Scientists React Sharply To Copernicus Publishing Censorship Of Alternative Scientific Explanations: “Do You Realize What You Have Done?”

What follows are two reactions (see below) to Copernicus Publications director Martin Rasmussen, who cancelled an entire journal because scientists published a scientific alternative to IPCC climate science. Ironically, Copernicus’s publications received similar treatment in the 1600s under the Inquisition, see here Inquisition-Copernicus!

The controversy takes a turn, Anthony Watts:

Jo Nova responds:

Other reading also see:
1. jewish-science-to-denier-science-copernicus-charade-is…
2. JoNova: whole-journal-gets-terminated/
3. Tallbloke: pattern-recognition-in-physics-axed

From Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt:

Vahrenholt_Photo_DkS site
Subject: Shutting down Patterns Recognition in Physics
Dear Rasmussen,

A scientific article authored by 15 highly esteemed scientists did not please you as a publisher because their conclusions did not fit with the doctrine of the IPCC. And in a craven reaction, the journal was terminated. You regret that you were unable to prevent the publication. It is written in the fundamental law: “Censorship does not occur”. You have understood very little about science, and from scientific freedom of the fundamental law even much less so. The name Martin Rasmussen however now has found a special place in the history of science, directly on par with Trofim Denissovitch Lyssenko. His scientific understanding was also guided by the socio-political induced mainstream. Imagine what happens should the scientists end up being right with their criticism of the IPCC. Do you realize what you have done?”


From Nicola Scafetta

scafettaThe steps taken by Copernicus’s publisher are quite clear in their statements sent to Mörner and from the official letter on their web-site.

It is clear that Copernicus publisher (Dr. Martin Rasmussen) was “alarmed” by a secondary implication of our research that questions the validity of the global surface temperature projections for the 21st century made by the IPCC.  Rasmussen appears to believe that the IPCC temperature projections cannot be questioned and are beyond doubt. Consequently, without any proof, he claims that the papers published in the journal PRP received poor scientific review and concluded that the journal had to be shut down because in his words: ‘We therefore wish to distance ourselves from the apparent misuse of the originally agreed aims & scope of PRP and decided today to cease the publication.’

His entire argument is disturbing. The very first statement is based on his misunderstanding of the current scientific research findings. In fact, every expert person in climate change knows that the climate models adopted by the IPCC have on average predicted a warming of about 2 C/century from 2000 to 2014, but the observed temperature has not shown this warming. Nature writes:

‘Climate change: The case of the missing heat. Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation. […] On a chart of global atmospheric temperatures, the hiatus stands in stark contrast to the rapid warming of the two decades that preceded it. Simulations conducted in advance of the 2013–14 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the warming should have continued at an average rate of 0.21 °C per decade from 1998 to 2012. Instead, the observed warming during that period was just 0.04 °C per decade, as measured by the UK Met Office in Exeter and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK.’

Therefore it is clear that the conclusion of the special issue on PRP is perfectly in line with the current scientific knowledge. Essentially, it is the IPCC report and likely Rasmussen’s own knowledge on the topic that are outdated. In conclusion, it appears to me that Dr. Martin Rasmussen is quite confused about the current state of the scientific research. Our conclusions are perfectly in line with what numerous papers published in numerous journals already say. I invite everybody to read them. Everybody will acknowledge that the accusations of Dr. Rasmussen are baseless.

Overall, the wording used by Dr. Martin Rasmussen is quite disturbing and depicts a censorship attitude. Dr. Rasmussen labels scientists who simply highlight the limitations of the IPCC models using scientific arguments with the pejorative appellative of “climate skeptics”. This is a quite an offensive statement that displays intellectual intolerance. He then claims that people sharing such an idea cannot publish papers or serve as editors of Copernicus Journals.

He decided to shut down the journals because he claims that the scientific opinions of the editors were in error, but without providing any proof. Jo Nova wrote:

The reasons they gave had nothing to do with the data, the logic, and they cite no errors. There can be no mistake, this is about enforcing a permitted line of thought.”

Even more disturbing, he took his decision without even first consulting with the accused editors (Dr. Morner and Dr. Ouadfeul), who received the news as a surprise. A minimum courtesy and prudence would require first inquiring with the editors and awaiting their response. From his letters, it is evident that his actions resulted from emails of complaints he had received, and that he believed the accusations without even first listening to the opinion of the accused.  I find this approach by Rasmussen not only rude, but also highly unprofessional.

I think Martin Rasmussen should carefully read the climategate email here. He also would be well advised to update his scientific knowledge in climate science, to think hard about what he has done, and to reconsider his decision. Any time scientists are prevented, for no valid no reason, from presenting alternative explanations is disturbing. None of our papers have been rebutted and I invite people to read them.


29 responses to “Scientists React Sharply To Copernicus Publishing Censorship Of Alternative Scientific Explanations: “Do You Realize What You Have Done?””

