UPDATE: 1/19/14 2;30 PM PST
There is an update to this post here:
Comments on this thread are now closed, continue there. – Anthony
While a journal is forced to self destruct by external pressure from “team climate science”, history and a new paper show us why due process would have been the right way to approach the issue. The phrase “using a sledgehammer to crack a nut” comes to mind.
This story by Jo Nova is making the rounds today:
Science paper doubts IPCC, so whole journal gets terminated!
While the shutdown of the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics that published a special edition on planetary tidal influence on climate is likely a bit of overkill, rebuttals would have been the right way to handle it rather than the Climategate style strong-arm gang tactics exhibited against journal editors as seen here from James Annan:
Kudos to Copernicus for the rapid and decisive way in which they dealt with this problem. The problems at the journal were was first brought to my attention by ThingsBreak just last night, I emailed various people to express my concerns and the journal (which was already under close scrutiny by the publisher) was closed down within 24h.
…I will say that some of the papers in that special journal edition really aren’t any better than curve fitting exercises. That said, I think they are entitled to the due process afforded any peer reviewed science publication. Certainly, we’ve seen some ridiculous examples of “team science” that should have never been published, such as RealClimate co-founder Eric Steig’s overhyped claim to a warming Antarctica that was dealt with effectively via the rebuttal process.
As many WUWT readers know, while years ago I expressed some interest in planetary tidal force effects on climate, I have long since been convinced that there’s zero planetary effect on climate for two reasons: 1) The gravitational effects at distance are simply too small to exert the forces neccessary, and 2) The methodology employed often results in hindcast curve fitting a theory to data, where the maxim “correlation is not causation” should have been considered before publishing the paper.
While the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics self-destructed rather than deal with rebuttal process (apparently at the direction of higher-ups), this paper just published in the journal Solar Physics shows that journal does in fact take the rebuttal process seriously.
Critical Analysis of a Hypothesis of the Planetary Tidal Influence on Solar Activity
DOI 10.1007/s11207-014-0475-0
S. Poluianov, I. Usoskin
Abstract
The present work is a critical revision of the hypothesis of the planetary tidal influence on solar activity published by Abreu et al. (Astron. Astro- phys. 548, A88, 2012; called A12 here). A12 describes the hypothesis that planets can have an impact on the solar tachocline and therefore on solar activity. We checked the procedure and results of A12, namely the algorithm of planetary tidal torque calculation and the wavelet coherence between torque and heliospheric modulation potential. We found that the claimed peaks in long-period range of the torque spectrum are artefacts caused by the calculation algorithm. Also the statistical significance of the results of the wavelet coherence is found to be overestimated by an incorrect choice of the background assumption of red noise. Using a more conservative non-parametric random-phase method, we found that the long-period coherence between planetary torque and heliospheric modulation potential becomes insignificant. Thus we conclude that the considered hypothesis of planetary tidal influence on solar activity is not based on a solid ground.
…
Conclusions
We analysed the procedure of planetary torque calculations from the paper by Abreu et al. (2012) and found that their results can be be affected by an effect of the aliasing distortion of the torque spectrum. We provided torque calculations with different sampling frequencies and found that the spectral peaks claimed by A12 are likely artefacts of the spectral distortion and do not have physical meaning. Then we repeated the analysis by A12 of the relation between heliospheric modulation potential and the planetary torque. We showed that the results of Abreu et al. (2012) are not statistically significant. Thus, the proposed hypothesis of planetary influence on solar activity is not based on solid empirical evidence.
The final draft of the paper can be read in entirety here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.3547.pdf
(h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard for the link)
================================================================
A rebuttal was also published in Solar Physics simultaneously, but it is entirely behind a paywall, so I can’t elaborate any further than providing a link to it: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11207-014-0473-2
But, unlike Copernicus, that decided to pull the entire journal rather than allow the rebuttal process of science occur, Solar Physics saw no need to self-terminate for having published the rebuttal by Abreu et al. authors, and the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics. continues to exist despite publishing the questionable and now shown to be flawed Abreu et al. paper http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2012/12/aa19997-12/aa19997-12.html
The last part of the post seems to be malformed (at least for me)
Me too.
The extra code at the bottom of the post is a WordPress artifact that sometimes manifests itself when pasting from an MS-Word document. Fixed now.
Hmm, the hand of Leif seems strong in these parts, may the force be with you.
At least Jo Nova recognizes source, http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/breaking-pattern-recognition-in-physics-axed-by-copernicus/
Well, we’ve brought Jo Nova’s site to a near standstill, but meanwhile over at Roger’s (Tallbloke’sTalkshop) site, Wm. Connolley thinks the situation is funny.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/breaking-pattern-recognition-in-physics-axed-by-copernicus/comment-page-1/#comment-65871
Too many journals, not enough science.
There was a bit of knee-jerk reaction over at Jo’s. I withheld comment pending your response, since I’m not a big fan of wiggle-matching. On the other hand, wiggle-matching is a form of scientific observation, albeit with limited utility. The speed with which the Annan propaganda ministry (composed of “various people”) managed without debate to shut down Pattern Recognition in Physics is disturbing, regardless, and echoes the content of the leaked Climategate papers.
This is not equivalent to ‘burning books’. It is equivalent to burning the printing press, though…..
Fahrenheit 451: The Interweb Edition
Self-censorship is the worst kind of censorship when imposed by tyranny.
I take issue with their figure 1, where they show how aliasing is produced by sampling at frequencies lower than the Nyquist, but then they claim this to be the same as averaging the values before sampling.
It’s not at all the same thing.
Averaging the samples prior to digitizing would yield an amplitude value of zero when averaging the initial values over either 2 or 10 cycles.
The publisher stated the journal editors misrepresented their intent to the publisher when the journal was created. After assurances it wouldn’t be used exclusively as a forum for contrarian climate science views, that is what the editors made it. How, exactly, would a rebuttal process address that??
The publisher also expressed concerns about nepotism in the selection of referees.
This is about more than just creating some papers that disagreed with the main stream view.
Blimey. Good job my papers aren’t about a tidal theory then. In fact the majority of the papers in the special edition don’t espouse a tidal theory. Pity Anthony didn’t take the trouble to read before dismissing them. But never mind. Scientists are reading them, judging by the number of downloads.
Copernicus’ Martin Rasmussen’s statement about shutting down PRP on the homepage is now no longer accessible, as the page immediately redirects to the ‘issues’ page, where our special edition is still linked. All the papers are still available for open access free download. So interested WUWT readers can make up their own minds about our work.
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/special_issue2.html
Our curve fitting model now successfully replicates 400 years of solar observations to R^2=0.91. The model shows good correspondence with 14C reconstruction back to the C11th.
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.
If you are a skeptic climate scientist, you get fired right after the whisper and email campaign by the enlightened starts. If you are a skeptic climate journal, you get to self-terminate (even the Terminator did not get to self-terminate).
Why would climate science stop at this level when they consistently get away with it time and time again. Like the Terminator, they can’t be bargained with. They can’t be reasoned with. They don’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, …
Leo Geiger, thanks for your clarity. 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)
Come on fellas. Who among us has dreamt of punching out the city editor, or burning down the newspaper?
Most of us are lucky enough not to be in the position to act on those fantasies, but in the rarified air of climate science all you need is the right amount of hutzpah, a phone call, and it’s “Off with their heads!” at Pattern Recognition.
I recognize that pattern when someone says 97% of climate scientists agree that man made climate change is real and spectacular.
You assume the publishers’ point is 100% correct. Nichola Scafetta, one of the authors from Duke University, begs to differ. He wrote in the comments on JoNova’s site:
There are two sides to this, and who knows if Rasmussen read the Nature article published on Wednesday this week.
Regarding Martin Rasmussen’s now invisible comments about “potential” problems with reviewing, I eagerly await the detailed accusations so we can rebut them. Until then it’s just innuendo and smear. Of course if he doesn’t substantiate his innuendo and smear then legal steps can be taken to remedy the defamation suffered by the authors. One of those authors has over 580 peer reviewed papers to his name. It could get expensive.
This is likely why Rasmussen’s statement has been bypassed by the redirect on PRP’s homepage.
I’ve had enough of being libeled by fools. The gloves are off and I’ll fight. Copernicus publishes in the EU, which is accessible to the enforcement of judgments made in British and Scandinavian courts.
Leo Geiger says:
January 17, 2014 at 3:56 pm
Your Majesty. Someone outside the castle has started a newspaper.
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.
I rather hope it is part of a trend and not an anecdote. Journal seppuku is a brilliant script twist in this whole climadrama. Popcorn, please.
Let the free market work.
Ohboy, the redirect is gone, the homepage is back. Webcitation.org here we come.
If you think about it, all the climate model results are both wiggle-matching to the historic record, and have no predictive value at all since they have missed all the major climate indices.
Any journal that uses these should therefore be terminated.
Bill Illis says:
January 17, 2014 at 4:51 pm
all the climate model results are both wiggle-matching to the historic record, and have no predictive value
And worse still they make up the aerosol data and to get a wiggle match.
Our model uses the orbital periods of four planets plus some simple algorithms which simulate increasing and decreasing amplitudes and gets a 91% match with 400 years of solar data in its latest iteration and a 75% match with 1000 years of 14C proxy data. It’s substantially better than any solar internal dynamo model and because the future positions of the planets are known, it can make useful predictions.
Here’s the paper:
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/117/2013/prp-1-117-2013.pdf
to be honest, the CAGW debate is now strictly political/financial – where, whether or not the “science” is settled, doesn’t enter the manipulated equations:
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
“FIXING” THE CAGW MARKET HAS NEVER BEEN A SECRET:
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/
13 Jan: Marketwatch: Businesswire Press Release: Green Bond Principles
Created to Help Issuers and Investors Deploy Capital for Green Projects
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
This is the abstract to their final general conclusions “paper” in the special edition:
And later they write
It is going to be difficult to square that with a claim now that “only one paper” focuses on climate.
Alarmists were having an orgy over at Tallblokes even after he asked for civility. So he had to bounce William Connolley. And Wiki still allows him to edit???
tallbloke says:
January 17, 2014 at 4:46 pm
Ohboy, the redirect is gone, the homepage is back. Webcitation.org here we come.
________________________
Roger, at this point, I’m really confused about what is going on. I see your latest posts and the working link. Did public outcry cause a course reversal?
(BTW- good move tossing that
tosserW.C.- he was just stinkin’ up the Talkshop.)If wriggle matching shows correlation it should inspire someone to look for why, even if they disagree with the wriggle matchers explanation(s).
That’s how you get from God dying at the Solstice and being reborn at the equinox, to Ptolemy, then Copernicus, then Galileo, Newton, Einstein, etc….
And Roger, you ought to be kinder with Anthony, who is covering this even though he disagrees with you.
One should note that the publisher’s concerns were with the special issue, but the reference to Suteanu (2013) appears to mean Scafetta is instead talking about the other volume, which the publisher did not express concerns about.
Anthony writes:
“As many WUWT readers know, while years ago I expressed some interest in planetary tidal force effects on climate, I have long since been convinced that there’s zero planetary effect on climate..”
That can change with the right quality and quantity of material evidence. There’s a big difference between identifying consistent functions at different scales, and theoretical curve fitting that doesn’t even suggest any mechanisms.
Unfortunately, Anthony has jumped the gun again!
Another paper by the Abreu group is about to come out in Solar physics which will leave it beyond doubt that planetary processes [most likely a spin-orbit coupling model] play a critical role in modulating the level of solar activity on the Sun.
While we wait here is 100 years of Solar data that matched the VEJ Tidal-Torquing model.
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/further-confirmation-of-vej-tidal.html
REPLY: Meh, we’ll see. – Anthony
be even slightly sceptical of CAGW, 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
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
tallbloke says:
January 17, 2014 at 5:17 pm
..Our model uses the orbital periods of four planets plus some simple algorithms which simulate increasing and decreasing amplitudes and gets a 91% match with 400 years of solar data in its latest iteration and a 75% match with 1000 years of 14C proxy data. It’s substantially better than any solar internal dynamo model and because the future positions of the planets are known, it can make useful predictions.
Here’s the paper:
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/117/2013/prp-1-117-2013.pdf
——————————
aliasing distortion of the torque? What exactly does this mean?
“”””We analysed the procedure of planetary torque calculations from the paper by Abreu et al. (2012) and found that their results can be be affected by an effect of the aliasing distortion of the torque spectrum. We provided torque calculations with different sampling frequencies and found that the spectral peaks claimed by A12 are likely artefacts of the spectral distortion and do not have physical meaning.””””
I’m looking for orbital anomalies, you know perturbations in the orbits of the planets that might represent physical changes in the solar system free falling in a vortex like motion. The system works together on this. So perturbations in the rings (vortex) would have significance in that the background is changing.
While today the BBC begins to speak of very possible decades of cold to come:
(never thought it of the beeb)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25771510
The AGWers engine is beginning to knock, backfire.
Just a note, some astrospheres are more elliptical in shape than others, very much so in fact, that I’m thinking that might have an effect on torques and on solar cycle like evolution.
The problem is obvious, the papers list in many cases one of the reviewers as an author in the same edition and in some cases a known skeptic with another anonymous reviewer. While this is no different than what the alarmists do all the time, skeptics will be held to a much higher standard and should not allow themselves to fall into these traps. Who’s idiotic idea was it to list the reviewers on the papers and thought this would not be a problem?
The best method to use is a double-blind peer-review system. If I was the editor, I would only select reviewers who had no remote affiliation in any way with the author to protect against such easy criticisms.
The problem in the end could of been easily solved by changing editors, review methods and allowing time for the publishing of rebuttals.
One more note, they describe the heliosphere in terms like comet shaped, with a long heliotail. I’m thinking that in the last two solar cycles, the heliosphere, became more ‘elliptical’ in shape. And if solar cycle 25 is even less solar activity than 24, the heliosphere will become more ‘elliptical in shape.
New article ..
