Mahatma Gandhi

    You can always measure the power of an action by observing the reaction. In this case the reaction has already been noted as an example of the ” Streisland effect”. To understand this reaction you must enter the political realm where the cost of the grotesque miscalculation of the “renewables” strategy is now apparent and the politicals
    are beginning to seek an exit strategy from the corner into which they have painted themselves by embracing the AGW narrative. This group of papers, with an authority at least as acceptable as any in an IPPC assessment, demands refutation. The only so far are William Connolley’s puerile splutterings that these authors are “a bunch of nutters”.
    This will not cut much ice with Angela Merkal facing economic paralysis or our own “Titus Groan”, Cameron , who seeks an exit from the rigid constraints of the “concensus” and whose interest in Aussieland extends to more than the cricket scoreboard.
    Hence the imperative for the AGW establishment to suppress the irrefutable. Well, after “climategate” they lifted Roger Tallbloke’s computers in a futile search for FOIA. They should have learned better.
    A cliché, but still sound ” first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win”.
    The CAGW narrative is about to become a political liability and the speed of the retreat might astonish those who have not seen this before.
    On the 17.12.89 Nicolae Ceausecu, 33 year dictator of Romania, addressed a mass meeting. 7 minutes in somebody started to boo him. Within minutes the entire crowd joined in. It was filmed and to my dying day I will retain the image of the expression on his face. Oh to see this on that of Al Gore (amongst many others). On Christmas Day he was executed.
    It is a great privilege, though not common, to recognise history as you live through it.


    Report this

    321

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      I watched the films and, in the versions I saw, although there was an outbreak at about 7 minutes, the Socialist toadies drowned it out for several more minutes. The entire crowd did not boo. At one point, cameras were pointed away from the crowd and order was (apparently) restored long enough for him to finish.

      In fact, he remained obnoxiously unrecalcitrant until the moment he and his wife had their hands bound behind them to be led away for execution, several days later. If he’d been smarter, he’d have survived.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Manfred

    Like others (Jud #14) I think it is clear someone breathed upon Copernicus Publications from on high. And well they might. Their stable of open access journals includes notables like Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP). Members of the editorial board of ACP include Prof. Veerabhadran Ramanathan of CFC fame who currently drives Project Surya with the stated vision:

    A climate future in which human practices no longer result in significant black carbon, ozone-precursor, and other global warming emissions, and in which current and future palliative actions on CO2 have time to take hold and arrest human-created climate change.

    Other members of the ACP editorial board include Daniel McKenna (National Center for Atmospheric Research) who is a climate modeller par excellence and Stuart A. Penkett, University of East Anglia (retd) of acid rain fame who is presently chairman of the reactive gases group of the committee set up to advise the WMO Global Atmospheric Watch programme.

    Pattern Recognition in Physics didn’t fit the meme. Stark science becomes an inconvenient embarrassment when you’ve got erudite academic folk peddling Project Surya at the end of IPCC strings. Optimistically, I’m inclined toward the idea that a Streisland Effect was inevitable and intentional. The Copernicus Board might have seen this as a perfect opportunity to highlight a counter point whilst complying with the propagandists? Either that or it’s the illusory superiority of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in full swing, blinding them to an inevitable Steisland moment.

    Elsewhere truth it seems is breaking out and getting attention of media. Sen. Inhofe on Obama’s Global Warming Claims: ‘The President Just Made that Up

    On multiple occasions, and most recently on May 30th of last year, President Obama has said, and this is a quote he has used several times, he said that ‘the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even ten years ago’ and that ‘the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.’

    Both statements are false, and through letters to you, Ms. McCarthy, and on the record in this Committee, we’ve asked the EPA to provide us with the data backing up these two statements, the two statements made by the president, but they don’t have any data and referred us to the UN IPCC. And, their scientists, apparently, the EPA thought they were the source of this.

    The truth completely contradicts the president’s statements,” Sen. Inhofe said, noting that temperatures have “flat-lined” over the last 15 years – something no climate model used to promote global warming theory ever predicted.

    The truth completely contradicts the president’s statements and begs the question why he and the EPA not only continue to deny the truth but why it has raced to stop this information from disseminating into the scientific record.”

    It seems all this ‘racing’ about is infective.


    Report this

    220

  • #

    The writing is on the wall. Mene, mene tekel. We are all sinners against holy Nature. We are sinners just by living. Doubting this is blasphemy. Doubters are heretics. Our only salvation is confession and penance. This we do by joining in imposed hymns and professions and by paying carbon taxes, emission rights, electricity certificates and similar, today’s equivalence to yesterday’s indulgecies. Halleluja!

    I have it all in my new book in Swedish: “The Sun Drives our Climate. Science, Debate and Politics”.

    Good night for today.


    Report this

    160

  • #
    Hans Jelbring

    Dear Jo,

    Just brilliant and impressive. I admire your frankness and independance. When can we meet?

    Best

    Hans Jelbring

    —–

    Email coming – :-) Jo


    Report this

    70

  • #

    Jo, get in touch.

    There is no reason such a journal could not continue to be published electronically, via Android and iOS devices. Nobody needs traditional publishers anymore. I have experience with doing this, I’m an expert mobile software developer. I’m happy to donate some of my time to help make this happen.

    Regards,
    Eric


    Report this

    390

  • #
    Peter Wilson

    The most incredible thing is that the editors seem to believe that their blatant enforcement of the “party line” is a reasonable excuse for this utterly OTT reaction. Are they totally oblivious to how this will look to anyone with the slightest interest in the scientific method or integrity?


    Report this

    200

  • #
  • #
    warcroft

    Its like the states in America which always try to ban the scientific teachings of evolution in schools and push the ‘science’ of creationism.


    Report this

    811

  • #
    Adrian O

    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”


    Report this

    220

  • #
    Adrian O

    When the founder of the US Arctic studies, Shin-Ichi Akasofu, published his account of the periodicity last year in the journal “Climate”, an editor resigned over it, but the journal survived

    http://tinyurl.com/kr98rrm


    Report this

    110

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    I will refrain from sending a letter. I just do not know how to be nice to pea brained idiots.


    Report this

    200

  • #
    Adrian O

    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!)

    http://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/pr_acp_poschl_arne_richter_wien2010_up31.pdf

    akrichter@linmpi.mpg.de


    Report this

    60

  • #
    pat

    RoyFOMR -

    pasting so everyone knows what’s in the link u posted.

    6:28: 17 Jan: BBC: Has the Sun gone to sleep?
    Scientists are saying that the Sun is in a phase of “solar lull” – meaning that it has fallen asleep – and it is baffling them.
    History suggests that periods of unusual “solar lull” coincide with bitterly cold winters.
    Rebecca Morelle reports for BBC Newsnight on the effect this inactivity could have on our current climate, and what the implications might be for global warming.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25771510

    even tho Jo’s current top thread is worthy of the top spot, the bbc newsnight thread also deserves top billing.


    Report this

    110

    • #
      A Lovell

      Astonishing that the BBC is committing this heresy!


      Report this

      70

    • #
      Dave

      Pat & RoyFOMR

      Professor Mike Lockwood says,

      we could be in full Maunder Minimum in 40 years time.

      Northern hemisphere frozen for decades and decades.
      Will the windmills and sun shiny panels still be working.
      Who could have thought the BBC actually made this?
      Is this their escape module, the rats deserting already?

      In the meantime, Copernicus Publications jumps back on the sinking ship,
      ready to take the last lick of the gravy in the bowl.


      Report this

      140

      • #
        ExWarmist

        2054.

        Germany is running many large scale coal fired generators that are approximately 30 years old.

        France has rebuilt her nuclear plants on 4th generation designs.

        Coal, Gas & Nuclear are the major energy sources of the developed world that includes Europe, Asia, North America, South America, and substantial parts of Africa.

        There is no world government.


        Report this

        60

    • #
      RoyFOMR

      Thanks Pat for highlighting this story better than I ever could. I really think that this story will prove to be a game changer and, indeed, I suspect it has been carefully designed to be one!
      The UK government, amongst others, needs an out from AGW without losing face. In bringing the possibility of a new Maunder minimum forward, Westen politicians can blame ‘outside’ factors for ‘diverting’ from Carbon reductions.
      And what bigger a player to involve than the sun?
      I would be very surprised if this story doesn’t gain media momentum until it turns into a veritable news blizzard!
      If it takes the threat of a new ice age to turn round current energy policies then I, for one, will not begrudge politicians avoiding the embarrassment they would otherwise be entitled to receive.


      Report this

      90

      • #
        RoyFOMR

        I’m no spring chicken so please excuse me for indulging in the online equivalent of talking to myself!
        I remember vividly the Kennedy assassination moment – will the MiniMaunderMoment stick in my mind as clearly as that?


        Report this

        60

  • #
    Neville

    This is from the side of the argument that has just admitted they’ve lost a full third of their energy budget in the last 4 years? This is from your last post.

    Neville
    January 17, 2014 at 7:29 pm · Reply
    Looks like NASA could be playing a sneaky catch up with the observations that lead to the hiatus in temp trends over the last 15 years or so.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/17/nasa-revises-earths-radiation-budget-diminishing-some-of-trenberths-claims-in-the-process/#comments

    Nasa has revised earth’s energy budget and now we see that retained energy from GHGs has dropped by 1/3rd since 2009.
    Remember this drop of 1/3 has been adjusted down in just a little over 4 years, so what might we see by 2025 or 2040 or 2100?
    Trenberth’s missing heat may just have nicked off into space, who knows. I hope Jo and David can have a look at this predicament for the warmists.


    Report this

    170

    • #
      Greg S

      So it is not 4 Hiroshima bombs per second now?

      Will the alarmists publish a retraction or alter their statements to 2.6667 bombs per second or is this going to be another re-run of the plastic turkey that never dies?

      Not holding my breath waiting.


      Report this

      110

  • #
  • #
  • #
    Radical Rodent

    Copernicus Publications cannot risk losing its excellent reputation in the scientific community.

    I suppose it depends on what reputation you are wanting to maintain: to constantly question accepted ideas being perhaps the most important reputation of any scientist (e.g. Richard Feynman); however, you prefer a reputation that certain ideas should never be questioned – certainly, a questionable reputation to wish to cling to.

    (BTW, this site has suddenly become tediously slow; is it something you are doing… or someone else…?)


    Report this

    50

  • #

    Dr Scafetta sent me this great work several days ago and i was struck by the elegance and high correlation of solar system harmonics and climate. This is a validation and AMPLIFICATION of the 1914 Milankovitch Cycle published in “Astronomical Theory of the Ice Ages”. I also forwarded this to top scientists on all three sides of this debate, the Darth BIG Warmists, the Luke LITTLE Warmists and the Obie NO Warmists. Needless to say i was SHOCKED when Dr Scafetta sent me the PRP termination notice. This maybe the next ClimateGate as the Climate Alchemests stoop to BLATANT CENSORSHIP to prevent any discussion of anything but there pal reviewed echo chamber hypothesis. Many thanks to Joanne for posting this unfolding Truth.

