Opportunity knocks

As many WUWT readers may have noticed, there’s a small advertising box on the sidebar for the journal “Energy & Environment”. This represents a first for WUWT, in that I’ve decided to accept a dedicated advertisement for a journal on a trial basis. It is also a first for E&E.


I did this for three reasons:

1) E&E published Steve McIntyre’s and Ross McKittrick’s groundbreaking paper, Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) proxy data base and northern hemispheric average temperature series., after they were rejected by numerous other journals. Those rejections seemed to be political in nature since M&M’s work has withstood many criticisms, and the effect has been seen in the IPCC’s distancing their most recent report from Michael Mann’s “hockey stick”. For an excellent summary on the entire affair, please read Bishop Hill’s Caspar and the Jesus Paper. E&E has taken a lot of criticism for publishing M&M and it seems to me that the journal should be rewarded for having the courage to do so in the face of “consensus” at the time.

2) In addition to publishing on climate related issues, E&E also publishes extensively on alternate energy research. I’m a fan of both research and applications of viable alternate energy solutions (see my about page ) as are many WUWT readers, so from my perspective E&E is a twofer.

3) I think some WUWT contributors might find E&E a place to publish some of the works they have put forward here, in the harshest peer review environment of all; the online scrutiny of thousands. Introducing E&E here is a first step. Here is some recent content you can browse.

Bill Hughes, the publisher of E&E, has a short message below in which he outlines an exceptional offer being made to readers of WUWT. Please take a moment to have a look. – Anthony

Message from the Publisher

Energy & Environment is one of the very few publications – perhaps the only one – which has consistently, over a number of years, published peer reviewed papers which contradict the claims that global warming is man made. By a long way the most famous was the McIntyre & McKitrick paper, Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) proxy data base and northern hemispheric average temperature series. That paper, and its E&E published follow up, eviscerated the claims made in the Mann, Bradley, Hughes paper, Global scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries.

That was the paper which gave us the infamous ‘hockey stick’ which was for so long the IPCC’s favourite image. So in that way Energy & Environment did destroy the hockey stick. And how we were insulted for having had the temerity to publish that paper!

But that abuse was from those who don’t like informed debate, don’t like citizens to know the facts. However, as the public policy arguments move forward, closer to warmist fantasies turning into a tax charge on citizens, its more than ever important for as many people as possible to see the other side of the argument.

That’s why I’m offering, for the first time, personal subscriptions to Energy & Environment at a hugely discounted rate. The usual annual rate, for institutions, is $641 a year, I’m offering it to you for just $165 – a saving of nearly $500. I really do hope you’ll take advantage.

Best wishes,

Bill Hughes

Publisher, Multi-Science Publishing

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 27, 2009 5:34 am

What better peers to review it than skeptical commenters?

August 27, 2009 6:02 am

I am looking at a solar power solution to off-set the big increase in my summer electric bill due to my pool pump. I am also looking to install a geo-thermal heating solution to replace my oil furnace.
Given all the scam artists out there it would be great if you could do an occasional article and thread on the latest technologies in these areas or recommend a trusted site.

Pierre Gosselin
August 27, 2009 6:02 am

That’s a really good deal.
This ought to be offered in Germany too, perhaps through EIKE:

40 Shades of Green
August 27, 2009 6:35 am

I would like to second the call for some articles on Renewable Energy that Works.
For instance, Anthony, would you be in a position to report on the true costs and savings of the solar project you did at your local school.

Pamela Gray
August 27, 2009 6:37 am

I completely agree about alternative energy choices. We need an informed thread on home-based alternative energy choices available to the common person. From cars to panels. I would also encourage an explanation of the purchase costs of these choices. Is it related to skimming the cream? With later cost reductions coming? Or are we buying a DeLorian? Why doesn’t some Ford-esk entrepreneur make something for the first time that we can all afford anymore? Why offer it under the “skimming the cream” business model?

August 27, 2009 6:37 am

Is this an electronic or physical copy? I couldn’t figure out from the site, but ‘online subscription’ implies electronic to me.
REPLY: Online, with multiple PDF articles. see the sample link above. – Anthony

August 27, 2009 6:55 am

Yes, climate change realism (ie non-alarmist) and alternative energy enthusiasm are not mutually exclusive. We should try to stop screaming at each other and find common ground in practical, viable green energy tech. Then perhaps scientists and journalists could start avoiding hype and shun those publicity hungry extremists. One can but hope.

August 27, 2009 7:17 am

Yes, a search for new forms of energy is definately the way to go. Fortunately, a whole lot of work has been done by enterprising individuals who claim to have tapped zero point energy. Even the Greens can’t object to power generation that burns no fuel. It’s all here – what are you waiting for?

