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.
I can understand the vomit and feces, but I can’t understand the metal shards bit.
“A missing element is it must be profitable.”
This is not true, some of the best journals, e.g. JMLR are published on a not-for-profit basis (in the case of JMLR it is even free for both authors and readers).
So the storm in a teacup, supposedly over proper procedure of publishers review, was the best online advertising campaign to date.?
As for the good lords new magazine, time will tell.
I will be interested and the future of running speculations of science by the minds of the public is being explored.
The current practise of blocking articles from being published, if the reviewer disbelieves the concept is profoundly anti discovery, denigrates inquiring minds.
Reviewers would be far better employed if focussed on ensuring an article is written clearly, the concept is clear and the claimed data is attached.
So much of journal material of late has been deliberately obscure waffle.
The journals interest is attracting readers complete with the advertisers who follow, the readers interest is mental stimulation, learn something new, be inspired… and so on.
But asking an editor or an unpaid reviewer to be an expert in every topic or devote the time to really dig into a new look at an old subject is asking too much of most.
As for posting the reviewers comments, fine idea as long as they are a footnote, not the dominant feature and that the reviewers have the choice of anonymity if they desire.
True testing of an idea begins once it is released into the wild.
Says Watts: I’m with Gail, Mosher, and Leif. If this journal is going to be anything more than a repository for way out there ideas, it needs these tools.”
I didn’t realize that “way out there” ideas was a reason to stop someone from expressing them. Let people think as they will: bad ideas will die on the vine. “Way out there” ideas may spark some reasonable line of inquiry. After all, is it not possible that the Watts et al view could use some improvements or (perish the thought!) weaknesses that might be considered?
The WUWT put-down sounds more like an attempt to keep the CAGW discussion within the bounds of what a “team” considers the “correct” approach to be, determined through some consensus among the players.
Ah, that terribly double-edge thing, skepticism.
It is his journal project and I wish the Lord well.
My hope is that this Journal will be substantially web based whether or not it has a paper medium. Web will keep costs down, and raise readership.
A web based delivery could be various subscription levels of access, for example:
Free: To the abstract and key pages or illustrations. (like books.google does)
Level1: To the papers.
Level2: To the papers and reader’s comment area
Level3: all Level 2 plus, separate section for registered peer-reviewers post publication comments.
Level4: All level 3 plus raw data and code.
Level 5: All level 4 plus pre-publication review’s comments and drafts.
It could be based upon subscription or per article, like an iTunes purchase model. I’m not advocating DRM, but it could be an element to help with profitability.
In the web, Journal articles need not be static. No Journal Article need be “Retracted”, but corrections, failures to replicate, and refutations can be added to the article as time evolves, section by section, conclusion by conclusion. The world needs a dynamic citation protocol that tracks evolution of citations from paper to paper.
The internet changed the music publishing and distribution business. Given how scientific research was the progenitor of the internet, it is amazing to me how little the world of scientific journal publication has changed in 20 years in comparison.
Is there a “Steve Jobs” that is or is about to change the business of journal publishing?
Monckton of Brenchley says:
January 23, 2014 at 7:10 am
See how many of the patterns on the moc-kup front cover you can identify.
is that a sign of a classic Greek scholar ?
Plato For a child direct it to what may amuses his minds, thus you may find with accuracy his inner genius’ inclination.
Sir
May I add another quote which may be appropriate:
Forgive a child that fears the dark; the tragedy is when men fear the light.
Re: the excitable Rabbit…. The White Rabbit from Alice in Wonderland, I think? Such a twitchy, panicked, small-minded, sycophant certainly fits the bill, anyway… .
Perhaps, the “shell thing” is a Chambered Nautilus, like the one that inspired Oliver Wendell Holmes…
This is the ship of pearl, which, poets feign,
Sails the unshadowed main,–
The venturous bark that flings
On the sweet summer wind its purpled wings
In gulfs enchanted, where the Siren sings,
And coral reefs lie bare,
Where the cold sea-maids rise to sun their streaming hair.
Its webs of living gauze no more unfurl;
Wrecked is the ship of pearl!