    “By their actions you will know them.” We now know Copernicus Publications is an insult to their namesake.


    Report this

    91

  • #

    [...] Jo Nova: Science paper doubts IPCC, so whole journal gets terminated! [...]


    Report this

    01

  • #
    pat

    Radical Rodent -

    i have not been able to open this page for about 20 minutes.

    anyway, here are 7 letters re Chubb, etc:

    18 Jan: Australian: We’re stuck with carbon
    IAN Chubb has nailed it, distilling into one column the reality of predictive climate models (“Surely CO2 is a climate culprit”, 17/1)…ETC
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/letters/were-stuck-with-carbon/story-fn558imw-1226804530754


    Report this

    40

    • #

      Allow me to emphacise the words that he dare not speak:

      Ignoring all other significant and plausible known factors, Surely CO2 is a climate culprit.


      Report this

      60

    • #
      Radical Rodent

      Thank you, Pat.

      Every atom of carbon that we have mined from the ground and put into the atmosphere is still hanging there.

      I am neither a scientist nor a teacher, but I can see a rather large hole in his argument: what about that which has been dissolved into the ground or sea, or that which has been absorbed by plants (all of which will total a substantial quantity)? Unless, of course, his argument is that human-produced CO2 is somehow different from natural sources, and cannot be dissolved and/or absorbed.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Vic G Gallus

        Data from Mauna Loa shows a 2.5% variation in CO2 concentration yearly as plants and changing ocean temperatures absorb and emit CO2. What are the chances a molecule of CO2 hasn’t been soaked up in 200 years? About half a percent.


        Report this

        20

  • #

    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?

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1005/1005.5303.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.


    Report this

    100

  • #

    Self-censorship is the worst kind of censorship when imposed by tyranny.
    But then again, if the method is unsound the conclusions are null. So, peer review was faulty.
    I agree that a strong rebuttal would have advanced science, while self-destruction does not.
    I do not oppose the right of the editors to terminate a journal, it’s just that showing something is wrong advances the conversation, while shutting up does not; this terminates it. I rather read something was wrong than read nothing.
    And nepotism? Yea, well-known method to assure pal-review. Very bad!
    (I’ve seen it before)


    Report this

    50

  • #

    [...] Read the full, disturbing story here [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    o/t but important political developments:

    Guardian’s POLITICAL Editor, Patrick Wintour, & fomer POLITICAL correspondent for UK Telegraph (now with Guardian), Rowena Mason, take on the “climate”:

    18 Jan: Guardian: Patrick Wintour/Rowena Mason: Cut carbon emissions by 40% in 16 years, Ed Davey tells EU
    Energy secretary calls on heads of state to back plan but says renewables target will not be binding
    The Europen Commission is due to issue a paper next Wednesday that is likely propose a EU-wide renewables target in line with the wishes of Germany and France, but Davey, in a Guardian interview, claimed his call not to impose a binding renewables target was gaining traction.
    He wants EU states to have flexibility to achieve greenhouse gas emissions through a mix of non-carbon technologies including nuclear, but denied his rejection of a binding renewables target revealed a loss of confidence in the British renewables industry…
    ***He said the aim was for the EU this year to back a 40% cut in greenhouse emissions, but to offer a 50% cut if a strong UN-wide deal can be struck in 2015.
    That might be delivered not just by emissions in the EU but international credits, where Europe pays for action elsewhere particularly in developing countries.
    He said: “We don’t need a binding renewables target in 2030. We need the most ambitious greenhouse gas emissions target that we can possibly achieve. That’s what you need for the climate change talks, that will drive investment in all low carbon.”…
    He denied this betrayed a loss of confidence in renewables: “God no! Renewables in any context, any scenario, are going to boom in the 2020s.
    “Offshore wind grew by 79% last year. We are easily the leader in offshore wind in the world, no one’s touching us, we’re miles ahead. One individual company might be reducing its investment but that’s not the story.”…
    He added a deal that did not contain a binding renewables target would help the Tories to fight off Ukip. He argued: “I’d be able to say I’ve got the most ambitious climate change package and we’ve led the whole way. We’ll be able to show, we’ve commissioned the research, showing the effect of the different targets on growth an the electricity industries. It shows you can be really ambitious and it hardly affects growth at all…
    Conservatives committed to fighting climate change should think our approach is exactly the right one.
    “Obviously Conservatives not committed to combating climate change won’t agree with any of it.”
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/17/cut-carbon-emissions-ed-davey-tells-eu

    16 Jan: BusinessSpectator: Bloomberg: Backloading buoyancy: Carbon markets’ year in the sun
    Under the measure approved last week, the EU will delay sales of 400 million permits in 2014 if backloading starts in the first quarter; or 300 million if it begins in the second quarter.
    This decision is significant as it was the final major approval required for backloading to be implemented. The only question remaining is when in the next four months will the new regulation come into force, enabling auction cuts to begin…
    ***On a separate, but related note, the European Parliament’s environment and industry committees supported a call for the EU to adopt at least a 40 per cent carbon-reduction goal by 2030 in a non-binding resolution…
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/1/16/carbon-markets/backloading-buoyancy-carbon-markets-year-sun

    15 Jan: Bloomberg BNA: Ewa Krukowska/Mathew Carr Cost of Carbon Emissions Poised to Rise As EU Member States Advance Market Fix
    More Reform Needed
    “The proposal on backloading is an important signal that the EU wants a strong emissions trading market that can support the transition to a green economy,” Danish Climate Minister Martin Lidegaard wrote in an e-mail. “But the proposal will not itself save the EU’s platform for trading CO2 allowances. Therefore we need a road map for a more permanent structural reform and tightening.”
    Even at 11 euros a ton, the price of carbon won’t be high enough to “substantially” cut emissions at factories and utilities, according to Patrick Hummel, a Zurich-based analyst at UBS AG. Carbon needs to be about 50 euros ($68) a ton to make gas-fired power as profitable as coal, he said in a telephone interview Jan. 7…
    http://www.bna.com/cost-carbon-emissions-n17179881358/


    Report this

    10

  • #
    MadJak

    Copernicus would be utterly disgusted in this act. The man spent his whole life carefully working to prove what the believers did not believe. His De revolutionibus orbium coelestium was only finally published just before his death – and the believers of the time sure as hell weren’t going to allow it to be published through them.

    Copernicus publications? Maybe you might want to consider an inquisition to track down and burn at the stake some of these sceptical witches whilst you’re at it? Just ask the catholic church how they did it – go on, bring it on, you know your little myopic propaganda soaked brain cells are asking for it.

    They should at least change their name – if Copernicus was alive this act would would be clear and blatant slander. They sure as heck don’t have any right to represent their namesake.

    Oh how science has fallen over the decades. It’s now just a propaganda mouthpiece similar to the catholic church of ages past.


    Report this

    181

    • #
      MadJak

      I would suggets that copernicus publications renames itself to Bartolomeo Spina Publications.

      “Bartomlomeo ended up as Master of the Sacred Palace. His wish to move against heliocentricism and copernicus’ De revolutionibus was only stopped by his death.”

      It would be a much more appropriate name, and far less misleading.


      Report this

      100

    • #
      Vic G Gallus

      As I pointed out above (with a few corrections) Pope Clement VII was impressed by presentation of Copernicus’s work. From Wikipedia (Sorry, but its quick. I’ll do better next time)

      In 1533, Johann Widmanstetter, secretary to Pope Clement VII, explained Copernicus’ heliocentric system to the Pope and two cardinals. The Pope was so pleased that he gave Widmanstetter a valuable gift.[55] In 1535 Bernard Wapowski wrote a letter to a gentleman in Vienna, urging him to publish an enclosed almanac, which he claimed had been written by Copernicus. This is the only mention of a Copernicus almanac in the historical records. The “almanac” was likely Copernicus’ tables of planetary positions. Wapowski’s letter mentions Copernicus’ theory about the motions of the earth. Nothing came of Wapowski’s request, because he died a couple of weeks later.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Vic G Gallus

        I should add that the actually irony is that the Catholic Church was happy to pay for publication of a theory that would make their life difficult with the pseudo scientific crowd, in the Early 16th century. These clowns calling themselves Copernicus Publications (and progressives) will not tolerate heresy in the 21 st century.

        A note about Bartomlomeo. He is painted as being petty for ambitious reasons but he had the responsibility of amending the calendar, and Copernicus’s model was just not good enough. The planets do not have a circular orbit around the Sun. They have a much more complex orbit (still being studied today) around the centre of mass of the solar system and this piddly difference is significant when you look at it quantitatively.


        Report this

        60

      • #
        John Brookes

        The church was in a difficult position. On the one hand, their God made the universe, and the study of His work was a noble thing. On the other hand, you might discover things that contradicted the church’s way of looking at the world. Discovering that Man was not the centre of God’s universe didn’t really fit with an all powerful God whose principal concern was the well being of humanity.

        It became, therefore, an inconvenient truth ;-)


        Report this

        012

        • #
          bullocky

          -
          “It became, therefore, an inconvenient truth”……
          -
          …….. a concept just begging for commercial exploitation!


          Report this

          50

        • #
          Vic G Gallus

          Like evolution, the backlash to the science came from its inappropriate use (from American protestant churches in the case of evolution). Science does not say that the centre of the universe is not me. I am not the centre of mass of the universe.


          Report this

          11

        • #
          Radical Rodent

          Was/is it difficult a difficult position? Perhaps it is more a question of perceptions than principles: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0005.html

          Who is to say the Earth is NOT the centre of the universe?


          Report this

          10

        • #
          Vic G Gallus

          From the Catholic Encyclopedia

          On the Catholic side opposition only commenced seventy-three years later, when it was occasioned by Galileo. On 5 March, 1616, the work of Copernicus was forbidden by the Congregation of the Index “until corrected”, and in 1620 these corrections were indicated. Nine sentences, by which the heliocentric system was represented as certain, had to be either omitted or changed. This done, the reading of the book was allowed.

          Strangely similar to this peer-review business. You are not supposed to believe that if it makes it into print that it is certain. Peer-review is more about not wasting peoples time.