Alan the Brit
August 27, 2009 7:28 am

A good idea this, me thinks.
OT – but a lunchtime news article for regional SW BBC has hailed the Met Office as a world leading weather forecast & climate change research body, but it only has a low rating for its carbon footprint (Deep Thought energy consumption no doubt!). The Director was interviewed claiming in true Met Office self-congratulatory style, all sorts of major triumphs & achievements in weather forecasting & climate change studies. Oh how soon do they want forget the 2009 “Barbecue Summer” debacle! Oh & the 2007 Summer forecast debacle, & the 2008 Summer forecast debacle, & the 2008-9 Winter forecast debacle too! They’ve thrown in the towel on August’s weather after saying “don’t put the barbecue away just yet”, at the end of July! The forecast for the weekend is mediocre at best, & they’re not even going any where near the coming Bank Holiday on Monday 31st August, just 4 days away! Oooh that must really hurt.

August 27, 2009 7:37 am

I need US-relevant information on panels and heat pumps.

August 27, 2009 9:06 am

Speaking of the Energy & Environment journal.
From time to time I’m doing the debate the catastrophist thing. That “no peer reviewed articles” comment always comes up. I of course go to one those sites with an easy to link list of same. The reply comes back stating how some of these journals on the list are not acceptable.
OK, so how do I reply to that one? The one that goes Science and Nature good. E&E bad.
What do Science and Nature do that E&E doesn’t? Why are Science and Nature supposed to be acceptable where E&E is not?

August 27, 2009 9:09 am

Hi everyone:
I work in the solar industry in Northern California. We regularly present interested parties with very good ROI numbers for installation of photovoltaic energy systems. They can range anywhere from 8–9%, and with larger residential systems quickly climb into the high teens. The factors that produce these amazing results are as follows: 1) federal, state, and local subsidies for solar providing a low present cost of installation; and 2) historic rate increase data from PG&E *(6.5% y–y).
My problem is that when you project PG&E data based on a historical increase factor (6.5% y–y) you end up with future energy rates that are four to five times higher towards the end of your projection. Hence a system in Northern California of say, 5 kW (a system for a three bedroom house with A/C) with a family of four, ends up with lifetime savings in the $280,000 range.
Is this reasonable from a forecasting point of view? I would be very interested in some reactions.

August 27, 2009 9:17 am

This is a response to Pamela Gray:
You are no longer buying DeLoreans or Edsels. Solar from reputable manufacturers works efficiently, reliably and for a long time. The products we use (we are a solar installer) have a 25-year warranty to deliver at least 80% of the rated output of the system.
I have read up on zero-point energy with great interest in the last few months, and although it sounds tantalizing it seems to be, as usual, not ready for prime time, or even ready for scrutiny.

August 27, 2009 9:32 am

Now tell us why you accepted an ad for a perpetual motion machine.

August 27, 2009 9:34 am

Vincent 07: 17: 05
Have you read chapter 15 of your free-energy link? Aliens wandering around in the Pentagon? Swine flu deliberately engineered to substantially reduce the population? Really?

August 27, 2009 9:55 am

The power of advising.
The power of advertising!

August 27, 2009 10:10 am

Vincent 07: 17: 05
And I forgot to mention the giant planet that’s headed our way, apparently.

August 27, 2009 10:35 am

Here is a link for solar in California – from a homeowner’s perspective, not the large-scale systems.

Don S.
August 27, 2009 10:45 am

That old malfunctioning sense of humor thing is happening here again. Vincent is kidding. I can tell by the way he spells “definitely”.

August 27, 2009 10:58 am

Who knows… maybe WUWT will allow enough (appropriate) sponsors to do away with the Google ads… makes me want to visit E&E for that reason alone…

August 27, 2009 11:06 am

“Small systems funded through California’s Energy Renewables Program, through the end of 2006, have been averaging $7.00 / watt, after rebates”
then there is no way that it can provide a viable return in a meaningful payback period of say 5 years when my current cost is $0.20 per KWH. I need enough power to run a .55KW pump.
Does anybody have any ideas?

Andrew Parker
August 27, 2009 12:52 pm

SFTor (09:09:37),
Future rates for California will be difficult to aniticipate because much depends on future regulations, both state and federal. If regulations remain static, using historical data may skew your projections high because they will include the price spikes under ENRON’s, and other’s, price manipulations.
I looked into installing evacuated tube solar collectors on my new addition. It just adds too much cost to justify it. Green living is for the rich. Mandating green living would bankrupt the economy (of course, if it is already bankrupt it wouldn’t happen because the Chinese won’t give it to us for free, but then again, OPEC won’t give us oil for free either — and the warmists and eco-nazis won’t let us use our own coal, oil or gas, or build nuclear plants. I will pray for global warming so I don’t have to heat my house. Didn’t the Greenland colonies die off because society would not allow adaptation to the changing climate?).

August 27, 2009 1:03 pm

Bernie, 5 year payback is a bit much to expect at this time. As noted in an earlier comment, the payback period is closer to 8 to 10 years. However, the value of the home increases so if the homeowner sells the home, he/she gets at least part of the money back.
It is far more attractive to add a few thousand dollars worth of insulation and weatherizing a house to eliminate air leaks than it is to install solar PV. When I did this a decade ago, the payback was around one year (and I only spent $1,000). This was in California, inland valley, with air conditioning as primary utility cost. Nobody had to tear the house apart to add the insulation, either. Exterior walls can be insulated in-situ by blowing in insulation through small holes in the wall, which are then patched and finished.

Andrew Parker
August 27, 2009 1:23 pm

Roger Sowell (13:03:26),
Increasing home values are not guaranteed. Indeed, the last 18 months have shown that devaluations of over 30% are not inconceivable. Any major improvement in a home, as with a home purchase, is a gamble.
I am just finishing up a large addition. I purposefully kept the costs within pre-improvement value, but now the value at completion is below pre-improvement value by $30,000 and $150,000 below projected value at completion when we began the addition. Solar improvements would have added $30,000 – $50,000 to the costs. I still wish I could have afforded it, but the savings would have never payed off the costs.

August 27, 2009 1:36 pm

Mikey, What do Science and Nature do that E&E doesn’t? Why are Science and Nature supposed to be acceptable where E&E is not?
And how is it that Nature which is supposed to be wonderful and have a peer review system supposedly of a different order to E&E, manage to publlish the quintessentially junk science paper, Mann et al, whereas little old E&E, inadequate in all sorts of ways according to its critics, managed to publish M&M, which no-one has been able to tear apart – that, to me, say that there’s something not bad at all about E&Es peer review system.

August 27, 2009 3:18 pm

SFTor (09:09:37) :
“Hi everyone:
I work in the solar industry in Northern California. We regularly present interested parties with very good ROI numbers for installation of photovoltaic energy systems. They can range anywhere from 8–9%, and with larger residential systems quickly climb into the high teens. The factors that produce these amazing results are as follows: 1) federal, state, and local subsidies for solar providing a low present cost of installation; and 2) historic rate increase data from PG&E *(6.5% y–y).”
So you are saying that stealing money from the taxpayers combined with forcing the utilities to buy expensive “renewable energy” which causes their costs to increase makes solar energy economically viable. Why not just have the people who want to install these systems do muggings, burglaries and bank robberies to fund them?
How did that song go? “some men rob you with a six gun and some with a fountain pen” . Except that when you look into it the fountain pen has a six gun behind it.
Alternative energy is a hobby for rich. To run a high tech civilization you need far more energy. Nuclear fission is right now a great option.

Matthew Bergin
August 27, 2009 5:13 pm

I like the look of LFTR’s ( Liquid Floride Thorium Reactors ) I cannot understand why we aren’t using them now. Oh yeah I forgot, you can’t make bombs from the waste.

Paul Coppin
August 27, 2009 5:39 pm

Mikey (09:06:46) :
Speaking of the Energy & Environment journal.

What do Science and Nature do that E&E doesn’t? Why are Science and Nature supposed to be acceptable where E&E is not?

Nature spends a lot of its time with grizzly bears, polar bears, and pander bears…

August 27, 2009 8:02 pm

Science and Nature have long histories of generally good quality and inertia. They can survive an occasional bad paper and because they publish weekly there’s a huge flow of information going out to a spectrum of readers. E&E only publishes eight times a year to a much more limited audience. People tend to follow the crowd … some times even over the cliff.

August 27, 2009 11:21 pm

For Bill Hughes, Publisher, Multi-Science Publishing
If you are seeking a cover that will gain a lot of overnight promotion, why not ask Ryan O if you can use his tiles of the Antarctic, as published on blogs like the Air Vent, warming or cooling according to the author’s choice of principal components and regpars? And then put in a catchy headline like “NATURE WAS WRONG- AGAIN”.
There is one version of the graphics at http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/05/20/antarctic-coup-de-grace/

No, good idea. – Anthony
Anthony, I hope you do not mind the cross-reference to another blog.

