At pattern-recognition-in-physics.com/

There’s an editorial which at the end notes The journal will initially be run on private founding, later to be transformed to a permanent publishing house. Or, put another way, currently its a blog, but if they can fool anyone into taking it on, they will.

The editorial also announces the happy re-opening of the journal under a new management. New management? Well the new editorial board is here, and the old (via wayback machine) is here. The new board is definitely slimmed down. Its:

Editor In Chief: - Sid-Ali OUADFEUL
Co-Editor In Chief:- Nils-Axel MORNER

Editorial Board:
-Leila ALIOUANE
-Tsehaie WOLDAI
-Nicolas YOUNAN
-Nils-Axel MORNER
-Nicola SCAFETTA   [NEW]
-Sid-Ali OUADFEUL
-Hans JELBRING     [NEW]
-Nistor GROZAVU
-Michele NAPPI
-Francesco Isgrò

The old one was:

Sid-AliOUADFEUL (Editor in Chief)
Nils-AxelMörner (Co-Editor in Chief)

Editors

- LeilaAliouane
* GordonCooper
* MariaDe Marsico
* ReikDonner
* WilliFreeden
- NistorGrozavu
- FrancescoIsgrò
* Rudolph A.Lorentz
* SimoneMarinai
- Nils-AxelMörner
- MicheleNappi
- Sid-AliOUADFEUL
* LionelPrevost
* DanielRiccio
* FriedhelmSchwenker
* StevenTanimoto
- TsehaieWoldai
- NicolasYounan

The ten ones marked with a “*” have had the good sense to drop out of the new journal. The NEW editors for the relaunched journal are Jelbring and Scafetta. Mmmmm, that really fills one with confidence that this isn’t a journal is “skeptics” for “skeptics”, no?

No sign of Monkers, though.

[Update: popcorn at wikipedia. The article [[Pattern Recognition in Physics]] has seen quite a bit of edit warring recently, with one “Intuitive2000” ending up blocked, in a rather traditional “I’m right, so the 3RR rule doesn’t apply to me” sort of way.

But that leads to a user called Ouadfeul who has few contributions, all of which amount to deleting stuff he didn’t like from the PRP article and replacing it with shite.]

Comments

  1. #1 bratisla
    2014/03/24

    hoorray ! Now with more pal review and popcorn fodder !

  2. #2 Philipe
    France
    2014/03/24

    The new PRP is not a blog this is a journal with editorial board. But you are using a blog

    [I'm using a blog, certainly. But one doesn't normally call a self-published set of words a "journal", their calling it that looks like abuse of language. And the editorial board does not inspire confidence -W]

  3. #3 bratisla
    2014/03/24

    sorry for the double post, but the first “article” is out, and Nicola Scafetta out in force with his climatastrology, this time “applied” on a Sun flare.
    Pure. Gold. Popcorn. Material. Even better than Answers in Genesis. You will have rainbow going out of your ears by reading this.

  4. #4 Rob Nicholls
    London, UK
    2014/03/24

    Thanks, this is entertaining.

    Nils-Axel Mörner’s editorial quotes the ‘concluding paper’ from PRP special issue one: “Obviously, we are on our way into a new grand solar minimum. This sheds serious doubts on the issue of a continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project.” The editorial then comments on this quotation: “What can be wrong in such a statement, which follows logically upon the identification of solar cycles and repetition of grand solar minima and maxima?”

    I’m an inattentive layman and I don’t know the published literature on this area but http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age-intermediate.htm points to Feulner and Rahmstorff 2010 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL042710/abstract ). Full article is behind a paywall but the abstract suggests a model-based estimate that a new Maunder-type-Minimum would lead to no more than a –0.3 degree C offset in temperatures by 2100, (compared with projections of several degrees C of anthropogenic warming under BAU emissions).

    Presumably there may be other published estimates / relevant papers that complicate the picture? Or is a rebuttal of this aspect of the PRP editorial and of this conclusion in volume 1 issue 1 (quoted above) really that straightforward?