          Report this

          11

  • #
    pat

    CAGW is strictly in the political & financial realms now:

    Guardian’s POLITICAL Editor, Patrick Wintour, & fomer POLITICAL correspondent for UK Telegraph (now with Guardian), Rowena Mason:

    18 Jan: Guardian: Patrick Wintour/Rowena Mason: Cut carbon emissions by 40% in 16 years, Ed Davey tells EU
    Energy secretary calls on heads of state to back plan but says renewables target will not be binding
    The Europen Commission is due to issue a paper next Wednesday that is likely propose a EU-wide renewables target in line with the wishes of Germany and France, but Davey, in a Guardian interview, claimed his call not to impose a binding renewables target was gaining traction.
    He wants EU states to have flexibility to achieve greenhouse gas emissions through a mix of non-carbon technologies including nuclear, but denied his rejection of a binding renewables target revealed a loss of confidence in the British renewables industry…
    ***He said the aim was for the EU this year to back a 40% cut in greenhouse emissions, but to offer a 50% cut if a strong UN-wide deal can be struck in 2015.
    That might be delivered not just by emissions in the EU but international credits, where Europe pays for action elsewhere particularly in developing countries.
    He said: “We don’t need a binding renewables target in 2030. We need the most ambitious greenhouse gas emissions target that we can possibly achieve. That’s what you need for the climate change talks, that will drive investment in all low carbon.”…
    He denied this betrayed a loss of confidence in renewables: “God no! Renewables in any context, any scenario, are going to boom in the 2020s.
    “Offshore wind grew by 79% last year. We are easily the leader in offshore wind in the world, no one’s touching us, we’re miles ahead. One individual company might be reducing its investment but that’s not the story.”…
    He added a deal that did not contain a binding renewables target would help the Tories to fight off Ukip. He argued: “I’d be able to say I’ve got the most ambitious climate change package and we’ve led the whole way. We’ll be able to show, we’ve commissioned the research, showing the effect of the different targets on growth an the electricity industries. It shows you can be really ambitious and it hardly affects growth at all…
    Conservatives committed to fighting climate change should think our approach is exactly the right one.
    “Obviously Conservatives not committed to combating climate change won’t agree with any of it.”
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/17/cut-carbon-emissions-ed-davey-tells-eu

    16 Jan: BusinessSpectator: Bloomberg: Backloading buoyancy: Carbon markets’ year in the sun
    Under the measure approved last week, the EU will delay sales of 400 million permits in 2014 if backloading starts in the first quarter; or 300 million if it begins in the second quarter.
    This decision is significant as it was the final major approval required for backloading to be implemented. The only question remaining is when in the next four months will the new regulation come into force, enabling auction cuts to begin…
    ***On a separate, but related note, the European Parliament’s environment and industry committees supported a call for the EU to adopt at least a 40 per cent carbon-reduction goal by 2030 in a non-binding resolution…
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/1/16/carbon-markets/backloading-buoyancy-carbon-markets-year-sun

    15 Jan: Bloomberg BNA: Ewa Krukowska/Mathew Carr Cost of Carbon Emissions Poised to Rise As EU Member States Advance Market Fix
    More Reform Needed
    “The proposal on backloading is an important signal that the EU wants a strong emissions trading market that can support the transition to a green economy,” Danish Climate Minister Martin Lidegaard wrote in an e-mail. “But the proposal will not itself save the EU’s platform for trading CO2 allowances. Therefore we need a road map for a more permanent structural reform and tightening.”
    Even at 11 euros a ton, the price of carbon won’t be high enough to “substantially” cut emissions at factories and utilities, according to Patrick Hummel, a Zurich-based analyst at UBS AG. Carbon needs to be about 50 euros ($68) a ton to make gas-fired power as profitable as coal, he said in a telephone interview Jan. 7…
    http://www.bna.com/cost-carbon-emissions-n17179881358/


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Wally

    Jo – this was an Open Access Journal.

    That means it was either subsidised (somewhere), or one where the authors had to pay a fee to get published.

    Does anyone know what the financial model was for this journal?


    Report this

    50

  • #
    pat

    be sceptical, expect the Inquisition. another example from Rowena:

    6 Jan: Guardian: Rowena Mason: Environment secretary may be blind to rising flood risks, says Labour
    Maria Eagle says Tory Owen Paterson has questions to answer over his scepticism about climate change science
    Paterson, a strong opponent of onshore wind farms, does not deny that climate change is happening but has made several controversial remarks on the subject.
    This year he suggested there could be benefits for Britain from climate change, and previously he has said he is sceptical about some of the measures taken to counteract its effects.
    “People get very emotional about this subject and I think we should just accept that the climate has been changing for centuries,” he said at the Conservative party conference in October. “I think the relief of this latest report is that it shows a really quite modest increase, half of which has already happened. They are talking one to two-and-a-half degrees.
    “Remember that for humans, the biggest cause of death is cold in winter, far bigger than heat in summer. It would also lead to longer growing seasons and you could extend growing a little further north into some of the colder areas. I actually see this report as something we need to take seriously but I am rather relieved that it is not as catastrophic in its forecast as we had been led to believe early on and what it is saying is something we can adapt to over time and we are very good as a race at adapting.”
    Shortly after taking the post of environment secretary in September 2012, he told the Farmers’ Guardian: “It is perfectly obvious climate change is there, and there is a human contribution, but I want to be sure the measures we are taking to ameliorate the problem don’t create other problems. So that’s why I am sceptical.”
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/05/environment-secretary-blind-flood-risks-labour


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Justin Jefferson

    Perhaps the publishers should finish the job by salting the ground where the journal stood?


    Report this

    40

  • #

    [...] disagree with me. But the scientific publishing world is now full of editors, who have other ideas. Copernicus Publications started publishing the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics (PRP) in March…. The journal idea was brought to Copernicus’ attention and was taken rather critically in the [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    gbees

    I’m not surprised becasue this was never about science. We are fighting an ideology. We need to learn that these people will do whatever it takes to achieve their end goal. “The end justifies the means”, Rules for Radicals, Saul D. Alinksy 1971.

    It’s time to take the gloves off …


    Report this

    50

  • #
    pat

    more proof the scientific debate will not enter the equations:

    18 Jan: Bloomberg: Mathew Carr/Ewa Krukowska: Carbon Posts Biggest Weekly Gain in 4 Months on EU Reform Plan
    “The key upside for prices depends on how ambitious is the EU proposal for a structural reform of the carbon market, to be presented Jan. 22,” Dario Carradori, an analyst at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., said today in an e-mailed report.
    Reserve Mechanism
    The commission is seeking to introduce a reserve mechanism in 2021 that will automatically withdraw or add permits sold at auction, depending on the number of allowances in circulation, according to a draft proposal obtained by Bloomberg News. It also wants an amendment to the bloc’s emissions-trading law to enable sales of some carbon permits in 2020 to be carried over in the following two years.
    The commission will next week present proposals for future climate and energy targets for consideration by the bloc’s leaders at a summit in March.
    Oversupply will keep carbon prices under pressure until after 2025, Carradori said…
    “We believe the most bullish scenario for carbon prices and utilities would be a single target for carbon emissions reduction, as this would indicate that the EU plans to achieve emissions cuts through a higher carbon price rather than through renewables growth,” he said.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-17/eu-carbon-has-biggest-weekly-gain-since-september-on-reform-plan.html

    17 Jan: Bloomberg: Alex Morales: Climate Protection May Cut World GDP 4% by 2030, UN Says
    The second and third parts, to be published in March and April, are still subject to line-by-line revision by governments. A final document synthesizing the three is scheduled for completion in October…
    Containing the concentration to 480 ppm “would entail global consumption losses” of 1 percent to 4 percent in 2030. That range would rise to 2 percent to 6 percent in 2050 and then to as much as 12 percent in 2100 when compared with scenarios that don’t involve fighting climate change, according to the document…
    At the upper end of those ranges, the cost of fighting climate change could outstrip the cost of dealing with the effects of climate change, according to data in the draft of the second installment of the UN report, which hasn’t yet been finalized.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-16/climate-protection-may-cost-4-of-world-gdp-by-2030.html

    reminder:

    13 Jan: Marketwatch: Businesswire Press Release: Green Bond Principles
    Created to Help Issuers and Investors Deploy Capital for Green Projects
    A consortium of investment banks today announced their support of the Green
    Bond Principles – Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Citi, Crédit Agricole
    Corporate and Investment Bank, JPMorgan Chase, BNP Paribas, Daiwa, Deutsche
    Bank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, Mizuho Securities, Morgan Stanley, Rabobank and
    SEB. These Principles were developed with guidance from issuers, investors
    and environmental groups and serve as voluntary guidelines on recommended
    process for the development and issuance of Green Bonds…
    JPMorgan Chase & Co.
    “Increasing the amount of capital targeted to address pressing environmental
    challenges such as climate change is critical,” said Marilyn Ceci, Managing
    Director in the Corporate & Investment Bank at JPMorgan Chase. “JPMorgan
    Chase is pleased to have co-authored the Green Bond Principles, which
    involved strong collaboration among colleagues in our Corporate & Investment
    Bank and Environmental Affairs office. By providing transparency and
    integrity to the Green Bond market and bolstering investor confidence, we
    expect the Green Bond Principles will expand capital allocation to projects
    that provide environmental benefits.” …
    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/correcting-and-replacing-green-bond-principles-created-to-help-issuers-and-investors-deploy-capital-for-green-projects-2014-01-13-8159210?reflink=MW_news_stmp

    transparency? integrity? JP Morgan???

    14 Jan: UK Telegraph: Harry Wilson: JP Morgan profits hit by multi-billion dollar fines and penalties
    Cost of Madoff settlement and mortgage settlements drive down JP Morgan Chase full-year profits by 16pc
    Net income for 2013 fell 16pc year-on-year to $17.9bn (£10.9bn) after JP Morgan was forced to put aside $11.1bn in “legal expenses” to meet the cost of fines related to its involvement in the $50bn Madoff ponzi scheme and the sale of mortgage-backed debt to investors…
    As well as the mortgage and Madoff settlements, Mr Dimon has also faced pressure this year over the bank’s handling of the ‘London Whale’ scandal that led to fines last year of more than $900m after the lender admitted lost $6bn on a series of large trades taken by staff in its London-based chief investment office.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10571192/JP-Morgan-profits-hit-by-multi-billion-dollar-fines-and-penalties.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Sounds like someone is pounding the 95 theses on to the church of Climatologies door.

    Good on them!


    Report this

    40

  • #
    michael hart

    “Skeptics could hardly come up with a more electric publicity campaign.”

    How about an expensive fossil-fueled joyride to Antarctica for globally-warmed journalists, alleged scientists, assorted acolytes and proselytes, that has to limp home later than their ship after it gets stuck in mid-summer sea ice?

    Just fantasising out loud there….


    Report this

    130

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Yeah – and that too!

      We are receiving an abundance of “own goals” by the other team.


      Report this

      70

      • #
        MadJak

        We are receiving an abundance of “own goals” by the other team.

        With the massive amounts of funding being thrown at team Catastrafaria, Mammoth sized own goals are inevitable. With Jo and others being very ready to ensure the propaganda machine can’t just bury so it disappears like trenberths’ heat.