August 28, 2009 6:56 pm

Ah the mentality of criticizing relatively tiny government energy rebates for home energy while being quite happy about out-of-control military spending. Here’s a tip though: Instead of thinking that solar rebates are somehow “stealing” money, consider it instead as a rebate of some of the tax that you’ve already paid for some other guvmint stuff you didn’t agree with. You can’t steal from yourself! Some others might try to consider that solar has been massively less favored from the public purse than nuclear fission. If all that money had been diverted into green tech rather than dumb oil-patch wars or nuclear money-pits then solar panels would have been as cheap as chips by now.

August 29, 2009 4:13 am

“…..solar panels would have been as cheap as chips by now.”
JamesG. But they are not. Solar energy will always be more expensive at large scale because the incoming energy is so dilute. Physics reigns, OK?
It is quite annoying to see the money of the people being used for subsidies of devices that have been modelled for 50 years as uneconomic, as if something fundamental has changed. It has not. Politics have changed. They have become more communistic.

August 29, 2009 4:18 am

I have spent a lot of time compiling peer reviewed papers supporting skepticism of AGW and AGW related issues. I contacted Dr. Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen to confirm that Energy & Environment is a fully Peer-Reviewed Journal that is indexed in SCOPUS (Elsevier), Compendex, Environment Abstracts and Google Scholar,
“Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed, as well as shorter personal viewpoints and technical communications that are not peer reviewed and often give controversial voices a platform”
Do not be afraid or intimidated about referencing the journal. Please be aware that skeptical papers exist from many other journals as well.

Giles Winterbourne
August 29, 2009 9:39 am

re: Poptech (04:18:10)
So, is it in any of those databases? Did you go check?
It seems Dr. Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen either didn’t answer your questions, or you made a choice not to include that part of her reply.

August 29, 2009 12:47 pm

Its definitely in Scopus, even Wikipedia admits that

Giles Winterbourne
August 29, 2009 2:15 pm

Re: bill hughes (12:47:53)
And note that WikiP says SCOPUS lists it as a trade journal, not an academic journal (or see http://info.scopus.com/detail/what/documents/title_list.xls). Major difference.
And not in Elsevier.
And it still seems interesting that It seems Dr. Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen either didn’t answer the questions, or PT made a choice not to include that part of her reply.

August 29, 2009 4:33 pm

Giles, please stop implying things I never stated. I did not ask her if they were indexed in those locations but if it was a Peer Reviewed Journal, it is much to your sadness. Not only is Energy & Environment a fully Peer-Reviewed Journal but it is indexed in SCOPUS, Compendex, Environment Abstracts, IngentaConnect and Google Scholar.
Thanks to Google science information can no longer be controlled by the gate keepers in their ivory towers.
The Double Standard in Environmental Science (PDF) (Regulation)

