Scientific journal shut down for questioning man-caused global warming. Updated

Posted by: Phineas on January 18, 2014 at 4:09 pm

**Posted by Phineas

"In the name of Gaea, burn, heretics!"

“In the name of Gaea, burn, heretics!”

This isn’t science; this is the return of Lysenkoism, where all research must conform to the Party line.

Background: The journal Pattern Recognition in Physics was founded ten months ago to research patterns discovered throughout the physical sciences. In a special issue published in 2013, the editors, many of them noted climate change skeptics, opined that the data published in the issue cast doubt on the claims of accelerated anthropogenic global warming put forward by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the “Vatican” of the climate alarmist movement.

And for this heresy, the journal was shut down:

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. However, the initiators asserted that the aim of the journal was to publish articles about patterns recognized in the full spectrum of physical disciplines rather than to focus on climate-research-related topics.

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).

Copernicus Publications published the work and other special issue papers to provide the spectrum of the related papers to the scientists for their individual judgment. Following best practice in scholarly publishing, published articles cannot be removed afterwards.

In addition, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing and not in accordance with our  publication ethics we expect to be followed by the editors.

Therefore, we at Copernicus Publications wish to distance ourselves from the apparent misuse of the originally agreed aims & scope of the journal as well as the malpractice regarding the review process, and decided on 17 January 2014 to cease the publication of PRP. Of course, scientific dispute is controversial and should allow contradictory opinions which can then be discussed within the scientific community. However, the recent developments including the expressed implications (see above) have led us to this drastic decision.

Interested scientists can reach the online library at:

Martin Rasmussen
January 2014

The bolded portion shows the editors’ real crime, whatever else Mr. Rasmussen claims (1): they had the temerity to question the dogma of the IPCC.

I don’t hold a PhD, or any advanced degree in the sciences, but I know enough to know this is not the scientific method, which does not just encourage skepticism and probing questions, but positively demands it. To say now that the IPCC’s hypothesis cannot be tested, that the “science is settled” and that if you dare question the Holy Writ, you will be silenced, is an absolute disgrace. The only question in my mind is whether the publisher, the ironically named “Copernicus Publications” was guilty of “noble cause corruption,” or was simply afraid of the wrath of the Warmists.

Regardless, this inability to accept disagreement as legitimate is a common feature of the progressive mind (2). Having discerned The Truth, all questioning must be stopped. If you doubt the The Truth, you are stupid at best or evil at worst, but you cannot be intellectually honest and have honorable motives. Think about it: do you criticize abortion on demand? Then you must want to enslave women and be some sort of religious fascist. Do you express doubt about the welfare state? You must hate poor people. Do you worry about the integrity of our elections and think requiring identification to vote would be a good idea? RACIST!!!

Express even the mildest doubts about the IPCC’s claims, and you will be silenced.

Whatever this is, it ain’t science.

But MiniTrue would approve.

via Jo Nova

(1) In her post, Jo notes that the paragraph on “nepotistic bias” seems to have been added after the notice’s initial publication. It’s a darkly funny accusation, given the widespread corruption of the peer-review process, particularly within climate science.
(2) Happens too often on the Right, too, but, in that case, it’s a bug. For progressives, I contend, it’s a feature.

UPDATE 1/20/14: At Watt’s Up With That, perhaps the best known of the AGW-skeptic sites, Anthony Watt’s looks at PRiP‘s shutdown and finds blame on both sides and some validity to the “nepotistic bias” or “pal-review” accusation.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

RSS feed for comments on this post.


11 Responses to “Scientific journal shut down for questioning man-caused global warming. Updated”


  1. Joy says:

    The hacker at the University of East Anglia discovered the only papers published in the national scientific magazine were those that had been peer reviewed by scientists in good standing in the Global Warming religion and those that promoted the global warming agenda.

  2. There is no such of a damn thing as global warming. All the manipulated sources and “research” cited as validation do not, repeat not, meet the basic university standards for validity.

    Between global warming and the internet being Al Gore’s inventions, it is clear to even the most intellectually challenged among us that one is more likely to hear his inventions rather than actually see them.

  3. Carlos says:

    Not only was the publication riddled with nepotism (as if the AGW crowd wasn’t intellectually incestuous itself), two of the so-called “editors” have moles on their butts.

    What more proof would one need than that to discredit them?

    Copernicus has to be spinning like a top in his grave over this, especially with his name being used by the accusers.

  4. H Hazell says:

    It is a truly disturbing that some amongst are so arrogant that they believe we can hold a throttle on the climate of our earth and move it in the correct direction or place it at the correct setting!

  5. Mwalimu Daudi says:

    I have advanced degrees in both mathematics and engineering, so I have some knowledge of what I say. “Climate science” is not a science at all, but a quasi-religious cult similar to UFO-ology, phrenology, and race science.

    In my experience I have found that climate scientists are not really scientists (since their theories make claims that cannot be checked by experiments or observations), but rather shamans who claim special knowledge and insight with the Spirit world that the “deniers” do not possess. The term shamans is not a careless or provocative choice on my part: to see and hear “climate scientists” is to be reminded of fanatics in primitive cultures trying to control a fearful and ignorant peasantry by claiming the spirits will be angry if they are not appeased by worship and sacrifice. Scientific proof is out of the question.

  6. The objective case against man-caused global warming is now so strong that only censorship can protect it — and since the world’s governments are all but unanimous that this is the path of increased power and control, that is surely what we will see.

  7. ST says:

    Mwalimu wrote:

    In my experience I have found that climate scientists are not really scientists (since their theories make claims that cannot be checked by experiments or observations), but rather shamans who claim special knowledge and insight with the Spirit world that the “deniers” do not possess.

    Let me guess: Mostly liberal Democrats?

  8. Mwalimu Daudi says:

    ST: Probably. They are scary people regardless.

    The last time we had something like this DDT was needlessly banned, and tens of millions of people (mostly in Third World countries) died of malaria. The environmental movement has as much human blood on its hands as the Nazis do (but probably less when compared to Communism).

  9. Xavier says:

    I’ve been trolling commenting on that story for a few days. When I asked what it would take to prove AGW was wrong, I was told nothing short of a complete rewrite of the laws of science would suffice. This isn’t science, it’s religion.

  10. @Xavier–Flimsy mythology bordering on ludicrous gets my vote.