Talk:Energy & Environment/Archive 2

'Contributors considered as climate skeptics or contrarians have included...'
All the names listed in that sentence should be sourced. In particular, I don't think we should be calling anyone a 'sceptic' or 'contrarian' without an accompanying source; it could be considered a WP:BLP issue. Robofish (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Article improvements needed
Normally I would simply clean up an article like this, but I'm a bit intimidated by the ArbCom notice on top of this page... Please have a look at the guide to writing journal articles linked at the top (in the WP Journals banner). The article would benefit from the following changes, most if which should not be controversial:


 * Addition of an infobox
 * Remove indexing info from the "criticism" section and move it to a new "Abstracting and indexing" section. We never add all that text that one sees here, we just say "Journal of Foo is abstracted and indexed in Foo Database, Index of Foo," etc. I see where it must have come from here (with detractors saying it's not a serious journal and others adding this stuff to show it is, but that is no reason to deviate from what is usual in thousands of other journal-related articles.
 * Remove the ISSN and the OCLC number from the lead, this info will go into the infobox.
 * Remove info on number of members of the editorial board. I have edited literally thousands of journal articles and this info is not given in a single one of them. It's absolutely irrelevant.
 * Remove the info on the number of libraries that carry the journal and the examples of libraries that carry it. Again, this is not info that usually is included in any journal-related article. I have seen it included by spammers wanting to show how notable "their" journal is, but given all the sources (and indexing in Scopus and EBSCO), notability is not an issue here.
 * According to the first reference, the journal is also covered in the Social Sciences Citation Index and Current Contents/Social & Behavioral Sciences, two prestigious services. This should be added to the new section "Abstracting and indexing".
 * The lead should be modified to read:

"Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed scientific journal covering the direct and indirect environmental impacts of energy acquisition, transport, production and use published by Multi-science. Since 1996, its editor-in-chief has been Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen. Benny Peiser is co-editor-in-chief."

If Benny Peiser has been co-editor since 1996, too, the last sentence should read "the co-editors-in-chief have been" etc. The rest of the lead can be deleted as explained above and the three "notable contributors" can be moved to the "Climate change skepticism" section.