Configuration of the local interstellar magnetic field
Frisch, Priscilla C.; Andersson, B.; Berdhyugin, A.; Funsten, H. O.; DeMajistre, R.; Magalhaes, A.; McComas, D.; Piirola, V.; Schwadron, N.; Seriacopi, D.; Slavin, J. D.; Wiktorowicz, S.; IBEX Team
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AAS…22345420F
American Astronomical Society, AAS Meeting #223, #454.20
The discovery of the Ribbon of energetic neutral atoms by the Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) provides a new and unexpected diagnostic of the direction of the local interstellar magnetic field (ISMF). The IBEX Ribbon forms where the interstellar magnetic field draping over the heliosphere is perpendicular to the sightline. We have shown that the direction of the interstellar magnetic field close to the Sun, obtained from starlight polarized in the interstellar medium (ISM), is consistent with the ISMF direction that is traced by the IBEX Ribbon. In this presentation we show that new optical polarization data indicate that the local ISMF has a smoothly varying component stretching from the first to the third galactic quadrant. Both the ISMF direction and the kinematics of local interstellar gas within tens of parsecs support an interpretation where the local interstellar clouds are a fragment of the expanding Loop I superbubble.
I think that Anthony get a little bit too excited. This is a blatant case of censorship.
As Anthony states, proper rebuttals of the issues addressed in the papers would have been the right scientific way to do this. But this option was evidently dismissed. Too dangerous to write rebuttals that are then soundly rebutted by a proper reply.
As the things are now, only one paper published in PRP has been fully rebutted. I will talk about this below.
About the papers of the special issue that only briefly address the climate issue (I have published two papers in the special issue and only one section in one of the two addresses the interpretation of climate change), none has been rebutted. So, contrary to Anthony statement there was no “planetary theory fiasco” but only a political decision by the publisher to terminate the publications of this journal that evidently do not fit his scientific views that clearly opposes having as editors of a journal people that he defined as “climate skeptics”. He was very clear. In brief, “climate skeptics” cannot serve as editors of a science journal belonging to Copernicus.
However, all papers are free and can be downloaded from the web-site of the journal
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/issue1.html
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/2/issue1.html
The special issue is here
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/special_issue2.html
My papers are here to everybody to read:
1) Multiscale comparative spectral analysis of satellite total solar irradiance measurements from 2003 to 2013 reveals a planetary modulation of solar activity and its nonlinear dependence on the 11 yr solar cycle
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/123/2013/prp-1-123-2013.pdf
2) The complex planetary synchronization structure of the solar system
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/2/1/2014/prp-2-1-2014.pdf
Ironically, paper number 2 is a review of multisecular literature that starts with Copernicus’s De revolutionibus orbium coelestium of 1543. Poor Copernicus! He is revolting in his tomb. The paper can be hardly rebutted without rejecting also Copernicus, Kepler and so on up to modern times. Please read it, it is quite informative.
About Anthony’s bias based on his two points, my reply are the following:
“1) The gravitational effects at distance are simply too small to exert the forces neccessary,”
This issue is extensively discussed in my publication:
Scafetta N., 2012. Does the Sun work as a nuclear fusion amplifier of planetary tidal forcing? A proposal for a physical mechanism based on the mass-luminosity relation. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 81-82, 27-40.
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/ATP3610.pdf
Moreover, if Anthony had read my papers, he would know that also an electromagnetic influence may be possible. This is made of electric current connections between the planets and the sun, which do not depend on the distance.
“2) The methodology employed often results in hindcast curve fitting a theory to data, where the maxim “correlation is not causation” should have been considered before publishing the paper.”
This again is erroneous. The methodology employed at least in my papers is equivalent to the methodology used for predicting the ocean tides on Earth. Here harmonic models that use astronomical harmonics are used to reconstruct the solar and climate patterns. At least my models are tested on their hindcasting forecasting capability and are successful for centuries, and are supported by several physical arguments.
See here for the correct forecast of the temperature I made in 2010:
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model_1
Anthony simply does not understand the tidal ocean model by Kelvin et al.
But now lets go back to the main point. Above I said “As the things are now, Only one paper published by PRP has been fully rebutted. I will talk about this below.” Which paper am I talking about?
Well, it was a paper by Benestad:
Comment on “Discussions on common errors in analyzing sea level accelerations, solar trends and global warming” by Scafetta (2013).
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/91/2013/prp-1-91-2013.pdf
Here Benestad tries to rebut my paper:
Discussion on common errors in analyzing sea level accelerations, solar trends and global warming
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/37/2013/prp-1-37-2013.pdf
Benestad’s comment was soundly rebutted in my reply:
Reply to Benestad’s comment on “Discussions on common errors in analyzing sea level accelerations, solar trends and global warming” by Scafetta (2013)
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/105/2013/prp-1-105-2013.pdf
The issue discussed here was the fragrant mathematical errors made in a paper by Benestad and Schmidt (2009) on JGR that was extensively discussed also on WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/04/scafetta-benestad-and-schmidt%E2%80%99s-calculations-are-%E2%80%9Crobustly%E2%80%9D-flawed/
Thus, I think that Anthony got it wrong. This journal, PRP, was terminated simply because it was too dangerous to allow a scientific dialectic of rebuttals and replies. To do that one needs editors that publish the rebuttals but not the reply which would not have happened with the current editors. So, the publisher decided to close the journal. But no paper published there has been rebutted, only Benestad’s one was. So, those papers stand as they are.
Anthony, it would be nice if you start reading these papers.
REPLY: I’ve read your papers in the past, and decided they were junk. I don’t expect these to be any better, but I’ll have a look. – Anthony
Halpern, I agree with we should get rid of all government funding of science and universities.
http://www.coas.howard.edu/chem/jhalpern/
REPLY: I’ve read your papers in the past, and decided they were junk. I don’t expect these to be any better, but I’ll have a look. – Anthony
********
Anthony, thank you for promising to give a look.
Of course I think that you did not understand those papers that you read in the past. You just believed in Leif that has been soundly rebutted paper after paper.
It can happen. Just keep an open mind and understand that this is frontier science as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo Newton etc was at their time.
Remember that Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton etc science was considered “Junk” at the beginning also by smart people. But then things changed in time as people understood things better.
Important is to keep an open mind.
By the way, I have a new just published paper:
ACRIM total solar irradiance satellite composite validation versus TSI proxy models
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10509-013-1775-9
Regardless, the only good news is, it looks like the papers are not going anywhere,
“Following best practice in scholarly publishing, published articles cannot be removed afterwards.”
???
roger, clearly a typo and should of been “flagrant”.
Why are all my posts being moderated?
rogerknights says:The issue discussed here was the fragrant mathematical errors made in a paper by Benestad and Schmidt (2009)
rogerknights. I do not write in English but in Italian translated into English. Found out in Italian/Spanish/Latin what “fragrante ” means. In English may be “blazing” “blatant” etc.
Ok it was “flagrante” my error
Ah, c’mon, ‘fragrant’ is wonderful.
===========
Anthony’s REPLY to my post at:
January 17, 2014 at 6:20 pm
Meh, we’ll see. – Anthony
Anthony,
I respectfully ask you to go to
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/further-confirmation-of-vej-tidal.html
And look at the figure in the blog post.
While you are doing this think of the young student looking at
the respective coastlines of South America and Africa and
wondering if they were at one time in contact.
I have added my thoughts here: http://peacelegacy.org/articles/breaking-peer-review-corruption-scandal-climate-science
So it’s to be war, then? War it shall be. To hell with the better ideas and strident debate and due diligence. The outcome is all that matters in the end and we will be remembered only for our heroes and the fields of red, our lies and exaggerations conveniently forgotten or expunged from the record (history is written by the victors). Take to the ramparts of Twitter and Facebook and free your slings and arrows – let the barbs fly, pillory with parody, juxtapose logic with feelings, let your screeds fly like the thunderous pounding of Mjölnir, hammer of the gods.
Or perhaps the greens could find some adult leadership capable of serious science.
Nicola Scafetta says:
January 17, 2014 at 7:45 pm
this is frontier science as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo Newton etc was at their time.
I take a dim view of people who compare themselves and their ‘work’ to Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and the mysterious [but undoubtedly very worthy] Mr. ‘etc’.
I just want to say that so far I am finding the articles in the special issue to be delightful reading. I have the greatest respect for Grigori, Morner, and Scafetta and probably the others when I finish reading them. You have my support.
Leif,
that is all you have to say about this blatant case of censorship which is quite similar to the censorship suffered by Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, etc
It is unfortunate that you could not publish your rebuttal in the journal followed by my reply.
Nicola Scafetta says:
January 17, 2014 at 10:09 pm
that is all you have to say about this blatant case of censorship which is quite similar to the censorship suffered by Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, etc
Poor you to be in that same boat.
It is unfortunate that you could not publish your rebuttal in the journal followed by my reply.
A paper must be worthy of rebuttal, yours were not.
Nicola Scafetta wrote –
“Remember that Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton etc science was considered “Junk” at the beginning also by smart people. But then things changed in time as people understood things better.”
The odd one out there Nicola is Sir Isaac who really did create junk by trying to tamper with the resolution for planetary retrogrades in order to encase planetary dynamics within a clockwork solar system or rather,a rotating celestial sphere universe.
To this day it is nearly impossible to find people who can discuss this crucially important issue in a transparent way by virtue that they are instructed/indoctrinated from the time they enter high school to think of Newton’s laws of motion with no historical or technical background whatsoever hence they remain unthinking for the rest of their lives. Mathematicians themselves once admitted that they haven’t a clue what Sir Isaac did and how he did it but that wouldn’t happen today for historical reasons –
“The demonstrations throughout the book [Principia] are geometrical, but to readers of ordinary ability are rendered unnecessarily difficult by the absence of illustrations and explanations, and by the fact that no clue is given to the method by which Newton arrived at his results. ” Rouse Ball ,1907
This is no mere matter of Newton being wrong or reckless,this was an issue that has always existed and especially in relation to the Galileo affair where there is a mismatch between the system which predicts astronomical events and those which prove the dynamics of our planet which in turn effects observations of all the other celestial objects and their genuine motions.
“Here lurked the danger of serious misunderstanding. Maffeo Barberini, while he was a Cardinal, had counselled Galileo to treat Copernicanism as a hypothesis, not as a confirmed truth. But ‘hypothesis’ meant two very different things. On the one hand, astronomers were assumed to deal only with hypotheses, i.e. accounts of the observed motions of the stars and planets that were not claimed to be true. Astronomical theories were mere instruments for calculation and prediction, a view that is often called ‘instrumentalism’. On the other hand, a hypothesis could also be understood as a theory that was not yet proved but was open to eventual confirmation. This was a ‘realist’ position. Galileo thought that Copernicanism was true, and presented it as a hypothesis, i.e. as a provisional idea that was potentially physically true, and he discussed the pros and cons, leaving the issue undecided. This did not correspond to the instrumentalist view of Copernicanism that was held by Maffeo Barberini and others. They thought that Copernicus’ system was a purely instrumental device, and Maffeo Barberini was convinced that it could never be proved. This ambiguity pervaded the whole Galileo Affair.”
http://www.unav.es/cryf/english/newlightistanbul.html
Newton exploited the lack of resolution in this matter hence the ‘predictive’ convenience became a point of departure for unbridled speculation in that ‘predicting’ and ‘speculating’ share roughly the same root term. The great disservice is not so much portraying the need of the Church to have an Earth centered universe,that really only developed later,it is the complete obliteration of a problem that tested even the most sympathetic supporters of the discoveries of Copernicus –
“Better still, if someone wishes, he can assign to the sky those motions of the earth that [Copernicus] adds to the first two, and use the same calculation procedures. But that highly learned and intelligent man considered it inadvisable, on account of these undisciplined minds, to invert the entire system of his hypotheses, and he contented himself with having established
that which was sufficient for the true discovery of phenomena.” Gemma Frisius
All this surfaces today,even in this thread, where not only does the tail wag the dog but the hair on the tail wags the tail and that is why so many gets themselves into a contrived stew. For those willing to make the journey back through history and the historical and technical foundations of the speculative/predictive excesses they will come back to astronomy and terrestrial sciences in a new and fresh way with not the slightest trace of the hype and novelties that pass themselves off as astronomy and terrestrial sciences today.
[Mr. Kellher, site Policy requires that you use only one screen name. Which name shall it be? ~ mod.]
Wiggle-matching, in the form of noting correspondences of possibly related phenomena, is perhaps the primary and most common source of speculation — the first step to the formulation of hypotheses which may survive challenge from all quarters to become theories. It is not ever the whole story, but it may well be the sine qua non of interesting investigation and productive imagination and insight.
Nicola Scafetta says:
January 17, 2014 at 10:09 pm
similar to the censorship suffered by Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, etc
You all the sudden dropped Newton [as he did not suffer censorship. perhaps], and you are wrong about Galileo. He was not censored for the science but for a theological issue.
Nicola Scafetta says:
January 17, 2014 at 10:09 pm
It is unfortunate that you could not publish your rebuttal in the journal followed by my reply.
Papers have to be worthy of rebuttal. Your were not. I can post my referee’s report here if you would like.
It
isobviousappears likely, the editors, authors, and reviewers colluded to attempt to make this into a curve fitting skeptics coup d’état. They hijacked Volume 01, Issue 01 to create a special issue. Then they all worked together to create a summary article tying them all together. I believe the publisher was deceived perhaps even early on was cajoled into creating this journal. Killing the journal is a quite reasonable response to being mislead this way. This was not a good move for AGW skeptics. The publisher could have made a less anti-skeptic description of the reasons for the closure, but if he is part of the general community and then got taken in this way, his reaction is understandable. Don’t expect everyone to be following all the politics and the science of this issue as the addicts are.Nicola Scafetta says:
January 17, 2014 at 7:45 pm
” … It can happen. Just keep an open mind and understand that this is frontier science as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo Newton etc was at their time. …”
—-l
It might even be true that your work is on the same groundbreaking order as that of the scientists you quoted. It might be true that you are suffering from the same persecution as they did. But using these facts as a reason to re-examine your work sounds too much like desperate whinging and an insult to the intelligence of the person you are trying to convince.
There are better ways of making your point.
Moderator.Tried to post under Kelleher in another thread but no sign of response so assumed,perhaps wrongly,that it was an intervention. I’ll keep it at Gkell1 however ,with a more proactive approach to the issue of modeling conclusions without regard for physical considerations,I would expect this goes against the grain of many people here and my stay may not be long.