And every chambered cell,
Where its dim dreaming life was wont to dwell,
As the frail tenant shaped his growing shell,
Before thee lies revealed,–
Its irised ceiling rent, its sunless crypt unsealed!
Year after year beheld the silent toil
That spread his lustrous coil;
Still, as the spiral grew,
He left the past year’s dwelling for the new,
Stole with soft step its shining archway through,
Built up its idle door,
Stretched in his last-found home,
and knew the old no more.
Best wishes, Christopher Monckton, on the birth of your latest shining venture, a spacious fortress where truth can thrive and grow,
Janice
Steven Mosher says:
January 23, 2014 at 8:37 am
“I bet you’ll try to weasel out of these requirements and be worse than Mann or Jones ever were.”
Mosh, do you mean to say that Mann or Jones practiced some measure of restraint in their weasling, or that their imaginations were taxed to the limit to achieve some intermediate level.? I have to admit that it seems to me they did as thorough a job as possible of weaslying. Monckton, with far superior intelligence and imagination, I fear, could only match their weasling if he were to put his best effort to it. You would lose this bet.
Gail Combs says:
January 23, 2014 at 7:49 am
Peer-review is NOT some sort of magic wand. All it does is make sure the work is reasonably logical, decently written and not plagiarized…. if we are lucky.
The real test is does the paper contain ALL the data, ALL the methods, ALL the computer code and everything else needed to make the information reproducible.
This is the key point and peer-review, as done today by climate scientists ignores it.
YES! Feynman could not have put it better.
Re: “metal shards” (Richard Sharpe (10:13am) — Gail must speak for herself, of course, but, I think she was referring to the tiny amount of metal that would be allowed in a sample of food for human consumption (and still pass inspection). Not likely to harm anyone, I think. Heh, just consider it a bonus mineral supplement!
@ur momisugly Gary Pearse — LOL — good one.
I have been saddened by many of the comments here as I suspect have been many others. Few of the regular contributors to WUWT have had the guts to travel worldwide as has Lord Monkton lecturing and teaching us all about the nonsense promoted by AGW disciples. WUWT seems to be a little small minded here and unwilling to grant credit where it is due. I wish Lord Monkton the very best of luck with this venture.
OT
London students on the first telescope observation lesson discover a closest observed supernova !
Monckton of Brenchley says:
January 23, 2014 at 7:10 am
See how many of the patterns on the moc-kup front cover you can identify.
———————————————————————————————-
All the patterns have one thing in common to my eye. A Fibonacci spiral.
Godwin’s Second Law – when World Nut Daily is linked, it’s time to say goodnight, Gracie.
Re: the broccoli — my math professor cousin used broccoli (the kind commonly sold in U. S. grocery stores, not the kind above, though) to explain fractals to me.
@dikranmarsupial at 10:14 am
I urge you to consider the point that people make money off of non-for-profit ventures all the time. And even if everyone involved is paid not one thin dime, there are benefits that arise from the effort in the currency of reputation, influence, and prestige. It is profitable as in “worth the effort and cost” to those that do it.
Richard Sharpe says:
January 23, 2014 at 10:13 am
just like the current USDA stamp “peer-reviewed” science today now contains “contamination.. such as feces, vomit and metal shards…”
I can understand the vomit and feces, but I can’t understand the metal shards bit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Automated meat slicing comes to mind. They use assembly lines for processing and much of it is automated.
The study of the Golden Ratio and Fibonacci patterns in nature have a long and venerable history. The proportion, symmetry and beauty of all nature seems to reflect order, and invite numerical and philosophical contemplation and hypothesizing. Here is Vihart’s Doodling in Math, showing examples of Fibonacci spirals in nature (great for kids too):
I do enjoy the shape of pinwheel galaxies, and I suppose there are mathematical/proportional reasons why it is aesthetically pleasing. Architecture, art and sculpture utilize these same proportions. Ya gotta love people who love the Golden Ratio. They are one of the spices of life.
http://www.amazon.com/Curves-Dover-books-explaining-science/dp/048623701X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1390242767&sr=1-1&keywords=the+curves+of+life
Enjoy the new journal.