August 29, 2009 4:53 pm

Energy & Environment has an extensive collection of excellent Peer-Reviewed Papers:
180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 2, pp. 259-282(24), March 2007)
– Ernst-Georg Beck
50 Years of Continuous Measurement of CO2 on Mauna Loa
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, pp. 1017-1028(12), Number 7, 2008)
– Ernst-Georg Beck
A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
– Craig Loehle
A critical review of the hypothesis that climate change is caused by carbon dioxide
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 631-638(8), November 1, 2000)
– Heinz Hug
An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999)
– Richard S. Courtney
Are Climate Model Projections Reliable Enough For Climate Policy?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 3, pp. 521-525, July 1, 2004)
– Madhav L. Khandekar
Biased Policy Advice from The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 929-936(8), December 2007)
– Richard S.J. Tol
Calling the Carbon Bluff: Why Not Tie Carbon Taxes to Actual Levels of Warming? Both Skeptics and Alarmists Should Expect Their Wishes to Be Answered
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 5, pp. 707-711(5), September 2008)
– Ross McKitrick
Climate Change – A Natural Hazard
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 215-232(18), May 1, 2003)
– William Kininmonth
Climate Change and the Earth’s Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 75-83(9), January 2009)
– Adrian K. Kerton
Climate change and the world bank: Opportunity for global governance?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 27-50(24), January 1, 1999)
– Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
Climate Change: Dangers of a Singular Approach and Consideration of a Sensible Strategy
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2 , pp. 201-205, January 2009)
– Tim F. Ball
Climate change in the Arctic and its empirical diagnostics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 469-482, September 1999)
– V.V. Adamenko, K.Y. Kondratyev, C.A. Varotsos
Climate outlook to 2030
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. 615-619(5), September 2007)
– David C. Archibald
Climate Policy : Quo Vadis?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 207-213, January 2009)
– Hans Labohm
Climate science and the phlogiston theory: weighing the evidence
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 3-4, pp. 441-447(7), July 2007)
– Arthur Rörsch
Cooling of the Global Ocean Since 2003
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 101-104(4), January 2009)
– Craig Loehle
Crystal balls, virtual realities and ‘storylines’
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 343-349, July 2001)
– Richard S. Courtney
Dangerous global warming remains unproven
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, pp. 167-169, January 2007)
– Robert M. Carter
Do Facts Matter Anymore?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 323-326(4), May 1, 2003)
– Patrick J. Michaels
Does CO2 really drive global warming?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 351-355, July 2001)
– Robert H. Essenhigh
Earth’s rising atmospheric CO2 concentration: Impacts on the biosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 287-310, July 2001)
– Craig D. Idso
Evidence for “publication Bias” Concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 287-301, March 2008)
– Patrick J. Michaels
Extreme Weather Trends Vs. Dangerous Climate Change: A Need for Critical Reassessment
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2,pp. 327-332, March 2005)
– Madhav L. Khandekar
Global Warming and the Accumulation of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 101-126(26), January 2005)
– Arthur Rörsch, Richard S. Courtney, Dick Thoenes
Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 997-1021, December 2007)
– Keston C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong
Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Actual Evolution of the Weather Dynamics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 297-322, May 2003)
– Marcel Leroux
Global Warming: The Social Construction of A Quasi-Reality?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 6, pp. 805-813, November 2007)
– Dennis Ambler
Governments and Climate Change Issues: The case for a new approach
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 4, July 2006)
– David R. Henderson
Greenhouse molecules, their spectra and function in the atmosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 6, pp. 1037-1045(9), November 2005)
– Jack Barrett
Has the IPCC exaggerated adverse impact of Global Warming on human societies?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 5, September 2008)
– Madhav L. Khandekar
Irreproducible Results in Thompson et al., “Abrupt Tropical Climate Change: Past and Present” (PNAS 2006)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 3 , pp. 367-373(7), July 2009)
– J. Huston McCulloch
Is a Richer-but-warmer World Better than Poorer-but-cooler Worlds?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1023-1048, December 2007)
– Indur M. Goklany
Is Climate Change the “Defining Challenge of Our Age”?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 3, pp. 279-302, July 2009)
– Indur M. Goklany
Is Stern Review on climate change alarmist?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. 521-532(12), September 2007)
– S. Niggol Seo
Is the enhancement of global warming important?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, 1 July 2001 , pp. 335-341(7)
– M.C.R. Symons, J. Barrett
Key Aspects of Global Climate Change
(Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 3, pp. 469-503(35), July 1, 2004)
– Ya. K. Kondratyev
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 177-189, January 2009)
– David H. Douglass, John R. Christy
New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 327-350, 1 May 2003)
– Landscheidt T.
On the sensitivity of the atmosphere to the doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration and on water vapour feedback
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 4, pp. 603-607(5), July 2006)
– Jack Barrett, David Bellamy, Heinz Hug
Rate of Increasing Concentrations of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Controlled by Natural Temperature Variations
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 7, pp. 995-1011, December 2008)
– Fred Goldberg
Recent climate observations disagreement with projections
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 4, 2009)
– David R. B. Stockwell
Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years: A Reappraisal
(Energy and Environment, Vol. 14, Issues 2 & 3, April 11, 2003)
– Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Craig Idso, David R. Legates
Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 281-286, March 2008)
– Klaus-Martin Schulte
Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2 , pp. 105-121(17), January 2009)
– Tom Quirk
Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)
– S. Fred Singer
Taking GreenHouse Warming Seriously
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 937-950, December 2007)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 707-714, September 2006)
– Vincent Gray
Temporal Variability in Local Air Temperature Series Shows Negative Feedback
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1059-1072, December 2007)
– Olavi Kärner
The carbon dioxide thermometer and the cause of global warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 1-18(18), January 1, 1999)
– N. Calder
The cause of global warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 613-629, November 1, 2000)
– Vincent Gray
The Eco-Industrial Complex in USA – Global Warming and Rent-Seeking Coalitions
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 7, December 2008)
– Ivan Jankovic
The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyung Wang
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 985-995, December 2007)
– Douglas J. Keenan
The “Greenhouse Effect” as a Function of Atmospheric Mass
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 351-356, 1 May 2003)
– Hans Jelbring
The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 217-238, March 2005)
– Arthur Rörsch, Richard S. Courtney, Dick Thoenes
The IPCC Emission Scenarios: An Economic-Statistical Critique
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 159-185(27), May 1, 2003)
– Ian Castles, David R. Henderson
The IPCC: Structure, Processes and Politics Climate Change – the Failure of Science
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1073-1078, December 2007)
– William J.R. Alexander
The Letter Science Magazine Rejected
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Numbers 3-4, pp. 685-688(4), July 2005)
Benny Peiser
The Politicised Science of Greenhouse Climate Change
(Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 5, pp. 853-860(8), September 2004)
– Garth Paltridge
The UN IPCC’s Artful Bias: Summary of Findings: Glaring Omissions, False Confidence and Misleading Statistics in the Summary for Policymakers
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 311-328, July 2002)
– Wojick D. E.
Uncertainties in assessing global warming during the 20th century: disagreement between key data sources
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 685-706, September 2006)
– Maxim Ogurtsov, Markus Lindholm
Coral Reefs:
A critique of a method to determine long-term decline of coral reef ecosystems
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 6, pp. 783-796(14), November 2007)
– Peter V. Ridd
Hockey Stick: (MBH98)
Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003)
– Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
– Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The “Hockey-Stick” Affair and Its Implications
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 951-983, December 2007)
– David Holland
Climate Change: Beyond Kyoto
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 5, pp. 763-766(4), September 2005)
– Anne, Lauvergeon
Climate policy and uncertainty
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Numbers 5-6, pp. 415-423(9), November 1, 2001)
Catrinus J. Jepma
Earth’s Heat Source – The Sun
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 131-144(14), January 2009)
– Oliver K. Manuel
Earth’s Radiative Equilibrium in the Solar Irradiance
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 85-95(11), January 2009)
– Martin Hertzberg
Linkages Between Solar Activity and Climatic Responses
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 239-254(16), March 2005)
– William J.R. Alexander
Solar cycles 24 and 25 and predicted climate response
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 1, pp. 29-35, January 2006)
– David C. Archibald
Sun-Climate Linkage Now Confirmed
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 123-130(8), January 2009)
– Adriano Mazzarella
Understanding Solar Behaviour and its Influence on Climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 145-159(15), January 2009)
– Timo Niroma

