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.
Apparently you’re not aware of the vastly silly things most people on this planet have believed in, without evidence, for thousands of years. The dead vine seems to be thriving, unfortunately.
Looking at the front cover of Monkton’s new PRP there is something paradoxical. The images are on a theme of fractals and nonlinear pattern formation. However it is the home of a community of scientists researching the role of planetary cyclical gravitational forcing in earth’s climate. Many (though not all) of these scientists vehemently reject the existence of intrinsic climatic cycles from chaotic nonlinear oscillation. How do such folks feel looking at the front cover?
FWIW I am on record as acceping both possibilities. I think that climate fluctuations are primarily nonlinear dynamics but that it is quite possible that these nonlinear oscillations are periodically forced by astrophysical cyclical inputs.
markstoval:
re your post at January 24, 2014 at 6:41 pm.
No problem. I will look at it tomorrow. I am now going to bed because I don’t have much desire to see anything which may be similar to your other contributions on this thread and certainly not enough to wait up for it.
Richard
Oh please, we dealt with multiple days of outright nonsense and spin. I held back and said so but the zealots wanted to spin and make excuses. For the record I’m still holding back. This could of all been handled much better, like PRP admitting it was a stupid idea to to give alarmists this type of ammunition.
Since when did Roger becoming a scientist? And why is Willis supposed to act like a hypocrite because you believe he should?
“And why is Willis supposed to act like a hypocrite because you believe he should?”
I had no problem with his saying that he did not like some of the papers in that journal. That is acceptable. But it all went way past that; to the point jumping on Lord Monckton over how he should run a journal. As I said elsewhere — will the trashing of those scientists involved be a daily thing now or will it be only a weekly feature at WUWT?
I do hope those of you who got to call ALL those working scientists names and say they did not know how to do science feel all superior about yourselves — some good should come of your pettiness.
Poptech
Calm down! You’re being hysterical!
Maybe because I am in the peer-review journal debate 24/7 I see it more than others but the papers published in what alarmists consider legitimate journals has much more of an effect than anyone realizes – especially with public perception. Lesser known open access journals at worst get snide remarks but are not easily dismissed. Everything alarmists do is to intimidate skeptics from trying to get published so they can claim a false scientific high ground. Their delusional belief is that the only way a skeptic can get published is from some form of corruption and the way PRP handled the review process just plays into their hands. I will say it again, There are enough legitimate open access journals out there that do not lend to criticisms of pal-review, people just need to learn how to search. Skeptics need to look outside of Western views on climate change, it is a big planet. I think a debate that only the West understands science is one that would not be good for alarmists or their mission to tell the world what they can use for energy.
Poptech,
That’s not science.
markstoval:
You begin your meaningless invective at January 24, 2014 at 6:40 pm saying
Your addition of the word “all” alters my factual statement to become your untrue question.
I point you to the word “not”. I think you will find that another useful word for you to use when misrepresenting the statements of others by adding words.
You follow that with a pile of warm, stinking and smelly invective which contains only two asserted facts of which one is irrelevant (i.e. it refers to Willis’ credentials but they say nothing as to whether he is right) and the other is laughably untrue (i.e. Willis “lacks strength of character” because he mentioned the “shuttered” journal which is part of the subject of this thread).
And you conclude with this outrageous nonsense
Belief has nothing to do with it. Evidence does. The PRP-Team did wrong and have displayed no contrition (they broke rules they agreed to accept and thus brought harm on the sceptic community). You have not cited anything Willis has done wrong and you have tried to smear him.
I am not your friend. I choose whom to befriend and my standards are much higher than you suggest.
There was no “piling on”. People tried to recover from some of the damage done by the PRP-Team. And what did not exist could not have been “ugly”.
You may or may not have been “gobsmacked” and “amazed”. The only indication of that is your words and those words are not evidence of anything in the light of your veracity about “serious and ugly piling on here at WUWT”.
