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.
tallbloke says:
January 23, 2014 at 4:18 pm
Yeah, you were so successful with that plan last time, why not repeat it?
If Christopher doesn’t want my advice, I’m quite certain he will tell me. It is one of his more admirable qualities. In either case he certainly doesn’t need you playing gatekeeper …
w.
Just guessing he’s not doing it for the money? Nor the prestige? Why then would he not go for transparency of the review process and open access to the data? Pretty much what goes on here, no?
I see that Steven Mosher is at his best here. Mosh, as someone who always has undeclared goals and intentions for my writing, and as someone willing to take the heat to play the long game, I can only bow my head in admiration.
Do y’all see what he’s done? The arrogant, sneering tone of his final statement is a superb misdirect. By focusing everyone’s attention on the challenge and the way it was made, he has slipped the scientific requirements in under the radar.
And that is a very good thing, because the scientific requirements, which boil down to simple transparency, are the very lifeblood of science. Mosh is absolutely right that in the 21st century, either the paper is accompanied by the data as used and the code as used, or it’s not worth publishing or discussing.
Among many other reasons, we plain don’t have time to faff around with emails asking for data or code and then the scientist being out of the office and when they get back yadda yadda yadda three weeks go by … I can’t tell you how many hours I’ve wasted digitizing some wanker’s data. Worse, I don’t want to get out a shovel and dig through some huge pile. We need real-time access to the data AS USED.
The code is even more important, because fifty years of writing computer programs has taught me that the first rule of code is that code has bugs, and the second rule of code is that when you kill a bug it creates two more. For starters, we need the code to determine if the authors have made some simple (or complex) mistake. Then we need it to follow what actually happened to the data. Not what they said happened, but what the actual steps were. The idea that a written description of the code should suffice is laughable— that’s why we have code, because English is far, far too vague for the purpose. We need real-time access to the code AS USED.
I capitalize those because anything else is not sufficient. I don’t want their whole giant data pile, I want just what they used. I don’t want the preliminary code, nor what it might have morphed into since the writing of the paper. We need the code and data as used in the paper.
And I have to tell you folks, that it is astonishing to me how much resistance that there is among skeptics to these two simple requests. We are insisting on nothing more than simple scientific transparency, but you’d think we were stealing watches.
In any case, Mosher has most definitely thrown down the gauntlet, and good on him. I will wait with great anticipation to see if the new journal will follow this totally simple and totally necessary step of requiring the authors to archive the data and code as used as a firm condition of publication.
Hey, Mosh does it for his work. Steve McIntyre does it for his work. I do it for my work. Anthony does it for his work.
Truly, I don’t understand the opposition to this idea.
And Mosh? Gotta say, hot damn that was a slick and lovely move. The best part was the contrast of the totally calm and collected entire post up to the very last line … sweet as.
Best to all,
w.
Al Gore starts a journal. Skeptics welcome new journal with open arms and the science is all accepted. The debate is over – the end.
I had no idea the strategy was to go from bad to worse.
“The 19 eminent scientist who had co-written the dozen learned papers in the special issue…”
WTF? ROFLMAO!
Roger Tattersall, HNC [Higher National Certificate] Mechanical and Production Engineering, Leeds Metropolitan University (1985); B.A. History and Philosophy of Science, University of Leeds (1988); Customer Services manager, Vital online Ltd. (2000-2004); Fundraising Coordinator, Yorkshire Air Ambulance (2006-2008); Digital Content Manager, School of Education, University of Leeds (2009-2013)
lsvalgaard says (Jan 23 8:17 am) “It would be interesting to see if the reborn journal will have the guts to also publish the texts of the reviews of each article. This way others can judge if a proper review was done [and by whom].“. Thanks Leif, I’ve been thinking that an open review system – together with availability of all data etc – could be the way forward out of the mire that peer-review finds itself, but I didn’t know whether it really could work, so I’m very pleased to see someone of your calibre saying this. Let’s hope that Christopher Monckton picks it up.
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
Anthony, I was was discussing peer review procedure at university when Mosher was wow-ing over the early 3D computer games and Willis was becalmed on a beach by something psychedelic he saw on a sea shell.
I was discussing peer review procedure and journal editor tenure with Judy Curry’s husband Peter Webster last year at the Royal Society’s three day conference on Uncertainty in Climate and Weather Prediction.
Mosher is not the first person ever to come up with the idea of requiring the archiving of data and code. WiIlis can’t even read the paragraph following the figure in Prof. Jan-Erik Solheim’s excellent PRP paper on solar-planetary relations before attacking him for something he didn’t do.
You talked about starting your own online WUWT journal a couple of years ago. Set it up in competition with PRP with Mosh and Willis on the editorial board and may the best journal shine through. healthy competition is far better than condemnation and oblique sneers and smears.
