The Patterns in Physics affair has been exercising many in the climate blogosphere in recent days. I missed the initial furore as I was somewhat under the weather. My impression is that those involved in the journal left themselves open to criticism. It was inevitable that their every move would be scrutinised and a squeaky-clean approach should have been adopted. In some ways though, the affair just increases my general dissatisfaction with the peer review process as a whole. The papers that have appeared in the journal will stand or fall on their own merits rather than the identities or sympathies of the peer reviewers involved.
But I've voiced thoughts like this before.
Perhaps more interesting are the reactions to James Annan, who has identified himself as the person who initiated moves against the journal. Mutterings about eco-fascism have ensued. Similar thoughts have emerged in the wake of the decision of the Frozen River Film Festival in Minnesota to cancel a screening of Phelim Macaleer's Fracknation, apparently "after pressure from their partner film festival Mountain Film in Telluride and the Sundance Film Festival".
Does any of this amount to ecofascism? Private organisations can publish what they like of course, so is it wrong to make suggestions to a publisher about what they should and should not publish? And does it make a difference what those views are? So is it acceptable to suggest to a publisher that views you merely disagree with are disseminated? Is there an argument that trying to prevent publication of dissenting points of view on global warming or hydraulic fracking is simple ecofascism while trying to prevent dissemination of racist views is something different?
What do readers here think?
[I don't want the thread to head off into a discussion of particular extreme views. Could commenters please try to stick to environmental issues or refer to extreme or non-PC views, so we don't get diverted]