        Report this

        30

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Perhaps it is inevitable that funding without rigorous competition will always end up attracting the incompetent who can’t even conduct a fraud correctly.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Jon Reinertsen

    it has become increasing apparent to me, that the real issue here is the Alarmists view the climate of the Earth as a closed system. No outside influences are allowed, especially ones we can not yet quantify as being influenced by human activity. The green house theory only works in a green house, and interestingly, the heat which generates the “green house effect” comes from outside the green house!


    Report this

    110

    • #
      WhaleHunt Fun

      Your comment reeks of denialism. Fancy claiming that a hundred mile high layer of gas with massive diurnal fluctuations in solar input as well as huge differences in reflectivity and absorptivity and conductivity of the underlying solid and liquid layers is in any way different to a small replica of a greenhouse in a laboratory.
      Comments such as your that are not Pierre-Cardin-reviewed, or taxpayer funded, should not be allowed to be printed. The lefties rely completely on Pierre Cardin for their scientific input. That’s why their skin is rejuvenated with nano-particles of phlogiston dissolved in aether.


      Report this

      120

    • #
      gbees

      I think its actually a closed loop feedback control system. But the control system including influences on Earth, around Earth and throughout our solar system.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Reed Coray

    FWIW. I just sent the following e-mail to the following Copernicus Publishing personnel: Martin Rasmussen, Managing Director; Natascha Töpfer, Editorial Support, Team Coordinator; Svenja Lange, Editorial Support; and Anna Wenzel, Editorial Support:

    “Dear Mr. Rasmussen:

    I see that the spirit of Copernicus (the man) is alive and well in the hallowed halls of Copernicus (the publishing company). The temerity of a Journal (Pattern Recognition in Physics) published by Copernicus Publications to question the preachings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is beyond the pale. Terminating the Journal was the minimum your company could do. If I were in your position, I would have investigated to determine if the contributors/editors of PRiP (a) broke any laws, (b) crossed the line of societal decency, and/or (b) were/are just slimy denialists who had the audacity to question that Godly institution–the IPCC. If found guilty, your company should have had the perpetrators clamped in irons awaiting eventual beheading. It’s comforting to know that publishers like Copernicus Publications are monitoring, and where possible, preventing the exposure of onerous thoughts to the common man. This is a proud day for all mankind. What I can’t get a handle on, and maybe you could help me, is why N. Copernicus (the man), Copernicus Publications (the company) and the expression “spinning in his grave” keep popping into my head?

    Sincerely,
    Reed Coray”


    Report this

    111

  • #

    As I said to Tallbloke.
    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?

    Nature starts with a whole deck of cards, Deals from the top of the “remaining deck”. All is perfectly ordered. The result of that dealing,appears random, But is limited to only chaotic You could at least “try” to do the MATH, rather than “claiming” that you “KNOW”.

    Nature does not start with a “new deck of cards” (random), at each instance of dealing but only with the “remaining” probabilities! Anything that has been measured (observed) is removed from the set of what may happen!`
    I have no wish to “prove” or even demonstrate! I offer only a different point of view,for your consideration.
    “What is” seems highly dependent on what was!

    , for your consideration.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    pat

    Reed Coray -

    this fits with your letter to Copernicus!

    16 Jan: Huffington Post: Sean McElwee: How the SEC Can Fight Climate Change
    Several corporations sit on the boards of powerful business and trade organizations that take positions contrary to the companies’ purported stance on climate change, finds a new Union of Concerned Scientists report. They are able to do this without public accountability because, currently, trade associations aren’t required to disclose their funders and corporations are not required to disclose their political spending. The report’s author makes clear that in the crucial arena of climate change policy, “the public is still in the dark when it comes to how companies and their trade associations influence government decisions.”
    There is a simple way to start to fix this lack of transparency and accountability. The U.S. Securities and Exchanges Commission (SEC) should proceed with its rule making that would require companies to disclose their political activities…
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-mcelwee/sec-climate-change_b_4611933.html


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    a pair of CAGW propagandists – Hannam & Arup:

    18 Jan: SMH: Peter Hannam: Scorchers: the reality of a sunburnt country
    While the severity of the blistering conditions across southern Australia over the past week will fall short of the ferocity of the event five years ago, this hot spell will likely join 2009, 1939 – also a bad year for bushfires – and 1908 as recording the country’s most significant heatwaves, said David Jones, head of climate monitoring at the Bureau of Meteorology…
    Sarah Perkins, a heatwave expert at the University of NSW, says heatwaves in Australia are arriving earlier in the season, are more frequent, more intense, and more prolonged…
    “For the first half of this century, we expect these [heatwave] trends to continue,” said Lesley Hughes, a professor studying climate change and ecosystems at Macquarie University. “Whether they continue beyond 2050, will be really up to how well we’ve reduced [greenhouse gas] emissions,”she said…
    Soaring airconditioning demand was key to power demand surging close to the record 2009 high this week in Victoria, prompting Premier Denis Napthine to plea for consumers to turn off unnecessary appliances…
    Longer-term planning to cope with an increased frequency of heatwaves won’t come cheap. Ignoring the signs, though, will probably be more difficult as information becomes more refined.
    Daniel Argueso, a post-doc researcher at UNSW, is part of a team developing the NSW/ACT Regional Climate Modelling system that will deliver resolution of impacts down to a 10-kilometre scale, compared with the 150 kilometres used now.
    Sydney, for instance, is given the same climate under the large-scale model as the Blue Mountains despite its quite different topography.
    Such a system will be rolled out by the end of this year – with similar information eventually available nationwide – and made public.
    “We’re going to improve the description of climate greatly,” Argueso said. “Most people want to know what’s going to happen here where we live.”
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/scorchers-the-reality-of-a-sunburnt-country-20140117-3105t.html

    18 Jan: Age: Tom Arup: Climate change a hot topic in country Victoria
    It is ”pretty bloody hot” on Harry and Nicola Bussell’s property – 50.8 degrees, in fact. It is a new high for the stunning sheep farm nestled at the foot of the Victorian alps in Carboor.
    Despite the record – and Victoria’s second significant heatwave in five years – the Bussells are sceptical humans are changing the temperature or climate.
    ”I am definitely not convinced,” Mr Bussell said this week. ”The climate is changing all the time. It’s been changing for millions of years.”
    Ms Bussell said for her debate over whether the planet is warming was not helpful. She said qualified people sat on both sides, and it was arguable Australia could do anything about it at any rate. She said helping farmers manage the variable climate they have always faced would be more useful…
    Independent federal MP Cathy McGowan said her prominent support for action on climate change helped her win the seat of Indi at last year’s election. She said there were significant climate change threats for her electorate – from reduced agriculture to tourism being affected by declining snow in the ski fields.
    ”There might be people who have other opinions, but they are certainly not coming to see me and I don’t think they are the majority,” she said…
    Further west, National Party MP for Mallee Andrew Broad described himself as in two minds, pointing to 130 years of records on his family farm that he said showed less dry years in recent times when compared with earlier in the century.
    But Mr Broad said he was a ”pragmatist” and there was a community expectation some taxpayers dollars be spent on climate change.He said that should be used to help farmers innovate and adapt, not a carbon tax.
    Ali Cupper, a Mildura City councillor and former state ALP candidate, said younger people in rural areas were more likely to accept the consensus shared by the majority of scientists, but there was an ”old guard” who were sceptical…
    http://www.theage.com.au/national/climate-change-a-hot-topic-in-country-victoria-20140117-310kl.html


    Report this

    20

  • #
    ianl8888

    It seems someone has to say the obvious:

    the brutal demise of PRinP at the hands of commercially-aware Copernicus Publishing, in the eyes of the general public and the MSM, is a tiny non-event, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing (ShakespeareTM)

    I don’t share that view … but it is the way this will proceed


    Report this

    70

    • #
      John Brookes

      You are so right. But when you have a journal devoted to finding patterns, then its demise is a good thing. Yes, you might be clever to see a pattern, but the point of physics is that there is/are underlying rules that explain stuff. So if you’ve got a pattern, explain it!

      Once you’ve offered an explanation, it can be tested. And improved. Until then all you’ve got is what Tamino refers to as “mathturbation”.


      Report this

      020

      • #
        Lars P.

        First you need to observe it.
        Observation is missing in the “science” you want to promote.


        Report this

        70

      • #
        Vic G Gallus

        The difference between a law and a theory in science is that the former is a trend/rule that is observed, unerringly, while the latter is an hypothesis from a postulate that is then found to follow that trend/rule, unerringly.


        Report this

        10

      • #
        bullocky

        ‘Once you’ve offered an explanation, it can be tested. And improved. Until then all you’ve got is what Tamino refers to as “mathturbation”.’
        -
        A rare example of where ‘appeal to authority’ is apt.


        Report this

        20

      • #

        Your argument is nonsensical. Many areas of science find pattens that match before a physical mechanism is discovered. Plate tectonics is one example.

        If a pattern can predict the future with some certainty it is on the way to credibility, without mechanism. If it predicts the future with uncanny accuracy the mechanism is not important(for now).


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Boadicea

    Yet another example of how incompetent and activist riven is the whole subject of Climate Science.

    If I was a younger person with few smarts and starting out on a career, I wouldn’t be getting involved in this class, of science because its going to all end in tears, one way or another, with careers and reputations damaged beyond repair, and the publics image of science in general will be one of deep suspicion and distrust.

    That will be unfortunate.

    It also shows that the veritable army of administrators in Universities these days, and are not that good either

    The whole lot are puffed up poncies with flash titles and strings of post nominal, but are not worth a hat full are A***holes.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    It’s Barbara Streisand. As they say at Christmas – No L.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Tim

    From ‘Service for Authors’ page:

    “For us, the authors take centre stage. Our aim is to serve you with the most personal assistance and the most qualified services. We show respect for your work and we are glad to assist you in bringing your ideas and results to the world.”


    Report this

    30

  • #
  • #
  • #

    Hello, I thought I’d make another attempt to get through the filters. Having to write an entire blog post in complaint seems rather overkill.

    And I ought to correct an error on your part: I haven’t apologised to you (I know that you know that really, and you’re just indulging in rhetorical trickery, but it seemed worth correcting just in case you’d made a genuine error).

    > Barbara-Streisland moment in science.

    Its an interesting point. Prior to this fuss, the journal had languished in well-deserved obscurity. In July 2013 http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/07/16/recognizing-a-pattern-of-problems-in-pattern-recognition-in-physics/ pointed out a foreshadowing of the reasons it got shut down.

    And a week from now you’ll have forgotten all about this and we’ll never hear about it again.


    Report this

    320

    • #
      bullocky

      -
      “And a week from now you’ll have forgotten all about this and we’ll never hear about it again.”
      -
      You could be right, William. There seems to be some new controversy in Climate Science almost on a weekly basis!!


      Report this

      141

    • #
      Mark D.

