Pattern Recogn. Phys., 2(2), 27–29, 2014. http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.com c Author(s) 2014. CC Attribution 3.0 License. Editorial: Re-opening of Pattern Recognition in Physics Nils-Axel Mörner1 (Co-Editor In Chief) Abstract The scientific journal Pattern Recognition in Physics by Copernicus Publications had just began the printing of its second volume and finished its Special Issue on Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts, when, on January 17, Mr. Martin Rasmussen, managing director of Copernicus Publications, took the remarkable decision of immediately closing down the entire journal. In the general conclusions of the special issue, 19 scientists had joined in a conclusion that we – from a solar-planetary point of view – are on our way into a grand solar minimum, which “sheds serious doubts on the issue of a continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC.” In the mind of Rasmussen this logical statement posed an intolerable criticism of the IPCC, and the journal was shut down. If anything in modern society should not be tolerated, it is a censorship in conflict with ethics and scientific norms. This editorial reviews the situation, and at the same time as it announces the happy re-opening of the journal under a new management. Published: 07/Mar/2014 1 Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm, Sweden. Correspondence to: N.-A. Mörner ([email protected]) The journal of Pattern Recognition in Physics (PRP) of Copernicus Publications (http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net) was suddenly closed down for reasons that do not cope with normal ethics and scientific norms. However, like a Phoenix Bird, the journal re-appears today for a new and successful future. might shed new light on connections, forcing functions and origin of physical processes. In such an endeavour there can, of course, be no limitations and taboos. Here science must be totally free and unbound from any coercions. 2. The remarkable shut down of the Copernicus’ PRP 1. What is “pattern recognition in physics”? On the morning of January 17, 2014, the original PRP journal of Copernicus was suddenly shut down right in the middle of its printing of two new papers of its Volume 2. This action was taken without any discussion with the editors; not even information. Mr. Martin Rasmussen, managing director of Copernicus Publications, gave the reason for his remarkable action (Figure 1): things had been published which questioned the correctness of the global warming scenarios of the IPCC. Our first question emerges naturally: how does such a decision concur with the very basic concept of scientific freedom? Mr. Rasmussen gave two reasons for the closing down of the journal (Figure 1): Through the hard scientific work during many centuries and with step added to steps in the progress of science, we have been able to formulate some basic physical laws. A few of them may be so firm that we may consider them as “written in stone.” Others are of more paradigmatic type where future progress may imply additions, modifications and maybe even revision. Another way to approach progress and understanding in physics is to record – i.e. recognize – patterns in physical processes and in documents of such processes. This is precisely why the scientific journal Patterns Recognition in Physics was first proposed by Professor Ouadfeul and then adopted by Copernicus Publications. This journal was to document any kind of “pattern” that 1. – he didn’t want “focus on climate-research27 28 N.-A. Mörner: Editorial: Re-opening of Pattern Recognition in Physics ' $ & % Figure 1. The original termination-statement published on the website of the journal by Copernicus Publications in the morning of January 17, 2014. Mr. Rasmussen provides two “reasons”: (1) focus must not be on climate-related topics (which it certainly was not) and (2) the conclusion with respect to the climatic evolution from a solar point of view could not be tolerated (despite signed by 19 prominent scientists as a logical outcome of 12 research papers in the Special Issue on planetary-solarterrestrial interaction). Furthermore, with respects to lines 2 and 3, it should be noted that the main Editor-in-Chief, Professor Ouadfeul, has not written a single line on climate in his whole lifetime, and that all what I have written on sea level changes is 100% observational based facts from nature itself (contrary to the models, scenarios and corrections presented by the IPCC). related topics,” and 2. – he stated “we were alarmed by the second implication” in the General Conclusions of the Special Issue on Patter in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts (PRP, Vol.1, pp. 205-206, 2013) saying “this sheds serious doubts on the issue of a continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC.” With respect to reason (1), it is just to look up the content of the published PRP-volumes 1 and 2 (PRP, Vol.1, pp. 1-206, 2013; PRP, Vol.2, Number 1, pp. 1-206, 2013) to realize that the agreed aims & scope was fulfilled, and that no special focus on climate-research-related topics existed. The two published volumes included 25 articles (21 research papers, 2 discussions plus the Preface and the General Conclusions of the special issue). Only 3 of those papers can be held to focus on climate-related issues. A paper by Dr. Parker deals with pattern recognition in global tide gauge records, and the author is able to identify a 60-year cycle, which invalidates linear rate approximations especially of records as short as one or two decades. A paper by Dr. Scafetta studies mathematical pattern of complex signal processing techniques applied to tide gauge station in New York, solar and climate records. The third paper by Dr. Suteanu deals with “characteristic change” (i.e. pattern) in temperature over eastern Canada. All three papers provide high-level analyses of patterns in natural physical processes. If they are pro or con any IPCC scenario is totally irrelevant; they all represent good science and that is what matters. The second reason (2) is startling. In 12 separate research papers (PRP, Special Issue 1, 2013-2014) ten authors dealt with the central astrophysical problem of the planetary influence on solar variability and different terrestrial variables. In the concluding paper, 19 scientists joined in concluding that, indeed, “solar variability must emerge from gravitational and inertial effects on the Sun from the planets and their satellites,” and in their “implication 2” they stated: 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. 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? All since first proposed by Eddy (Science 192, pp. 1189-1202, 1976), there have been numerous accounts on the relations between grand solar minima and cold periods of Little Ice Age type. Neither reason (1) nor reason (2) is good enough to justify N.-A. Mörner: Editorial: Re-opening of Pattern Recognition in Physics such a drastic act as to shut down a successful scientific journal. For Mr. Rasmussen and Copernicus Publications only disgrace seemed to remain. In a mail to Mr. Rasmussen, I expressed my opinion: In your decision, I think you violate the freedom of science and freedom of speech. I can do nothing but condemn your decision as unjust, unethical and ulti anti-scientific. However, in the afternoon of January 17, 2014 an additional “reason” appeared on the online statement – as it seems – in the act of diverging the attention of the public to something else. In addition to points (1) and (2) above, Mr. Rasmussen now stated: “the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis.” We certainly do not recall any nomination of reviewers on such a base: on the contrary, only specialists on the issues in question were asked to review the papers. Whatever, this reviewing accusation came to dominate the debate on the net. This is sad because it is obvious that the real reason for the closing down of old PRP was the fear of having printed something that was not in full agreement with the statements by the IPCC, and this reason is not good enough a reason. The act of closing down a scientific journal just because of an inevitable conclusion, which “sheds serious doubts on the issue of a continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC” will under all circumstances remains most unscientific and unethical. 3. Re-opening of the journal Professor S.-A. Ouadfeul, the original proposer of the journal, has now managed to re-open the journal. The journal will initially be run on private founding, later to be transformed to a permanent publishing house. The new PRP journal will commence where the old was stopped, viz. at volume 2, page 26, 2014. With this as an introductorily Editorial, the new Journal of Pattern Recognition in Physics starts at volume 2, number 2, page 27, 2014. As co-editor, I want to express all our appreciation to what Professor Ouadfeul has achieved by being able to re-launce the journal. Ethics and scientific norms are re-established. Personally, I wish Professor Ouadfeul and the New-PRP all the best of luck & success. Nils-Axel Mörner co-editor-in-chief morner@pog-nu Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm, Sweden 29
© Copyright 2024