  1. Don B

    Another climategate email of which Rasmussen is apparently unaware contains these words:

    “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably …”

    In private, the publically confident IPCC scientists expressed their doubts. Rasmussen appears to be ignorant of those doubts and uncertainties.

    1. John B

      Those words should be engraved on Trenberth’s tombstone.

  2. Mindert Eiting

    ”I find this approach by Rasmussen not only rude, but also highly unprofessional”. As I commented elsewhere, probably unlawful. If this were not an amateurish journal, there must be an editorial statute in which the relationship between editors and publisher is settled. It is a legal contract about non-interference of publisher in editorial policy. No self-respecting editor will work for a publisher without such a contract. The climate opinions of Rasmussen are uninteresting. I would never discuss with him the issue of censorship but send my lawyer because of contract-breach.

  3. Roger 'tallbloke' Tattersall

    All the papers are still available at this link. Please download and disseminate them widely. Censorship has to be fought.

    If that link becomes unavailable,all the papers will be mirrored at my blog, tallblokes talkshop.

    I am about to post a new article for discussion of the science we presented in our special edition of PRP.

    Please join us there.

  4. Nicola Scafetta
  5. Joseph A Olson

    Dr Scafetta’s research is a validation and amplification of the great work of Milankovitch in his 1914 “Astronomical Theory of Ice Ages”. I had already confirmed my support for this updated climate forcing factor and forwarded the PRP link to dozens of scientists when Dr Scafetta notified me of this breach in scientific protocol. The Climate Alchemy hypothesis requires a SINGLE parameter forcing and a distortion of traditional Thermodynamics. This is a three sided debate between the Darth BIG Warmists, the Luke LITTLE Warmists and the Obie NO Warmists. Two sides have government funding to kept the myth of free moving, three atom “magic” gases to capture, store and/or redirect InfraRed energy moving at the speed of light. The sanctioned debate is only about the “degree” of “warming”. The correct Physics is under Publications at Principia Scientific International.

    This high handed behavior has happened repeatedly. When the science text “Slaying the Sky Dragon” was published, co-author Dr Claus Johnson, PhD Applied Mathematics was CENSORED by the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. He was ORDERED to not teach a math formula required for Thermodynamics by engineers for a century. This story in archive, “Carbon Warfare Rules of Engagement” at Canada Free Press.

    When proven mathematical formulas and proven astronomical alignments cannot be discussed, you no longer have science….you have OCCULTISM.

    1. cementafriend

      Small point it is Prof Claes Johnson one of his websites here

  6. oebele bruinsma

    A very serious development, reminiscent of previous “accidents” like gallileo, copernicus, milanovich and wegener, and of course einstein. We, society that is, have allowed to mix politics and science. That will lead to scenarios as described a longtime ago by georg orwell 1984. Advice: follow the money or who controls who.
    Good luck to you all.

  7. John F. Hultquist

    This has been mentioned elsewhere – the Barbra Streisand effect:

    An attempt to suppress photographs of her residence in Malibu, California, generated much publicity. I have now seen the cover of a journal I did not know existed.
    At this point I’ll guess that Martin Rasmussen now knows what he has done.

  8. William Connolley

    > Censorship has to be fought.

    Except in blogs, of course. Censoring me here, and TB censoring me over at his place, appears to be entirely acceptable. You want free speech, but only for people you agree with.

    1. Ed Caryl

      William, it was your actions on Wikipedia, and the general attitude of your cohorts, that initially gave me the suspicion that the whole CAGW meme was a hoax. All of my studies since then have solidified that suspicion. Thank you.

    2. Albert Stienstra

      You have been talking/writing too much already. Now it is time for others.

  9. Rog Tallbloke

    Pierre, thanks for adding the links.
    Martin Rasmussen’s excuse for shutting down the journal have shifted from
    “PRP was never meant to be a platform for climate sceptics.”
    “the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice”

    This grubby accusation remains a vague and unsubstantiated smear. The Handling Editor, Nils-Axel Morner is mystified, and has made an official complaint to the EGU, which publishes many journals through Copernicus.

    We await developments.

    Meanwhile, lukewarmer website Wattsupwiththat has rushed to judgement, finding the editors of the PRP special edition, myself included, guilty. Watts has emailed me to say I am “now a Pariah”.

    Mother nature will be our judge, when in due course she shows whether our dynamical model, which successfully hindcasts 1000 years of solar variation, remains on course or not in the future.

    Experimentum summas judex – Albert Einstein.

    1. Mindert Eiting

      ‘Mother Nature will be our judge’. Perhaps she will but not on the issue of freedom of expression. If Watts says that you are a pariah, this affair apparently plays in the jungle. I don’t have to take sides on theories of nature, in order to see that the freedom of expression is here at stake. At least in the Netherlands that freedom is guaranteed by contracts between editors and publishers. My question is: were the editors of PRP stupid enough to cooperate with Rasmussen without a contract? If they were, they have no chance. If there is a contract, did it contain a paragraph about appointment of reviewers by the editors? Suppose, Tallbloke, you rented a house and the Landlord kicked you out and demolished the house because it is his property. If you had a contract, the Judge would be your judge and not Mother Nature.