      William Connolley, when a top scientist says:

      “I can do nothing but condemn your decision as unjust, unethical and ultra anti-scientific.“

      Don’t you think the problem is a wee bit bigger than you imagine?


      Report this

      141

    • #
      turnedoutnice

      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 of 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.


      Report this

      142

    • #
      michael hart

      William Connolley
      January 18, 2014 at 7:01 pm

      And I ought to correct an error on your part: I haven’t apologised to you (I know that you know that really, and you’re just indulging in rhetorical trickery, but it seemed worth correcting just in case you’d made a genuine error).

      I think you missed that she is still giving you the opportunity to apologise.


      Report this

      91

    • #

      William Connolley:

      Prior to this fuss, the journal had languished in well-deserved obscurity.

      You make it sound like that’s a bad thing.

      There are probably thousands of obscure journals. While it was still a science reference library on campus, I used to peruse the shelves, usually to distract myself from the urgency of my assignments but on occasion for actual research. There were hundreds of journals specialising in obscure topics. And what I saw was, I suspect, just the tip of the iceberg.

      Thankfully, real scientists and thinkers recognize that obscurity/popularity is more like to be inversely related to the merit of content. The popular journals tend to fall into the troughs of the populists.

      William Connolley:

      And a week from now you’ll have forgotten all about this and we’ll never hear about it again.

      Our memories are not as easy to rewrite as Wikipedia pages.

      Rest assured Mr Connolley; your grave will be prominently marked.

      PUBLIC LAVATORIES


      Report this

      60

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      Yea, as your antics at Wiki were forgotten within a week. Strange how the BS effect lingers long after the wish for obscurity has.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Ursus Augustus

    No direct comment buyt I saw this at the BBC site.

    Is our Sun falling silent?
    By Rebecca Morelle, Science reporter, BBC World Service
    at

    Sooo… Will Rebecca retain her job? Will her department exist in a week’s time? Will the BBC World Service be shut down for ‘budgetary reasons’?


    Report this

    90

    • #
      John Brookes

      Why? You seem to think that climate scientists don’t include variations in solar insolation in their models. They do, because it effects our climate.

      But there are things (like the orbits of the outer planets) that don’t effect our climate. And people writing silly papers on how they do should not be published.


      Report this

      322

      • #
        wayne, s. Job

        John I have to start this by saying that you view of science is less than adequate. That said it should be noted that the physical sciences became a closed shop around 1920.

        Physics since has been with their standard model, a mind game of convoluted mathematics and imaginary particles, not one advance of note in 100 years.

        The standard model of the universe using gravity only as a force was found to be missing 95% of matter even with a fudge. That fudge was originaly used to explain why gravity did not collapse the universe. Thus they invent dark energy and dark matter. Remind you of anything like the travesty of hidden heat.

        Gravity does not explain the universe nor the solar system without fudges. It does not even explain our tides. 95% of the universe missing means that another force is at work, that force would also be giving our solar system and sun a big nudge.

        The people involved in these papers are outside the cabal, free thinking and trying to make sense of that mess that is consensus science. That you deride them shows your character or lack of it. It is the free thinkers that have given us our modern world, the free thinkers dragged us out of the stone age, your brain is still there.


        Report this

        132

        • #
          John Brookes

          The problem is that no one has come up with seriously better ideas. The problem is that there are so many things in current physics that work, and you can’t throw them out. When quantum mechanics was developed, it had to explain the new phenomena and all the stuff already well explained by pre-quantum physics.

          I’m not up to scratch on dark matter and dark energy, but clearly they are part of the process of modifying existing theories to explain the current observations of the expansion of the universe. Maybe they will be the final word, and maybe a better explanation will appear.

          This is entirely unrelated to climate science. There aren’t any noble Galileo’s working on debunking climate science.


          Report this

          210

          • #
            bullocky

            “There aren’t any noble Galileo’s working on debunking climate science.”
            -
            DON’T LET CHRIS TURNEY HEAR YOU SAY THAT!!!!!


            Report this

            70

          • #

            The problem is that no one has come up with seriously better ideas.

            So you still don’t understand falsifiability?

            When theories or even hypotheses are shown to be wrong by physical observation, one doesn’t have to wait for a better theory/hypothesis to come along to discount the one demonstrably wrong.

            But there are things (like the orbits of the outer planets) that don’t effect our climate.

            An interesting hypothesis. But one founded on argumentum ad ignoratiam.

            One of the first answers from a “climatologist” was to the question of the role of water, its phases, their changes and the temporal effect of clouds in the climate system. The question of how those things had not been modelled at all realistically. The answer was that it was too hard because they did not know how.

            They still cannot do it because they are busy persecuting a minor, trace gas in the atmosphere.

            It’s worse than that. Most models don’t “do” temporal fluctuations in flux. So not only is the estimate of surface insolation more than slightly dodgy; they don’t include the major perturbing driver (“what they idiotically refer to as a “forcing”) of weather in the climate models. A thermodynamic system does not work on “averages”. It behaves non-linearly in response to changes in its condition and surroundings.

            Adding fluid mechanics into the system does not make the solution more computable.

            I understand that it is impossible to construct a predictive, deterministic model of the terrestial climate system; even without external variables considered. A statistical model has no useful predictive quality. The most that they can do is to tell you how wrong your theories are when comparing their garbage to what the real world has done.

            And yet, there are a bunch of people who believe that they can know the Earth’s average temperature to within a fraction of a degree; decades and even centuries from now. While still bickering over what it was on Christmas Eve, 1999.

            There are some things that can be known and there are some things that are useful to know. The average temperature of the Earth is less useful than chocolate toilet paper.


            Report this

            131

          • #
            Jud

            To say observation without explanation is not ‘proper’ science not only shows how ignorant you are of science, but gives an interesting insight into the trick which has taken climate science so far.

            Here we do have ‘explanation without observation’, and we have the strange experience of watching the people who provided the ‘explanations’ 20 years ago struggle because the observations do not match the predictions from their explanations.

            Then we have you claiming that observations are useless without explanations, while human history is basically a story of interesting observations being constantly turned to useful technology and predictives well ahead of any formal scientific explanation of causality.


            Report this

            20

      • #

        That is a bold statement you will regret in the not too distant future.


        Report this

        10

  • #

    [...] they cite no errors. There can be no mistake, this is about enforcing a permitted line of thought.Science paper doubts IPCC so whole journal gets terminated, joannenova.com.aug 2014 january A skeptic blogg. Yes, so one needs to go back to basic. True origin lines from journal [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Adrian O

    I was trying to figure out what the fellows who took off the journal meant about “nepotism.”

    They may have college degrees, but they think in terms of tribes, primitive humans or baboons.

    For them, it’s the “denialists” vs “us.”

    So the fact that the papers were not sent for review to “our tribe” but to “the others” is the nepotism.
    For which they killed the journal.

    They are no different from any hooligans who broke windows throughout history.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Adrian O

    John Brookes “Yes, you might be clever to see a pattern…”

    Looking at the temperatures graphs and NOT observing the fact that 1910-1940 was the same ascent as 1970-2000, and 1940-1970 has the same slope as 2000-now,

    NOT seeing the pattern is clearly the sign of an infantile or senile mind.
    Given the fact that any seven grader has to be able to read graphs to pass into the eighth.

    So, forget the argument about the explanations, and look at the fact that all those 97% of climate fellows and their dogs didn’t NOTICE the pattern.
    And so they made those wrong models for which they are now falling into ridicule.

    You are completely wrong about the way modern science works.
    Observing a pattern is just as important as explaining it.

    Kepler is a great scientist for having observed the patterns of planet movements.
    Even though it was Newton who explained them in a simple way.

    Your pathetic attempts at excusing the inexcusable climate models appears to praise the pretend understanding incorporated in them.

    Rather than the correct observation of the mutidecadal periodicity in the defunct journal, whatever its cause.

    You would throw mud on Kepler because he only found the correct and fundamental laws of planet movements experimentally.
    Like the people who observed the multidecadal periodicity.

    ******

    Now, having 97% of the practitioners of climate science fall into the mental retardation necessary for NOT observing the multidecadal pattern and thus getting all their predictions wrong is highly unlikely, medically speaking.

    A more likely explanation might be found in the official figure of $10 million/day in grants in the US alone for those who don’t observe patterns in atmospheric physics.


    Report this

    151

    • #
      Mark D.

      So, forget the argument about the explanations, and look at the fact that all those 97% of climate fellows and their dogs didn’t NOTICE the pattern.
      And so they made those wrong models for which they are now falling into ridicule.

      How about the possibility that some of the 97% DID see patterns and that is why they had to push the Agenda so hard 20 years ago? Therefore, when cooling started they could claim “see reducing co2 works”. Too bad for them that skeptics came along and slowed down their push to reform the world.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    StewGreen

    Great story
    BUT – if it’s not on the BBC, ABC, Guardan and the like “it never happened”
    - censorship is not new to them


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Adrian O

    William Connolley “Having to write an entire blog post in complaint seems rather overkill.”

    The people who killed that journal will remain known, whatever their achievements before of after this,

    They will remain known as the thugs who did a last desperate act to prop up the biggest scam in science and in human history.

    Now there may be only Maurice Newman and Peter Lilley in the Australian and British governments who expressed it clearly as a scam, with Canada and Poland soon to follow.

    But this position is clearly what the future holds. Precisely because of the periodicity described in the journal.
    Which makes it likely to have the current cooling go on for another 15 years or so.

    It is your wishful thinking that this suppression of a journal will be soon forgotten.
    More likely it will be like Turney’s excellent adventure, a gift that keeps giving for a long time.

    Showing by what brutal means the pretend consensus has been enforced.


    Report this

    130

  • #
    Adrian O

    William Connolley “Having to write an entire blog post in complaint seems rather overkill.”

    The people who killed that journal will remain known, whatever their achievements before of after this,

    They will remain known as the thugs who did a last desperate act to prop up the biggest scam in science and in human history.

    Now there may be only Maurice Newman and Peter Lilley in the Australian and British governments who expressed it clearly as a scam, with Canada and Poland soon to follow.

    But this position is clearly what the future holds. Precisely because of the periodicity described in the journal.
    Which makes it likely to have the current cooling go on for another 15 years or so.