August 29, 2009 5:10 pm

JamesG (18:56:12) :
Who said anything about being happy about out of control military spending?
Geoff Sherington’s comment “physics reigns, OK?” has it exactly right.
You seem to be a proponent of magical thinking in both physics and economics. It is all too common.

giles winterbourne
August 29, 2009 6:59 pm

I contacted Dr. Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen to
that Energy & Environment is a fully Peer-Reviewed Journal
that is indexed
in SCOPUS (Elsevier), Compendex, Environment Abstracts and Google Scholar,”
Another factor to look at is sphere of influence; what papers are citing from that list above? How often are E&E papers cited in other journals? Which authors are published in other journals? Note also: http://training.proquest.com/trc/training/en/peervsscholarly.pdf and note that SCOPUS lists it as a TRADE JOURNAL. Major difference in quality of peer review, the process, and the purpose of the publication.
And it probably should be noted that the above list of articles covering a 11-12 year span isn’t all that long compared to the body of research utilized in one chapter of any one of the IPCC reports. Longer bibs, wider range of authors, wide range of journals…….

August 29, 2009 8:59 pm

“Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series” has been cited over 93 times.
How SCOPUS labels a journal it indexes has absolutely nothing to do with peer-review “quality”. Determining peer-review “quality” is purely subjective.
It is just absurd to attempt to make some sort of comparison of a citation list from one journal (which is the subject of this discussion) to the IPCC report. I would rather compare the IPCC report to the 868 page NIPCC report which includes extensive peer-reviewed citations (form varied journals – E&E is cited only 1 time) and the full names of the 31,478 scientists who do not support the IPCC’s conclusions.
The point is,
Energy & Environment is a fully Peer-Reviewed Journal that it is indexed in SCOPUS, Compendex, Environment Abstracts, IngentaConnect and Google Scholar.

Giles Winterbourne
August 29, 2009 11:50 pm

Look up E&E’s peer review policy and compare it with journals that aren’t listed as Trade publications. Somewhat more objective criteria. There are reasons why SCOPUS lists it as a trade publication. Ipse dixit isn’t quite the reference that is supportable.
And a lengthy list of scientists with few discernible links to expertise in the field of discussion isn’t quite the reference critical thinkers would find compelling either.
And of those ’93’ , how often were M or M citing themselves? How many cites are peer-reviewed journals? Or the NIPCC report citing it twice?

