The Real Motivation Behind PRP Journal Shutdown Exposed: It Challenged IPCC Science!

The original motivation behind Copernicus Publishing director Martin Rasmussen’s decision to shut down the new journal Pattern Recognition Physics (see here, here and here) had nothing to do with the alleged “nepotistic” behavior among editors and peer-reviewers, but appears to have had everything to do with politically incorrect questioning of IPCC orthodoxy.

You can see how Rasmussen’s accusations appeared on PRP on the morning of January 17, 2014 at

Note how the…

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”

…that you now see here was added later.

The “nepotism” accusation was a dubious at best, mostly entails personal intrigue and was added later to cover up the real motivation. It is only a side show to distract from the real reason behind the magazine’s shut down.

Clearly this really gets down to suppressing alternative views that threaten the popular global warming science. It’s a sad example of Germany succumbing to behavior of darker times.

Please restrict comments to the issue of suppressing alternative scientific explanations and the efforts involved therein and the merits of the science presented in the banned journal.

Roger of Tallbloke’s Talkshop recently had an interesting post on the suppression of science that’s well worth reading. The harboring of disagreement with a particular science is not a reason for shutting it down.


16 responses to “The Real Motivation Behind PRP Journal Shutdown Exposed: It Challenged IPCC Science!”

  1. Rog Tallbloke

    Thanks for posting this Pierre. I made a webcitation of BigCityLib’s article last week to ensure it cannot be ‘disappeared’

    Our scientific work challenges not only the AGW global warming theory, but also mainstream theory concerning the cause of solar variability, and also perturbation theory which is a set of heuristics which try to account for the way we see harmonic resonance affecting the orbits of related solar system bodies.

    All our papers from the special edition of PRP are available here:

    They will also soon be available at the now restarted journal here:

  2. Pierre Gosselin: The Real Motivation Behind PRP Journal Shutdown Exposed: It Challenged IPCC Science! | Tallbloke's Talkshop

    […] The Real Motivation… on Anti-scientic intimidation of… […]

  3. DirkH

    Well, before WW 2 Göttingen was the best centre for aerodynamics in the world; 2 decades earlier Hilbert helped Einstein there getting to grips with tensors.
    Before that, since 1807 Gauss was working in Göttingen.

    Today, Göttingen is famed for its soft sciences, its Black Bloc (several gas canister bombs found over the last weeks, albeit without detonators), its attacks on democratic parties (destruction of loads of AfD posters last election), and its perfectly Green ideology.

  4. Lady Life Grows

    Yes, this was “politically” motivated. Politicians–and most scientists–get their money from taxes. The hope is that alarmism will frighten people into paying more taxes via a new tax called the carbon tax.

    The politicians have not benefitted because the public really is tapped out, taxed well beyond the willingness to pay. Wealthy people are leaving high-tax jurisdictions in droves. Worse still, energy sources have been attacked throughout the developed world to a degree that has battered American and European economies. This is why the dollar and Euro are in trouble, and this is why governments are getting so desperate. The solution for the governments is to tell the truth, enhance energy production, reduce tax rates and restore free enterprise.

    Science, by which I mean scientist paychecks, however, has profited enormously. America’s National Science Foundation has declared the science settled, and makes it very very very clear in their calls for research that anything alarmist is strongly desired and that alarmist results are far more likely to secure additional funding. Even though the US government is on its knees financially, this nonsense is funded. Alarmism “works” for the “scientific community.”

    The actual funding ration is 1000 to 1 in favor of alarmists. “Qui bono?” and “follow the money” are classic ideas when trying to ascertain why something is wrong.

    When we can get comprehension of this across to the general public, alarmism will stop and real actual science will be restored.

  5. Poptech

    Pierre, this is well known and irrelevant. This is not about “suppression of science”.

    1. Was the original aims and scope of the journal to discuss climate change and the IPCC or “pattern recognition in physics”?

    2. Where are the emails between the editor and publisher showing that the publisher approved of them publishing on climate change and the IPCC when they set PRP up?

    3. If you make an agreement not to cover climate change then go do whatever you want, did you not violate the agreement?

    4. If someone makes an agreement with a publisher to make a journal on child care and then starts publishing papers on nuclear physics would the publisher have justification that they violated the publishing agreement?