Isvalgaard wrote –
“You all the sudden dropped Newton [as he did not suffer censorship. perhaps], and you are wrong about Galileo. He was not censored for the science but for a theological issue.”
Not so, the Pope in that era was by far the most powerful political leader so when Galileo tried to put the words of the Pope in the mouth of a fictional fool (Simplicio) ,what do you think was going to happen ?.
Galileo was partially correct in his historical assessment of Church involvement in astronomical discoveries but look what has happened since as the so-called Galileo affair has dissolved into a childish idea that you have an Earth centered Church with a theological necessity on one side and an enlightened scientist on the other when this should be unbearable both technically and historically.
http://inters.org/Galilei-Madame-Christina-Lorraine
People seem to forget that for all the hoopla about the Royal Society revolution in the 17th century,it took them until 1752 to make the necessary correction which the Church had made back in 1582 where the true orbital position of the Earth in space was restored by taking off 10 days due to an overcompensation between daily rotational and orbital characteristics.
In short,nobody wants to expand their perspectives in any direction nor take the responsibility when that wider perspectives shows a much clearer technical picture on one side and a muddier historical picture on the other. The driving force behind the present speculative conclusions arise from a determination to bury historical perspectives because it is convenient to do so hence the draining away of the appreciation of the genuine natural historical insights that have thrilled so many generations of students and interested adults up to this era and its mania to predict the future.
Perhaps a little off topic, but here is someone who is a fan of global warming and the science really makes a lot of sense!
http://www.expanding-earth.org/
This is very disturbing, it is a warning to other journals not to publish papers that support skeptic arguments, OR ELSE.
Every one seems to be missing the point here, it is not just just AGW science that is a closed shop that shoots the messenger. Physics was hijacked and shut down around 1920, their standard model is a joke of mathematical semantics, try getting past their gate keepers. The standard model of the universe does not work using gravity as 95% of the matter is missing so they invent dark energy and dark matter. If gravity is not working for the universe it is also not working for our solar system.
Gravity does not even explain our ocean tides, so I ask, what is at work here, some thing infinitely greater than gravity. To deride people outside these cabals trying to find new answers is an attack on freedom of thought. Free thinkers are what gave us our modern world. Willis is one that posts here. Those that posted in this journal are also thinking outside the square, right or wrong this is how advances are made.
Peter Miller wrote –
“Perhaps a little off topic, but here is someone who is a fan of global warming and the science really makes a lot of sense!
http://www.expanding-earth.org/ ”
Dear ,oh dear,oh dear !.
Evolutionary geology suffers from the same problems as climate research in that there is a huge disparity between modeling using stationary Earth perspectives such as thermal convection as opposed to the two way street where the surface clues point in the direction of the rotating fluid interior and visa versa.
I went to the geological community about a decade ago and pointed out that all rotating celestial bodies with fluid compositions display an uneven rotational gradient between equatorial and polar latitudes so that exempting the rotating fluid interior of the Earth from this mechanism was much more difficult than actual recognizing this differential rotation.
It is possible to get the 26 mile spherical deviation between Equatorial and polar diameters to mesh with the symmetrical creation of crust off the Mid Atlantic Ridge via a common mechanism.By using the uneven gradient where the fluid interior of the Earth does not rotate as a unit but like the Sun and the gas giants with exposed viscous compositions, display a zonal flow. As this would be a new area of research there are really no graphics to present this in anything other than a loose form –
http://www.psc.edu/science/2006/inprogress/images/surfacezonalflow.jpg
Why waste time with an ‘expanding earth’ when the observations and principles are already in place to work with the uneven rotational gradient of the fluid interior and especially the graceful deviation of the Earth from a perfect sphere as it follows the characteristics of differential rotation.
Friends:
Man Bearpig says at January 18, 2014 at 1:29 am
This is very disturbing, it is a warning to other journals not to publish papers that support skeptic arguments, OR ELSE.
Repeated here for emphasis.
An idea cannot be refuted if it is not allowed to be openly published.
So, those who the ‘planetary influence’ stuff is wrong should be most concerned for it to be subjected to proper publication so they can refute it.
Rebuttal consists of arguments of the form,
‘The statement saying X is wrong because it disagrees with Y and Z’.
Rebuttal does not consist of assertions such as,
which is the logical error of Appeal to Authority combined with the hubris of asserting one’s own infallibility. Indeed, such assertions imply their providers are not capable of providing a rebuttal.
Richard
Sorry, I intended to write
An idea cannot be refuted if it is not allowed to be openly published.
So, those who think ‘planetary influence’ stuff is wrong should be most concerned for it to be subjected to proper publication so they can refute it.
Richard
Connelly on Talkshop: “Look on the positive side: at least some people have actually *heard* of this journal now.”
Indeed. I’m sure this has done wonders for this unheard of journal. I’ve grabbed of copy of all the papers in case they try to censor the whole thing.
As they say, there’s no such thing as bad publicity 😉
Since what Dessler laughably calls “the standard model” is nothing more than wiggle matching using numerous free parameters to hind-cast the pre-manipulated climate record, I see no reason not to examine whether other wiggle matching exercises may not point to alternative paths to be investigated.
Scafetta’s work does have the merit of actually getting the projection pretty close for the last decade in contrast to “the standard model” which is an abject failure.
Having failed on their own science, Annan and his team continue machiavellian, behind the scenes manipulation to try to prevent alternative work being seen. A tactic which has probably increased the readership of these papers by several orders of magnitude.
What a bunch of Failureholics
richardscourtney says: January 18, 2014 at 1:59 am
“An idea cannot be refuted if it is not allowed to be openly published.”
No-one is preventing open publication. The ideas have been extensively canvassed. The Web is open to them.
The only thing lacking now is the endorsement of the Copernicus organisation. The papers are still there. They say they can’t endorse them. Should they pretend? Be required to? Who would that help?
I agree with Nick Stokes. While Scaffeta says things like “…this blatant case of censorship which is quite similar to the censorship suffered by Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, etc ” there is no such thing going on. Galileo was prevented by the Catholic church from publishing ANYTHING about his ideas on a stationary sun after he was placed on house arrest. The order was:
Yet Scaffeta and others affected by the journal action are still free to publish their ideas about the sun and cycles in other journals, in magazines, newspapers, and blogs, on the web in places like arxiv.org and on their own personal web pages.
The idea of comparing this incident to Galileo’s censorship is absurd.
That link doesn’t take one to the actual article; this one does:
http://peacelegacy.org/category/topics/corruption
Wow. It’s the first time I’m out of popcorn. This is unprecedented, if I may say so.
I don’t think that noticing an important pattern, “curve fitting,” should be held in low regard.
It sure beats by a margin making models with curves which don’t fit.
Trying to put out explanations, as far fetched as they may seem, for observed patterns, whether they are the multidecadal ones or the millennial U shaped curves is important as well. Such ideas suggest new measurements. And ultimately proofs by measurements will sort things out.
In modern science, observing a pattern is almost as important as explaining it.
Kepler is a great scientist for having observed the patterns of planet movements.
Experimentally.
Even though it was Newton who explained them in a simple way.
“The idea of comparing this incident to Galileo’s censorship is absurd.”
The comparison may be rather OTT, we are not at that stage. However, the facts as you initially reported them ” the shutdown of the journal” clearly represent an intent to stifle discussion rather than follow due process. A point you also make.
It is censorship rather than science.
With Desslers untruthful testimony before the Senate committee stating
>>
How many successful predictions have alternative theories made?
Zero.
>>
we see the insidious motivation behind the attempts to ensure this kind of work does not get accepting into “the literature”.
With the career censorship imposed on anyone but the retired and the most securely placed acedemics, the wording of the inquisition is not so far from the truth:
“to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it..”
Sadly the comparison is not absurd.
rogerknights says:
Thanks Roger. Not sure what the problem was, seems to be working now.
Nick Stokes:
Your post at January 18, 2014 at 2:24 am says
Meanwhile alarmists proclaim that only information published in peer reviewed journals should be considered.
I am reminded of a climate gate email from Pittock to the rest of the ‘team’ when they were discussing how to stop Chris de Freitas (who was Editor of Climate Research) from publishing papers which did not promote their agenda.
http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/0332.txt
It contains this concerning papers presenting ideas they did not like
and this
There is no Editor to destroy if the journal is destroyed.
Richard
PS I add that I am not convinced by hypotheses of planetary effects on climate and I am not supporting them.
“As many WUWT readers know, while years ago I expressed some interest in planetary tidal force effects on climate, I have long since been convinced that there’s zero planetary effect on climate for two reasons: 1) The gravitational effects at distance are simply too small to exert the forces neccessary, and 2) The methodology employed often results in hindcast curve fitting a theory to data, where the maxim “correlation is not causation” should have been considered before publishing the paper.”
Kudos to you, Mr. Watts!
Nicola Scafetta says:
“The methodology employed at least in my papers is equivalent to the methodology used for predicting the ocean tides on Earth.”
Not really with the beat frequencies involving the “theoretical” periods that you are using.
“At least my models are tested on their hindcasting forecasting capability and are successful for centuries, and are supported by several physical arguments.”
I don’t think that your 115yr component does hindcast the solar minimum’s, the period is too long. And maybe one physical argument would be better than several.
The quality of your work has probably made it harder to get the planetary ordering of solar activity to be taken seriously.
Man Bearpig says:
January 18, 2014 at 1:29 am
“This is very disturbing, it is a warning to other journals not to publish papers that support skeptic arguments, OR ELSE.”
The Göttingen publisher doubtlessly has similar delusions of grandeur; but Göttingen these days is a maoist backwater, not a hotbed of cutting edge science; who cares; the publisher even missed that their deity, the EU commission, just abandoned CO2 reduction goals.
They’ll go with the new program; it might take a few months given their slow information processing though.
The edict/revenge was taken against Galileo rather than a scientific or theological statement and to believe otherwise is exceptionally naive – these people couldn’t have cared less whether the Earth was round square or flat,whether it was stationary or did the hula insofar as the main point
is that the Pope did invite Galileo to discuss the issue with the understanding that it would be a
discussion among equals rather than the Pope demanding that Galileo withdraw the scheme of Copernicus from his perspective. When Galileo came back and wrote a book where the Pope took the appearance of a fool through a fictional character ,do you think the Pope and everyone else wouldn’t notice !.
Did anyone here ever hear of Leona Helmsley ?. when she said “only the little people pay taxes” they not only send her to jail,they rubbed it in by starting her sentence on April 15th or tax day in the States !.
I wish the present Church was aware just what it started by that act against Galileo because the main issue went unresolved and when the guys in the late 17th century picked up the and ran with an error arising from the unresolved issue it created the present mess.
Presently the mathematical modelers refuse to accept the arguments which Copernicus proposed for the motions of the Earth by following a false version conjured up in the late 17th century.
To Anthony Watts says: January 18, 2014 at 2:56 am
**********
Dear Anthony, let us put the things straight first. You have misunderstood quite a bit the entire issue and improperly used it to promote your personal aversion against the planetary theory of solar and climate variability.
Let us clarify the issues:
1) Contrary to your claims advocated in your main post above, the termination of the journal does not have anything to do with the planetary theory of solar variations. As clearly stated in the email sent by Copernicus to Morner and written in their web-site the motivation was quite different.
Their argument started from this very fist sentence: “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”.
From there they built their entire argument. Thus, the incriminated issue was about the questioning of the validity of the projections of the IPCC models for the 21st century that they religiously believed as the “truth” that was put in doubts because of the existence of a natural variability not properly modeled by the IPCC models.
Note that the planetary theory of solar and climate variability gives only a physical background to the natural climatic oscillations. But similar conclusions also derive from those who claim that the oscillations are due to an internal variability alone although they do not have a theory to explaining it.
In fact, as you know well, there are a lot of studies that have pointed out that the models of the IPCC have overestimated the warming and, therefore, their projections for the 21st century needs to be questioned as correctly written in the incriminate sentence.
Also their accusation about the validity of the review process derives from their initial statement. Essentially they claimed that the review process was flawed because it allowed the secondary conclusion expressed in the incriminate sentence that they believe to be scientifically wrong while a lot of studies have supported it.
Essentially, their entire argument is based on the ignorance of the publisher on the current scientific research.
As richardscourtney noted the strategy of the IPCC advocates is to remove debates by means of
” It could be through boycotting the journals, ….Pressure or ultimatums to the publishers might work, or concerted lobbying by other co-editors or leading authors.”
In fact, their letter to Morner ends with this statement ” Copernicus Publications cannot risk losing its excellent reputation in the scientific community.”
So what likely happened is that the publisher was intimidated.
2)
About the problem of censorship, also here you are wrong. It was not me to say that. The censorship intentions are clearly written in their motivation letter. They state
“PRP was never meant to be a platform for climate sceptics.”
So the message is that people who questions the IPCC AGW even as a secondary implication of their scientific research should not be allowed to publish on Copernicus journals. Moreover, the wording is offensive and demonstrates that the publisher does not consider what he calls “climate sceptics” as true scientists.
This is a clear indication of censorship not too much different from that suffered by Galileo.
About Galileo it is not true that after the condemnation he could not publish anything. He could publish everything he wished, but not on astronomy related issue concerning the revolution of the Earth around the Sun. That was the only limitation he had, and indeed he published a lot of important works during his home arrest period.
In the same way, for Copernicus publisher it is ok to publish on everything including the planetary theory that they did not question at all (contrary to your insinuations), but not on the IPCC projections of the 21st century. And journals that publish even a single sentence that questions the IPCC dogma should be shut down.
This is their message. This is censorship.
Let us hope that you, dear Anthony, understand these clear things.
Gkell1 says:
January 18, 2014 at 12:23 am
” … with not the slightest trace of the hype and novelties that pass themselves off as astronomy and terrestrial sciences today. ”
—-l
I have to admit that I have never imagined astronomy and the terestrial sciences as they are taught at most educational institutions to be “hypes” or “novelties”. Definitely an unusual perspective 🙂 At the risk of going off topic, would you care to elaborate and enlighten with one or two examples of the hype and novelty? In the interest of not irritating everyone, please keep it short, simple and to the point.
Charles the Moderator,
You have committed libel by posting the following statement:
“It is obvious the editors, authors, and reviewers colluded to attempt to make this into a curve fitting skeptics coup d’état.”