Richard
PS I am pleased that I did not wait up to “see” the ordure which I have now replied.
markstoval, wait so Willis cannot give his opinion on how a journal should be run? When did we get into this bizarre territory? Maybe you can create special filter that we can all run our comments through so you can approve them first. <— Good luck with that!
Why are you confusing criticisms with trashing? If you can't handle the heat here please don't ever try to have a debate about this anywhere outside of skeptic land.
You didn't answer my question, in what remote delusional universe is Roger a scientist? Last I checked Roger was a climate blogger who worked in IT. Did readers of his blog not check this out first and how exactly is this my problem? Ah, I see what the problem is, on his site he embellished his credentials, "I’m a qualified engineer and a graduate of the History and Philosophy of Science."
Roger is not a university graduate level engineer, nor does he work as one. He does have legitimate engineer training but it is not the same thing. Why does it not say he works in IT? I say I work in IT all the time.
What it seems like is a bunch of inconvenient truths have been exposed that certain people don't want to hear because they blindly believed things that may not be the whole truth. Again, not my problem.
No, it’s strategy, what gets published is science.
Poptech,
Stick to the science.
Sparks, I stick to anything I feel is relevant.
Poptech,
I would like to think we’re all capable of discussing relevant issues and solving problems, sometimes we all need to take a step back.
markstoval says:
January 25, 2014 at 1:37 am
“Jumping” on Lord Monckton? A quotation of where I “jumped” on him would go a long ways towards other people being able to understand what you are talking about.
As I said in my comment, I am proud to call Lord Moncton a friend of mine, and I deny entirely that I jumped on him. In any case, I didn’t get the memo that he appointed you to guard him against my terribly dangerous words … and in fact, I can think of no one who needs such a guard less than Christopher Moncton does. He’s very capable of defending himself, as many have discovered to their loss. And one of his best qualities is that he would have no hesitation in telling me if he thought I was out of line.
As a result, I fear your claim about what I said to him was simply untrue. I and Mosh both gave him our best advice on the options, challenges and pitfalls of running the journal, advice which he is totally free to disregard …
So what exactly is your issue here, markstoval? Clearly you think I did something horrible … but what? I tried to make sure my friend Christopher understood some of the issues he would be facing … is that a terrible thing?
w.
Poptech says:
January 25, 2014 at 2:08 am
Poptech, while I agree with much of what you say, I don’t understand your concern with credentials, whether Roger’s or anyone else’s. I myself have no credentials at all. My formal science education consists of two introductory level college courses, Physics and Chemistry 101. But that means nothing about a) whether I am a scientist, or b) whether I’m qualified to put forth scientific claims.
The oddity of science is, it doesn’t matter whether E=MC^2 was written on the wall by the janitor or by Einstein. The only important issue is, can it be falsified? Can anyone find anything wrong with the claim? Because that’s all that science it. You put your claim out on the table in the middle of the marketplace, hand around the hammers, and see if anyone can smash your lovely idea to bits. If they can break it, well, science moved forwards, we now know something else that isn’t true. And if they can’t break it, then it is accepted as provisional scientific truth.
But nothing in that process depends on whether Roger has engineering degree A, or engineering degree B. His credentials, mine, yours, none of that matters. I’m not asking anyone to take anything on the strength of my credentials, that’s not how science works. It is an adversarial system that doesn’t depend on paper credentials of any kind. All that matters is, can the hammers smash your idea?
So if you want to pound on something with your hammer, pound on Roger’s science, but don’t pound on Roger. That goes nowhere.
All the best,
w/
Sparks and Poptech:
I write to take the liberty (and the risk) of trying to resolve the dispute between you.
Academic qualifications are an irrelevance to the quality of scientific work; e.g. the Wright brothers had none and Feynman lacked a doctorate. Importantly, it is a matter of record that I have very, very strongly opposed what I see as character assassination by Poptech’s proclamations of individuals’ lack of academic qualifications when considering scientific work.