REPLY: “healthy competition is far better than condemnation and oblique sneers and smears.” No doubt, but you should read again what you’ve just written about Willis and Mosher. Did it make you feel better? Did it make you feel superior to them? You’ve been quite emotional, prone to applying labels to people, and condescending (as has Nicolas Scaffetta who went off on a “lynch mob” description right after MLK day without realizing how bad that looks). I suggest that your new journal won’t succeed with those emotions involved. Some self reflection on your own failings in these areas is needed.
People that blame everyone else for the failure of their own situations; a trait of narcissism, something that we’ve seen from people like Michael Mann. Surely you can do better than him.
Question: Since you’ve banned Willis from commenting at your blog, will you also ban him from commenting and/or peer review opportunities at this new journal? – Anthony
Anthony says:
I suggest that your new journal won’t succeed with those emotions involved. Some self reflection on your own failings in these areas is needed.
I think you’ll find I was being factual. Mosh told me about his 3D computing work at Lisbon, and Willis has posted here at WUWT about his adventures on planet Psychedelia. And don’t forget you were the one who used ‘psychedelic’ first in this thread.
People that blame everyone else for the failure of their own situations; a trait of narcissism, something that we’ve seen from people like Michael Mann. Surely you can do better than him.
My situation has succeeded, not failed. You wished me luck in the future 24 hours ago and I said I prefer to make make my own luck, but thanked you and wished you the same. Well, I make my own luck, and my future already arrived, looking pretty bright.
As for comparing me to Michael Mann, I’ll say this. We didn’t get the chance to upload all supplementary material etc before Martin Rasmussen blocked our access to the back end of PRP. But I will be hosting it on my website once it’s all collated. At that time you’ll be able to check the data and code I used in the production of my two peer reviewed papers. If you don’t find anything amiss, a retraction of that comparison would be welcome.
REPLY: I’ll let Willis look at those things, as I don’t have much time for errant cyclo-pursuits, my concern is mostly over your and Nicola’s boorish behavior and labeling. If you look at your own history, like Mann, you two don’t take criticism well, or as some say, not at all. – Anthony
Anthony, I didn’t answer your question:
Question: Since you’ve banned Willis from commenting at your blog, will you also ban him from commenting and/or peer review opportunities at this new journal? – Anthony.
I’ll need to find out for you from the relevant PRP editor. I think that would be Professor Jan-Erik Solheim.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
January 23, 2014 at 7:10 am
See how many of the patterns on the mock-up front cover you can identify.
All are examples of nonlinear pattern formation. Some of them show the infinitely fractal geometry of the Mandelbrot set.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set
Except the top left, which is the Monckton coat of arms.
Top right, the pinkish spiral, look like possibly a Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction with spiral pattern.
Second row middle is a galaxy, possibly the pinwheel galaxy, from the Hubble telescope?
http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/images/screen/heic0602a.jpg
The green one is the Romamesco broccoli, otherwise known as fractal cauliflower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanesco_broccoli
The pink one next to the fractal cauliflower is a rose (pink), bottom row left looks like a yellow rose.
Bottom row center is a spiral staircase, it looks like the photo-art by Maico Presente:
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/spiral-staircase-maico-presente.html
Every cloud has a silver lining I guess. This PRP brough-haha has achieved one rather charming result – breathed new life into the bromance between Willis and Mosher.
@Willis Eschenbach at 9:04 pm
Mosh is absolutely right that in the 21st century, either the paper is accompanied by the data as used and the code as used, or it’s not worth publishing or discussing.
If the author of the paper is taking public taxpayer money, if the data is in the public domain, sure. The methods and publicly funded code should be made available with links to the public databases. But not all papers are written from government grants and Mosher’s demand that all data be released is unrealistic, undeserved and unwarranted in the majority of scientific fields financed by private capital.
I’ve been a member of AAPG (American Association of Petroleum Geologists) since 1985. Society of Exploration Geophysicists before that. In their journals seldom, perhaps never, is the underlying data and code, field tapes, field books, well logs, cores ever available to the general reader. The data is too valuable and the competition high.
3D seismic surveys cost from $8,000 to $60,000 per square km to acquire, process, and interpret. Offshore deep water wells cost over $100 million. You might get to see a well log or seismic section a couple of years later. A typical assembly line fracking well on shore is $8 million per well. You might see the 6-month production history. No one gives that information away. Even on federal lands , the information usually becomes public after the lease is relinquished.
The world is a business. People will publish theories, case histories, lessons learned and show some of their work products. It is not even guaranteed to be transparent…. a lot of stuff must be held confidential. What you get is the reasoning and some data that you can compare with your own data and experience. Then you can evaluate your own prospects and plays using information you didn’t have before.
