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.
“…the data we collect from the SDO-satellite amounts to 1,000,000 megabytes per day….
Good grief, that’s even more than next years iPhone.
1000 Gig per day is a lot to store, let alone handle. How much of this translates into the data you actually use for scientific analysis, though?
I do wish Lord Monckton, whom I am proud to say is a friend of mine, and who is the very model of the essential eccentric Englishman, the best of luck with the journal.
Were I in his shoes, I’d see if I could assemble a serious reviewing team. I’d do my best to include people like Steven McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Steven Mosher, Anthony Watts, Zeke Hausfather, Judith Curry, and other skeptics and lukewarmers with a nose for bad numbers and a proven ability to critically dissect and find the flaws in climate claims, along with whoever he can find from the AGW supporters who is honest and brave and has those same skill sets. Don’t want any yes men, no “I believe it so there’s no need for mathematics” folk, nobody like that.
I’d assign referees, and do my best to double blind the papers although that’s not truly possible. Then when the paper was published, I’d publish the referee’s comments, and their names, as supplementary online information for the paper. We are wasting people’s time as reviewers. They do a decisive, incisive review, good thoughts and ideas … and it never sees the light of day. We’re calling on their intellect and knowledge, asking them to work, and then foolishly throwing their work product in the trash. This is particularly true if they still have reservations or if the paper is published over their objections. Those objections should be made known at the time of publication. We solicited their opinion for a reason. I think this would make it easier rather than harder to get reviewers, because of the opportunity to have their ideas published as well as those of the authors of the paper.
Then I’d make the public archiving of data as used and code as run de rigeur. No handwaving at a giant pile of data and saying “I got my data from that pile.” No claims that its all so simple that the verbal description suffices. If the written description alone sufficed, then the authors wouldn’t have needed to use a spreadsheet or a computer program, would they?
Finally, I’d shoot anyone who cites the IPCC report, or any other extensive text or large document, without giving specific information as to chapter, page, and verse. To me, that is the sure sign of a charlatan, just saying “Oh, the IPCC said it, check their report” … yeah, all 5,000 pages of it. The citation I love is seeing some outlandish claim with a footnote number [5], and when I go to footnote [5] I find something like “IPCC AR5, Susan Solomon, Ed., Porkoisie Press, 2007”. Thanks a heap.
Sorry, but that kind of handwaving is not science in any shape or form. As a result, I was as dismayed as Copernicus was about the statement that the authors and editors “doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project”. I don’t know why the Copernicus folks were dismayed, but I didn’t like it for scientific reasons—it is scientifically meaningless because it doesn’t say what the heck they are talking about at either end of the statement. Which exact IPCC claim are they referring to, and exactly which part of which paper of their special issue falsifies that exact claim?
The problem with their statement, that their 19 papers puts the IPCC in doubt, is not that they questioned the consensus. The problem is that their statement is nothing but vague unfalsifiable pseudo-scientific twaddle that has no place in a scientific paper. All it says is “Our pile of paper beats your pile of paper, so there!”
In any case, if Christopher does those few simple things, he’ll have a very, very interesting publication, and one that will be bulletproof to the kinds of problems that led to the earlier cancellation. As I said before, he’s a great guy, a wicked-smart thinker, and an inspired Bedlam escapee of my favorite kind. I wish him every success in the world with his new venture.
w.
PJF says:
January 23, 2014 at 1:31 pm
1000 Gig per day is a lot to store, let alone handle. How much of this translates into the data you actually use for scientific analysis, though?
for some analysis, all of it [that is the whole purpose of collecting that much data].
Out of curiosity … what scientific training/credentials does Moncton have???
Gail Combs says:
January 23, 2014 at 1:17 pm
—-l
The only effective way I know of to herd cats is with catnip. But that might be viewed as cheating 🙂
@negrum – Catnip? Then you have a bunch of drunk cats that cannot walk straight! 😉
=======================================================================
There’s a millipede, a rose, a hurricane, a staircase. Maybe pollen? A sea urchin? A swirl of orange sherbert? Bottom right, somebody’s bad trip?
Steven Mosher says:
January 23, 2014 at 1:07 pm
no. we are asking for the same thing we demanded of others
Monckton is on record agreeing that data and code should be released. we will see if he stands by his previous position
It doesn’t sound unreasonable to me for scientists and reviewers to have access to data, bar some impracticalities mentioned of sharing the data. More transparency with data done properly would be a step in the right direction for all I would think!
lsvalgaard wrote:
January 23, 2014 at 1:36 pm
“for some analysis, all of it [that is the whole purpose of collecting that much data].”
Interesting. I assumed (always a mistake) that the satellite was collecting a whole range of information for various individual studies.
Steven Mosher’s suggestion was that “all papers supply their data AS USED in the paper”. Your practicality point is well made if a paper relates to a study that made use of a supercomputer that crunched through thousands of millions of megabytes of data.
