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.
Spirals are also a symbol of hope.
As C. S. Lewis wrote (in A Grief Observed), when one is mourning a great loss, one can feel like one is wearily trodding, endlessly, in a circle. When will I feel joy again? Will I ever feel joy again??……….. Then, one day, one realizes that one is not walking in a circle at all; one is on a spiral. One is slowly, but surely, going — up.
Gail Combs says: January 23, 2014 at 9:38 am
It just proves skeptics are cats not herd animals. Try herding cats sometime – a can of tuna works well :>)
If you actually have a herd of cats, Gail, then a single can of tuna merely incites them to try and trim down the competition, usually with a lot of noise and threatening gestures.
Softly: Gail Combs for President.
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.
There is only one type of pattern (I think) they seem to be variants of the Fibonacci sequence.
Called out to Vigilant Fish as he hurries off…
“Good show, Vigilant! A fine pun to honor a fine man……..
…….. Vigilant?……………….. VIGILANT!……. I SAID, ‘Good show,’ old man!…… .”
Ah, there… he doffed his cap…. he heard me. Good.
Sure Janice. Here it is as it appears in the human form:
https://www.google.com/search?q=golden+ratio+in+the+human+hand&client=firefox-a&hs=SC7&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=h3HhUsnIJIjwoASj4IHYAw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=911&bih=443
You can see if you scroll down that even dentists can use the Golden Ratio effectively for results. But to see it in space is also is interesting.
Peer review isn’t good enough. Make it public review via “pre-print” versions on the web and you might have something. Let the final publication be a sequence of thesis-criticism-rebuttal sections.
I agree with the idea of sharing data, possibly under a general public license agreement?
Is it a requirement of any-other form of publishing in scientific journals or is the bar standard being unreasonably too high in this case for some reason?
I think Lord Monkton’s move is excellent for science.
I guess I’m no different from many on this excellent site in that I visit most of the links on the right-side of the page daily including TB, Jonova et al. Again like everyone else I’ve donated to many of the sites over the years. The recent difference of opinion between Anthony and Roger is disappointing and sad but I am not party to the underlying issues nor should I be. All I want to see is true open-minded investigation of the issues. If, at the end of the day, the CAGW meme is proven beyond doubt then that’s fine (I’d be mightily surprised) and if the sun proved to be the defining issue then that’s fine too, I suspect there is no one driver of climate but a multitude of factors many of which are, even now, unknown to us – ultimately the more we understand about our environment the better for everyone now and in the future for their short stay on this tiny ball.
Several here are taking pot shots at the processes already before anything has been published – I’m sure LM et al know what is required when their first papers are published – they have to get past Willis, Anthony, Bob etc and that won’t be easy. So the standards had better be high to survive the first hurdle. As for the CAGW crowd, well they won’t change their minds even if a polar bear bit them on the bum at the equator, they are becoming irrelevant pretty fast, hence the wilder scenarios and scary predictions.
The key people are the politicians – we’ve known all along this is a political issue and as long as our standards are maintained then we can withstand any accusations from the “interested” parties.
So I wish SCIENCE all the best in the world, we need you but only if you retain your independence and objectivity, anything else and you are just the same as any other activist group.
Steven Mosher says:
January 23, 2014 at 11:41 am
That said, if monckton does not support open data and open code, then I’m sure you and others will defend him.
Accidental post before text to above.
It blows my mind how quick people defend work they agree with out of hand and conversely put in enormous effort to disprove what does not sit well.
The Golden Rectangle is the basis for the Golden Ratio and is supposedly the most pleasing shape for a rectangle. Also the basis for the spirals shown.
https://www.google.com.mx/search?q=golden+rectangle+spiral&client=firefox-a&hs=f1R&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=6HPhUpCmHOrK2gW0kYGgBA&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=619
(You take a perfect square, use one point of a compass on – well here are the steps:
http://www.wikihow.com/Construct-a-Golden-Rectangle )
Thanks Janice…
One of the better ideas from a commenter here,( for an online magazine on first thought anyway) is pay to comment.
Perhaps this would limit online review to the truly committed.
This would require the footnotes including all reviewers work, to ensure a comment does not reinvent the wheel.
Given the collapse of the print journals,we need to find a better way to play with ideas.
Fascinating to witness a medium evolve.
We could do a lot worse than the WUWT model.
Thanks, Zeke, for your illustrations. If you make a spiral whose length doubles with each winding, it is a model for sound frequency on the spiral, and our tonal system on twelve car-wheel axes. The angles between axes represent our musical intervals. Musically experienced people hear the axes as discrete sets of tones with the octave relationship. So spirals are everywhere outside, in our cochlea, and in our brain.
Sign me up for a subscription
So Monckton is ’emotional’ (I fail to see much difference with many of his other writings featured here) and with the penultimate paragraph you link the slayers. Anthony, your good wishes are belied by your other words here. Nice to see you adopt wholesale the modus operandi of the alarmist fog horns. Interesting times indeed /sarc
“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.”
4. I’m failing and I know it ;(
Very trippy cover man. What were you doing in the 1960s??
Good luck.
Well done Lord Monckton.
I believe it should be free to access to give maximum publicity.
Many top journals insist on Latex typescript, so the job is 90% done.
Most journals have a template guide to ensure the paper will fit the final format.
Authors submit their paper in Latex form plus a pdf copy plus supplementary information.
The editor views the pdf and makes a go/nogo decision.
If go (so far):
A suitable reviewer is selected from a panel.
Authors submission sent to reviewer.
Review compiles a brief review, returns all to the editor.
Editor makes final decision (may go round the loop once or twice if paper can be improved)
Editor sends final papers in Latex to layout editor
Layout editor combines all papers into one volume, adds index and uploads to website.
Uploads supplementary information to website.
Job done, go to pub….
Thank you Christopher Monckton. I’ve been waiting for Ivanka Charvatova’s new paper to come out. It now looks like that just might happen.
‘Is it a requirement of any-other form of publishing in scientific journals or is the bar standard being unreasonably too high in this case for some reason?”
no. we are asking for the same thing we demanded of others
here is an example
http://climateaudit.org/2006/04/21/another-inch-at-sciencemag/
http://climateaudit.org/2008/6/11/10/santer-refuses-data-request/
Monckton is on record agreeing that data and code should be released. we will see if he stands by his previous position
Janice says: @ur momisugly January 23, 2014 at 11:47 am
If you actually have a herd of cats, Gail,…
>>>>>>>>>>>>
I have two at this time and two is a herd, just ask my equines. And yes the tuna can with kibble works fine but then they know where the food dishes are :>)
One of my hubby’s favorite tricks is to give a bucket of feed to an obnoxious teenager and send them out to feed the sheep and goats… June (a sable) standing on her hind feet is close to six feet and she is really good at getting her head in the bucket and dragging it away from you.
That’s Al Gore’s backward spinning hurricane.
Steven Mosher says:
January 23, 2014 at 1:07 pm
‘data and code should be released
There are practical problems with this. For example the data we collect from the SDO-satellite amounts to 1,000,000 megabytes per day….
Joseph Murphy says: @ur momisugly January 23, 2014 at 12:09 pm
…It blows my mind how quick people defend work they agree with out of hand and conversely put in enormous effort to disprove what does not sit well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is how science works and that is why ALL data and methods must be available and may the best man be left standing after the fray.
A Herculean waste of effort. I can only wonder why?