If it is possible to get a consensus on these proposed changes, they could be done later this week. --Crusio (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Adding an infobox is an excellent idea. I've gone ahead and done it, along with a couple of the tweaks doing so implies for the rest of the article. --Blogjack (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Given that there is major criticism claiming that the journal has no meaningful peer-review, I would not make that claim in the lede, but rather discuss its status somewhere else. I think the infobox suggestions are uncontroversial. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If the quality of the peer-review offered is criticized, that should be discussed in the criticism section. Saying that the journal is peer-reviewed is pretty neutral I think, it doesn't say whether the peer review is good or bad. See Mankind Quarterly, another controversial journal with similar criticisms (albeit for completely different reasons). --Crusio (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * An unqualified "peer review", in particular with a link to "peer review", suggests proper peer review in the scientific sense. E&E is a far way from that. I notice that Mankind Quarterly has a NPOV tag up, and the talk page has fairly active discussion on the issue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * E&E has "proper peer review" - ask anyone who has published in it. It's OR, but I asked Craig Loehle; his article was reviewed and he had to make changes to get it accepted by the reviewers, just as with any other journal. Heck, by the same logic PNAS doesn't have "proper peer review in the scientific sense" either, in that members can submit pieces reviewed by their friends. Should we remove the link there too? :-) --Blogjack (talk) 04:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Crusio, on a point of fact. I think Peiser became co-editor in about 2006, not 1996; anyway he has stepped down effective May 1 (but remains on ed board) because of his commitments to GWPF. "suggests proper peer review in the scientific sense. E&E is a far way from that." Stephan you do make me laugh. What you mean is it occasioanlly publishes papers you don't like - or their implications. And you can cherry pick - a warmist special skill - one or two really rather dodgy ones; are we to say Nature is crap because it published Mann's hockey stick stuff, resoundingly trashed by Wegman, notwithstanding Manns interpretation of that trashing as a vindication? And whats happened to your argument 'it must be crap because its not in ISI (home of all OK journals)'? Well now it is. And are you not comprehensively stuffed? Best wishes 2.96.212.133 (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Mary44442.96.212.133 (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, on a techical point, connelly and his chums originally set up this page simply to mock e&e, part of the mockery being to claim that hardly anyone subscribes to it. Worldcat figures are misleading. While they with varying degrees of accuracy reflect direct library subscriptions, they don't reflect the reality of how journals are sold, and are available, through licensing arrangements. Thus, I think the Worldcat figure of 168 above may be about right for direct subscribers - and is not unusual - it fails to reflect the 400 chinese universities, 58 Canadian universities, 130 Brazilian universities, all Dutch universities - soon to be expanded to all Dutch citizens - and 36 German universities who have access; these developments are ongoing, and are not driven by partisan enthusiasm of any kind: its simply how journals are sold. So, the mockery of Connelly et al is as absurd as it is irrelevant; uninformed cherry picking, yet again. Tragic.2.96.212.133 (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Mary44442.96.212.133 (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hang on: "Energy & Environment (E&E), published since 1989, is an interdisciplinary peer-reviewed"........ now at this point - assuming we are remotely interested in having a reasonable page here, at this point we should say explicitly that at this point it is in ISI, rather than as a superscript, given that so much of the rubbishing of this journal has been around its inadequacy, defined by Conelly, Stephan et al, in not being in ISI.~Mary4444~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.212.133 (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"Given that there is major criticism claiming that the journal has no meaningful peer-review", says Stephan above. And from whom does this 'major' criticism come from. Why, people like Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate for example. Now, he wouldn't be a tiny little bit biased would he, trying to smear what he no doubt regards as an 'enemy' by any means possible, would he? And who's his mate: none other than 'Hockey-stick' Mann who, you will remember from the Climategate emails, recommended suing EE which would have, he hoped, the happy outcome of shutting it down. So why do the opinions of these people count as 'major criticisms' eh Stephan? Is criticism only 'major' when it comes from the parti-pris? And of the hundreds of papers published over 22 years, to just how many can be applied this charge of 'no meaningful peer-review'? As ever, the point of this Wikipedia page is to defend the warmists proposition that 'all the peer reviewed science agrees' with their point of view, so they have to make again and again the claim that EE is not 'meaningfully' or 'properly' or 'adequately' peer-reviewed in order to substantiate that claim. That they know their claim is false, or cannot know the truth behind their claim, affects their actions not one bit. And of course they took advantage of the uninformed to loudly claim that EE's not being in ISI 'proved' that it was not peer-reviewed, despite what the editor said. So, what, now its in ISI, will they accept that that 'proves' it is peer-reviewed? Or is ISI, once apparently the gold-standard, suddenly an indicator of no consequence? How're they going to dig themselves out of that hole, I wonder? Come on Stephan, give us a laugh, I mean an answer. 81.130.74.34 (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Mary444481.130.74.34 (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Reminder Talk pages are for discussing how to improve an article, not to fight or taunt other editors. Please stick to this rule and present your arguments without personal attacks. My own position is clear: this is a peer-reviewed academic journal. Its peer-review process has been criticized strongly. All this needs to be covered in a neutral way in this article. As an aside, I will remove any further comments that do not address the issues in a normal conversational tone and/or contain disparaging personal attacks. Anyone engaging in further personal attacks will be reported at ANI and probably be blocked (given the ArbCom restrictions in force here). --Crusio (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Simply, then, it should be noted that the criticisms of EEs allegedly inadequate peer review all come from those who are parti-pris. And it should also be noted that the whole point of this page was to ridicule EE, because its existence undermines a certain point of view, and its only through many years of slog that others are getting it somewhere towards neutrality. 84.13.21.209 (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Mary