As one of the authors in this special edition. I will give you an opportunity to withdraw this libelous statement.
Ian Wilson,
Oh, get off your high horse. What has Charles the Moderator written that is not true from his perspective? He wrote, “It is obvious…” and “I believe…”. Those are personal opinions.
A U.S. Appeals Court ruled just this week that commentators’ opinions are protected speech. Rather than make impotent threats, why don’t you try to defend your position? Or is it that you actually did get together and engage in curve fitting — and then called it science?
Negrum wrote –
“At the risk of going off topic, would you care to elaborate and enlighten with one or two examples of the hype and novelty? In the interest of not irritating everyone, please keep it short, simple and to the point.”
Turns out that the moderated 21st century forums are far more twitchy than the 16th century Catholic Church ever was even though I would consider it a normal discussion using all the advantages of present imaging,graphics and what have you.
Sure I will give you an example but it is one of these things where it is not possible to check the description with limitations,after all,that was one of the main points here – the shortening of the historical and technical details to make it appear that the Church required an Earth centered view as a theological necessity doesn’t mesh with the actual history of the time,including the words of Galileo himself. Furthermore,the unresolved issue expands out to our century so neither excusing the Church or blaming Galileo,the effects arising from personal insult were very expensive for everyone.
From experience,very few can even handle the arguments which Copernicus proposed even when visual demonstrations put it easily within reach of high school students so it is not just an issue of 16th century incomprehension but also ours. If I am to give you a clean and clear example of where it went wrong and why it is crucially important then I would have to do so without restrictions . If you want to see what hype and novelties actually look like compared to the genuine insights of Copernicus and Galileo then you shall have them.
In response to dbstealey:
January 18, 2014 at 7:51 am
I for one did not collude with anyone. I treated the submission of my paper with all the scientific gravitas that is required in these situations. I did the same with any paper that I was asked to review. I did my best to respond in full to any modifications or clarifications which were requested by my referees. I did not hold back if I felt that modifications or changes needed to made before an article was suitable for publication.
As a reviewer I gave what I considered was my best scientific advice to the Editor so that they could collectively evaluate whether or not a given manuscript was suitable for publication in the Special Edition.
Above all else, I believe that the Editor that I dealt with at the PRP Journal maintained the high professional standards that are required of this difficult job. I have nothing but praise for the way in which he dealt with my submission and my reviews.
P.S. You said: Or is it that you actually did get together and engage in curve fitting — and then called it science?
If you actually look at my paper you will realize that it is not an exercise in curve fitting. It is actually a genuine attempt to give a rational scientific hypothesis to explain the observed periods in the proxy Be10 and C14 records of the level of solar activity that were observed by Abreu et al. [2012]. That these periods are observed in the proxy record are not in question. What is in question is whether or not they are observed in the amalgamated planetary torques.
My papers shows that the periods are intrinsically present if the consider the Venus-Earth-Jupiter-Saturn Spin Orbit Coupling model.
Ian Wilson says:
January 18, 2014 at 8:33 am
observed periods in the proxy Be10 and C14 records of the level of solar activity that were observed by Abreu et al. [2012]. That these periods are observed in the proxy record are not in question.
It is in question whether the proxies show just solar activity and how much is actually due to climate influence on the deposition rate.
My mistake. All claims in science are open to genuine debate. The point I was trying to make
was the paper that this post is referring to was not questioning that the periods were present in the proxy record, the paper cast doubt on the claim that they were present in the amalgamated planetary torque.
Ian Wilson,
“I treated the submission of my paper with all the scientific gravitas that is required in these situations. I did the same with any paper that I was asked to review.”
You were both an author and a reviewer on Volume 1 issue 1 of the journal, the Special Editon and you don’t see what’s wrong here.? It appears most of you were both authors and reviewers.
People are missing the key point,
http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.net/
“…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.”
http://publications.copernicus.org/for_reviewers/obligations_for_referees.html
“4. A referee should be sensitive even to the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the referee’s work in progress or published. If in doubt, the referee should return the manuscript promptly without review, advising the editor of the conflict of interest or bias.
5. A referee should not evaluate a manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with whom the referee has a personal or professional connection if the relationship would bias judgment of the manuscript.”
The problem is obvious, the papers list in many cases one of the reviewers as an author in the same edition and in some cases a known skeptic. While this is no different than what alarmists do all the time, skeptics will be held to a much higher standard and should not allow themselves to fall into these traps.
This makes what would be a clear censorship argument irrelevant.
Ian Wilson,
“I treated the submission of my paper with all the scientific gravitas that is required in these situations. I did the same with any paper that I was asked to review. ”
In this Special Edition, the first edition of this brand new journal, you were both an author and a reviewer, as were most of the authors and reviewers. This does not pass the smell test, even if you did not notice the impropriety. Our side can suffer from Noble Cause Corruption as well.
It is likely this Journal was created at the urging of some of the authors or editors under false pretenses. This wasn’t the cancelling of a Journal with any history, this is pulling the hand back after it was bitten.
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
It is, after all, called “Pattern Recognition in Physics”. The paired societal principles “rights AND responibilities” and “correlation is not causation BUT lack of correlation means lack of causation” share a similar abusage – both have the second half of the duality unstated. The lib_eral machine has conveniently dropped “responibilities” from the idea to our great detriment. Murderers and other malefactors are victims under this politically correct dogma. Some one who shoots up heroin “made a mistake” – no a mistake is when you were trying to do something and you did it wrong. Although I understand the need to make clear the first half of the correlation statement, I haven’t heard its other half (like “responibilities” in the societal analogy) in 40 years. The uninitiated may take this one sided “correlation” guide too much to heart. Correlation is usually the first “pattern” recognized in data that leads to a theory. What else is there?
The paper, may be a total load of malarkey and perhaps should not have passed peer review (although we don’t know all there is to know about gravity – witness the “excess” G of outer edges of galaxies – this embarrassing underestimation lead to the embarrassing “dark matter” patch, or the Pioneer anomaly which has been explained away as differential heating effects – which I view as the same thing climate science does to repair a tired, deficient theory – change SSTs because they don’t agree, add “rebound” factors onto sea level etc. etc.). It is up to authors to make a convincing case and for critics to assail the case if it isn’t convincing.
Nicola Scafetta says:
January 17, 2014 at 7:20 pm
The methodology employed at least in my papers is equivalent to the methodology used for
predicting the ocean tides on Earth
=======================
Tidal prediction from first principles remains a hopeless failure. It should be no surprise that climate models, which attempt predict climate from first principles are also a failure.
The ocean tides on earth far exceed what is predicted from gravitational forces alone. Gravity is simply the pumping action of a child on a swing. What starts out as a small motion over time becomes very large.
Early humans learned to predict the season through curve fitting the shadow cast by the sun, thousands of years before they understood the cause. Tidal prediction on earth is a curve fitting exercise and it provides remarkably accurate predictions years in advance.
Modern science has made a fundamental wrong turn in insisting on a mechanism as a condition of prediction. To this date no one has discovered the mechanism behind gravity, yet we make very successful predictions about its actions.
In the end there is only one measure of science that has any meaning. Can the science outperform a dart board in predicting the future. We may never fully understand the role of orbital mechanics in regulating the solar system, or the mechanisms by which this occurs. This didn’t stop early humans from making successful predictions and it should not stop us.
Are you suggesting that famed scientists, of the past, had something special that cannot be reproduced today? Can there not be such scientists today? These “giants” were men like you and I and put their pants on “one leg at a time”.
I think you are indulging in some “hero” worship which is somewhat disconcerting… coming from a scientist who I greatly respect. Examine the science not the man… please. GK
Ian, do you not see the problem with the authors and editors of this special edition reviewing each other’s papers? Instead of having people focus on the science as was the intention you simply gave your critics ammunition to easily dismiss your papers as “pal-reviewed”.
Regardless, I will still consider them technically peer-reviewed under the assumption that the anonymous reviewer for each paper was not another author in this issue. Though there is no way to avoid this criticism now that it has been factually established and I will not be defending the use of the other authors and editors for this special edition as reviewers. Who thought this was a good idea?
G. Karst says:
January 18, 2014 at 9:18 am
Are you suggesting that famed scientists, of the past, had something special that cannot be reproduced today? Can there not be such scientists today?
I take a dim view of people that claim they are in the league of Copernicus, Newton, etc when their papers clearly show they are not.
charles the moderator says:January 18, 2014 at 8:56 am
******
Before questioning the review process you need to find errors in the papers. Only then you can argue that the review was unprofessional. Which errors did you find so far? None that I can see.
The reviewers are not supposed to be people without experience in the field and/or people adverse to the authors.
In the past the reviewers were colleagues of the authors that could provided objective and scientifically valid comments. The editor is supposed to use reviewers only to help his decision.
As Ian Wilson states the reviews of the papers were quite professional and highly accurate.
In fact, do you think that when Ian Wilson reviewed papers of other authors did he had some interest in providing a poor review? If the papers contained factual errors, people could find them quite easily and reject the entire planetary theory.
Thus, tell me, which interest had Ian Wilson or Morner to provide a poor review of the papers that he reviewed? On the contrary he had the interest in providing the best review that he could.
Morner is not stupid. He knows that real scientists read papers before deciding whether they are relevant and free of errors. They do not just believe a paper just because it was published.
Do you get the subtle point, dear Charles?
So, find scientific errors in the papers before talking.
One of the simplest examples of a very small force applied over time is the rotation of Venus. Surprisingly, Venus always present the same face to earth at the point of closest approach. There are those that argue that this is simply coincidence, that the force of gravity between Venus and Earth is much to small to regulate the rotation of Venus. And no doubt that are learned papers that prove this in great detail. Yet it remains a fantastically unlikely coincidence.
Everywhere you look in the solar system these sorts of coincidences are found, which strongly suggest that they are not a coincidence at all. How much force is required to set a star in motion, if applied over billions of years?
Gkell1 says:
January 18, 2014 at 7:53 am
“I would have to do so without restrictions . If you want to see what hype and novelties actually look like compared to the genuine insights of Copernicus and Galileo then you shall have them..”
—-l
Brevity is the soul of wisdom (with apologies to master Shakespeare :))
I agree that Galileo and Copernicus had remarkable insight, but I work very slowly, so let’s keep it simple and start systematically: if you can give just one example of what you perceive as hype in modern astronomy, it would be much appreciated. Just a verbal description one sentence long will do. Following that step, motivations, proofs and authorities for your statement can be examined – links to sources are usually fine and do not clutter up the post. This might also enable you to avoid the accusation from unkind posters that you are trying to baffle with verbosity or cannot back up your statements.
Is this your first time posting here? If such is the case, I can recommend reading the policy guidelines.
Nicola Scafetta says:
January 17, 2014 at 7:45 pm
this is frontier science
============
like the pioneers of old, many will be found face down with arrows in the back.
ferdberple says:January 18, 2014 at 9:37 am
One of the simplest examples of a very small force applied over time is the rotation of Venus. Surprisingly, Venus always present the same face to earth at the point of closest approach.
******
Dear ferdberple , did you get this from my paper?
The complex planetary synchronization structure of the solar system
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/2/1/2014/prp-2-1-2014.pdf
Pierre Gosselin posted this interesting comment,
http://notrickszone.com/2014/01/18/from-jewish-science-to-denier-science-copernicus-charade-is-latest-example-of-german-intolerance-to-alternative-climate-science-explanations/
Then your path is straight and narrow, merely rebut those papers.
History will determine who is a giant and who is not… as always. It will not consult you or myself on such determination.
Your reply brought NO relief. Respectfully GK
Richardscoutney
Before you make further comment, can I suggest that do so with all the facts in
hand. You miss a number of very key points:
As far as I know:
Each manuscript had a reviewer (or reviewers) who were not participating authors. These authors were anonymously selected by the editors. I assume this selection was done to match the reviewers expertise to the content of the submitted manuscript. This is standard practice at
any reputable Journal including the ones on which you have served as an editor.
All reviewers were anonymous unless they indicated that they should be identified e.g. some chose to be identified because they believed that there was a possible conflict of interest.
Copernicus’s advice to referees is that:
“4. A referee should be sensitive even to the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the referee’s work in progress or published. – I WAS!!
5. A referee should not evaluate a manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with whom the referee has a personal or professional connection if the relationship would bias judgment of the manuscript.” – I DID NOT!!!
All of the published manuscripts that I chose to review were by people whose work was totally unknown to,me and with whom I had no prior collaboration of any sort.
Without wishing to be off topic, the historical evidence suggests that Galileo and Copernicus did not discover the Heliocentric solar-system model de novo. Rather they based their ideas and explanations on previous knowledge.
Take a look at this Jewish zodiac from an ancient synagogue on the Sea of Galilee, from either the 1st or the 4th century AD. It clearly shows Helios (the Sun), holding a blue spherical earth in his hand. In other words, the fact that the Earth was blue, circular (spherical), and subservient to Helios (the Sun) – who held the Earth in his (gravitational) grip – was well known in this early era.
http://i45.tinypic.com/2zf6783.jpg
And this is not an isolated image. If you look at Roman coins bearing the image of Sol Invicta, Sol (the Sun) is invariable holding a ball (the Earth).
Silver ralph
G. Karst says:
January 18, 2014 at 9:54 am
Then your path is straight and narrow, merely rebut those papers.
A paper has to have merit in order to earn a rebuttal. The papers in question do not.
That should have read:
Each manuscript had a reviewer (or reviewers) who were not participating authors. These REVIEWERS were anonymously selected by the editors. I assume this…
Ian Wilson:
Your post at January 18, 2014 at 9:54 am says to me
That is a strange request considering that on the basis of the information in the above article my first post to this thread opposed the actions against the journal
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/17/the-planetary-tidal-influence-on-climate-fiasco-strong-armed-science-tactics-are-overkill-due-process-would-work-better/#comment-1539900
Subsequently, and in light of information provided in the thread, I wrote to withdraw that opposition
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/17/the-planetary-tidal-influence-on-climate-fiasco-strong-armed-science-tactics-are-overkill-due-process-would-work-better/#comment-1540295
Your response to my withdrawal of the opposition is to say I should not comment without “all the facts in hand”.