I’m looking at AAPG Memoir 75: Western Gulf of Mexico Basin. Chap. 20: “Geologic Study of the Miocene Rodadar Field and its Exploitation Possibilities, Tabasco State, Southeastern Mexico.” Author: Francisco Javier Martinez Castillo, PEMEX E&P, Veracruz, Mexico. 9 pages containing one index map, 3 field maps, 5 stratigraphic cross sections at reservoir level and scale, 1 seismic section, 2 schematic sedimentary models. Should this paper not be published because ALL the data they used isn’t provided? Yes it should be published and we should thank the author and company for contributing their time and treasure to helping the rest of us understand a piece of the world we could not experience for ourselves.
I cannot tell you the hundreds of AAPG papers I’ve seen at conferences that will never be published. You get to see the seismic, maps and logs in Powerpoint. Be thankful for that much. I remember one paper called the “Will K “ post well review. It was a very deep, high temperature, high pressure gas prospect in the High Island area in the Gulf of Mexico shelf. The chief message from the paper was that the play was dead to the participating companies. “We no longer believe that the Paleogene is prospective at 350 deg F. We’ve changed our limit to 325 deg F.” They drilled the well with a rig they paid to upgrade to the only one capable of 40″ surface casing. They were at 3.5″ diameter at the target. A 425 day mechanical success, but geologic failure. They were down to microdarcy permiability. “It was an expensive well, be we can’t tell you what it cost.” “Five year lease terms were barely enough to do the job.” They were there to tell their compatriots now to not waste money, what could be done, what shouldn’t.
Demand the data and code when the research paid by the public. Be thankful for what you can get when the research is privately funded.
Steve from Rockwood says:
January 23, 2014 at 4:36 pm
“Then why do they charge so much to access a single article?”
JMLR don’t charge *anything*, either to the authors or the readers, that is the point. It is hard to understand why there are not more journals that follow that model (particularly in computer science where the vast majority of authors are capable of typesetting the papers for themselves).
tallbloke says:
January 23, 2014 at 4:18 pm
“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.”
If PRIP is to restart, and tallbloke is to have any editorial involvement, then I would venture to suggest that being publicly rude and dismissive to two potential authors of comment papers submitted to the new PRIP criticising papers published in the special issue does not project quite the right image for an editor.
I am not sure why the first line of the article started out with “In an emotional commentary written for …” nor am I sure why there was so much blatant hostility towards the announced project on this thread. I am not sure why one group of people who are skeptical of the “CO2 will fry us all” orthodoxy of the day are so hostile to another group who are also skeptical of the orthodoxy of the day. Heck, I am not sure why there was so much hostility and childish backbiting on this thread but is sure was an eye opener for me.
By the way, I have been reading here a long, long time and have seen a portion of the snipping over a few subjects but have not paid a lot of attention. Apparently there is one group who think that the earth’s climate is highly cyclical and look for patterns and reasons in these cycles while the other group thinks that the earth’s climate may not be explained via cyclical patterns. Then there is another group of skeptics that is not welcome here at all and they seem to think that CO2 does not act as a “greenhouse gas” at all. I think they were given the name “slayers” but I don’t know who got “slayed”.
It would be nice if someone who knew all the groups would do a list of the various players and groups here for those of us that don’t have time to keep up properly. A “program” like one gets at a play or at a sporting event. Better still, like a “tip sheet” at a dog race track so we outsiders can tell the parties apart.
TIA to whomever does this.
Mods
Please look for another one of my posts in moderation. This one I would like to be seen as it carries a plea for explanations of the various players here at WUWT
Steven Mosher says: at January 23, 2014 at 1:07 pm
Very good point.
Although the practical problems could be overcome by requiring that the data and code (as used in the paper) be available rather than delivered. If the author doesn’t archive their data they are leaving their reputation in the hands of someone else.
But Lord Monckton should abide by the standards he demands of others. So should we all, of course.
WND is an odd duck editorially. It is an anti-drug prohibition and also anti-gay (or the gay agenda if you prefer) conservative site. They are big on “Obama is not” a citizen. Joe Farrah (the editor) and I used to correspond before 9/11. Then he got busy.
Jack Cashill (a writer for the site) and I still trade correspondence.
The coat of arms looks very like that of the UK Parliament. The office block built for MP’s is called Portcullis House.
markstoval says:
January 24, 2014 at 1:55 am
” … It would be nice if someone who knew all the groups would do a list of the various players and groups here for those of us that don’t have time to keep up properly. … ”
—-l
I feel it is better if everyone does their own reading and analysis, in order to judge from first hand data and avoid [relying on] subjective opinions. Ater all, this is not supposed to be a scheduled soap opera 🙂
As a starting point I recommend the list supplied in the sidebar of many of the positions held. You might find that it is well worth the time spent.