Some of the PRP-Team (e.g. Morner) had sufficient experience of academic work and peer reviewed publication to understand the incompetence that was being displayed, but they were not the Editor. It is the job of the Editor to manage and to co-ordinate the peer review, its conduct, and its adherence to deadlines. Therefore, any assessment of how this mess happened must consider the pertinent experience and knowledge of the Editor. Tallbloke was the Editor.
There are several questions which need to be addressed in any assessment of why the incompetence was displayed. These questions need to include
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.
Did the Editor acknowledge his limitations and appoint an Editorial Board to provide advice and guidance? Perhaps.
If the Editor did appoint an Editorial Board then who were they? That is not clear.
Was the Editor cautioned and advised by other Members of the PRP-Team whose background and experience may have informed them of the ‘minefield’ the Editor was trying to navigate? If not then why not, and if so then why was the advice ignored? These matters are also not clear.
Each of these questions is pertinent. Hence, Poptech’s consideration of academic qualifications is pertinent in these considerations. But other questions are much, much more important.
Richard
Sparks and Poptech:
Willis has made a comment to Poptech.
I have made a comment addressed to both of you but it is stuck in moderation.
I write to respectfully request that each of you waits until you have read my post before replying to Willis and the subject of his post.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
January 25, 2014 at 3:47 am
I write to take the liberty (and the risk) of trying to resolve the dispute between you.
Do I have a dispute with Poptech, No!
Sparks:
I write to apologise for my mistakenly thinking you had a dispute with Poptech.
I was misled by my reading of your posts at January 25, 2014 at 2:23 am and January 25, 2014 at 3:10 am which said, respectively
and
Clearly, I have misread them. Sorry.
Richard
richardscourtney
Seriously… was it me or that arse**** Poptech? /jk lol
Willis: “So what exactly is your issue here, markstoval? Clearly you think I did something horrible …”
I sure do, and I am very disappointed as I have been a big fan of yours for some long time now.
The heart of the issue is that you pounded all the people involved in the physics journal and kept on doing so. If you had simply stated that you thought they should have done some things differently and listed those things and left it at that, I would have enjoyed reading it — especially since our outlook on most issues scientific is very close. It is that you continued to pound all of them without their ever getting a chance to offer defense. Consider the last post you made. You could have not mentioned the physics journal at all and still posted most of what you did but you still took a shot.
Willis, I can find nothing to prove to me that those people deserve the abuse that was handed them by several here at WUWT. And I am so very disappointed as I thought we were all better than that. Live and learn, eh? Turns out some here are no better than “Dr.” M. Mann when they get the chance.
You can have the last word as I think you understand what I have tried to communicate to you even if you don’t believe that you were aggressively and unnecessarily nasty to the people involved with that physics journal. By the way, can I expect you to mention the scores of alarmist journals that are much worse? Or do we only attack those on our own side?
I will now drop this thread as clearly there is nothing to be gained. Someday when those involved get a chance to explain what happened then perhaps some apologies will be forthcoming and perhaps not. Time will tell.
Gerry says:
January 23, 2014 at 10:54 am
Godwin’s Second Law – when World Nut Daily is linked, it’s time to say goodnight, Gracie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sometimes the fringe publications are the only place willing to print information the elite do not want printed. – He who OWNS the Press controls the news – and JP Morgan owns a healthy number of printing presses.
The National Enquirer famous for headlines like “TEEN POSSESSED BY ELVIS!” broke the story of Rush Limbaugh’s painkiller addiction, Jesse Jackson illegitimate daughter, and John Edwards’ affair with Rielle Hunter.
At least World Net Daily is a bit more respectable than the National Enquirer.
Gail Combs
?
markstoval (and in the unlikely event that anyone else is interested, them to):
I have provided a complete rebuttal of your tripe including the nonsense which is your post in this thread at January 25, 2014 at 7:16 am.
The rebuttal is in another thread and is here
Richard