PJF says:
January 23, 2014 at 2:23 pm
Interesting. I assumed (always a mistake) that the satellite was collecting a whole range of information for various individual studies.
And throw away the rest? No, the main purpose of SDO is to study the Sun’s interior by looking at how sound waves propagate across and through the sun. For this we need [and use] the whole sun [many megabytes every few seconds]. For some high-energy physics experiments [LHC of Higgs fame] collect many orders of magnitudes more. It is not practical to publish ALL the data and ALL the code for most experiments. At best, a researcher can publish a digest [so-called ‘high-level’ data] of the raw data, and then one has to trust that digest [and scientist].
Mosher’s insulting cynicism is ridiculous. Once I would have expected more from him. No longer.
‘lsvalgaard says:
January 23, 2014 at 1:18 pm
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….
#####################
what you have set out for SDO is a good example. No problems here
The SDO science investigators agree to abide the Rules of the Road developed for the Sun-Earth Connection and its successor, the Heliophysics Division. These are:
The Principal Investigators (PI) shall make available to the science data user community (Users) the same access methods to reach the data and tools as the PI uses.
The PI shall notify Users of updates to processing software and calibrations via metadata and other appropriate documentation.
Users shall consult with the PI to ensure that the Users are accessing the most recent available versions of the data and analysis routines.
Browse products are not intended for science analysis or publication and should not be used for those purposes without consent of the PI.
Users shall acknowledge the sources of data used in all publications and reports.
Users shall include in publications the information necessary to allow others to access the particular data used.
Users shall transmit to the PI a copy of each manuscript that uses the PI’s data upon submission of that manuscript for consideration of publication.
Users are encouraged to make tools of general utility widely available to the community.
Users are also encouraged to make available value-added data products. Users producing such products must notify the PI and must clearly label the product as being different from the original PI-produced data product. Producers of value-added products should contact the PI to ensure that such products are based on the most recent versions of the data and analysis routines. With mutual agreement, Users may work with the PI to enhance the instrument data processing system, by integrating their products and tools.
The editors and referees of scientific journals should avail themselves of the expertise of the PI while a data set is still unfamiliar to the community, and when it is uncertain whether authors have employed the most up-to-date data and calibrations.
A good start would be if submitters to Monckton’s new journal adopted a similar approach to Willis Eschenbach’s WUWT science posts – all data, code etc available.
Steven Mosher says: “I bet you’ll try to weasel out of these requirements and be worse than Mann or Jones ever were.”
I’ll bet he doesn’t LOL.
Janice Moore says:
January 23, 2014 at 11:50 am
Called out to Vigilant Fish as he hurries off…
——-
Hi Janice. I’ve been enjoying your contributions here. Thanks for not booing my rather uncharacteristic post, which is not really worth of this thread! BTW I, like you, am a woman!
One of the virtues of WUWT is how most participants share a deep and serious concern about the conduct of science, and are worried about how science has been derailed by the earnest and often self-promoting efforts of do-gooders, ideologues, and activists. The peer review system is indeed broken, and I applaud Steve McIntyre’s efforts, along with many of those here, to push mainstream science journals to insist on providing raw data, algorithms used, code, etc.
I like Willis’s idea for a who should be potential peer reviewers. It would be a lot of work, however. I hope Willis is willing to include himself!
Some excellent peer review goes on here, too. It is a tremendous thrill to see unsupported claims shredded by commenters at WUWT.
Well, to have any luck with it at all, good or bad, ‘is Lordship would first have to get said journal.
It would seem unlikely that him what has it is just going give it over to him what says he’ll take it, given that said Journal Keeper has recently been publically referred to by said Peer as, among other things, “…a formless lump of lard.”
Unless, of course, said Journal Keeper is want to exact revenge for the aforementioned unflattering commentary, and is also willing to temporarily part with custody of one slightly soiled rope, on the fairly strong prospect that doing so will get him satisfaction in short order. In that case, Lord Monckton may yet get that for which he has asked.
Steven Mosher says:
January 23, 2014 at 3:32 pm
what you have set out for SDO is a good example. No problems here
The difference is that the access to the data is not provided by the author, but [usually] by a link to the ‘pile’ of data….
No, heirloom crops and local-only policies would spell disaster for the majority of the people in this country and the world. Those crops were often wiped out completely either by storm weather or by rust, blight, mildew, etc. and left farmers with nothing. They would all have to shift to some other cash crop – for example flax instead of wheat – because the outbreak was so devastating to a region.
Today, it is world wide shipping, tractors, new cultivars, fertilizers, and pest control that allows quick response and stable prices when any particular region suffers. Heirloom and local only is a fantasy based on re-written history and extreme ideologies in fashion amongst progressive scientists right now.
Excuse me, I thought I was on another thread
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/19/bbc-runs-6-excellent-minutes-on-quiet-sun-and-past-correlation-with-little-ice-age/
TLMango says:
January 23, 2014 at 12:51 pm
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.
Here you go
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/prp-2-21-2014.pdf
So nice to see Willis and Mosh dictating policy to PRP.
Naff off the pair of you. we’ll do it our own way thanks.
REPLY: so right off the bat, solid suggestions for making your new journal more immune to criticism (for preventing pal review, etc) are summarily rejected. How disappointing, but not surprising.
Well then ignore those suggestions, and you’ll end up with a journal of low standards. Personally I’d like to see it done in a way that it succeeds getting listed on the WOK journal list, but without proper controls it most certainty will have an uphill battle. – Anthony
“Besides, she said, she did not like my politics (of which there was nothing whatsoever in the paper).”
How depressing.
I don’t like your politics, either, but I recognize that your politics are irrelevant to your tightly constructed arguments about Global Warming. And I appreciate your elegant prose too.
I would have hoped a professional editor could do the same. Very disheartening to see this is not so.
JR says:
January 23, 2014 at 1:39 pm
Do you mean the city of Moncton, New Brunswick?
dikranmarsupial says:
January 23, 2014 at 10:14 am
“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).
———————————————————-
Then why do they charge so much to access a single article?
Hi, Ms. Vigilant Fish,
Thanks for swimming back to let me know (ooops — I proved that aphorism about making assumptions, once again… sigh). Thank you for your kind words.
Happy posting!
Janice
(wasn’t that weird that “Janice” posted right after me?! — I have had “Craig Moore” (I have no idea who he is) do that, too — fun coincidences……… wait — a — minute — there’s a correlation in there somewhere, thus,………….. {cue Bob Weber (the solar-flares-make-people-act-weird guy)} –> causation!
#(:))
******************************************************
Re: “emotional” — yeah, I didn’t get that either. Huh? How so?
(is this connected to the sneeringly dismissive “Salby’s Slide Show” characterization of another Monckton post from late 2013? — What’s up? — is M-osh-er doing a little ghost writing?)
btw: when one reads Mr. M-osh-er’s comments on any thread that discusses his group’s BEST temperature reconstruction project, it is CLEAR that he is sold out to AGW, and not merely “lukewarm.” I would NEVER include him on any editorial board whose goal is to GET THE TRUTH OUT about human CO2. Of course, he may simply be posing on WUWT (and others would know that far better than I), but, if he is in reality as he appears to be in his comments on WUWT, he is not for science: he is for propaganda.
“Besides, she said, she did not like my politics (of which there was nothing whatsoever in the paper”
I know exactly what this is about having trodden that path myself years ago; however I managed to get published thanks to Bob Foster who was guest editor.
Re: editorial board
We are in a WAR for truth, here, folks. We are not out to forge a negotiated armistice. We are out to win. Including enemy or even non-committal generals in the staff room will NOT help win. It will only impede truth.
And we do not need the stamp of approval of the AGWers (lukewarm or boiling mad) to be seen as credible. Genuine science, stands alone.
Those who disagree with what is published, given that all data, code, etc… is also published to the extent practical, will have AMPLE opportunity to be the potential countering voice in their own publications. Let the “marketplace of ideas” sort it out. We do not need an opposing viewpoint filter. That will waste time and will hinder truth, not simply filter out shoddy work.
We are advocating for truth, not writing up the minutes of a meeting where all the views presented must be represented fairly.
Willis Eschenbach wrote:
January 23, 2014 at 1:33 pm
“I’d do my best to include people like Steven McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Steven Mosher, Anthony Watts, Zeke Hausfather, Judith Curry, and other skeptics and lukewarmers with a nose for bad numbers and a proven ability to critically dissect and find the flaws in climate claims, along with whoever he can find from the AGW supporters who is honest and brave and has those same skill sets.”
Lord Monckton claims to be taking over “Pattern Recognition in Physics Journal”, so he’ll need a wider range of reviewers than that if the journal is to be something that doesn’t require urgent renaming.
That he describes Roger Tallbloke as an eminent scientist doesn’t bode well for the journal under any guise, or reflect well on Lord Monckton’s judgement.
I had hoped that this self-destruct by the wiggle fabulists would mean they would crawl away in shame, and we could be free of their indulgent nonsense to concentrate on the dodgy climate science of modelling assumed secondary forcing (and related frauds).
But sadly, too many have been distracted by the “censorship” hand-wave to see the danger of being associated with deluded clowns. Just at the point where the natural and human world seemed to be about to shake off the climate scare, we’re all suddenly focussing on a sideshow of freaks.
I’m reminded of the film “The Hill”, where an establishment conspiracy is wound up to the point of turning on itself and coming apart, and victory is essentially achieved only to thrown away by angry fools wading in and having a go themselves.
My suggestion to the WUWT team is to ignore the idiots. Don’t refer to them or their “science”. And if Lord Monckton wants to associate himself with them, distance yourself from him and his “science journal” too.
Mann, Jones, Connely, et al, must be having a good laugh at the fleas wagging the tail wagging the dog.