    [Yes, it really is that straightforward -W]

  5. #5 Hank Roberts
    2014/03/24

    In marginally related news, here’s another piece mentioning (down at the very end) those climate scientists a few decades back predicting an ice age. Mostly politics.
    http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2014-03-23/anti-science-those-who-wish-debate-climate-threatened-death-or-jail

  6. #6 Victor Venema
    2014/03/24

    They also added four topics to the “Journal Subject Areas”.
    -Astronomy/Astrophysics;
    -Condensed Matter/Statistical Physics;
    -Econophysics;
    -Climate Change;

    One wonders why they do not start a new journal. The idea of a scientific journal is to give the papers some advance credibility, to communicate to the reader that these articles are more worthwhile reading as posts on a blog. A new journal would at least have little credibility, but would not have to start with negative credibility.

    After reading the editorial, I do not expect that they will find a new publisher for this journal. Such a publisher would need to be very desperate or ideologically biased to want to work with people that talk about their publisher in such a way.

  7. #7 Rob Nicholls
    London, UK
    2014/03/24

    Thanks for responding to my comment #4.
    I know I shouldn’t be shocked, but I still find it breathtaking to see 19 authors prepared to sign up to such an easily falsifiable conclusion. I believe some of these people have science degrees and PhDs. The psychology of it is fascinating and tragic. Formatting a blog like a journal is clever, though. I suspect most people wouldn’t know the difference between this and a real journal, even if they understand that a journal carries more weight than a blog or a bloke down the pub.

  8. #8 Victor Venema
    2014/03/24

    Formatting a blog like a journal is clever, though. I suspect most people wouldn’t know the difference between this and a real journal, even if they understand that a journal carries more weight than a blog or a bloke down the pub.

    And Pattern Recognition in Physics at least has an “editorial board”. Some other climate dissenters recently opened their own journal, called Open Peer Review Journal, where they are owner and editor and authors of the first 8 manuscripts. The manuscripts look great, just like a real scientific journal, the bloke down the pub would not notice the difference.

  9. #9 John Mashey
    2014/03/24

    Some possible publishers:
    1) Society for Scientific Exploration, which publishes JSE my favorite dog astrology journal, although others include:
    ” A Scientific Inquiry Into the Validity of Astrology”
    “The Astrology of Time Twins: A Re-Analysis & Referee Interchange ”
    “Astrology and Sociability: A Comparative Psychological Analysis”
    ” Appraisal of Shawn Carlson’s Renowned Astrology Tests”
    i don’t think there has yet been climastrology.

    2) PSI, which has Morner as a “Consultant Friend of PSI”. They paid for Murry Salby’s trip to UK, in PRiP they have a ready-made journal, and online can’t cost that much.

    3) Maybe Stacey International, which has published Montford, Carter,, would liek to have a journal, too.

  10. #10 Rob Nicholls
    London, UK
    2014/03/24

    Thanks Victor #8, I’d forgotten about the Open Peer Review Journal. It reminds me of the NIPCC, they try to format their stuff in a sciencey-looking-type way too.

    I was just about to predict confidently (admittedly without fitting a 9th-order polynomial to any planetary cycles) that PRP and the Open Peer Review Journal will feature heavily in the list of references for the next NIPCC “assessment”. But then I remembered that Tamino had pointed out that WUWT were heavily criticizing PRP for their flawed peer review process, among other things, so I suppose anything is possible.

  11. #11 Eric Lund
    2014/03/24

    @Rob: I’m not familiar with the paper you mentioned @4, but I have seen other papers that conclusively falsify the proposition that solar variability is the primary driver of climate variation in the last 100+ years. There was a time when that hypothesis was viable (Friis-Christensen and Lassen, 1991), but not anymore.

    Over a standard 11-year solar cycle the solar irradiance varies by ~0.1%. That would produce about an 0.07 C response in the climate, if I make the spherical-cow assumption of a linear response to small variations in solar forcing. A Maunder-type minimum would be a bit larger than that, but not by enough to overcome CO2 forcing.

  12. #12 Hautbois
    UK
    2014/03/24

    Not fair – I followed the link to PRP and my workplace dodgy sites filter said no. Why?

    “Reason: reputation – viruses”

  13. #13 John Mashey
    2014/03/24

    Pseudojournal is the right label. goes with pseudoscience, and sometimes is for pseudoskepics.

  14. #14 Russell
    2014/03/25

    As Yellow Pseudojournalism already ranks among the great bipartisan afflictions of the age it commands a medium of its own .

  15. #15 Steve Bloom
    2014/03/25

    None more yellow or pseudo than WRH, the original.

  16. #16 Russell
    2014/03/26

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!