TAMPERING WITH THE RECORD

People who know how Wikipedia works will be better able to check out my recollections than I can. My recollection is, that in earlier versions of this page, where Pielke refers to EE not being in ISI etc, he was referring to a 1997 paper of his, though possibly it is the one currently referenced as a year 2000 paper) and the link was to his specific remarks, not just to Nature's Wiki page. Which means his opinion of the journal must have changed, as he published another paper in it in 2004. So someone is trying to misleadingly create the impression that it was in 2007 that Pielke made his comments, thus they represent his current opinion, whereas they predate his 2004 publication by several years, and the presence of that 2004 publication indicates that his view, that EE was not worth publishing in, must have changed, surely? That is not the impression that clever piece of 'editing' gives. Or perhaps I am wrong? 81.134.87.45 (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Mary81.134.87.45 (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

here's another rum thing. Look it up. Earlier in talk Stephan alleged Scopus didn't count. Now, on the article page, the FACT that EE is in ISI (formerly claimed to be the gold standard, journals not in ISI necessarily no good) appears below the Scopus (incorrect) assertion that it is a trade journal, and below the Ebsco claim that it is (never mind the fact that Ebsco is not a ranking organisation of the same kind as ISI and Scopus). So why isn't the ISI listing given the prominence it deserves - which it must deserve if the argument 'EE not in ISI = not peer reviewed' was once valid? Only asking. Don't suupose anyone will reply. As the footer fans often crow, "Its all gone quiet over there" 78.146.106.168 (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Mary444478.146.106.168 (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

time to re-write this page
This page was set up by william connelly, since banned from editorial role on wikipedia, to mock EE, precisely because its existence contradicted the warmist big lie that "all peer-reviewed science agrees" that global warming is (a) happening and (b) manmade. The central charge was that papers published in EE, contrary to its own claims, were not peer reviewed. Central to this charge was the then true, but illogical, claim that it was not listed in ISI therefore it could not be peer reviewed, all ISI listed being peer reviewed. Now it is listed in ISI, so the illogical, caught in the chains of their own logic, must surely concede it is peer reviewed? And so the strongest strut underpinning the "all peer reviewed science agrees" argument, collapses. On details, Pielke's comments need looking at: the link to Nature 2007 refer to his 2000 paper, and don't explain why he published a 2004 paper in EE. Ebsco is not a ranking organisation like ISI and Scopus and to present it in an undifferentiated context is deliberately misleading; Worldcat stats say nothing useful about a journals circulation, and are only presented here to imply the journal is trivial. Its worldcat stats are about the same as energy sources, either way they don't capture the reality of journal licensing, which has been going on for years. So, I don't care whether anyone hates EE or loves it from from some partisan position, what I'm arguing for is a neutral, wikipedian kind of page. What we presently have is a hate-job, randomly interspersed with revisionism. 78.146.106.168 (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Mary444478.146.106.168 (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Either you don't know what you are talking about, or you make malicious misrepresentations about other editors in violation of WP:NPA. In either case, you are not helping. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you like to explain explicitly what it is I don't know what I'm talking about? My points above seem cogent to me. Am I mistaken that Connelly set up this page? Am I further mistaken that he is banned? aAm I mistaken that this page was originally set up as a rubbishing EE job? Is the allusion to WP:NPA yet another implication that opinions "we" dislike will be silenced? It seems to me I am being very helpful, in trying to create a neutral page. Your remarks above are mere rherotic: helping whom, for example? And pray, in what way are my comments "malicious"? Do you mean 'Willy is my friend'? Barelt expecting a reply, best wishes 84.13.20.32 (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Mary84.13.20.32 (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To all participants at this discussion This carping and bickering about past issues with the article is not helpful at all and completely irrelevant. That is not what a talk page is about. Please only post messages that constructively discuss how the article can be improved. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

ERROR REQUIRING CORRECTION
The article states "Scopus lists Energy & Environment as a trade journal". This is no longer correct. In the latest update of Scopus's master list, that entry has been corrected to "Journal". See http://www.info.sciverse.com/scopus/scopus-in-detail/facts/ and click on to the master list, lower right hand side of the page, an Excel sheet appears, listing all journals in Scopus, EE is 8409. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to make the necessary changes to the Wikipedia page about EE? 81.134.125.221 (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Mary81.134.125.221 (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's another strange thing. The article states "EE is published by Multi-Science" and then gives as the reference (3) a book by Fred Pearce. Why not just reference it to multi-science's website, www.multi-science.co.uk ? 92.25.88.25 (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Mary92.25.88.25 (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC) If within Wikipedia there are articles about Elsevier journals, is verification for the fact that they are published by Elsevier sought from some third party source, not the publisher's website? Perhaps a correction could be made?92.25.88.25 (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Mary92.25.88.25 (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, what is the point of ref (3) the link to one of pearce's books? When you click on it all it does is take you to some web page about Pearce. In what sense is that a source for Multi-Science as the publisher of EE? Could someone look into this and provide something better please (or a rationale for this strange choice)? Thanks 81.134.125.221 (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Mary81.134.125.221 (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikilink geomorphologist.
Wikilink geomorphologist. 99.181.136.35 (talk) 06:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't put links within quotations, don't really know whether there is a guideline for that or not, but it doesn't seem appropriate to me. --Crusio (talk) 08:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Add WMO (World Meteorological Organization) hypertext link.
Add WMO (World Meteorological Organization) hypertext link. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikilink University of New South Wales
Wikilink University of New South Wales. 99.181.140.243 (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

CRITICISM

The opening piece in criticism is a comment by some Australian academic, which is presented as a rubbishing of EE. This is what ref 7 actually gives us: "Plimer repeatedly veers off to the climate sceptic's journal of choice, the bottom-tier Energy and Environment, to advance all manner of absurd theories: for example, that CO2 concentrations actually have fallen since 1942." You will observe that apart from the adjectival side swipe at EE, what he is actually cricising is Plimer, and it is a review of Plimer's book that ref 7 in fact takes us to. So why is this ref, where EE is mentioned in parentheses, positioned as the leading criticism of EE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.75.100 (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Look again at the LEADING item of criticism: Writing in The Australian, Michael Ashley (University of New South Wales) described the publication as "the climate sceptic's journal of choice, the bottom-tier Energy and Environment", adding that it was used "to advance all manner of absurd theories: for example, that CO2 concentrations actually have fallen since 1942".[7] No, he didn't, he said Plimer advanced all sorts of absurd theories, and that is whom the criticism of - remember this is a review of Plimer's book - and in passing Plimer (according to Ashley) relied on EE for his claims. So can we amend the article? Clearly, what is presented as a criticism of EE is in fact a criticism of Plimer. That it criticises EE in passing does not make it a strong enough criticism to be be the opening statement in a section marked "Criticism", and I am sure everyone will agree that it is duplicitous to change the object of criticism from Plimer to EE, without disclosing that change. I look f/w to comments. 92.29.75.100 (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Mary444492.29.75.100 (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC).

At the risk of incurring Curioso's wrath, that ref is only a strong criticism of EE if we accept it is perfectly OK to cherry-pick words from someone's quote to give it meaning that the original does not convey. Even if its OK to effectively start a page (within a format where neutrality is the object) with "Criticsm", then surely the opening criticism should be strong and self supporting, not a function of selective editing?92.29.75.100 (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Mary444492.29.75.100 (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In my first pass through I just corrected the quote to just the parts that mention E&E, but as I read it again just now I agree with Marry4444 - it's Undue Weight. That some guy somewhere referred to this journal in print as "bottom-tier" in particular is not noteworthy and even citing it for "skeptics like to publish there" is (a) iffy ,(b) arguably outdated). I boldly zapped the whole quote as per argument above. --Blogjack (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