      1. Poptech

        The peer-review process at PRP clearly violated the editorial and reviewer rules of the publisher,

        4. A referee should be sensitive even to the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the referee’s work in progress or published. If in doubt, the referee should return the manuscript promptly without review, advising the editor of the conflict of interest or bias.

        5. A referee should not evaluate a manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with whom the referee has a personal or professional connection if the relationship would bias judgment of the manuscript.

        7. Editors should avoid situations of real or perceived conflicts of interest if the relationship would bias judgement of the manuscript. Such conflicts may include, but are not limited to, handling papers from present and former students, from colleagues with whom the editor has recently collaborated, and from those in the same institution.

        I highly suspect these were never read.

        1. Mindert Eiting

          Thanks, Poptech. I just returned from WUWT and noticed that you were among the few who made relevant comments.

  10. Oliver K. Manuel

    I posted a comment here:

    Copernicus Publications director Martin Rasmussen had no choice if we live under a tyrannical government that uses science as a tool of propaganda.

    Please allow me to repeat my conclusion:

    “Science is the most reliable way humans have to perceive reality, and contact with reality is critical for our survival.

    Therefore, mankind “shot himself in the foot” by supporting misinformation as “settled science.”

    We will end deceitful science or we will perish ! We have no other options.”

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

  11. Guido

    I mostly appreciate the scientific production of Morner, Scafetta and many more within and outside of PRP. Taking a stance, i.e. being a skeptic on AGW, is not a felony and as such it should be treated with all the due respect. Alarmists are being pinched by the evidence demonstrated by the skeptics and, even more so, by their sophisticated models and methods, well beyond the “spaghetti” diagrams of AR5. True science must live on and the alarmists should abandon the malpractice of biased peer-reviewing.

  12. These items caught my eye – 20 January 2014 | grumpydenier

    […] similar treatment in the 1600s under the Inquisition, see here Inquisition-Copernicus! – Click here to read the full article […]

  13. Kurt in Switzerland

    The singular result of all this fuss has been to draw attention to the papers; that can’t have been the wish of the publisher. Was this the intention of the editors? If so, this is the wrong kind of attention.

    I can sympathize with the accusation of “pal review” (is this what the nepotism charge is supposed to mean?); the journal editors had an obligation to avoid the appearance of impropriety — they fell short. That said, I can also sympathize with the authors and editors: the number of publishing scientists who are unafraid of publicly criticizing the “establishment” viewpoint is indeed small. But a moment of reflection is appropriate here: wasn’t there an infamous Climategate e-mail wherein two key members of the orthodox climate establishment opined about redefining peer review (in order to keep a particular paper from being published)?

    But science has never been determined by a show of hands. Indeed, history has shown us repeated examples where exactly the opposite happened.

    Some are claiming loudly that the papers are crap; would they please criticize the papers rather than hurling insults at the authors and editors?

    The publisher’s attitude appear(ed) to be open to more visibility for scientific research – a laudable idea; this episode suggests that this openness only applies to consensus science. That can’t be good. Indeed, it smells of a nefarious form of peer pressure.

    Again, the papers are out. Let them be criticized by their peers and others, based on the papers’ merits, or lack thereof. After all, the authors alone are staking their reputations here (as the publisher has inexorably distanced himself from the authors, editors and the publication).

    What’s the worst case scenario for “Climate Science” — the benchmark for poor standards in a paper would likely rise?

    Kurt in Switzerland

    1. Bernd Felsche

      Some are claiming loudly that the papers are crap; would they please criticize the papers rather than hurling insults at the authors and editors?

      The circular argument, when I implored them to do the same at WUWT was:

      A paper has to merit critique.

      and other responses to avoid dealing with the content of the papers because they had not been sanctified by a quasi-deity.

      There is no point trying to have a reasonable discussion in that climate.

      1. Kurt in Switzerland


        Well put. If your counterpart has a dismissive attitude, there isn’t much to accomplish in continuing the discourse. (It may also mean that they don’t have the wherewithal to come up with criticism which would not become the subject of ridicule itself).

        So we’ll have to wait and see if Solar Cycles 24 and 25 result in a departure from current “global climate” conditions.

        Kurt in Switzerland

  14. A C Osborn

    Anthony Watts does not like Roger and hates anything to do with the work that those guys are doing. He has history, including banning Geoff Sharp from his Forum.
    His bias showed from his first few words in his first post.
    PopTech has been personally attacking Roger and his competence on both Jo’s and Watts’ sites and is obviously on a crusade.

    1. Poptech

      An information crusade only, the public should be informed.

  15. Peer Review Debacle: Friends and Foes in the Fog of Battle | Top Spy News

    […] to Copernicus by letterheaded document attached to email, good on him. Pierre Gosselin has carried two pieces by Nicola Scafetta while staying carefully neutral. Maybe he thought Watts snipping […]

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy