In 2009 when the ClimateGate scandal broke, we learned that climate "scientists" manipulated the peer review process to prevent publication of research they didn't like. Today we learn that, after publishing papers the went against the consensus, an entire journal has been closed down! You publish what they don't like, you get punished. Never, ever, anyone, ever again suggest that peer review is any kind of authentication for good science.
The full story is on Jo Nova's site. She writes:
In extraordinary news, the scientific journal Pattern Recognition in Physics has been unexpectedly terminated, a “drastic decision” taken just ten months after it started.
The publisher appears to be shocked that in a recent special issue the scientists expressed doubt about the accelerated warming predicted by the IPCC. For the crime of not bowing before the sacred tabernacle, apparently the publishers suddenly felt the need to distance themselves, and in the most over-the-top way. 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.
I must say, it’s a brilliant (if a tad expensive) way to draw attention to a scientific paper. It’s the Barbara-Streisland moment in science. Forget “withdrawn”, forget “retracted”, the new line in the sand is to write a paper so hot they have to terminate the whole journal! Skeptics could hardly come up with a more electric publicity campaign.
Please read Jo's post. She quotes the explanatory letter from the publishers, which makes it perfectly clear, in their own words, that the entire journal has been canned because 'the special issue editors ultimately submitted their conclusions in which they “doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project” '
Anthony Watts gives more information here.
So yes, everyone, if you publish scientific material that disputes the IPCC verdict, you will be punished. Modern scientific practice has become a biassed, political farce. No wonder "all the peer-reviewed research agrees" - you get your work canned and your career destroyed if you dare publish anything discordant. Blogs like Joanne Nova's and Anthony Watts' are the only place you'll read any real science these days.
Update: In case you missed it, the operation that pulled this disgraceful rejection of scientific method is Copernicus Publications. We must, I think, conclude that all the journals under their umbrella are similarly under threat should any research publication question a sacred cow. Regardless of whether there are any actual acts of behind the scenes influence, their entire roster of journals can no longer be trusted as having been properly, independently, and fearlessly peer-reviewed, and all passing papers getting published on an equal basis.
Afterthought: It may be the proprietors of Copernicus Publications are right now in shock at the widespread condemnation of their actions and are scrambling to justify themselves. They most likely thought we'd all give them a pat on the back. I got to wondering what would have made them make such a terrible anti-scientific decision just 24 hours after the journal issue was published. All I can come up with is that they are clueless; they personally know nothing about the real scientific issues here and jumped into action without investigating. Either lazy or foolish or both.