    Report this

    110

  • #
    Lars P.

    wow. just wow!
    Instead of debating or arguing and putting down pertienet arguments, as is the normal scientific process, the discussion is being shut-down with force.
    Oh the mighty who cannot be mistaken. Infailible.
    As very pertinentely Ivar Giaever said:
    “I am happy I am allowed to speak for myself”!!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYpxBSV8Qqw
    “Global Warming has become a new religion. Because you can’t discuss it”

    Daniel Greenfield has a good post here – Crowdsourcing the end of free speech:
    http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.at/2013/12/crowdsourcing-end-of-free-speech.html


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Ian Bock

    Abolishing a journal which published an article found to be heretical under the global warming religion seems bizarre, but it’s consistent with the periodic demand that “deniers” be executed – as if we were still living in the fourteenth century – and the increasingly absurd language used in fatuous attempts to explain away inconvenient facts, like the claim that the ice that trapped the “scientists” who went to Antarctica expecting to find evidence for their belief and finished up trapped in the ice was an example of “counterintuitive global warming”. I expect we’ll see a lot more farcical claims and entertaining Orwellian language as it becomes ever clearer that the belief is a grand hoax.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    BrianJay

    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.


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Oliver K. Manuel

      Thanks for the information and for having the courage to remind us and the publisher about Tolosani.

      One of the conclusions to my autobiography is that the scientific revolution that Copernicus started in 1543 quietly ended in 1945 out of FEAR of the enormous power of energy (E) stored as mass (m) in cores of atoms, planets, stars and galaxies.

      E = mc^2


      Report this

      41

    • #
      Vic G Gallus

      You could always interpret it as he foresaw the folly of believing the results of computer modelling were physical observations.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Vic G Gallus

        I’ll add something more sensible. Arguments about the worth of Copernicus’s model compared to any geocentric model were quantitative. They had to predict the position of planets relative to the constellations ie they had to argue using maths.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Phil Ford

    Thanks for posting this story, Jo. I’m tempted to invoke Godwin’s Law in respect of the publisher’s actions here, but I’ll just park that sentiment and let others draw their own conclusions about what such censorship in ‘scientific circles’ amounts to with respect to the cause of ‘truth in scientific reporting’. It seems every opinion may be published, as long as they are the ‘right’ opinions.

    It’s all very regrettable – and worrying.


    Report this

    60

  • #

    [...] Publications for terminating one of its scientific journals: Pattern Recognition in Physics. Read here, here and [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    charles the moderator

    JoNova,

    Please see my comments on the WUWT thread, you may want to change your position on this event.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/17/the-planetary-tidal-influence-on-climate-fiasco-strong-armed-science-tactics-are-overkill-due-process-would-work-better/#comments

    [I think Charles is referring to this comment from Tallbloke:

    tallbloke says:
    January 17, 2014 at 4:37 pm
    Anthony Watts writes: “While the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics self-destructed rather than deal with rebuttal process”

    It hasn’t ‘self destructed’ Anthony. stop the unseemly hurry to diss our discoveries please. Copernicus announced it’s closure, and then didn’t close it. Then removed access to the statement saying it was closed. However the Chief Editor plans to move the journal elsewhere. Once it has a new home we will of course welcome and respond to comments on and rebuttals of our work, as this is part of the normal process and progress of science.

    Let's hope this happens Charles, but it doesn't change the original reasons for it being pulled in the first place, and promising to find it a 'new home' may simply be a strategy to get the heat to die down. The real issues is why close it in the first place given the reasons stated? - Mod]


    Report this

    30

  • #

    [...] JoAnne Nova has an important story about a journal being shutdown just because it had the temerity to publish a paper questioning the IPCC conclusions. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    GuidoT

    PRP cannot die. Too honest & serious to be pulled out of the scene by a gang of thugs who love money and hate science.


    Report this

    20

  • #
  • #
    Roman Column

    Martin Rasmussen’s decision to shut down the PRP journal has been a serious error of judgement. I have no doubt that pressure has been put upon him to deal with the “deniers”, however, shutting down a scientific journal because it challenges a consensus will be recorded for posterity as a craven and malicious act. I have no doubt that Martin Rasmussen’s poor judgement will be used as a bad example of science being sacrificed in the name of an ideology for generations to come.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    charles the moderator

    Well, you have misunderstood or blatantly misrepresented my point.

    I’m not going to write a summary for you except to note that the editors, authors, and reviewers all engaged in peer-review malpractice by refereeing each others’ work in a specific Special Edition, which was Volume 1 edition 1.

    A group of curve matching wigglers got together, mislead a publisher into thinking they could trust them to launch a serious journal and then started to party. This journal should be killed, it has no validity.

    Ian Wilson, one of the others confessed to this peer-review malpractice in the linked thread, although he didn’t realize what he was describing was problematic.

    I suggest you either read all the comments, or those by me, Richard Courtney and Poptech.

    This incident is very embarrassing for AGW skeptics and is an own goal as much as the 10:10 videos or the recent Antarctic is for warmists.

    JoNova needs to take a serious look at what really happened, at the author, editor, and reviewer names and revise her take on this.


    Report this

    210

    • #

      I think you need to get off your high horse. If you really are a moderator of WUWT you have brought WUWT down several pegs (not that I am a fan of WUWT).

      Sure criticize the peer review process of the once PRP, I probably happen to agree with you, but dont start calling respected scientists “Nicky” and then show your ignorance by denigrating planetary science as a bunch of wiggle watchers.


      Report this

      70

    • #
      Teddi

      I just read the two stories at WUWT and many of your comments are really in poor taste and expose a narrowness of view. That’s unfortunate. I have doubts about WUWT now…


      Report this

      10

  • #
    charles the moderator

    Well, you have misunderstood or blatantly misrepresented my point.

    I’m not going to write a summary for you except to note that the editors, authors, and reviewers all engaged in peer-review malpractice by refereeing each others’ work in a specific Special Edition, which was Volume 1 edition 1.

    A group of curve matching wigglers got together, mislead a publisher into thinking they could trust them to launch a serious journal and then started to party. This journal should be killed, it has no validity.

    Ian Wilson, one of the authors confessed to this peer-review malpractice in the linked thread, although he didn’t realize what he was describing was problematic.

    I suggest you either read all the comments, or those by me, Richard Courtney and Poptech.

    This incident is very embarrassing for AGW skeptics and is an own goal as much as the 10:10 videos or the recent Antarctic is for warmists.

    JoNova needs to take a serious look at what really happened, at the author, editor, and reviewer names and revise her take on this.


    Report this

    36

    • #
      AndyG55

      Are you related to Michael the Realist?

      You are about as moderate as he was a realist.

      Their peer-review practices seem to have followed normal climate science principles.


      Report this

      90

    • #
      bullocky

      -charles the moderator;
      “I’m not going to write a summary for you except to note that the editors, authors, and reviewers all engaged in peer-review malpractice by refereeing each others’ work in a specific Special Edition, which was Volume 1 edition 1.”
      -
      ‘Peer-review’, in this case, may be defined according to the terms of the contract between the Editors and the Publishers, and their respective obligations within. If the Editors have discharged their contractual responsibilities according to the agreed guidelines, it’s likely no ‘malpractice’ has taken place.

      Paradoxically in regard of the Climategate Emails, the Editors may have, inter alia, sought to ‘re-define peer-review’. It is probable they were hoping for improvements.


      Report this

      50

    • #
      AndyG55

      The writers would have had problems finding people with the competence and intelligence to understand their work.

      Most ” ® climate scientists ™ ” would be left well out of the loop.


      Report this

      71

    • #

      well said. The thread should end here really. I can’t believe the lack of defence of this journal and the lack of argument that it should not have been shut down, just indignation that a journal aligned with personal world views got canned.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    macha

    Amazing sensorship at work.
    More amazing is the backlash.
    So many more people will read this now.

    Surely not a wierd act of reverse psychology?

    Hmmm. Maybe just by sceptic nature coming out again.
    Sarc/


    Report this

    30

  • #
    charles the moderator

    I’ll quote Richard Courtney, who has served as a Guest Editor of Energy & Environment Special Editions.

    Friends:

    I withdraw the suggestions in my earlier post at January 18, 2014 at 1:58 am.

    When I made that post I was not aware that the journal used the same people as authors and reviewers for the papers of each other in a Special Edition on a stated subject. Such a practice is a clear example of pal-review.

    The Special Edition should not have been published when its peer review procedures were a clear malpractice. Whether the reasons for withdrawal of the Special Edition also warranted closure of the journal requires additional information but it seems likely.

    Richard

    Source.


    Report this

    22

    • #
      bullocky

      -
      Richard Courtney has been a beacon of integrity throughout this protracted debate.
      -
      His observation of ‘pal-review’, though not unique, seems reasonable.
      -
      However, his charge of ‘malpractice’ needs to be substantiated…..
      ….. Is there a legislated definition or standard on which he bases this charge? Are the actions of the editors contrary to their stated claims?
      -
      Perhaps it’s an inappropriate choice of words; and which, needs to be addressed.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        charles the moderator

        Pal-review is peer review malpractice by definition. One editor even reviewed the other editor’s paper. Most reviewers were authors of other papers in the Edition. This was out and out STUPID. Had they adhered to a modicum of proper procedure they would have some ability to defend themselves, but instead they have embarrassed the skeptic community. This needs to be addressed.

        The publisher is completely correct to kill this journal. The publisher was mislead into believing a neutral and real journal was to be produced and instead this incestuous cycle fest was what they got.

        I’ll repeat what I said in another comment, IT DOESN’T MATTER IF ANY OF THE PAPERS HAD ANY VALIDITY! The abuse of process has destroyed any possibility of good coming out of this.


        Report this

        23

        • #

          You seem to be making assumptions about the honesty of review.

          If no “favours” were done and the paper‘s merits were the focus of the review, then it wouldn’t matter if their mothers were the reviewers. I tell my best friends when they’ve made a mistake. My enemies; they can suffer the consequences. ;-)

          It’s disconcerting that there’s an underlying assumption of dishonesty in the review process; that reviewers would not be critical of their peers in the scientific world. Perhaps that really is the culture. If so, then science is at an end.


          Report this

          60

        • #
          Truthseeker

          Charles,

          Here is a comment I have left on the latest WUWT thread on this topic …

          Wow, the hypocrisy of this post is truly mind boggling.
          For years WUWT has been railing against argument from authority and demanding that the data be respected and the evidence evaluated on its merits.
          The authors of this work allowed and encouraged anyone who was interested to evaluate their work, look at the data they had collected, check their methodology and comment directly with their opinions on what they had found or concluded. This is how science should be presented and the only way science should be presented.
          Peer review is nothing more than argument from authority and should be considered entirely irrelevant when evaluating the science. Only the data, methodology and resulting conclusions should be used when evaluating science. Nothing else is relevant.
          The hyprocrisy of the publishing house was shown hen they found out that the published article when against the IPCC establishment and withdrew the whole publication on that basis. The hypocrisy of this post is shown when it gives any value to argument by authority which is all that peer review is.

          When I refer to “this post” I was referring to the WUWT post but it equally applies to your comments.


          Report this

          30

  • #
    Adrian O

    charles the moderator “A group of curve matching wigglers got together”

    How much more ridiculous can you get?
    Yes, of course they matched curves.
    But they matched them CORRECTLY.

    Correctly PREDICTING a 2000-2030 slight temps descent, by periodicity.

    ****

    The 97% climate scientists also matched curves.
    Obviously, they tweaked their models to have temps match the CO2 curve.

    So not only did climate scientists match curves.
    They matched their curves WRONGLY.

    ****

    Something which has models fail with 95% certainty is definitely not a science.
    By any stretch of imagination.
    Check any definition of modern science you wish.

    Something which has models fail with 95% certainty is simply a failed pretense to divine the future.

    Compare that 95% failure to palm reading, which gets predictions about 40% right.
    (Now, there you have a science, by comparison.)
    Palm readers succeed by being alert to what is happening around them.
    A quality thoroughly lacked by climate scientists.

    So the main point, once again, is that the fellows who published in that issue were the ONLY ones who made right predictions. In normal science, they would be the heroes.

    The reasons for the rise of 0.8C/century, which happens every few hundred years, and for the 60 years sine curve added to that, the multidecadal perturbation, are now unknown. Finding their explanation is one of the greatest challenges of natural sciences.

    (I have at some point tried to connect it to magma movement, but unfortunately that’s not measured well enough.)

    The journal issue tried to put forward all kinds of possibilities. Some of them may seem far fetched. But then so was Milankovich’s theory of connecting glaciations to the minute changes in the eccentricity of the orbit of the Earth (which, by the way, is precisely curve matching, and isn’t yet well explained either.)

    Notice, importantly, that none of the papers in the journal asked for $3000 million/day for the foreseeable future. Which is the bounty of “climate mitigation.”

    About 1-2% of that loot is paid to the pretend climate scientists, to keep people scared and prop the scheme. And, in the process, to make sure that their curves are wrongly matched.

    That’s simply the standard mob rate for scary fellows, “the muscle.”

    PS Now, honestly, you propped the global warming scam through 16 years of non warming.

    The multidecadal periodicity, that curve matching which haunts you, shows that another 15 years of non warming are likely, and then about 10 more to detect the new trend.

    Do you really, really think you can pull it all through for another quarter century?

    A life coach would recommend you something new. Natural medicine? Faith based investments? Selling trips to Mars? Anything beats pushing warming through cooling times…


    Report this

    60

  • #
    charles the moderator

    You don’t get it. I am not a warmist. This episode is a black mark against skeptics. It already has derailed efforts by more serious AGW skeptics to launch a real objective journal. It is now impossible due to the embarrassment of this faux journal. The wigglers have weakened the credibility of all skeptics with the most flagrant peer-review malpractice seen in a long time. You don’t give your opponents this kind of ammunition.

    You don’t engage in the same biased activity that you complain about your opponents doing. Research what really happened here. Authors reviewed other authors papers in a Special Edition dedicated to a single topic. Editors also joined in reviewing. This is the ultimate in Pal-Review. This is a serious own goal. This needs to be denounced and intelligent skeptics need to join in denouncing it.

    IT DOESN’T MATTER IF ANY OF THE PAPERS HAD ANY VALIDITY!.

    The abuse of process was so egregious that nothing can be salvaged from this.


    Report this

    27

    • #
      AndyG55

      I suppose they could have asked M.Mann, Trenberth, Santer or someone like that to do the reviewing !


      Report this

      30

    • #

      Please stop and think. You’re elevating process above purpose.


      Report this

      90

    • #
      Ripper

      You have got it arse about, find flaws in the science and then look at whether there was “malpractice”.

      You and many others have reacted to the added on (secondary) accusation of malfeasance when it is obvious that that is some arse covering by the people that made the decision.

      Concentrate on the primary decision/reason/excuse to terminate the journal, not the secondary one.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Ian Wilson

      First and foremost if Chuck the Moderator got off his back-side and actually reads at least a couple of the papers submitted to the PRP Special Edition he would realize that most of the papers submitted have nothing to do with curve matching. Beware of commentators who complain about something about which they appear to have little to no knowledge.

      Second never trust anyone who tries to smear everyone with the same brush – notice how Chuck the Moderator calls all those who contributed to the PRP special edition “wigglers”.

      Third

      When a Journal decides to run a Special Edition, they appoint one or more editors to carry out the process. These appointments by their very nature can potentially be biased. No more so than if the field of study covered by the Special Edition is contentious. This is particularly true if Special Edition covers an area that is speculative and has the potential of over-turning years of scientific consensus.

      Normally the chosen Editors try to mitigate their own bias and prejudices by allocating the review of the submitted papers to so-called independent reviewers who have an expertise that covers the content of the papers that are submitted. However, when it comes to politicized fields like climate science or highly contentious fields like
      the causes of long term variations in level of solar activity, a whole set of new factors come into play that severely restrict the use of the principled policies of peer review.

      First and foremost is the stark reality that the pool of potential reviewers is highly polarized into those who support the theme of the special issue (protagonists) and those that do not (antagonists). This back-and-white dynamic becomes even worse when the content of the Special Issue primarily deals with issues and ideas that are held
      by a small number of scientists (protagonist). In this case, the editor is faced with the situation where virtually every antagonistic reviewer rejects the manuscript somewhere between the time that they read the paper’s title or by the time they have read about half way down through the abstract. There is no science involved in the antagonist reviewer’s decision making, just political bastardry and frothing bile.

      So what is a respectable journal to do in this type of situation?

      Here is what one unnamed Journal [not PRP] did to get around this problem:

      All of the authors where asked to give a list of five possible reviewers. This is standard practice at most climate science. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that it open to all sorts of biases that can be hidden from the general public.

      Then the Review process was broken into two rounds:

      The First Round: A given manuscript was sent to 1 – 3 collegial reviewers – i.e. the authors in the Special Issue were asked to review other papers in the Special Issue. This is pal-review at its finest.

      The Second Round: The papers were send for external review. This meant that each paper was sent to two supposedly independent anonymous reviewers chosen from a preset list. The list contained specialist in the fields being incorporated in the Special Issue.

      In the event that one of the two external reviewers rejected the paper then a third external reviewer was chosen to break the deadlock.

      Sounds fair doesn’t it!

      However, what the guest editor decided to do was stack the list of external reviewers so that ~ 2/3 were protagonists and about 1/3 were antagonists.

      Hence, in reality, each paper was initially sent out to a protagonist and an antagonist. Lo and Behold, it often turned out that the protagonist reviewer accepted the paper with some modifications while the antagonist reviewer rejected the paper outright [usually giving up their review before they had read about half way down the abstract].

      This gave the guest editor the right to choose another so-called independent external reviewer and of course, in most case this was another protagonist reviewer.

      This wonderful little technique allowed the guest editor to protect themselves should the peer-review process be questioned, since they could point towards the fact that at least some submitted papers were subject to the review of three independent reviewers with at least one being an antagonist.

      So, is this pal-review? Bloody-oath this is pal-review wearing a small fig-leaf to cover the messy details.

      How common is this when Journals do a Special Issue? I would say that it is far more common than people realize. I wouldn’t be too surprised if there was a similar use of collegial-review followed by a stacked external review by most, if not all, of the Special Issues that are published main-stream Climate Journals.

      That it is flagrantly practiced in the Alarmist Climate Journals goes without question. Yes truly!! How do you think the main-stream Climate Journals do Special Issues that always manage to leave out people like Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, the Pielkes, Curry, Singer, and Happer?

      It also practiced in the few climate skeptics Journals that are available, as well. Although I am sure that they are much more discrete with this use of this practice.

      Chuck the Moderator actually thinks that peer-reviewed Science is played out on a level playing field. This could be any further from the messy truth.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    AndyG55

    “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 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, who actually understands what the writer is trying to say, and isn’t going to reject it on some spurious grounds that the review 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.

    Why are the climate bletheren SO SCARED that they have to act in this manner ?? Is this work too close to the truth ??

    And if as you say, “Curve matching is not a field of specialists” where are all the other papers on curve matching solar and planetary attributes to climate. ?


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Adrian O

    charles “the moderator”

    In spite of your rather pretentious moniker, the fuss which you are making shows a fundamental misunderstanding about the function of the peer review. It comes probably from the fact that you are not submitting or reviewing many papers.

    You assume that once a paper is peer reviewed, it becomes some kind of “holy science.”
    That is just not the case.

    Peer review eliminates the “childish” mistakes.
    The real review by the scientific community happens AFTER publication.

    *******

    Say (for a widely known example) that someone would have received the hockey stick paper for review. He should have written back: “Dear prof. … It is well established that in the last 60 years, tree rings have little to do with temperatures. Could you mention this in your paper, together with the reason for which you find tree rings a reliable proxy for the last 1000 years.”

    Obviously the reviewer didn’t do that. So the real review was done by McIntyre and others later. It led to the ultimate abandonment of the hockey stick from most of the roles it played before.

    The give and take of dueling papers could sometimes continue for years or decades.

    Now it would have been very unlikely that the reviewer would have been McIntyre in any case.
    The work which took down the stick took many weeks of work and many papers. No reviewer is expected to go through that.

    That whole process is the way modern science works.

    *******

    If any of the papers in the now defunct journal has fundamental flaws, don’t worry, someone will point them out in some paper. If the errors are fundamental indeed, the original paper will be left out of the research flow.

    That has not happened so far.

    *******

    Until then, charles, your fuss about peer review is a game of smoke and mirrors.


    Report this

    90

  • #
    Adrian O

    charles “in a specific Special Edition, which was Volume 1 edition 1.”

    That edition should have had a red banner on the cover:

    THE ONES AND ONLY!
    CLIMATE PAPERS WHICH MATCH MEASURED TEMPS!


    Report this

    50

  • #

    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.


    Report this

    41

    • #
      AndyG55

      “and their practices left them and us open to criticism”

      I disagree.

      Maybe if Mann, Trenberth, Greenpeace etc etc had put their papers to the likes of McIntyre , Lindzen etc as reviewers, NONE of this farce would have happened. !!


      Report this

      40

  • #

    > Why is the Wikipedia climate criminal

    You’ve been lied to. See http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/01/04/a-childs-garden-of-wikipedia-p/

    > allowed to post here

    because you are Staunch Defenders of Free Speech! Of course. As our host said, “it’s about free speech”. And so far she’s doing better than WUWT, Tallbloke, Tisdale and P Gosselin, for which I’ll give her credit.

    >> Prior to this fuss, the journal had languished in well-deserved obscurity.
    > You make it sound like that’s a bad thing.

    It is if you’re publishing in it. Publications are there to be read: its about disseminating your work. That’s why everyone wants to be published in Nature or Science, because everyone reads those. None of the people publishing in this obscure journal would be writing there if they could have got into Nature instead.

    > Amazing sensorship at work. More amazing is the backlash. So many more people will read this now.

    I’m doubtful. I don’t see any evidence that people in this thread are actually reading any of thee papers. Certainly no-one is commenting on their actual content.

    > Correctly PREDICTING a 2000-2030 slight temps descent, by periodicity.

    You’re asserting that a prediction up to 2030 has already been proved correct? That’s obvious nonsense.


    Report this

    112

    • #

      What is your status these days Connolly, are you still empowered to override the WIKI record as you have done previosly in regard to your bogus claims of Landscheidt naming the current minimum after himself?


      Report this

      80

      • #

        > are you still empowered to override the WIKI record

        No-one from the outside understands how wiki works. We could discuss it, if you’re interested, though its rather tangential to the discussion here. Or you could just read the post I pointed you at. Since it contains Heretical Opinions, you won’t. I’m not an admin, if that’s what you mean.

        > Landscheidt naming the current minimum after himself?

        Ah, thank you: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theodor_Landscheidt&diff=591393659&oldid=591385327

        > Landscheidt

        Thank you for the reminder: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solar_variation&diff=591393072&oldid=589039999


        Report this

        012

        • #

          No-one from the outside understands how wiki works.

          Demonstrably; it doesn’t work when whole subject areas can be hijacked and subjected to broad revisionism.


          Report this

          130

        • #

          Give me once instance where Landschiedt names the current grand minimum after himself?


          Report this

          60

        • #
          bullocky

          -
          William Connelley;….”No-one from the outside understands how wiki works”
          -
          Do you find that this expedites the editing process?


          Report this

          70

        • #

          Incorrect, I understand exactly how it works and exactly how you abused it.


          Report this

          50

        • #
          Teddi

          We understand the criminal bias that you apply perfectly.


          Report this

          30

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          Mr Connolley I have to say your blog is a treasure trove. It is interesting to break out of my Jonovian bubble on occasions and see how the other half live. The number of times you have been censored in different places must surely give you a martyr’s sense of vindication.

          > Landscheidt naming the current minimum after himself?
          Ah, thank you: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theodor_Landscheidt&diff=591393659&oldid=591385327
          which he described as the "Landscheidt Minimum" <ref name=Landscheidt>Landscheidt, T. New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming. Energy and Environment 14, 327-350. - 2003</ref>

          We can now see that on Sunday a few hours after you re-asserted that fabricated claim you then saw the error of your ways:

          William M. Connolley (talk | contribs)
          (the online copy doesn’t say he named it after himself. that leaves no refs calling it the L thing, so delete that as unsupported)

          The WP rule for verifiability says that the burden of evidence is on editors who add new claims (not on editors who delete them). That means the presence of the fabricated claim was never really your fault to begin with. So then why did you not challenge John Quiggin on his edit?

          Revision as of 22:25, 20 April 2008
          John Quiggin
          (reflist)

          Dr. Landscheidt forecasted a minimum of solar activity around 2030. Geophysicists-climatologs from different countries have suggested this period would then be identified as “Landscheidt Minimum”.
          ===edit==> Dr. Landscheidt forecasted a minimum of solar activity around 2030, which he described as the “Landscheidt Minimum”.

          Mr Quiggin edited more than the ref list but neglected to describe that in his edit comment.
          No martyr’s vindication for you today. Only martyrdom.
          Seems a bit silly to be the fall guy for all of this.

          On his website Mr Quiggin proudly repeats one Tim Blair’s tesimonial that Quiggin is “Never wrong”. Surely you would take some delight in disabusing him of that notion?


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Heywood

      “because you are Staunch Defenders of Free Speech!”

      The fact that you are posting here is not a victory for free speech at all. In the context of the blogsphere, if someone censors, bans or edits your posts on THEIR blog, it isn’t a restriction of your free speech. You are free to start your own blog, and say what ever you want. Free speech is being allowed to stand on your own soap box, not demand what is spoken from someone elses.


      Report this

      50

    • #
      AndyG55

      Jo let’s you continue to post because you continue to show what a totally irksome piece of human trash you are.

      You help the anti-CAGW cause immensely by continuing to post.


      Report this

      90

    • #
      bullocky

      -
      William Connelley;..”> Why is the Wikipedia climate criminal ”
      -
      -
      You make it sound like it’s a bad thing!


      Report this

      30

    • #

      William Connolley is an outright liar and Wikipedia criminal of the highest order. Unknown to him I have been on the receiving end of his Wikipedia censorship tactics multiple times with fully sourced entries that comply by every known Wikipedia policy except his own criminal censorship.

      I can 150% vouch for every charge brought against him on Wikipedia and I can prove it to Jo. The liar needs to go.


      Report this

      81

    • #
      Carbon500

      William Connolley says: “Prior to this fuss, the journal had languished in well-deserved obscurity.
      You make it sound like that’s a bad thing. It is if you’re publishing in it. Publications are there to be read: its about disseminating your work. That’s why everyone wants to be published in Nature or Science, because everyone reads those. None of the people publishing in this obscure journal would be writing there if they could have got into Nature instead.”
      Absolute nonsense. What you perceive as an ‘obscure journal’ will be relevant to a specialist somewhere, and ‘Nature’ is by no means the most desirable destination for publication as you state.
      There are journals specialising in the technical and scientific aspects of all manner of disciplines – for example in the medical and allied laboratory disciplines we have ‘Vaccine’, ‘The Journal of Experimental Medicine’, The Journal of Clinical Investigation’, ‘Infection and Immunity’, ‘Molecular Immunology’, ‘The Journal of Molecular Biology’ and more.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      john robertson

      We know that William, anything with your name on it, is usually someone lying to us, by the way thanks for fixing wikipedia.
      Referring to it as their authority clearly marks the gullible.


      Report this

      00

  • #
  • #

    It seems Connolley still does have the power to control WIKI records at his will. He overrode my repeated attempt to rectify the Landscheidt record again today. I have asked him to specify where Landscheidt named the current solar minimum after himself in the record cited in WIKI, but still he refuses to do so?

    What a joke.


    Report this

    90

  • #

    > I have asked him to specify where Landscheidt named

    Being wikipedia, its sourced: to: Landscheidt, T. New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming. Energy and Environment 14, 327-350. – 2003

    I’m unsure how you managed to find that yourself. Its very clearly in the article I referred you to, and its not exactly a long article.


    Report this

    17

  • #
    Adrian O

    William Connolley “You’re asserting that a prediction up to 2030 has already been proved correct? That’s obvious nonsense.”

    The prediction has been right on the spot till now. And going strong, by the way 2014 began.
    You obviously expect the warming to restart any moment now.
    That would offer people two decades of fun watching!
    (And keep JoAnne in business)

    As opposed to that, the climate models’ predictions went with 95% confidence wrong.
    Which is a way of saying, scientifically speaking, that they are stinky rotten garbage (put kindly.)

    In your place, I would try to attract as little attention as possible on “predictions,” “rewards for the predictions,” “models,” “warming,” “correct” …

    In your place, I would try to attract as little attention as possible on anything having to do with this at all.
    The more people look into it, the worse it gets.

    *****

    If I can suggest a favorite nightmare for you, it’s a hall of mirrors.
    And each way you turn, it’s a Prime Minister or President of a different country speaking.
    All with the words of Maurice Newman.


    Report this

    70

  • #

    [...] Jo Nova brings up a skeptic paper that got a whole journal whacked [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    axel

    “JoNova – Tackling tribal groupthink”

    Still waiting for the tackle here? Why?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] see: 1. jewish-science-to-denier-science-copernicus-charade-is… 2. JoNova: whole-journal-gets-terminated/ 3. Tallbloke: pattern-recognition-in-physics-axed 4. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Much of the mail I received Friday centered around this post by Jo Nova: Science paper doubts IPCC, so whole journal gets terminated! [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    john robertson

    Perhaps its time we started using english again.
    In the past, a man might have a particular insight into the workings of the world, pondered this insight, researched it and developed a theory .
    This idea would then be discussed by the originator with his peers, friends and family.
    This was pal/peer review.
    If the idea survived this review it might get sent to a publisher, a journal.
    The journal would review this submission by their own criteria, seeking to protect the reputation and income of the publishers.
    What we are being diverted with here, charges of nepotistic peer review, is rubbish.
    Peer review as used by the establishment journals of today is Gate Keeping.
    There has been no denying this as of late 2009.
    If the idea was to ensure only quality speculation was published, what explains the utter tosh that appears in the journals at every IPCC deadline?
    Peer review was a tool of those who controlled the journals, it is corrupt, useless and now dead all hail the internet.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Carbon500

    Who trusts Wikipedia as an authoratative source anyway?
    Back in the days when I was involved in research, I’d look at a question from as many angles as possible and consult research papers in as many specialist journals and textbooks as necessary.
    Wikipedia is at best a possible helpful guide, but I wouldn’t trust a thing on any topic unless I’d looked into it further.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    AndyG55

    English is your second language ?

    “Science”, and “Honesty” sure aren’t anything you know about.


    Report this

    21

  • #
    Fernando

    NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

    Our chief weapon is surprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise…. Our two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency…. Our ‘three’ weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an almost fanatical devotion to the IPCC…. Our ‘four’…no… ‘Amongst’ our weapons…. Amongst our weaponry…are such elements as fear, surprise….

    I’ll come in again.


    Report this

    10

  • #

    [...] 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.  Continue reading here…. [...]


    Report this

    11

  • #
  • #

    [...] Start a Physics Journal that doesn’t toe the line on Anthropogenic Global Warming and get your brand new (2 issues) Physics Journal [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Welcome back to the dark ages. This time the religion is science and those who don’t agree with doctrine are the neo-heretics.


    Report this

    30

  • #

    > those who don’t agree with doctrine are the neo-heretics

    Mmmm, but its a bit different, no? Once upon a time you got burnt. Now all that happens is your pet journal gets shut down, but still continues to host your junk papers. Meanwhile, you get to whinge all over the internet, so the only thing you lack is the ability to complain about free speech, since it isn’t being infringed.

    You’re not showing much discrimination.


    Report this

    03

    • #

      Thanks, William, for expressing your views.

      All of the inhabitants of “Spaceship Earth” have a vested interest in having the best possible (most reliable) information about this spacecraft and any dangers to its passengers.

      Since the release of Climategate e-mails in November 2009, we passengers have learned that the results of measurements and observations are being manipulated for political purposes.

      Do you really expect us to quietly accept this state of affairs?

      With kind regards,
      Oliver K. Manuel
      Former NASA Principal
      Investigator for Apollo


      Report this

      20

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      The only one “whinging” is you. Nice auto-bio there, but no one cares about your whimperings.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    And still no one has challenged Svalgaard on his peer reviewing of Scafetta’s papers.

    The hypocrisy continues?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] According to the original explanation offered by Martin Rasmussen of Copernicus Publications, as reported by JoNova, the expression of this conclusion was a motivating factor for the “drastic decision” to [...]


    Report this

    00