Stephen Rasey perhaps you should investigate the example I gave in a bit more detail. Most of the work done in academic publishing – the writing and peer review of the papers is done for free by the academic community, commercial publishers don’t pay for any of this, they get it for free. These days most authors are pretty competent with LaTeX and so can do a fair job of the typeseting for themselves (although a production editor is still required to collate everything and make sure everything is done to a very high standard). The cost of hosting the web site and some funding for the production costs is not a great deal of money in the great scheme of things, and the benefit for the research community is that they get to publish their work and read that of their fellow academics for free. There is no need for anyone to make money out of it, the academic community profits by not giving money to the publisher for work that can be mostly done by the academics. This is making better use of the tax payers money, what is there not to like? All IMHO, of course.
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2011 was awarded to Dan Schechtman for his discovery of the quasi-crystal. When he announced his results, he was given a crystallography textbook to study and was asked to leave the research groups. But as others were able to replicate his work, he was vindicated.
“Here is an interesting bit about the quasi-crystal:
The golden ratio – a key provided
A fascinating aspect of both quasicrystals and aperiodic mosaics is that the golden ratio
of mathematics and art, the mathematical constant
τ
(tau), occurs over and over again. For instance, the ratio between the
numbers of fat and thin rhombi in Penrose’s mosaic is
τ
. Similarly, the ratio of various distances between
atoms in quasicrystals is always related to
τ
.
The mathematical constant
τ
is described by a sequence of numbers that the 13th-century Italian mathematician Fibonacci worked out from a hypothetical experiment dealing with rabbit reproduction. In this
well-known sequence, each number is the sum of the two preceding numbers: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55,
89, 144, etc. If you divide one of the higher numbers in the Fibonacci sequence with the preceding number
– for instance, 144/89 – you get a number that is close to the golden ratio.
Both the Fibonacci sequence and the golden ratio are important to scientists when they want to use a diffraction pattern to describe quasicrystals at the atomic level. The Fibonacci sequence can also explain
how the discovery awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2011 has altered chemists’ conception of regularity in crystals.”
ref pdf included here: http://zekeunlimited.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/crystals-of-golden-proportions/
In addition to natural spirals, nature seems to know a hexagon. Here’s a photo of Saturn’s Polar Vortex.
Snowflakes are all hexagons too:
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/5197/20131205/saturns-unique-hexagon-jet-stream-captured-gifs-nasas-cassini-probe.htm
No two snowflakes are alike, but they are all hexagons. Haven’t seen one yet that’s a pentagon. Anyone here know (have a scientific reason) why Saturn’s polar vortex is in the shape of a hexagon???
Maybe God likes hexagons:
https://www.google.com.mx/search?q=real+snowflake+pictures&client=firefox-a&hs=FWR&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=TGzhUsKXLaqX2QX724DoAQ&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=619
Zeke, thanks for sharing that delightful Fibonacci video (at 11:11 — you did that post time on purpose, no doubt, heh). Enjoyed it!
And thanks for the info., J. Philip Peterson.
“…what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.” Romans 1:19.
“… God is not a God of disorder… .” I. Corinthians 14:33.
Gloria in excelsis Deo!
” Monckton, with far superior intelligence and imagination, I fear, could only match their weasling if he were to put his best effort to it. You would lose this bet.”
i will bet that Monkton doesnt have the guts to make a stand on the data sharing code sharing issue. If he does muster up the courage he will promise one thing and do another. or he will launch into a litany of excuses that will surpass those imagined by Mann or Jones.
He can prove me wrong very easily:
he can come here and proclaim that his journal will strictly enforce an open data and open code policy no ifs and or buts.
That said, if monckton does not support open data and open code, then I’m sure you and others will defend him.
But prove me wrong. state here and now your position.
Apologies in advance. No worries about peer review – every paper that Lord Monckton publishes, presumably after reading and approving it, will have been peer reviewed.
(Retires, cowering from expected storm of scorn)
Good luck, sir! A noble project.