Perhaps you would care to explain how to determine when one has obtained “all the facts”. I and others who may wish to comment would like to know.
And the “key points” in your post do not alter my stated reason for the withdrawal of my opposition.
Richard
Quoting Nicky Scaffetta,
“Before questioning the review process you need to find errors in the papers.”
Buzzzzz…. wrong. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.
A tainted editing and review process precedes any interest in the content of the papers. A manager who hires a relative against company policy is still fired, even if the relative is a good employee.
If a witness lies on the stand, all testimony is suspect even the true parts.
Give it up Nicky, your attempt to game this publisher backfired and left you hanging out to dry.
Nicola Scafetta, while I agree that reviewers should not be adversarial to the author of the paper, they should also be as unbiased as possible to the outcome of the theory being presented.
According to the publishing rules of this journal (which is a widely accepted practice), the reviewers cannot hold a conflict of interest or have a personal or professional connection to the author. The conflict of interest does not have to be malicious as I do not believe it was here. Yes, I believe you that their reviews were helpful and with the best intentions. Nor do not believe they wanted to allow errors through but that is not the point,
You are not going to win the argument of the perception that they may have and it completely takes away from the focus on the science which is your intention.
In these situations, it is better to have colleagues pre-review your papers and then acknowledge these contributions as was done in some instances here but the reviewers need to have no affiliation to prevent charges of “pal-review”.
The editors created unnecessary controversy for themselves and all the authors who published in this journal.
lsvalgaard said:
January 18, 2014 at 8:37 am
It is in question whether the proxies show just solar activity and how much is actually due to climate influence on the deposition rate.
My response:
At one of the debate you have Abreu et al. 2012 claiming that the Be10 and C14 proxies are a faithful representation of variations in the level of solar activity, and at the other end of the debate we have people (like yourself) who claim that the proxy record is affected by the influence of climate on deposition rates.
What if you are both right?
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/could-this-bay-be-climate-smoking-gun.html
Charles the Moderator,
I have given you the chance to remove your libelous statements.
The publisher’s rules require that reviewers who have a conflict of interest should NOT review papers,
http://publications.copernicus.org/for_reviewers/obligations_for_referees.html
4. A referee should be sensitive even to the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the referee’s work in progress or published. If in doubt, the referee should return the manuscript promptly without review, advising the editor of the conflict of interest or bias.
This is in violation of the review policy laid out by the journal.
I agree that if the anonymous reviewer had no such conflict of interest it does give you some ground for an argument and it is not being debated if the reviewers were qualified or not, as I believe they were.
If this review policy was followed you would have a clear cut case of censorship. Instead your papers are going to be relentlessly attacked as “pal-reviewed”.
From the Web:
Energy and Environment
Editorial advisory board
Richard S Courtney
RSC Environmental Services,
Cornwall, UK,
formerly Senior Materials Scientist, UK Coal Research
No conflict of interest here!
Ian Wilson says:
January 18, 2014 at 10:15 am
At one of the debate you have Abreu et al. 2012 claiming that the Be10 and C14 proxies are a faithful representation of variations in the level of solar activity, and at the other end of the debate we have people (like yourself) who claim that the proxy record is affected by the influence of climate on deposition rates.
What if you are both right?
We are both right. The problem is that we can’t tell for sure what the split between the two are or how much it varies. Check out http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1003/1003.4989.pdf http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.2675.pdf and
Ian Wilson says:
January 18, 2014 at 10:23 am
” … No conflict of interest here! ”
—-l
Sarcasm and ad hominem in one go? With a bonus big oil/coal connection thrown in? Methinks his hand is empty. I thank Ian Wilson and Nicola Scafetta for a wonderful show. Any remaining questions in my mind regarding their professionalism and integrity have been answered.
Yes… reviewing peer reviewed published papers it would appear that any paper contradicting consensus climate science has no merit. How do we know – if they have never been published AND successfully rebutted?
I understand your skepticism, it is the dismissive quality, I have trouble with.
All climate science needs fresh air, as things haven’t been going so well for their science nor reputations. Consensus being poor evidence of causation. A window in the lab must be opened. GK
lsvalgaard said:
January 18, 2014 at 10:31 am
You miss my point!
What if the physical mechanism that is driving the long-term [millennial] variations in climate is the same as the physical mechanism that is driving the long-term changes in solar activity?
Please look at the Be10 and C14 proxy frequencies and compare them to the tree-ring frequencies.
Ian Wilson:
re your post at January 18, 2014 at 10:23 am.
NO! I do NOT have a conflict of interest.
I always state when I have one, most recently earlier this week on WUWT.
And I have previously stated on WUWT that I am on the Editorial Board of E&E when discussing publications.
You did not suggest I had a conflict of interest when I opposed the closure of the journal in this thread
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/17/the-planetary-tidal-influence-on-climate-fiasco-strong-armed-science-tactics-are-overkill-due-process-would-work-better/#comment-1539900
But you now claim I have a conflict of interest because I withdrew that opposition in light of additional evidence
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/17/the-planetary-tidal-influence-on-climate-fiasco-strong-armed-science-tactics-are-overkill-due-process-would-work-better/#comment-1540295
And in your post to me at January 18, 2014 at 9:54 am you wrote
Indeed, and (as I have also stated on WUWT) I have served as Guest Editor for Special Editions of E&E, so I think my understanding of editorial propriety for such Special Editions which is sufficient for me to provide informed comment.
As I said in my post which withdrew my support
I stand by that.
Richard
negrum said:
January 18, 2014 at 10:36 am
Please read what was said about us first –
With regards to integrity and professionalism – I didn’t know that you
had appointed yourself as the final arbiter…
He who is without sin caste the first stone.
Ian Wilson says:
January 18, 2014 at 10:37 am
What if the physical mechanism that is driving the long-term [millennial] variations in climate is the same as the physical mechanism that is driving the long-term changes in solar activity?
You are suggesting that the planets drive the climate and that the planets drive the sun. It seems hardly credible that the magnetic dynamo process deep in the solar convection zone is the same as that in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Please look at the Be10 and C14 proxy frequencies and compare them to the tree-ring frequencies.
Please look at the links I gave you.
How bad did this blow up? This bad,
http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2014/01/alleging-malpractice-climate-skeptic-papers-publisher-kills-journal
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/01/17/climate-skeptic-journal-shuttered-following-malpractice-in-nepotistic-reviewer-selections/#comment-73288
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/01/for-festivities-of-our-choice-ms.html
http://julesandjames.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/recognising-pattern.html
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/malpractice/
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/01/18/science-denialists-make-fake-journal-get-shut-down/
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2014/01/on-pattern-recognition-in-physics.html
http://wottsupwiththat.com/tag/copernicus-publications/
…With more likely to follow.
Richard,
It is your right to stand by whatever view you want. That does not by itself give it validity.
I have published in E & E and other Climate Journals. The first thing that the editor does is request from the author a list of at least five potential referees. The author usually gives a list of people that they know who are working in the field. It is not hard to imagine how restricted an author is in suggesting names, particularly if there are only a hand-full of people who are qualified in their subject. This often means that the Editor at Journals like E & E gets the opinions of a restricted mixture “favorable” and “non-favorable” referees. They then form their final opinion.
As a guest Editor at E & E, you must be aware of how difficult it is to get people to review papers. I am sure that if the details of this selection process where completely transparent it would go a long way towards eroding the “moral high ground” that you so firmly believe in.
When did peer review become any measure of whether a paper is correct or not? The last time I looked, the only meaningful measure of a paper is replication.
Peer review exists to catch mistakes. It doesn’t check whether your results are valid, because that relies on factors unknown to the reviewer. Reviewers can check the spelling and the math. They can’t check what went on behind the scenes.
You can a fantastic peer reviewed paper, published with great publicity and fan fare, and still have complete garbage as a result. If recent trends in replication are correct, as much as 90% of all peer reviewed papers are wrong. The conclusions are false and cannot be replicated.
Every peer reviewed scientific paper should come with a large red warming at the top. THE FINDINGS IN THIS PAPER HAVE NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY REPLICATED AND ARE LIKELY FALSE.
Ian Wilson says:
January 18, 2014 at 11:02 am
It is not hard to imagine how restricted an author is in suggesting names, particularly if there are only a hand-full of people who are qualified in their subject.
That may be true is highly technical and specialized subjects, but when it comes to curve fitting and the general hand waving that the papers in question are typical examples of, every physicist is qualified.
Thanks Leif,
I have downloaded the papers and I will have a read.
Ian Wilson:
At January 18, 2014 at 11:02 am you say to me
Yes, and the same is true of you.
That does not give you the right to try to smear me and/or the validity of my “view” by falsely proclaiming that I have an undisclosed conflict of interest.
Richard
lsvalgaard says:
January 18, 2014 at 10:43 am
What if the physical mechanism that is driving the long-term [millennial] variations in climate is the same as the physical mechanism that is driving the long-term changes in solar activity?
You are suggesting that the planets drive the climate and that the planets drive the sun. It seems hardly credible that the magnetic dynamo process deep in the solar convection zone is the same as that in the Earth’s atmosphere.
=================
that argument doesn’t follow. it assumes that convection regulates solar activity and earth’s climate.
only after someone can reliably predict solar activity and/or climate will we have a convincing answer as to the mechanism(s) behind either. Even then, the mechanism may still elude us, as we see with gravity. Until then it is speculation and belief. We reasoned, but that is not sufficient to render fact from belief.
ferdberple:
I write to support your post at January 18, 2014 at 11:05 am where you say
Peer review exists solely as an ‘insurance’ for a journal’s Editor.
It seems that the publisher ‘pulled’ the journal ‘Pattern Recognition in Physics’ when it discovered the Editor was by-passing that ‘insurance’ with risk of reputation loss which could harm every journal published by the publisher.
I explain your statements and my ‘insurance’ point in a post on WUWT in the thread on the excellent article by David M Hoffer about peer review. This link jumps to my explanation
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/29/peer-review-last-refuge-of-the-uninformed-troll/#comment-1522700
Richard
Ian Wilson says:
January 18, 2014 at 10:42 am
negrum said:
January 18, 2014 at 10:36 am
—-l
Do you feel that what charles the moderator says:
January 18, 2014 at 10:09 am
” ….A tainted editing and review process precedes any interest in the content of the papers. ”
is relevant? I don’t think you addressed that point fully.
I will judge whomsoever and whatsoever I please, unless the mods find me out of line. If you require the reasons for my judgement, I will be pleased to give them. If you convince me that I have misjudged, I will say so.
We are all equal here. Your talking down to people (perhaps unintentional) is not going over well, no matter how many degrees you might have, or how intelligent you consider yourself to be.
The fact that you do not support CAGW does not give you a free pass to circumvent peer review rules, which seems to be what happened.
You do not seem to understand that sarcasm is taken as a sign of losing a debate.
You don’t seem to appreciate the fact that the host of this blog criticised the severity with which the matter has been dealt with nor the explanation by poptech of why it is dangerous to allow the same kind of behaviour as that which the CAGW crowd is guilty of.
Your posing as persecuted underdogs is particularly repellant – I consider that one of the lowest forms of politics. You might do better in a less sceptical environment.
If you have a problem framing a reasonable and polite argument, I will be glad to assist you in whatever way you would find helpful. The quality of your work may or may not be good, but nothing you have said so far gives me much hope – you just sound petulant and you are not improving matters with your style.
ferdberple says:
January 18, 2014 at 11:22 am
“You are suggesting that the planets drive the climate and that the planets drive the sun. It seems hardly credible that the magnetic dynamo process deep in the solar convection zone is the same as that in the Earth’s atmosphere.”
=================
that argument doesn’t follow. it assumes that convection regulates solar activity and earth’s climate.
To remove your [unwarranted] assumption I should have made my comment idiot-proof and said:
“It seems hardly credible that the magnetic dynamo process generating solar activity in the solar convection zone is the same as whatever process regulates climate in the Earth’s atmosphere.”
Ian Wilson,
“I have given you the chance to remove your libelous statements”
I edited it for you 😉
BTW Ian, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt when I cited Noble Cause Corruption upthread.
Subsequently, your petulant lashing out at Richard Courtney has changed that.
Ismael Bullialdus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismael_Bullialdus
Richard Courtney was not personally attacking you. Ian, I believe your comment was completely uncalled for and petty as the “conflict of interest” charge was not a dishonest ad hominem like this but rather one that allows alarmist’s unnecessary ammunition of “pal-review”.
Why give alarmists ammunition like this? It makes no sense.
I just read Abreu et al’s response to Usoskin’s comment on their 2012 paper.
Lol. Some due diligence and full disclosure by Leif would have saved team WUWT yet another Doh! moment.
I’m surprised Poptech fell for the Rasmussen ruse. In his first email to the editors he said he was shutting down PRP because it had allowed sceptics to publish heresy about the IPCC dogma. Only later did he realise the own goal and cook up the unsubstantiated smears about “potential” issues with review.
tallbloke says:
January 18, 2014 at 12:31 pm
I just read Abreu et al’s response to Usoskin’s comment on their 2012 paper…Lol
Show it here so we can share in your laughter.
full disclosure by Leif
Full disclosure of what? Veiled, vague hints [or worse] don’t do it.
Yeah Tallbloke, clarify your crypto remarks, we all aren’t specialists at guessing patterns in random noise.
charles the moderator says: January 18, 2014 at 10:09 am
Quoting Nicky Scaffetta,
“Before questioning the review process you need to find errors in the papers.”
Buzzzzz…. wrong. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.
*********
Sorry, Charles. You are quite confused on the issue.
You must demonstrate that the referees had “conflict of interest” which in this case means that for some economical advantage or other motivations they have acted “unprofessionally” to favor the publication of faulty scientific claims.
So, you first need to find relevant scientific errors in the papers which demonstrate the “unprofessional” behavior, then you can argue that the referees acted unprofessionally for some goal and need to identify the hidden goal.
But if you do not find relevant scientific errors in the paper first, you have no arguments.
Without finding factual errors, you can only conclude that the authors and the referee and the editors worked well.
Your argument denounced only your inability to find scientific errors in the published papers for your lack of scientific knowledge. So, you look only at the appearance of the rules.
Tallbloke,
Actually, Ian Wilson volunteered participating in these issues of scientific malpractice in this thread. Although he won’t agree with that interpretation.
Tallbloke, you do the anti-warmists no good with these sorts of shenanigans. This episode is an embarrassment.
Sorry Nicky, this is a thread about process, not a debate on your paper. So yeah, I focus on process. Richard Courtney summed it up well.
So Nicky, did other authors of the Special Edition review your papers? Did you review other papers in the Special Edition?
Nicola Scafetta:
At January 18, 2014 at 1:08 pm you say
Sorry, but No.
Your assertions display complete failure to understand the nature and purpose of peer review.
The peer review process itself was flawed in a manner which required that the Special Edition be withdrawn and the closure of the journal is understandable.
Please read my above comment at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/17/the-planetary-tidal-influence-on-climate-fiasco-strong-armed-science-tactics-are-overkill-due-process-would-work-better/#comment-1540406
and my additional explanation in its link.
Richard
Loehle and Scafetta 2011, penned in 2010, has successfully forecast global average temperature in the four years since they wrote it. Evidently hypothetical predictions being validated doesn’t count for much in post modern science, eh?
charles the moderator says:January 18, 2014 at 1:18 pm
Sorry Charles. Still you do not find errors in the papers.
Find the errors in the works and then you can talk about “pal-review”.
This is the definition of “pal-review”:
http://www.odlt.org/dcd/ballast/pal_review.html
“Peer review by colleagues who because they don’t want to rock the boat or hurt their careers — or because they are pursuing a similar political agenda — do not give the work the type of scrutiny that it would normally get in a properly conducted peer review.”
So, you need to demonstrate that the referees did not “give the work the type of scrutiny that it would normally get in a properly conducted peer review.”
To reach the above conclusion you need to find scientific errors in the papers that “a properly conducted peer review” would have found.
If you do not find systematic scientific errors in the papers, then you can only conclude that there was a properly conducted peer-review process conducted by people expert in the field.
Your accusations are like to accuse somebody of being a murderer without pointing to the killed person first. Think a little bit. You go to the police and say: “Tom is a murderer!” The police asks, “who has been killed?” You reply, “Nobody that I know, but Tom is a murderer!” At this point the police will put you, not Tom, in jail for defamation.
Nicola Scafetta says:
January 18, 2014 at 1:41 pm
Sorry Charles. Still you do not find errors in the papers.
I don’t think you know what an ‘error’ is. Find the errors in this nonsense-paper http://www.leif.org/research/Numerology-pdf R^2 is 0.999995
http://www.leif.org/research/Numerology.pdf
[snip – Nicola take your defamation claims elsewhere – you are acting like Mann. It’s an opinion. – Anthony]
Seriously Nicky, I don’t give a rat’s ass about your most recent wiggle matching paper. I’ve seen you challenged by people far more mathematically able than I am and all I’ve seen you do in response is evade, point to a stack of papers and say read my papers!
When asked for computer code for replication: “Read my papers”.
When asked specific questions on methods: “Read my papers”.
When people ask which paper or which part answers the question: “Read my papers”.
I have watched your inability to engage in any serious discussion of your work over more than five years so I’m not interested in trying.
In this case, you and your fellow wigglers got together, mislead a publisher into thinking they could trust you guys to launch a serious journal and then you had your little circle-jerk of pal review of each others’ work and you have the temerity to say: “Read my papers”
Ipso Facto says:
January 18, 2014 at 1:41 pm
Loehle and Scafetta 2011, penned in 2010, has successfully forecast global average temperature in the four years since they wrote it. Evidently hypothetical
An equally good prediction would have been that the temperature does not depend on sun or the planets and has simply been constant for 12 years and would continue to be so for the foreseeable future.
[snip – leave out the defamation claims and you can comment again, otherwise take a hike Nicola. I’ve changed my opinion on this entire affair and will be updating this post in the next day to reflect what I have learned. – Anthony]
With the original version I agree with you and on these grounds alone I consider this censorship but that is not the whole story.
My problem is with the process of using authors, editors and known skeptics as reviewers. This is not an unsubstantiated smear but verifiable,
Here are two examples:
Discussion on common errors in analyzing sea level accelerations, solar trends and global warming
“Reviewed by: N.-A. Morner and one anonymous referee”
Dr. Morner is qualified to review this paper but he is an editor and a known skeptic with a potential conflict of interest in that he is sympathetic to Dr. Scafetta’s arguments.
The Hum: log-normal distribution and planetary–solar resonance
“Reviewed by: H. Jelbring and one anonymous referee”
Hans Jelbring is again qualified but an author in this edition and a known skeptic with a potential conflict of interest in that he is sympathetic to your arguments.
And the reason I am told they published their names, was because they were concerned with having a conflict of interest! Thus, by the publishers own rules they should not be reviewing these papers. The saving grace is that one of the reviewers was anonymous but this is still going to lead to wild speculation for many reasons, especially since the editors were skeptics.
Why give alarmists the ammunition of Pal-Review? I don’t understand this.
Regardless, unless the papers get retracted I will list them, so people can read them and make up their own minds, but I will not be endorsing them nor defending the review process.
Negrum wrote –
“if you can give just one example of what you perceive as hype in modern astronomy, it would be much appreciated. Just a verbal description one sentence long will do. Following that step, motivations, proofs and authorities for your statement can be examined – links to sources are usually fine and do not clutter up the post. This might also enable you to avoid the accusation from unkind posters that you are trying to baffle with verbosity or cannot back up your statements.”
There are people,and they are rare it must be said, who enjoy the widening of historical and technical perspectives which in this case is a more intricate treatment of the Church/Pope and Galileo and especially in the technical details so it wasn’t simply a case of an unenlightened Church versus and enlightened scientist as many here would like to believe. You see,the individual with the wider perspective allows information to flow the way it should so it is never a case of throwing good information after bad or curtailing the information for people who can’t process the information correctly,it is an expanding view which defeats inadequate or erroneous views as the proper historical or technical view is extremely satisfying to mind and heart.
Okay,this statement of Galileo is only partly correct –
“Now what is said here of Jupiter is to be understood of Saturn and Mars also. In Saturn these retrogressions are somewhat more frequent than in Jupiter, because its motion is slower than Jupiter’s, so that the Earth overtakes it in a shorter time. In Mars they are rarer, its motion being faster than that of Jupiter, so that the Earth spends more time in catching up with it. Next, as to Venus and Mercury, whose circles are included within that of the Earth, stoppings and retrograde motions appear in them also, due not to any motion that really exists in them, but to the annual motion of the Earth. This is acutely demonstrated by Copernicus . . ” Galileo
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
If you want to know what went wrong later in the late 17th century then you will need to know what went right in the 16th and early 17th.
Contemporaries love to throw the names of Galileo,Copernicus and Kepler around without actually know what they did and how they did it so this is your chance to correct the great Galileo using imaging and graphics.
lsvalgaard says:
January 18, 2014 at 2:37 pm
————————————
Dr. Svalgaard,
I would agree with much of what you write at WUWT about problems with “Cyclomania” and insufficient evidence for actual mechanisms for solar influence on climate. At WUWT you are communicating with sceptics even if you would consider some of them to be “fringe”.
But the problem for solar science is no longer sceptics, “fringe” or otherwise, it’s former AGW believers and promoters.
It is looking increasingly like AGW will not survive 2014. Many of the fellow travellers are now looking for an exit strategy. In particular the BBC.
The BBC have the megaphone. The BBC have a fistfull of tax dollars. And they want to keep it.
They cannot have an end to AGW that shows CO2 was never a problem. That would bring 28Gate and the collusion with the “Team” evidenced in Climategate2 too much public attention. Compulsory UK TV licensing, their money stream, would be under threat. They need an exit strategy that involves some “new science” big enough to outweigh all the claims about CO2 disaster they have made to date. Heat hiding in the oceans or Aerosol masking are not going to fly. The BBC have made their choice and they are going with “it’s the sun”.
From late 2013 the BBC have produced a sudden flurry of documentaries and news items for TV, radio and internet discussing possibility of an extended solar minimum, mentioning the Maunder minimum, the little ice age and showing pictures of ice fairs on the Thames. Conclusions started low key, “it won’t offset global warming”. Then to “it may slightly reduce global warming”. Then “it’s hard to say”. Now “the planet may not cool, but Europe could expect harsher winters”.
The BBC have chosen their exit strategy, “it’s the sun”. Where the BBC lead, the ABC (Australia) and CBS (Canada) will follow. How much air time did these government broadcasters give to AGW sceptics? How much online comment did they allow from AGW sceptics? Are they likely to give any solar scientist who stands in the way of their “it’s the sun” exit strategy a voice?
Gkell1 says:
January 18, 2014 at 4:20 pm
—-l
Focus. One sentence. An example of hype in modern astronomy.
If you cannot do that, don’t expect to be taken seriously here.
Dr. Svalgaard,
Further to my previous comment, I have just seen another confirmation. This news item just got top spot on news.com.au –
http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/scientists-baffled-as-sun-activity-falls-to-century-low/story-fnjwlcze-1226805090679
“The Sun’s activity has plummeted to a century low, baffling scientists and possibly heralding a new mini-Ice Age.”
While news.com.au is a Murdoch owned site, the editor is a fervent AGW believer. I say it’s a definite. The fellow travellers is have chosen “it’s the sun” as their exit strategy.
As I say, the problem for solar science is no longer sceptics, it’s now the full might of the BBC, ABC, CBS and every activist, journalist and politician of the Left now desperate to save their hides.
This also casts a new light on events discussed on this thread. For the exit strategy to work, it needs to be “new science”. A group of sceptics who have been discussing the solar possibility for years may be a bit of a problem.
Negrum wrote –
“Focus. One sentence. An example of hype in modern astronomy.If you cannot do that, don’t expect to be taken seriously here.”
Sure,want to see total and absolute mindless junk,here is your one sentence and even show the correct resolution using contemporary imaging –
“For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct,…” Newton
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120809.html
Now,I did mention in the last post of throwing really good information after novelties and hype and that Sir Isaac is the odd one out in the usual spiel of Copernicus,Kepler,Galileo. I well understood that empiricists never understood their own system and especially Newton’s silly modeling based on absolute/relative time,space and motion.
Seriously indeed !, I only said that Galileo was partly incorrect but as for Sir Isaac and his version,well,that is best left for his cult following who know no better.The answer,of course,is that retrogrades are a consequence of the faster Earth overtaking the outer planets and the faster inner planets veering out from and in towards the central Sun and nothing so stupid as a hypothetical observer on the Sun as Newton imagined
What do you lot know of the works of Copernicus and Galileo ?, just enough to create havoc..
Konrad says:
January 18, 2014 at 5:19 pm
“The Sun’s activity has plummeted to a century low, baffling scientists
And that is also propaganda, as [solar] scientists are not ‘baffled’. The low activity was predicted a decade ago and has recurred several times at about every hundred years.
Gkell1 says:
January 18, 2014 at 6:06 pm
“For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct,…” Newton
And Newton was absolutely correct about this.
Wow, this is a popcorn thread par excellence. Pity that so many are being so unscientific about it – but then maybe that’s why it’s a popcorn thread.
Anthony – You have unscientifically jumped the gun a bit when you say “the questionable and now shown to be flawed Abreu et al. paper “. The paper has not yet been shown to be flawed. A rebuttal to the paper has been published, but we don’t yet know whether it is the paper or the rebuttal which is correct. As Ian Wilson points out, there is an Abreu reply coming. I understand there there is also a new paper coming out which develops the Abreu idea further and has the potential to overthrow the last 150 years of mainstream solar theory. Leif, for one, will no doubt continue to fight it tooth and nail. In time, we will see which ideas prevail – maybe Abreu maybe Leif maybe neither – and hopefully the outcome will be determined by the scientific method not by who has the loudest voice or controls the gate.
Leif – Your :A paper has to have merit in order to earn a rebuttal. The papers in question do not.” is unscientific too. If a rebuttal is appropriate where any part (“x%”) of a paper has no merit, then a rebuttal is still appropriate if the whole paper has no merit (“x=100”).
re Vukcevic – Vukcevic’s papers are, AFAICT, curve-fitting exercises, aka wiggle-matching. As jorgekafkazar has pointed out, wiggle-matching is ‘a form of scientific observation, albeit with limited utility’. The point about curve-fitting (to use its politer name) is that it can lead to scientific discovery, but only when the underlying mechanism is found.
I would now like to point out the obvious error in my last sentence : in a sense the theory of gravity has only reached the wiggle-matching stage (to use the more insulting name) because we still have no mechanism.
returning to Vukcevic – the claim that his curve-fitting predicts 4 years accurately is no endorsement of the method. With any curve-fitting, it is to be expected that the immediate future will continue to be quite a good fit, but that without a mechanism or a very good fit over a very long time, the fit will deteriorate in time. IMHO if there is any value in V’s work it is in the fact that there are such curves (not in the exact parameters) and that they suggest that there is a mechanism worth finding.
Mike Jonas says:
January 18, 2014 at 7:50 pm
If a rebuttal is appropriate where any part (“x%”) of a paper has no merit, then a rebuttal is still appropriate if the whole paper has no merit (“x=100″).
The ‘appropriateness’ and certainly my interest decrease sharply as x increases to 100%.
the theory of gravity has only reached the wiggle-matching stage
The criterion for being beyond wiggle-matching is if consistently correct predictions are made. In that sense, the theory of gravity is WAY beyond wiggle-matching. In science we have the strong notion of an ‘efficient theory’, namely one that within its domain always produces correct [to an appropriate level of precision] results.
Any thoughts on the temerity of a publishing house calling themselves Copernicus?
I’ve always wondered, and maybe one of you in this collection of worthies can give me an answer.
Is it colder, relatively to the equator, at the sun’s north and south pole?
It seems to me there are at least three things (which really should be kept separate) going on related to the PRP issue of this thread:
(1) The publisher discontinued PRP stating that their reason was because it disputed the “party line” of the IPCC (or milder words to that effect). Lame, but possibly this is within their assumed purview. This should have been the only issue for us here.
(2) They also (later) said that there was nepotism in the PRP peer-review process. SHOCKED! This is not unlikely, and not unusual in today’s peer-review/pal-review/censorship state of publishing affairs. This is a much larger issues than the one in just this current PRP backdrop/dustup.
(3) Apparently the actual pattern recognition notions of some recent PRP papers have upset some here as being ill-advised. Possibly an issue worthy of a careful analysis.
That’s the points – here are some NOTES:
(A) With regard to (2), apparently the publishers of PRP did pen the cancellation notice with just the single reason in (1). Jo Nova relayed this original accurately, shortly thereafter specifically noting that reason (2) had been added. That is, they amended their excuse without notice of that update. Why? Because the first reason was not very honorable? Typical.
(B) For our amusement, William Connolley (the reputedly ousted Wikipedia editor/censor) attacked Jo, accusing her of trying to hide reason (2). But we know her – she just would not do such a thing. (It would likely be part of his MO.) In the event, Willy Soon verified the existence of the original version that she relied on. She had already noted the curious supplement even before WC came along to be a pest. Totally uncalled for. Likely it was another slow, disappointing day for him.
(C) Peer-review does not, in general, work well. There is nothing wrong with having your “pals” review your submissions, especially as they act openly, and with integrity. If they are truly your friends, they will provide feedback far better than an anonymous reviewer is likely to feel obliged to do. (When an author thanks reviewers and then takes full responsibility for any remaining errors, he does not REALLY mean he is going to forgive his friends.)
(D) With regard to factor (3) of my list, it would be a mistake to justify the cancellation of PRP and the ham-handed termination notices based on anyone supposition of a flawed scientific approach. “Curve Fitting” IS dangerous as I learned from a physics professor 45 years ago. But it is better to have a curve that has real-world data points ON it rather than a hockey stick with no real-world blade! If the data does not match the theory, the theory is wrong (Feynman) but if the data matches what at first-blush seems an unlikely model, well we have Asimov’s “that’s funny!” to consider. Nature may speak to us sotto voce.
Michael Jonas:
Einstein’s theory of gravity predicts the deviation of the orbits of Mercury, Venus and Mars to better than 10^-8.
How much better do you need?
Hmmmm, pal review was discovered, and sneered at, in consensus climate science because the papers were wrong. That’s not necessarily the process here.
=====================
Alternatively, pal review is not necessarily poor review. There’s a cart before the horse feel to this bandwagon.
========
Gary Pearse says:
January 18, 2014 at 9:17 am
You repeated “responibilities” twice. Does that mean you think it’s a real word?
Yet more alternatively, pal review could be said to have caused bad papers in climate science, which was also subject to tremendous nonscientific pressures. In this case, bad papers have not yet been shown, and the nonscientific pressures pales in comparison to those in consensus climate science.
===================
Ya, velly intellesting, Konrad. The Cheshire Cat sunspots wink at us.
===============
If these papers are good, Cornucopia’s pulling off the Streisand Effect will be a rich, rich irony.
================
Bernie @ 9:46, honest, I hadn’t read your comment when I made some similar points. Good stuff you’ve got there.
===================
WTF, we now have multiple people defending “Pal-Review” as acceptable? Likely the same people who would argue peer-review is meaningless. So in which case why go through the trouble to have the papers appear to come from a peer-reviewed journal, just have your colleagues review them and throw them up on your website.
Connolley’s Wikipedia crimes deserves him an auto-ban at any skeptic site. Jo should not take his abuse and just delete his comments and ban his IP address. Do not even debate the lunatic who has smeared countless skeptical scientists and done everything in his power to censor any information no matter how well sourced on Wikipedia.
Poptech says:
January 18, 2014 at 11:04 pm
why go through the trouble to have the papers appear to come from a peer-reviewed journal, just have your colleagues review them and throw them up on your website.
Actually not such a bad idea….
Kim –
No Kidding. The best work gets done with your associates, not as “yes-men”, but holding feet to fire. A couple of professors, research staff, a half dozen grad students (to explain things to the professors), all standing around a blackboard or e-mailing, and things can get done right for the good of the participants individually, for the good of the research group, for the institution, for the field of research, and for science. Back and forth. Everyone learning and keeping egg off of each other’s faces. Everyone cares. This works. When it is done right, it is far more important than ordinary peer review, which may be largely superfluous at that point.
Conventional anonymous reviewers – not so much.
lsvalgaard says:
January 18, 2014 at 7:01 pm
“And that is also propaganda, as [solar] scientists are not ‘baffled’. The low activity was predicted a decade ago and has recurred several times at about every hundred years.”
———————————————————————————————————————————
It’s the BBC reporting on climate, so of course it’s propaganda! That was entirely my point….
My previous post was not claiming a mechanism for solar cycles influencing climate. It was more of a “Heads up! Incoming!”
The farrago of lies that is Global Warming is imploding. The fellow travellers want out. The sudden seeding of news reports with solar information (which, as you correctly point out, is years old) indicates they have clearly chosen “it’s the sun” as their exit strategy. Every fellow traveller in the AGW hoax will now be charging towards the only exit they can see, the solar influence gate. Mouths foaming, hooves flailing, eyes rolling and flanks steaming. Like a panicked herd of stampeding wildebeest. They want out and they want out now.
It appears the Patten Recognition journal just got trampled, but that is no cause for celebration, that just means they are now heading YOUR way. Every state broadcaster in the western world, every activist NGO, the UN, the EU parliament, the lot. These people don’t care about science and they’ve proved they will stop at nothing.
Poptech said January 18, 2014 at 11:04 pm
“WTF, we now have multiple people defending “Pal-Review” as acceptable? Likely the same people who would argue peer-review is meaningless. So in which case why go through the trouble to have the papers appear to come from a peer-reviewed journal, just have your colleagues review them and throw them up on your website.”
Good for you – you got it – not sure of your intended tone, but I agree completely with all three sentences. Welcome to the future. Of course, you do have to do it right. It’s called conscientious performance.
Poptech, read what I’ve said again. First you have to demonstrate the papers wrong before you can decry the pal review which allowed the wrongness. There is a knee jerk reflex going on here; engage the central nervous system.
============
Does WUWT have the right not to publish comments that don’t meet their standards?
And that is rhetorical.
Friends:
For all those who have ‘lost sight of the ball’ I remind that
peer review is solely for the protection of a journal Editor
and pal-review removes that protection.
Peer review is not – and has never been intended to be – an indication of a paper’s quality.
Please refocus. To aid that, I remind of my post at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/17/the-planetary-tidal-influence-on-climate-fiasco-strong-armed-science-tactics-are-overkill-due-process-would-work-better/#comment-1540406
and my comment to which it links.
Richard
Isvalgaard wrote in response to Newton’s failure to appreciate retrogrades –
” “For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct,…” Newton
And Newton was absolutely correct about this.”
The greatest innovation is Western science is,of course, the emergence of cause and effect which resulted from the arguments of Copernicus for the daily and annual motions of the Earth and central to this is the proper resolution of apparent retrograde motions where the planets move in one direction against the background stars,then periodically reverse direction and then return once more to the same direction –
“Moreover, we see the other five planets also retrograde at times, and stationary at either end [of the regression]. And whereas the sun always advances along its own direct path, they wander in various ways, straying sometimes to the south and sometimes to the north; that is why they are called “planets” [wanderers]. ” Copernicus
There are two types of apparent retrogrades requiring two different resolutions but always with the view from the Earth sandwiched between the inner and outer planets and this alone was the approach of the major astronomers from Copernicus through Galileo. The more familiar apparent retrograde motions of the outer planets is easily explained and the contemporary website does that more than adequately –
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
It is the separate cause of the inner planetary retrogrades that is equally as fascinating and I admit that it takes a little more effort yet contemporary imaging and graphics makes it so easy for students. The hamfisted hypothetical observer on the Sun assertion that Sir Isaac conjured out of thin air so he could attempt modeling via absolute/relative time,space and motion is from the same group that now try to make sense of planetary climate with the exact same disruptive results and the fact is that when Newton’s followers can so easily interrupt the main arguments for the Earth’s motions without so much as an objection then nothing but severe consequences can be expected.
Gkell1 says:
January 18, 2014 at 6:06 pm
“…What do you lot know of the works of Copernicus and Galileo ?, just enough to create havoc..”
—-l
This might not be the best blog for you to post on, unless your aim is to be the one providing the comic relief 🙂
Funny how Svalgaard attacked the quality of Usoskin’s Oulu data last year when it didn’t suit his argument, but defends Isoskin’s flawed analysis of Abreu et al this year when it does. Poor Ilya must be feeling dirty.
Anthony, get your hand in your pocket and pay for a copy of Abreu et al’s rebuttal of Usoskin’s comment. Given the gravity of the smears you are supporting here, you owe it to your readers as due diligance.
And they are just smears. We’re still awaiting some kind of specific accusations from Martin Rasmussen we can defend ourselves against.
Negrum
When shown exactly what retrogrades represent in terms of the orbital motion of the planet,and it is entirely a visual exercise, you still follow a vapid approach which centers around Sir Isaac’s absolute/relative time,space and motion and his hypothetical observer on the Sun.This was the beginning of the modeling mania we see so much of today but the fact is that none of you have a clue what Newton was trying to do with his Earth view representing relative space and motion and his hypothetical view representing absolute space and motion and he even tells you that —
“That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun.” Newton
You wanted to see hype and novelties and now you have it at the most important juncture in astronomy and terrestrial sciences. If you need help with the explanation for apparent retrograde motion of the inner planets then just let me know,the explanation is even more magnificent that the resolution for the outer planets but none of it requires a imaginary perspective from anywhere other than a moving Earth.
kim says:
January 18, 2014 at 10:50 pm
“Ya, velly intellesting, Konrad. The Cheshire Cat sunspots wink at us”
—————————————————————————————–
All the Internet’s a studio,
The bloggers in it merely extras.
Entrances? Exits?
In time all players fade, if not their issue, until only grinning skulls remain.
In flesh we are but three generations deep. In mind, a thousand.
Make your contribution where you will.
(yours is appreciated.)
Bernie Hutchins says:
January 18, 2014 at 9:46 pm
Best post in the thread so far.
Bernie Hutchins:
Your post at January 18, 2014 at 9:46 pm is somewhat naive and is self-contradictory.
Perhaps, the original stated reason for stopping PRP was as you say,
The ONLY issue for us here? Certainly not, if only because you also say
If “nepotism” in peer review is a “much larger issue” then that refutes your previous assertion that another issue “should have been the only issue for us here”.
Importantly, when people correct an error for which they are responsible they often pretend the reason for the correction is other than it is. Their responsibility is an embarrassment. But if their pretended excuse for correcting the error becomes a greater embarrassment than their responsibility then they usually ‘own up’. And that seems to be what has happened in this case.
Richard
lsvalgaard says:
January 18, 2014 at 7:01 pm
Konrad says:
January 18, 2014 at 5:19 pm
“The Sun’s activity has plummeted to a century low, baffling scientists
And that is also propaganda, as [solar] scientists are not ‘baffled’. The low activity was predicted a decade ago and has recurred several times at about every hundred years.
Shouldn’t that read ” as SOME [solar] scientists are not ‘baffled’, or do you not consider NASA as having Solar Scientists?
They have had to revise their estimate for Cycle 24 downwards by quite a large amount a few times in the past decade.
This is not a criticism of your Cycle 24 prediction
richardscourtney says:
January 19, 2014 at 1:26 am
I don’t think it naive at all, there should be 3 separate threads arguing each point instead of them being conflated.
richardscourtney says:
January 19, 2014 at 12:12 am
Friends:
For all those who have ‘lost sight of the ball’ I remind that
peer review is solely for the protection of a journal Editor
and pal-review removes that protection.
Peer review is not – and has never been intended to be – an indication of a paper’s quality.
Agreed Richard. But I would add that peer review by peers of integrity; especially those with the most intimate knowledge of the field of enquiry, is the best way to ensure it.
This hullaballoo of smears whipped up by Rasmussen, Mosher, Svalgaard, Trotter and Anthony Watts is just a smokescreen diverting attention from the science. Mama nature is vindicating our observations and dynamic harmonic model output going forwards.
Man supposes, nature disposes. Time will tell.
Richard, please email me. I have something rather shocking to discuss with you in private.
Although this has been a most interesting thread and I have learned a lot, it gives me little pleasure to see those whose opinions and scientific theories I respect (on both sides) fighting like ferrets in a sack.
Whilst the likes of Connolley & Rabett dance puerile little jigs for glee. (“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.”) Doubtless soon to be joined by Bob Ward, Abramson, John Cook, Joe Romm & Peter Gleick. A team who individually or collectively couldn’t put together a sentence, on any topic, that I would find credible.
Although all the science stuff is fascinating and (as an old engineer) I would hesitate to judge whether the PRP papers have merit or not; it seems to me that the great majority of comments on here miss perhaps the two most important points (in my eyes).
The first point is that this has been a big own goal on our side (and I mean by that, the sceptical side of the AGW debate). By giving the appearance of ‘Pal-Review’, (rightly or wrongly), we will have this episode thrown in our faces every time we point out how unfit-for- purpose is the endemic Pal-Review process in all the Alarmist / Activist journals. And if the likes of Connolley isn’t embarrassed to make that accusation, no-one else will be.
So this is a tactical blunder in the same league as Heartland’s ‘Unibomber’ billboards. An advertising campaign that would have been effective using Mugabe or Chavez or Ahmedinejad failed. this was because no-one cares what Unibomber believes about anything, whilst there is evidence (in the form of recorded standing ovations) of the AGW team supporting the other ‘presidential’ clowns.
The second point is that this incident is almost certainly one where Copernicus Publications and Martin Rasmussen have been severely leant on, behind the scenes, by the Alarmists. Obvious shades of Climategate behaviour.
But unfortunately neither Anthony nor the other commenters on here (with a few exceptions) have picked up on this. And the alarmists will happily keep discussion very well away from this topic!
Ripper:
No, the post at January 18, 2014 at 9:46 pm from Bernie Hutchins is “somewhat naive” because – like you – it fails to recognise the point which I stated to be
You say
Absolutely not!
Failure to address the two “conflated” points would completely distort the issue: partial information is distorted information.
Richard
A C Osborn says:
January 19, 2014 at 2:32 am
Shouldn’t that read ” as SOME [solar] scientists are not ‘baffled’, or do you not consider NASA as having Solar Scientists? They have had to revise their estimate for Cycle 24 downwards by quite a large amount a few times in the past decade.
But that does not mean that they are ‘baffled’, just that their prediction was wrong. This is good science as wrong predictions rule out wrong models.
tallbloke says:
January 19, 2014 at 12:29 am
Funny how Svalgaard attacked the quality of Usoskin’s Oulu data last year when it didn’t suit his argument, but defends Usoskin’s flawed analysis of Abreu et al this year when it does. Poor Ilya must be feeling dirty.
Good for Ilya to now get the science right. To demonstrate that you have understood something perhaps you could here summarize for us the rebuttal argument in your own words.
If you’re judging the quality of a sausage, do you first inspect the factory and farms that contributed to making the sausage or do you taste the sausage and then decide if the factory needs inspection?
Please don’t become obsessed with process. Millions/Billions of people waste their daily lives on process and it usually doesn’t improve the product.
Look at the product. The papers. If they are flawed, point out the errors.
Please!
Otherwise you’ve fallen into the trap of wasting your time, bickering about minutiae while the catastrophists scramble to regain credibility.
Be examplary. Read the papers. tear them to shreds if you can. If you can’t, then it proves that Rasmussen’s accusations are without tangible merit.
You have noticed, haven’t you, that NOT ONE of the papers published in PRP has as yet been critiqued by the warmists? Papers that’ve only gone through pal-review are, as we’ve seen in the past, are soft targets.
Bernd Felsche says:
January 19, 2014 at 7:07 am
You have noticed, haven’t you, that NOT ONE of the papers published in PRP has as yet been critiqued by the warmists?
A paper has to merit critique.
Sunday morning coming down.
=======================
Leif, years ago when you first introduced me to Livingston and Penn we went thoroughly through why the invisibility of the sunspots didn’t necessarily produce cold weather. Now we see the cold being explained to hoi polloi by those enigmatic spots. Funny that, eh?
============================
Konrad says: January 18, 2014 at 11:44 pm
_____________________________________
A good assessment of the BBC looking for an exit strategy. I too have noticed the BBC beginning to mention the Sun and questioning what we know about AGW.
Take the Daily Politics show. Greenie says UK floods caused by warming. Interviewer says the IPCC says it is not. Greenie says all the people on a train she was on, thought it was. Interviewer incredulous, bordering in incandescent: “your answer to the science is a train going to London!??! Co-interviewee, a politician, trying vainly to cover his mirth. This was a huge AGW own-goal, with a very influential BBC political interviewer.
The BBC is looking for a way out. However, knowing the power and influence of the BBC, it might be wise to be magnanimous, and let them depart without hurling too much abuse as they struggle through the exit.
Ralph
kim says:
January 19, 2014 at 7:34 am
Now we see the cold being explained to hoi polloi by those enigmatic spots.
People will grasp at any straws that might lend support to their agenda…
Agenda?
======
Sorry, that’s a bit abrupt. But please expand on the topic.
==============
Bernd Felsche:
At January 19, 2014 at 7:07 am you ask
I answer
It depends on whether or not you don’t mind being killed by e-coli.
That is why we have systems and enforcements to regulate factories and farms.
Richard
kim says:
January 19, 2014 at 7:49 am
Sorry, that’s a bit abrupt. But please expand on the topic.
Look up Confirmation Bias.
Conclusions
…..””We provided torque calculations with different sampling frequencies and found that the spectral peaks claimed by A12 are likely artefacts of the spectral distortion and do not have physical meaning. Then we repeated the analysis by A12 of the relation between heliospheric modulation potential and the planetary torque. We showed that the results of Abreu et al. (2012) are not statistically significant. Thus, the proposed hypothesis of planetary influence on solar activity is not based on solid empirical evidence….””
Does this mean that from the, “different sampling frequencies” used, that there were more peaks and not necessarily at the time periods claimed? And that the peaks are artifacts of what?
Carla says:
January 19, 2014 at 8:04 am
Does this mean that from the, “different sampling frequencies” used, that there were more peaks and not necessarily at the time periods claimed?
Yes.
And that the peaks are artifacts of what?
Of the method used.
Here’s something interesting. The Sun has a rotation period of 25 days at it’s equator, and 34 days at it’s poles.
So it’s kind of like Saturn, with visible features rotating at different rates depending on latitude.
The slower rate at the poles roughly matches the rotation of the core, as postulated from radio emissions.
And get this, recently (between the Voyager visit and Cassini) the radio rotation rate has slowed down from 10:39 to 10:45. A quick check at the telescope confirms that this is just the radio rotation slowing down, not the planet itself.
The NASA believes these recent variations in the radio rotation are due to Enceladus’ geysers injecting charged particles into Saturn’s magnetic field.
Leif, I’m disappointed but not surprised. Any idea of what the agenda of the BBC is?
==========
kim says:
January 19, 2014 at 8:26 am
Any idea of what the agenda of the BBC is?
Perhaps a CYA ploy. From http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/19/bbc-runs-6-excellent-minutes-on-quiet-sun-and-past-correlation-with-little-ice-age/
“The world we live in today is very different to the world that was inhabited during the Maunder Minimum. So we have human activity, we have the industrial revolution, all kinds of gases being pumped into the atmosphere, so on the one hand we’ve got perhaps a cooling sun, but on the other hand you’ve got human activity that can counter that and I think it is quite difficult to say actually how these two are going to compete and what the consequences then are for the global climate”
Kim: When the silver lining of a cloud burns bright, its memory lights the darkest night.
How is it that tiny Enceladus, with it’s even tinier geysers, and the tiniest (the portion of particles that reach escape velocity) can have such a profound effect on the magnetic field of a huge planet like Saturn, but the planets, which in relation to the Sun are much larger proportionally than Enceladus is in relation to Saturn, are deemed to have no effect on the Sun?
Not even worthy of critique?
Try again. That doesn’t wash.
Leif Svalgaard quotes:
“so on the one hand we’ve got perhaps a cooling sun, but on the other hand you’ve got human activity that can counter that and I think it is quite difficult to say actually how these two are going to compete and what the consequences then are for the global climate”
So much for the Sun not being able to muster more than 0.07C per decade as Leif has been telling us for the last decade, based on spurious IPCC ‘science’ of instantaneous TSI only forcing which takes no account of bigger multi-decadal swings in wavelengths which can have big effects in the upper atmosphere.
Leif Svalgaard quotes:
“so on the one hand we’ve got perhaps a cooling sun, but on the other hand you’ve got human activity that can counter that and I think it is quite difficult to say actually how these two are going to compete and what the consequences then are for the global climate”
So much for the Sun not being able to muster more than 0.07C per decade as Leif has been telling us for the last decade, based on spurious IPCC ‘science’ of instantaneous TSI only forcing which takes no account of bigger multi-decadal swings in wavelengths which can have big effects in the upper atmosphere.
Reading Lsvagaard saying PRP articles don’t rate a response, puts in mind someone trying to do the rectal cranium inversion, but discovering his head is much too big to fit.
richardscourtney said in part January 19, 2014 at 12:12 am
……“Peer review is not – and has never been intended to be – an indication of a paper’s quality.”……
I agree 100%, and with the link you provided to your previous post, which was excellent like most all your writing.
Perhaps you will agree however that the phrase “NOT Peer Reviewed” is not an indication of lack of quality, although it is very frequently used (often in the main-stream news) as a “Hammer” to pummel or belittle a report one finds inconvenient. When we start listing what something is NOT, we start on a very long list which is probably intended to prop up the virtues of the attributes that it does not possess.
richardscourtney says: @ January 19, 2014 at 7:52 am
I answer
It depends on whether or not you don’t mind being killed by e-coli.
That is why we have systems and enforcements to regulate factories and farms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry Richard farms have nothing to do with e-coli because ALL livestock is infected. It is a slaughter problem not a farm problem.
The e-coli ‘scare’ is just as much of a ‘Manufactured crisis’ as Global warming is. In the USA the start was the change from actual inspection and testing to ‘Harmonizing’ with the international HACCP regs. HACCP’S Disconnect From Public Health Concerns also see John Munsell & A Trip To The Woodshed With The USDA
You have to remove the innards WITHOUT contaminating the rest of the meat with feces. Unfortunately here in the USA the USDA relaxed the standard on feces contamination via HACCP and even before that useless new standard was introduced in 1996.
National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals: “Based on a policy change in 1978 allowing “reprocessing,” the USDA decided that, instead of condemning contaminated carcasses, the industry can simply wash the contamination off with chlorinated water. “
.
This is really bad news.
Can you say OH FECES! What is to keep China from exporting their own chicken to the USA?
I know of a truck driver who has watched produce from Mexico get transfered into boxes saying “Product of the USA’ while the inspectors looked the other way. He said reporting it just got him a threat to have his commercial drivers license removed permanently.
In the USA the USDA and FDA are just as corrupt as the EPA. SHIELDING THE GIANT: USDA’s “Don’t Look, Don’t Know” Policy
This is where my disgust with the American government started by the way.
papiertigre says:
January 19, 2014 at 8:33 am
How is it that tiny Enceladus, with it’s even tinier geysers, and the tiniest (the portion of particles that reach escape velocity) can have such a profound effect on the magnetic field of a huge planet like Saturn, but the planets, which in relation to the Sun are much larger proportionally than Enceladus is in relation to Saturn, are deemed to have no effect on the Sun?
The reason is very simple and well-understood: Enceladus is within Saturn’s magnetosphere and there are magnetic field lines connecting the atmosphere of Saturn with Enceladus, so particles can travel towards Saturn and cause aurorae with associated radio-effects [not changing the magnetic field of the planet]. For the Sun, the situation is very different as the outflowing solar wind prevents effects to travel upstream to reach the Sun.
tallbloke says:
January 19, 2014 at 8:39 am
which takes no account of bigger multi-decadal swings in wavelengths which can have big effects in the upper atmosphere.
The tail does not wag the dog: the upper atmosphere is much thinner [density goes down by a factor of 1000 for each 50 km you ascend] than the troposphere where we [and climate] live. Perhaps you should read up on atmospheric physics.
Leif, Mike Lockwood is pretty amusing in that BBC interview, all tied up in cognitive dissonance knots.
==============
Bernie Hutchins:
Thankyou for your kind words at January 19, 2014 at 8:41 am.
You ask me
Yes. And I said that (in strong terms) in my post which commented on the article by David M Hoffer.
I again commend the excellent article by David M Hoffer which concerns your point and is above my comment at the link. To help others who may want to know what we are talking about I again provide the link to my pertinent comment and people can scroll up from it to read the article by David M Hoffer.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/29/peer-review-last-refuge-of-the-uninformed-troll/#comment-1522700
Richard
Mickey Mann has described Judy Curry’s senate testimony as ‘anti-science’. He clarified this meant ‘ignorance’ rather than deliberate deception (presumably for legal reasons). Mann also admitted he hadn’t read Judy’s deposition.
We’re still at the “Your paper that I haven’t read isn’t worthy of rebuttal” stage with team WUWT too.
I hope Svalgaard and Watts stop to consider what having this trait in common with Micky Mann does for their rep amongst sceptics.
Gail Combs:
Sincere thanks for the correction of me which you provide at January 19, 2014 at 8:41 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/17/the-planetary-tidal-influence-on-climate-fiasco-strong-armed-science-tactics-are-overkill-due-process-would-work-better/#comment-1541231
Expert knowledge is always appreciated, and your information is interesting (and worrying).
As those who read your correction will understand, your post does not alter my point except to strengthen it. And I will use your correct information if the faulty analogy is again presented. Thankyou.
Richard
tallbloke says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:00 am
We’re still at the “Your paper that I haven’t read isn’t worthy of rebuttal” stage with team WUWT too.
You are still shrinking away from and evading explaining in your own words [reflecting your understanding(?)] what the rebuttal is. Put up or shut up.
1. richardscourtney said in part January 19, 2014 at 1:26 am, replying to my post of January 18, 2014 at 9:46 pm
‘ If “nepotism” in peer review is a “much larger issue” then that refutes your previous assertion that another issue “should have been the only issue for us here”. ‘
What I actually said was:
“ This is a much larger issues than the one in just this current PRP backdrop/dustup.”
meaning that the pal-review issue was larger OUTSIDE the PRP dustup. (For example, not restricted to just letting your pals through, but keeping your “enemies” out.) I apologize as this was perhaps not clear enough.
lsvalgaard says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:03 am
tallbloke says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:00 am
We’re still at the “Your paper that I haven’t read isn’t worthy of rebuttal” stage with team WUWT too.
You are still shrinking away from and evading explaining in your own words [reflecting your understanding(?)] what the rebuttal is. Put up or shut up.
I was referring to our special edition papers, not Abreu et al’s explanation of Usoskin’s mistakes in the methods he used to critique they’re 2012 paper.
Here they are:
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/special_issue2.html
Still published, open access, free to download.
Anthony raised the subject of Abreu et al, not us. I’ve sent him the Abreu et al response to Usoskin. Get him to tell us in his own words what it says, now he no longer has the paywall excuse to hide behind.
Isvalgaard wrote –
” “For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct,…” Newton
And Newton was absolutely correct about this.”
Does anyone know what a ‘non sequitur’ is in terms of logic ?.
The only acceptable resolution for observed retrogrades is not a hypothetical observer on the Sun nor the stupid modeling that arose from that suggestion,the resolution for apparent retrogrades are they are an illusion seen from a moving Earth –
“7 . The apparent retrograde and direct motion of the planets arises not from their motion but from the earth’s. The motion of the earth alone, therefore, suffices to explain so many apparent inequalities in the heavens.” Copernicus
http://dbanach.com/copernicus-commentarilous.htm
This modeling mania is a direct result of the original agenda which began with Newton and his attempt to scale up experimental sciences to celestial structure and motion. It is why these clown have gone on an assertion binge at the expense of Western astronomy,its insights and methods.
Two words which are lethal to research enter the picture here with the assault on the great Western astronomical insight which set Earth spinning and orbiting the Sun. Those words are incompetence and fraud so that people who can’t or won’t accept the proper resolution for apparent retrogrades can decide which of those words apply to themselves.