    1. DirkH

      Hi Poptech, feel the need to apologize already?

      1. Poptech

        Apologize for what? This is old news and irrelevant to my criticisms.

        1. DirkH

          Whatever works, right?

    2. Nicola Scafetta


      your argument and (Rasmussen’s argument too) is nonsense.

      The journal was supposed to deal with patterns recognition is all fields of physics.
      Among the various fields it was explicitly listed issues also in

      -Earth Sciences;

      which evidently also include climate related patterns.

      Rasmussen’s argument is baseless.

      Read the Aims and Scope of the journal here:

      To Pierre:
      perhaps it may help the readers to explicitly show this figure in the article above:

      1. Poptech

        Nicola, then have Dr. Morner show the email conversation with the publisher to prove they were aware of this and did not tell him otherwise about publishing on climate change issues.

        The context of the quoted “IPCC statement” has to do with the publishing agreement not conspiracy theories about censorship because they don’t want anyone to read about IPCC criticisms.

        You claim the argument is baseless but have presented no evidence disputing the publishers claim about misuse of the aims and scope of the journal.

        1. Nicola Scafetta


          do you understand how ridiculous would be the situation if the things were how you think?

          So, in your opinion there exits a “secret regulation” of Copernicus according to which Rasmussen accepts only editors who would never publish anything that could question the IPCC.

          If this “secret regulation” exists, however, it would simply mean that all editors presently serving at Copernicus are in fact manipulating the scientific process. In fact there would exist a “hidden agreement” between them and the publisher to never publish anything that could even slightly question the IPCC.

          If this was the case, then Copernicus should be closed. It would be a scandal as big as a mountain. Copernicus would not be a scientific publisher at all, but only a propaganda instrument to promote a political ideology disguised as science.

          In fact the “secret regulation” would imply that it is the publisher who decides what should be published, not the editors following the scientific method. And the publisher respond to some political entity that is trying to manipulating the scientific debate for its own goals which are not the promotion of science.

          Rasmussen’s argument plays against him, if you think well.

          What likely happened in my opinion is that the “secret regulation” does not exist. Rasmussen just received a call from some strong IPCC advocate in Germany who was alerted by other people and Rasmussen get very scared.

          So, he wrote that non-sense to over-stress that he is a faithful IPCC servant mostly to please the person who called him.

          Pierre knows better than me the situation in Germany and may confirm whether companies can be intimidated for political reasons related to global warming.

          Read this post for more details

          In any case, if the “secret rule” exists and Rasmussun was so naive to reveal its existence, that would be a gigantic scandal. It may be interesting to investigate the issue.

          You or Pierre may call Rasmussen and ask him if the “secret rule” exists.

          The issue is:

          Are the editors serving at Copernicus publisher free to accept papers that could question the IPCC AGW, or are they supposed to not publish those papers?

  6. Mindert Eiting

    ‘ Please restrict comments to the issue of suppressing alternative scientific explanations and the efforts involved therein and the merits of the science presented in the banned journal’.

    In the Western world we do not live any more in the jungle with the exception of a few dramatic periods. Since the Middle Ages we have developed civic societies and systems of justice. Basic human rights were adopted in our constitutions. Our laws forbid theft and murder because some people just do it. The suppression of alternative ideas is no more interesting than crime. The question is of whether our laws have something to say about this.

    I have tried to explain in other comments that the termination of a journal by the publisher because he did not like the ideas of the editors, may be breach of contract. The only concrete thing I have read so far is a ridiculous reaction by Moncton, who adopted the poor editors in his home as a kind of Medieval welfare.

    If the editors agree with a life in the jungle, why should we care about the suppression of their alternative science? Why should we agree first with the content of the special edition or not, which only can lead to a lynch job? Even if I considered the content complete nonsense, I would like to know whether an agreement between publisher and editors contained an article, saying that their work should not contradict the IPCC conclusions. I guess it did not, but the editors remain deafening silent about this. Is Poptech correct in his third point?

    If publishers have the right to kick out their editors whenever they want, who wants to be their editor-slaves on this condition?

  7. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?

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