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:
2. JoNova: whole-journal-gets-terminated/
3. Tallbloke: pattern-recognition-in-physics-axed
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
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.