JR says:
January 23, 2014 at 1:39 pm
Out of curiosity … what scientific training/credentials does Moncton have???
I don’t know, but I am certain it is more than, for example, Michael Faraday, William Herschel, Srinivasa Ramanujan, Mary Anning, Gregor Mendel and Albert Einstein among many others, all of whom were scientifically uneducated yet fathered (or mothered, I suppose) much of modern science.
It is intelligence not learning that is important. As a friend used to say, ‘I know a lot of folk with a lot of learning, but little wit’.
That shoud read : ” … and avoid relying on subjective opinions. …”
[Fixed. -w.]
Stephen Rasey:
I write to provide the apparent paradox of supporting your post at January 24, 2014 at 12:37 am while also supporting the statement of Willis Eschenbach (at January 23, 2014 at 9:04 pm) which you wrote to oppose; i.e.
I agree that Willis was absolutely right when he wrote that. The apparent paradox is that I also agree you are absolutely right when you say
And I add that it is not only “privately funded” research which rightly constrains information release.
But the paradox is only apparent: it is not real because you and Willis are discussing different things.
Only a small proportion of scientific research is published in the public domain. Most scientific research is not published to the public because it has commercial, industrial, military and/or national confidentiality.
Most research now directly or indirectly commissioned by UK government is not publicly available (e.g. by Freedom Of Information Act request) because it is exempted from public scrutiny by being of military, strategic and/or security value to the nation. For example, does anybody think a computer algorithm known only to government workers and of potential use to GCHQ will be published in the public domain so its code could be scrutinised? It would be a criminal offence if I possessed copies of scientific reports I wrote of work I conducted when employed by the UK’s Coal Research Establishment (CRE). The information in those reports is the property of UK government who owned CRE and I have no right to copies of it. Indeed, any knowledge of it in my head is owned by UK government, not me. Very little of it is in the public domain.
And work which is published in the public domain often omits critical information. This is a scientific malpractice, but most scientists have done it. Indeed, I am guilty of it.
This paragraph explains my guilt of the malpractice and is only provided as illustration so can be jumped over.
As part of a method for determination of wear rates exhibited by PFBC boiler tubes being researched at CRE, I devised a novel mensuration method. The method was a development from the standard technique of using an optical microscope stepping stage to determine the coordinates of points on a planar surface. My method enabled the coordinates to be determined for any point over an area 10cm x 10cm to an accuracy and precision of ±0.5µm. This is astonishing precision which would be lost without, for example, very stable temperature control of the specimen, equipment and ambient conditions. It also requires difficult calibration because the measurement is more accurate than the manufacturing tolerances of the stepping stage. Automated calibration of each grid coordinate would take years to complete so would be impractical. I published the method in Microscopy but that paper omitted mention of the statistical algorithm which enabled the calibration to be conducted in under 2 hours. The idea represented by that algorithm is the real development I had achieved. However, the paper included no hint of that idea so the paper did not enable others to use the method unless the users commissioned CRE to conduct their calibrations. CRE would not have permitted publication of the paper if the paper had included that idea.
Hence, Stephen, I completely agree with you when you say it is unrealistic to expect most publication of research to include all data and code. That will never happen in the real world.
But that is NOT what is being suggested in the present discussion.
Studies of climate and climate change utilising publicly available data are not usually constrained by commercial, industrial, military and/or national confidentiality.
There are exceptions. For example, someone may devise a method for long-range weather forecasting and use that method to generate forecasts for sale (e.g. Piers Corbyn does this). The method used by that person has clear commercial confidentiality.
Hence, there is usually no justifiable reason to refuse access to the ideas, information and code used to conduct the work published in a scientific paper on climate studies. And provision of the ideas, information and code for public scrutiny is very desirable when the conclusions of a paper have implications for public policy.
Therefore,Publication needs to be refused if it fails to provide such full exposure or fails to provide cogent explanation of the commercial, industrial, military and/or national confidentiality which prevents the full exposure.
Richard
Steven Mosher says:
January 23, 2014 at 11:41 am
i will bet that
============
how much?
markstoval:
I share your frustration. Another of my posts is ‘in the bin’, too.
Yours has appeared and I know mine will eventually. But it is frustrating because a post one took care and trouble to provide can ‘get lost’ to people when it appears high up in the thread.
Unfortunately, the problem is WordPress so we have to put up with it. I am certain it is not personal so the best any of us can do is to swear to relieve our feelings. And I hope your feelings are somewhat assuaged by knowing you are not alone in having them.
Richard