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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf
(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.
Giles,
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?
“…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.
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’.
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.