In an emotional commentary written for the WorldNetDaily (aka WND) Christopher Monckton has said that he’ll take over the journal and publish a first issue in March 2014. He displays what he calls a “mockup cover” (shown below) that consists of his coat of arms along with various cyclic, spirographic, and colorful psychedelic style images of natural and mathematical patterns.
Monckton writes (he calls the editor Rasmussen “the Rabbit” for some reason):
However, The Borg do not allow publishing houses to act as publishing houses. When I recently co-authored a paper with professor Fred Singer on the consequences of chaos theory for the predictability of global warming, the editor of Energy & Environment, one of the few journals to allow skeptical science an airing, ordered my name to be taken off the paper on the ground that it would annoy The Borg. Besides, she said, she did not like my politics (of which there was nothing whatsoever in the paper).
These are the points the Rabbit made in rejecting professor Mörner’s special issue and shutting down the journal:
- “Copernicus Publications started publishing the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics (PRP) in March 2013. The journal idea was brought to Copernicus’ attention and was taken rather critically in the beginning, since the designated Editors-in-Chief were mentioned in the context of the debates of climate skeptics.” And why should taking part in scientific debate debar an editor?
- “Before the journal was launched, we had a long discussion regarding its topics. The aim of the journal was to publish articles about patterns recognized in the full spectrum of physical disciplines. PRP was never meant to be a platform for climate skeptics.” It should be a platform for science, wherever the evidence leads.
- “Recently, a special issue was compiled entitled ‘Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts.’ Besides papers dealing with the observed patterns in the heliosphere, the special issue editors ultimately submitted their conclusions in which they ‘doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project’ (Pattern Recogn. Phys., 1, 205–206, 2013).” The Rabbit stated no reason for daring to dispute their scientific conclusion?
- “While processing the press release for the special issue, ‘Patterns in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts,’ we read through the general conclusions paper published on 16 December 2013. We were alarmed by the authors’ second implication stating ‘This sheds serious doubts on the issue of a continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project.’” And why was the Rabbit “alarmed”? Because he was told to be.
There is only one reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the above passages. The Age of Reason and Enlightenment is over. The Dark Ages are back.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/the-thermageddon-cult-strikes-again/#uptbtelyETT0rmR6.99
Of course, the true measure of a journal’s success will be how much it is read, how often its articles are cited, and whether it gets that all important listing as certified journal in the ISI Web of Knowledge. See: http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/
Of course that last bit isn’t a requirement, but it does help a journal become accepted. I would urge them to apply as soon as their first issue is completed.
All I can say is that I hope the people that tried to publish in the first PRP journal (now closed) find a friendly home there. It will be interesting to watch it evolve and I wish them all the success they deserve.
Judging from the comments in the WND article, it looks like Joseph A Olson (aka FauxScienceSlayer of the Slayers/PSI fame) is queuing up to submit some of his writings. I’m sure other like minded individuals will follow in seeking to publish there.
We live in interesting times.
You’ve just proven Gerry’s point, Gail. By the Enquirer (or Weekly World News, or WND, or whomever) repeatedly publishing clear nonsense, trying to find the pearls amongst the garbage becomes tedious and largely useless. A journal which does the same would be pretty worthless.
I´m taking a month off reading WUWT and TT….this is getting to be both boring and depressing.
The phrase ¨get a room¨ comes to mind.
All NEW ideas (not belonging to any family of accepted ideas) are “way out there”. It is also the place from which all progress and invention comes from. We must approach all “way out there” ideas with “robust skepticism”, not dismissal. Demand to be convinced, by real evidence backed by accessible data and code. There may be a baby in the bathwater, but how will we ever Know, if the (allegedly flawed) paper, never sees the light of day. Exchanging and adapting others ideas is where all the magic happens. GK
Willis, I in no way meant to imply that Roger should not be able to attempt to publish science or discuss it. My initial complaint was solely on the fact of him being referred to as an “eminent scientist” by Monckton. I then had people trying to justify it in other conversations by saying he was an “engineer”. So I wanted to make that point clear in case it was brought up again here.
Richard, I agree with most of your points. My argument with qualifications has to do with titles (e.g. scientist) that I feel have not been earned, not whether someone has the right to attempt to publish science or discuss it. Just one minor correction, Roger was one of 3 editors of the special edition that included Dr. Morner.
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/special_issue2.html
Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts
Editor(s): N.-A. Mörner, R. Tattersall, and J.-E. Solheim
“Did the Editor have experience in academic publication? No.
Did the Editor have experience from having provided peer reviewed work? No.
Did the Editor have academic qualifications which could have mitigated his lack of experience? No.”
Job qualifications matter, if the editor was simply Dr. Morner who was more than qualified, I would drop this criticism but it is a valid criticism that needs to be brought to people’s attention. Monckton’s statement is what brought it up here.
Poptech:
Thankyou for your reply to me at January 25, 2014 at 1:35 pm.
Especial thanks for the information that Niklas (as he is known to his friends) was a co-Editor. I would have thought much better of him and the information gives me personal sadness.
Richard
Perception in the climate debate: Since I spend much of my time debating in other parts of the Internet my perspective may be more extensive on how these things are perceived than others here, which is why I am surprised no one commented on my Gore scenario.
I have relentlessly seen Lord Monckton brought up as an alarmist punching bag as skeptics bring up Al Gore (deservedly so). I can have a debate on any topic and some alarmist will likely inject Monckton into the conversation as a strawman to the actual argument. There is clearly no comparison between their intelligence with Monckton making Gore look like a incompetent buffoon that he is but this is still a fact of life that is difficult to overcome. So I do not believe his journal will be well received and may go over as well as PSI did. Regardless, I believe Lord Monckton’s written commentary and oratory ability are invaluable in this debate. Since he can take a complex scientific argument and break it down so an average person can grasp and make a convincing argument to them. Skeptics have few great communicators and Lord Monckton is at the top of a very short list. Having him run a journal would be a waste of his God given talents.
* Minor clarification “deservedly so” referred only to Gore.
It is amazing that someone can live in such abject obliviousness to such a blatantly obvious issue. Instead, obsessively concerning himself with an irrelevant argument of intent vs the actual argument of procedural error that lends itself to such easy allegations of “pal-review”.
I am not sure what you know of peer-review as you have never published anything in your life, have no research background (either through education or experience) yet felt qualified to not only be the editor of a special edition but also review other papers.
Some how pointing out these irrefutable facts and then showing the hypocrisy in defending something you previously mocked is now “bullying”.
Also, if you wish to have a discussion of the science, do not fall into traps that so easily allows everyone to question if the peer-review process was legitimate.