August 30, 2009 12:14 am

Subjective listings are… subjective. Nothing you can do about it Giles, Energy and Environment is fully Peer-Reviewed. And it is still indexed by SCOPUS.
As for those journals and their amazing standards of excellence…
Jan-Hendrik Schon: Scientific fraud found at Bell Labs (Seattle Post-Intelligencer)
Hwang Woo Suk: For Science’s Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap (The New York Times)

Giles Winterbourne
August 30, 2009 9:02 am

Subjective: Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen: “I’m following my political agenda — a bit, anyway,” she says. “But isn’t that the right of the editor?” (http://www.arp.harvard.edu/sci/climate/journalclub/ChronicleEd.pdf)
And having to reach back 7 or 37 years for an example, and neither being about the subject at hand, says something about the rigor with which peer-review in academic journals follows.
It should also be noted that, in spite of your declaration “..information can no longer be controlled..”, there are quality control reasons for ISI and Elsevier to not include E&E’s and many other journals’ papers. Winnowing comes to mind here. SCOPUS adds web and other sources to give a better picture of the whole publishing field fitting a wider concept of information sources. But even in UG classes we learn that not all information is created equally.
This thread could be cited in a paper about how the climate change debate is being framed for a Soc Sci paper though.
Roger Pielke, Jr “…had we known then how that outlet would evolve beyond 1999 we certainly wouldn’t have published there.” (http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/should_hurricanes_be_part_of_t.html)
” “Energy and Environment” apparently has been unable to organise a proper peer review process for this paper, thereby discrediting the journal. ” (http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/Comment_E&E-on_Beck_Meijer_update.doc)
“…interesting test case for E&E’s recently advertised willingness to serve as a forum for “skeptical analyses of global warming” (E&E mission statement, Dec. 2006). The result was the publication of a paper with serious conceptual oversights that would have been spotted by any reasonably qualified reviewer. Is it really the intent of E&E to provide a forum for laundering pseudo-science? I suggest that some clarification or review of the practice is appropriate.” (http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/Response-Beck-by-R-Keeling-2.doc)
So, save your $$$, though you could see if the local Uni library has it.

August 30, 2009 11:59 am

I don’t know why Scopus lists it as a trade journal, as its manifestly not. Why should E&E publish its peer review policy, why should Boehmer Christiansen answer (loaded) questions about it? It seems to me its peer review policy, for anyone who’s interested, is pretty much the same as anybody elses: give a paper to some people who are qualified and ask them for an opinion. Is there any other way of doing it – I haven’t heard of one in 30 odd years.
Going on about E&E’s supposedly not ‘proper’ peer review process is a diversion by warmists: attack the messenger not the message, try to get it into as many heads as possible that E&E is rubbish because of an allegedly not ‘proper’ peer-review process, (as if anyone else could know, as if there is more than one way to peer-review) and therefore any paper published in it need not be acknowledged, so the fantasy that all scientists can agree can be sustained.
The Winterbournes of this world probably don’t properly understand the actual role of peer-review for, on their arguments, Nature would have to be dismissed as a joke journal with a not ‘proper’ peer-review process, since it managed to publish Mann et al.

Giles Winterbourne
August 30, 2009 2:24 pm

“..as if there is more than one way to peer-review.. ”
author nominated
single blind
double blind
And gee, guess which tend to have higher acceptance or lower rejection rates, more or less critical analysis, more or less gender / ethnic bias?

August 30, 2009 2:26 pm

Giles Winterbourne is an alarmist propagandist. He spreads lies about anything that does not support his alarmist position. Smearing E&E is vitally important since it is one of the few journals that will even consider pubishing papers skeptical of AGW.
ALL journals subjectively determine what papers get published.
I absolutely destroyed any illusion of “rigor” in academic journals with my previous post. Nature and Science’s peer-review processes are an absolute joke.
Actually all there is, is your propaganda about what information is acceptable. You do not determine this. Science is determined by reproducible results not your subjective opinions.
This thread is about subscribing to an excellent fully peer-reviewed journal that is indexed in SCOPUS, Compendex, Environment Abstracts, IngentaConnect and Google Scholar. You are attempting to smear the journal and are telling people not to subscribe to it. Your post has been reported – this is not RealClimate.org where that is acceptable.
Another fact,
“Users of academic research must recognize that scientific findings in journal articles are not checked for accuracy and, unless proven otherwise, are likely not independently replicable.”
Check the Numbers: The Case for Due Diligence in Policy Formation (PDF) (Fraser Institute)

August 30, 2009 6:08 pm

Your motivation is becoming clearer and it does not look pretty.
Consider this. You are given open access to this blog site. Why not accept the similar principle that authors can have open access to E and E, without your attempts to denigrate it.
Please don’t try to poison the well any more.

Giles Winterbourne
August 30, 2009 7:25 pm

“ALL journals subjectively determine…’
Really? How so? Where does your information on that come from?
“…absolutely destroyed any illusion …”
Really, I must have missed it.
“You do not determine this”
Yup, I don’t. The scientific community with their expertise, critical analysis, and discussion does that. A rather odd argument to put forth., especially considering I’m providing sources and data to support my argument.
“…is indexed in …”
But not Elsevier or ISI. And guess which ones hold the strongest reputations, and contain papers with better cite statistics.
“…excellent fully …” Hmmm, that would be subjective….. And not well supported by descriptions (shown above) of scientists with expertise in the field.
Interesting quote: Also of note in the paper is the discussion on how the general public really doesn’t understand the process….
“…attempts to denigrate it.”
You mean like the 14:26:48 post?
So, a main point about this thread is the offer for a special subscription rate. The expectation would be one would do due diligence in learning about what you’re buying.