CRITICISM
see above 92.29.75.100 (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Mary444492.29.75.100 (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Heroes
There used to be, on this page, a nice long list of the contrarian heroes, well-known figures, who have published in EE. Can we have it restored? All we have at the moment is Henderson (economist) Tol (economist, mostly, I think) Yohe (who he?) Why would it hurt to include Lindzen, Singer, possibly Idso? (if indeed he did: the other two definitely have). As it stands, the article implies that the only people who publish in EE know nothing about climate science itself - Yohe, sorry if I'm maligning you. I'm not even asking for Pielke's name to be included. Just a bit of balance would be nice.21:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Mary444421:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.75.100 (talk)

"not carried in the ISI" is now false
The Criticisms section contains Pielke's claim: "The journal is not carried in the ISI and thus its papers rarely cited. (Then we thought it soon would be.)" In fact, E&E now *is* carried in the ISI, so (a) Pielke was right to think it soon would be, (b) Pielke's criticism is no longer relevant. It seems misleading to leave the quote there without mentioning that it's no longer accurate. I'm inclined to zap the whole quote but failing that, at least add some sort of clarifying note. --Blogjack (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Pielke's comments seem strange, maybe becasue I haven't looked at them sufficiently closely. First I agree with Blogjack's point (b), and would support a clarification being added (and if one can be added to that, why can't one by added to Ashley's cherry-picked quote, see my comment Criticism, above) On point (a) this quote of Peilke's has been knocking around for a long time, and I think its in connection with his 2000 paper in EE; so he published in EE in 2000 because he thought it would soon be in ISI, well since its got into ISI in 2011 thats hardly soon, so his criticism, if thats what it is, is valid. On Pielke's strangeness, if he made that comment in 2000, why did he go on to publish another paper in EE 2004? Or, if its first place of publication was the Nature blog 2007, still odd, because by 2004 EE was already in the storm centre over Balunias, MM etc - controversy was attached to its name already: so why did he publish again in a journal known to be controversial and something of a haven for sceptics, and then subsequently pretend he didn't know its nature? In his expansion to his comments to the Guardian, which is in the refs of the EE article page, he says the journal had been going for a couple of years when he published his first paper, new journal, why shouldn't he give it a go. Fair enough, except a moment's examination would have shown him it had been going 11 years at that time. Rum. 81.130.123.232 (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Mary444409:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Near as I can tell, the main reason people wanted to include the quote was to help establish the (false even then) claim that only ISI-listed journals "matter", which is now of historical interest only. The sources are (a) an offhand blog comment and (b) a blog posting - when we now have better options. If we are to keep the RPJ claim, I would prefer to get rid of this instance of it and instead reference what he said (and what Gavin said) in the more notable edited-and-published Guardian article. --Blogjack (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the "cleanup" tag still needed?
And if so, what sort of cleanup does it still need? --Blogjack (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Given no response, I'm removing the tag. --Blogjack (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Impact Factor
Can we get the Impact Factor included in this journal's basic info? By the way what is this journal's impact factor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trent1492 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The journal is currently not included in the Journal Citation Reports and therefore has not (yet?) an impact factor. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, EE was accepted into ISI's system for indexing in 2011 and so, as is normal, its first impact factor will appear in mid 2012 ~mary4444~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.145.38 (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Contributors list inadequate
Contributors are listed at the beginning of the article as being Henderson, Tol, and Yohe. This is OK as far as it goes but doesn't bring out the significance of the contribuitions to E&E. Shouldn't a few of the better known names be added: McIntyre & McKitrick, whose demolishing of the Hockey Stick changed the climate change conversation completely; Soon & Balunias, Singer, Lindzen, Gurlanky, Kininmonth are a few that come to mind. Of the ones currently listed, why pick those three? Tol has some significant public profile, I'm not sure the other two do. I don't think mere mortals are presently allowed to alter the page, so I'd welcome anyone who is able doing that, or any of the usual suspects telling me why it can't be done. At one point, in its many revisions, a list including Lindzen et al was on the Wiki EE page. Don't know why it disappeared. Could it come back?81.130.81.107 (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Mary81.130.81.107 (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For good reasons, the journal articles writing guide discourages the listing of "notable contributors". As you say, such lists are usually arbitrary and, in any case, don't confer any notability on the journal (WP:NOTINHERITED). All three that are currently listed are apparently "notable" in the WP sense, not just Tol. I think that the best solution is to remove the third sentence of the lead completely. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the journal articles writing guide and, in the light of that your suggestion of removing all 3 names seems reasonable. However the JWG seems to imply that articles should be straight factual accounts. It doesn't say its OK to have the article dominated by Criticism, so how about taking that section out altogether, too?84.13.37.27 (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Mary84.13.37.27 (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A well-sourced criticism section is a factual account. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to keep Connelly, Kim, Stephan et al on their toes, I,ve made another cheery change to the page - nice to see us mortals are allowed to play again - I'll look for a source for that Goklany quote. It'll be fun to see how long my changes are allowed to last....its 11.40 here. -~Mary4444~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.59.180 (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like ~15 minutes, with the limit of measurement being the fact that your edit was smeared out over 24 minutes. And you might want to read WP:POINT. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't quite know what "smeared out over 24 minutes" means. _Anyway, nice to see you're still on the ball. Tomorrow I shall have a look at WP:POINT and, no doubt, note your special interpretation of it. Tomorrow, battle will recommence. Best wishes ~Mary4444~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.59.180 (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Stephan, please don't think I'm sandbagging you, having said "until tomorrow" but what exactly was your point in referring me to WP:POINT? Having looked at it, it doesn't seem to me that me edit (deleted) infringed it. What am I missing?~Mary4444~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.59.180 (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of a reply from a 24-hour Wiki watcher in fact I took another look at WP:POINT and clicked POLICIES, in case there was a Wiki policy which said man made global warming was real, the science was settled, and every prospect pleaseth apart from man who is vile ( either Pope or Marvell, can't recall). So WP:POINT doesn't invalidate my edit. nor does POLICIES, so WTF? All I got at POLICIES was a nice man called sinebot reminding me I should add 4 tildes to my messages: thus 84.13.59.180 (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)mary444484.13.59.180 (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I must say there's not a lot wrong with Professor Sonnenfeld's revisions to the E&E page. One small error: Peiser is no longer co-editor, and the link through the EE webpage is to his Liverpool John Moores Univ email address which I think is no longer valid - ie he is a full time GWPF person. no doubt Multi-Science will correct that soon. Surprising indeed that the usual suspects have allowed these revisions to a well-watched wikipedia page to stand. Lets watch this space. Now, 4 tildes I believe is the deal: 89.242.95.22 (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Mary444421:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

One of the bits of bias thats always irritated me about this page is the out of context stuff from Pielke, and Gavin's bought and paid for schtick in the Guardian (well played Fenton Communications) that EEs peer review is sub standard. Perhaps Professor S or someone else would like to dig up the quotes from Tol, Loehle, for example, saying that EEs peer review is perfectly normal? Oh wait - those quotes will no doubt be from blogs that Stephan, Kim, Connelly, don't approve of? See up-thread for how the guys exclude all 'wrong-headed' blogs. All blogs are equal, but some blogs more equal than others? So Real Climate won't count then, in the Wiki-wonderland?89.242.95.22 (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)mary444489.242.95.22 (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

A small quibble: the journal was not founded by David Everest. He was the first editor, appointed by Multi-Science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.95.22 (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Factual error
"Its editor-in-chief since 1998 is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen. Benny Peiser (Global Warming Policy Foundation) currently serves as co-editor.[4]"

This is not correct, Peiser does not currently serve as co-editor, and the Multi-Science website has been amended to reflect that. Would someone care to make the necessary correction?81.130.77.4 (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Mary444481.130.77.4 (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The 'Mission Statement' page on the journal's website continues to state: "Dr. Benny Peiser, University of Liverpool and the UK Global Warming Policy Foundation now acts as co-editor." Perhaps this is error, too? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I missed that one, well spotted. Another odd thing, just below that bit about Peiser, the claim that its only published 240 papers since 1988 (leaving aside the fact that Vol 1 was 1989.) I'm sure if anyone could be bothered to add up the papers published since year 2000, they alone would exceed 240, never mind what was published in the 11 years prior to that - and since 2000, they are all listed at http://multi-science.metapress.com (click on to Energy and Environment to see the contents pages)84.13.145.62 (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Mary84.13.145.62 (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just checked: if one searches in Web of Science, 240 articles are listed and the citation report indeed gives the results reported in the article. Whether that should remain is another question. The data are potentially misleading, as lay people may easily be impressed by these numbers whereas in actuality, of course, they are absolutely dismal... They become a little bit less dismal once one sees that only articles published since 2009 have been included, which definitely should be corrected in the article text. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 03:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, since 2009 makes sense of the 240 articles claim, and I suppose it appears thus in ISI because when they add a journal (usually) they cover the two years prior to their start date, ie they added EE in 2011 so would have begun their coverage of it from 2009. Perhaps that could be made explicit in the article, since it reads to me at present that this journal has only published 240 articles in 22 years, barely 10 per year!81.130.77.4 (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)Mary444481.130.77.4 (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. Clarification & comparison added. See if that helps... Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the comparison is a good idea. This is not something done in any other article on a journal that I know about. Pretty soon, the first impact factor should be published (the 2011 IFs should come out any day now). When those are available, we can provide a ranking (see, for example, Social Politics, where I just added that info). Such a ranking will be more informative, because the current comparison doesn't say much if one doesn't know how all other journals in this category do. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, once the impact factor is available, that would be a stronger indicator to use. (The comparative journal, cited in the footnote, is Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions.) Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

First it would be interesting to know what this other journal is, just so we know we're comparing like with like,not talking about Nature for example. Second is there any point in stating the H index or the coming impact factor, since they will be trivial, except to deliberately cast the journal in a poor light? Sonia B-C points out that the IPCC (and virtually all professional academic climate scientists) won;t have anything to do with the journal, so when it publishes on climate matters, it publishes the work of the relatively small number of contrarians, who obviously are not going to be cited by the majority who don't think there's anything to be contrary about anyway, and dismiss contrarians pretty much completely.81.130.77.4 (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)Mary81.130.77.4 (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Where available, impact factors are always listed in articles on academic journals, whether high or low. In this case, it's going to be very low, but then, for every journal that has an IF, there are many more that are not listed by the JCR (I have yet to see a journal article deleted because the IF was low; generally, the presence of any IF is taken as a proof of notability). I'm less sure about the h-index. I have never (on- or off-wiki) seen journals rated by their h-index. That would be very difficult anyway (given that its h is dependent on a journal's age and field, for example). Even if one would limit the h-calculation to a certain time period and only compare within a field, most journals would not be comparable, given the large differences in numbers of articles published. For those reasons, I'm inclined to delete it here. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Lacking an impact factor, I found the h-index interesting, but don't feel strongly about it. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

OK this how it presently stands: E&E published 240 articles between January 2009 and May 2012. According to Web of Science, 28 (11.7%) of those articles had been cited by at least one other peer-reviewed, scholarly journal article (excluding self-citations) by June 2012; the journal's h-index for the same period was 3.[8] (By contrast, the leading peer-reviewed journal in the same, 'Environmental Studies' category had 227 (70.9%) of its 320 articles published during a similar period cited at least once, with an h-index of 18.)[9] What about (a) deleting entirely the section in brackets beginning "By contrast"; or (b) naming the journal with an h factor of 18, or (c) deleting everything after "by June 2012;" with a mental note to include the impact factor when it becomes available and possibly if (c) then adding a comment similar to mine 'explaining' why the IF is so low? Any thoughts?84.13.17.172 (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)Mary84.13.17.172 (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't bother to explain my change because I get tired of the loaded arguments. Peisner (a) obviously has nothing to do with the journal now and (b) majorly employed as he now is by GWPF, so,so what? You might as well start a "shock-horror" line, John Surrey, or Bjorn Lomjberg, used to be on the editorial board" Big deal78.146.107.61 (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)mary444478.146.107.61 (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)