![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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:
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)
IP comments containing personal attacks |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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)Mary4444 2.96.212.133 ( 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)Mary4444 2.96.212.133 ( 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)
|
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)Mary 81.134.87.45 ( 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)Mary4444
78.146.106.168 (
talk)
21:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
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)Mary4444 78.146.106.168 ( talk) 22:05, 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)Mary 84.13.20.32 ( talk) 21:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
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)Mary 81.134.125.221 ( 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)Mary 92.25.88.25 ( 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)Mary 92.25.88.25 ( 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)Mary 81.134.125.221 ( talk) 07:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikilink geomorphologist. 99.181.136.35 ( talk) 06:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Add WMO ( World Meteorological Organization) hypertext link. 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 21:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
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)Mary4444 92.29.75.100 ( 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)Mary4444 92.29.75.100 ( talk) 21:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
see above 92.29.75.100 ( talk) 21:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Mary4444 92.29.75.100 ( talk) 21:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
And if so, what sort of cleanup does it still need? -- Blogjack ( talk) 03:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 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)Mary 81.130.81.107 ( talk) 16:53, 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)Mary 84.13.37.27 ( talk) 21:51, 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)
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)mary4444 84.13.59.180 ( 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)mary4444 89.242.95.22 ( 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)
"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)Mary4444 81.130.77.4 ( talk) 09:41, 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)Mary 84.13.145.62 ( talk) 21:39, 14 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)Mary4444 81.130.77.4 ( talk) 07:39, 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)Mary 81.130.77.4 ( talk) 16:21, 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)Mary 84.13.17.172 ( 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 deal 78.146.107.61 ( talk) 22:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)mary4444 78.146.107.61 ( talk) 22:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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:
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)
IP comments containing personal attacks |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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)Mary4444 2.96.212.133 ( 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)Mary4444 2.96.212.133 ( 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)
|
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)Mary 81.134.87.45 ( 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)Mary4444
78.146.106.168 (
talk)
21:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
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)Mary4444 78.146.106.168 ( talk) 22:05, 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)Mary 84.13.20.32 ( talk) 21:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
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)Mary 81.134.125.221 ( 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)Mary 92.25.88.25 ( 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)Mary 92.25.88.25 ( 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)Mary 81.134.125.221 ( talk) 07:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikilink geomorphologist. 99.181.136.35 ( talk) 06:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Add WMO ( World Meteorological Organization) hypertext link. 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 21:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
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)Mary4444 92.29.75.100 ( 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)Mary4444 92.29.75.100 ( talk) 21:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
see above 92.29.75.100 ( talk) 21:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Mary4444 92.29.75.100 ( talk) 21:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
And if so, what sort of cleanup does it still need? -- Blogjack ( talk) 03:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 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)Mary 81.130.81.107 ( talk) 16:53, 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)Mary 84.13.37.27 ( talk) 21:51, 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)
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)mary4444 84.13.59.180 ( 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)mary4444 89.242.95.22 ( 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)
"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)Mary4444 81.130.77.4 ( talk) 09:41, 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)Mary 84.13.145.62 ( talk) 21:39, 14 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)Mary4444 81.130.77.4 ( talk) 07:39, 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)Mary 81.130.77.4 ( talk) 16:21, 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)Mary 84.13.17.172 ( 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 deal 78.146.107.61 ( talk) 22:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)mary4444 78.146.107.61 ( talk) 22:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)