August 31, 2009 1:45 am

Warmists need to substantiate the propositions ‘all scientists agree’; ‘the science is settled’ in order that public policy decisions can be made – billions to be spent with far reaching consequences. Because E&E is a standing rebuke to those propositions, they rubbish it, often with vague, unsubstantiated allegations about not ‘proper’ peer review etc, because thats an easy option (easier than tearing apart M&M which no-one has successfully done yet as far as I know). That they see the need to rubbish it is a reflection of their lack of confidence in their own position – hardly surprising, one might say, noting the number of predictions which have not quite happened, the number of papers by climate scientists, in ISI listed journals, whose peer-review is ‘proper’, which have turned out to be…not quite the ticket after all….perhaps actually the science in not settled, and perhaps actually not all scientists do agree, so perhaps its a little premature to be making far-reaching policy decisions about stuff we don’t seem to entirely understand just yet.
Bt the way, what does Winterbourne mean, ‘not listed in Elsevier and ISI’. What is this listing Elsevier run? I know they own Scopus, and its in that. I’m not aware of any other ranking/indexing service run by Elsevier. Could it be the case that no other exists, and there’s just another example of a lazy smear?

August 31, 2009 4:09 am

Geoff and Bill, Giles is an alarmist fanatic I have dealt with him before he will go to any length to smear E&E. The reality however is irrefutable:
Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed journal that is indexed in SCOPUS, Compendex, Environment Abstracts, IngentaConnect and Google Scholar.
So of course they now try to attack other subjective listings or not as relevant to anything. Whether the Thomson Reuters Corporation decides to index a science journal or not does not change the reality of the journal. See information is changing and before the gatekeepers could block access but now thanks to Google they have no more control.
For the alarmists you see only papers and journals they “approve” are acceptable. This is how they perpetuate the lie that no Peer-Reviewed papers exist disputing AGW. The reality is hundreds exist and not just in E&E.
A true skeptic would not be afraid to read the papers in E&E.
Taking GreenHouse Warming Seriously
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 937-950, December 2007)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Anyone who wants to get the truth about E&E should contact Dr. Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen, who is courteous and professional not an alarmist propagandist like Giles.
Giles cannot afford to lose this (even though he already has) so the smears will continue until Anthony gets a chance to review the comments.

August 31, 2009 4:59 am

Please stop rabbiting on. You are causing embarrassment to yourself.
Put yourself in the position of being owner of a startup Journal. You have a difficult job to penetrate the market. There are certain attributes that you can gain only with the passage of time and with good performance. You have formidable established competitors.
How would you like it if you copped flak of the type you are dishing out?
I used to be a regular monthly subscriber to “Scientific American” in the 60s to early 90s, when it started to go off the rails. I did not berate it in public. I wrote some constructive suggestions to the publisher and when they were ignored, I wiped it. It’s always an option for you to not read E and E, combined with not denigrating it.
Be fair, huh?

Giles Winterbourne
August 31, 2009 9:53 pm

“…certain attributes that you can gain only with the passage of time and with good performance.”
E & E has been published since 1989 – they’ve had time to establish their credibility.
“..copped flak of the type ..”
I’ve discussed the indexing services that accept it, quotes from scientists about it, and have asked pertinent questions about some of the responses.
But, you’re right, there are a lot of ad homs being tossed in my direction rather than any substantive discussion. But I’m not crying in my ale.
Like you, I’m offering a solution regarding a publication that doesn’t meet the needs and criteria for advancing science. And possibly like you, I have a whole folder of SA articles from the 60’s that I use.

September 1, 2009 12:40 am

Winterbourne, what you’ve done is given a partial and loaded account, coloured by ignorance of particular matters at hand. A metaphor for the methodology of certain climate ‘scientists’, if you ask me! People can read EE for themselves. If they think its rubbish, fine, free country. They don’t need your ‘advice’.

September 1, 2009 4:16 am

I love the propaganda as if Giles is about some honest inquiry of E&E. He takes out of context quotes, blog comments and other unreliable sources as evidence of his bias. His intention is to smear E&E so people will not read it.
Bill, you hit the nail on the head, people can read it for themselves. Because that is what this is really about, alarmists like Giles are scared to death anyone will actually read the peer-reviewed papers in E&E.

%d bloggers like this: