ISI, the academic database organization that calculates impact factor and other journal rankings, doesn’t include Energy and Environment in its portfolio of academic journals.
Nobody publishes in E&E unless the paper won’t stand up to review at a real journal.
Hmmm, I might be reading this wrong. Is X is none other than Intention? Discrediting sealevel rises due to AGW could hurt Tuvalu. As well as any other small Pacific islands which will also be impacted. Fiji on the other hand, is large, and might stand to gain where other Pacific places lose.
If the above statements are true we need to be talking less about the canard of environmental scientists not being disinterested!
I am appropriately impressed by the scientific rigor and integrity of this publication, but find myself wondering about their funding. Somebody writes checks so that they may continue to exist.
Man, you are the king of misconceptions. A) I wasn’t living in Tuvalu, I was living in Fiji. B) They have this new invention called the “absentee ballot”. It’s an amazing thing, you can actually vote without having to be in the country. Google is your friend.
I can verify that. I looked in both JCR Science edition AND even JCR Social Science edition. No Energy and Environment. But I’m just an elitist expecting scientists to be the ones doing science and publishing in real peer-reviewed science journals.
I do notice in the other thread in GD that he did write a brief communication arising in Nature where he discusses a paper from a group of scientists who actually did research. He accuses them of missing data and splicing temperatures from two different stations together. Then he says that the data should be fit by a gaussian average instead of a trend line. So he actually fit the data himself! Phew, that’s some heavy duty research there. And now he’s a published author in Nature. Instant credentials!
Much of the above can also be found in this thread about extinction rates. That was the first, and last, time I chose to get involved in a debate with him.
Look, I’m not claiming to be anything other than an amateur scientist who has had a few papers published. You can attack me for that all you want, it seems to distract you from actually discussing the ideas I put forward. I notice that not a single one of you has had the balls to dispute a single idea I put forth in the three papers I’ve had published. Instead, you all want to whine about anything but the science. Any distraction will do, whether my ideas were published in places you approve of, whether I used gaussian averaging, anything but actually discuss the ideas. I do not hide my name as you do, I point you to my work, and you go “Not good enough, ISI doesn’t list the journal, the Nature piece was a Communications arising, you don’t think Obama is without flaw, we don’t like your debating style”, the list goes on and on, you’ll do anything to avoid facing the issues I raise.
At the end of the day, you keep raging at me, and accusing me of being a “conspiracy theorist”, saying I’m a horse’s ass, and doing anything other than to actually discuss my ideas … but Nature thought my ideas were good enough to publish. Sneer at that all you want, but Nature thought they were good enough, despite the fact that you think I’m an idiot and laugh and sneer.
Why am I not surprised? Who among you has the balls to reveal your name and your work and where it has been published so that we can discuss it? A bunch of cowards hiding behind your anonymity. Who among you has the nerve to step up to the plate as I have done? I’ve put it all out there for you to examine, my name, my published work, my blog posts … do any of you have the guts to do that?
I already mentioned that one should not trust anyone on a message board, this is why I consider cites the most important thing, and what I see is still that your cites do resort to call scientists hoaxers (Inhofe) and full of cherry picker accusation backpedalers (McIntyre) that at the end of the day still lie that things like the hockey stick were debunked.
What is clear is that you are not willing to dismiss those sources, but to reuse them again and again. And so we can only deduce that you can not be trusted as you are not capable of realizing that your “champions” are not honest.
Speaking for myself, I’m going to remain gutlessly anonymous. I come here to express my opinion as freely as possible and would like to keep things that way.
As it turns out, I’m on the ISI highly cited researchers list, but not in the climate sciences, so my vita is irrelevant on this particular topic anyway.
I wish however that you would quit describing your publications as “papers.” They don’t seem to be what I would consider to be papers. Perhaps I’m wrong, and maybe things are different in the climate sciences than what I am used to.
I don’t care where something is published. I only care if it is true. If Moses brought you the tablets of stone, you’d complain that they weren’t peer reviewed, or that Inhofe referred to the Ten Commandments on his site.
I did not link to Inhofe’s site. I linked to a PDF containing over 700 quotes by a wide variety of scientists. There is nothing to discuss there except the quotations and their validity or lack of validity. If you don’t think that they are valid, fine, show us where … but whether Inhofe calls scientists “hoaxers” does not affect the validity of the quotations in the slightest. Not in any way. But nooooo, you don’t want to touch the idea that there are eminent scientists who disagree with you, you don’t want to discuss their quotes, you only want to talk about Inhofe.
As for Steve McIntyre, you don’t like the fact that he blew the stuffings out of a number of scientific claims. Again you don’t want to discuss that, you just want to accuse him of “cherry picking”. Once again you’ll seize any pretext, you’ll do anything to avoid discussing the science.
Re-reading this, I realized that I agree with you, cites are the most important thing. But you are confusing the cites with the sites. Let me clear that up. The site is the location where the cite comes from. One has a “c”, and one has an “s”. What is in the cite is important, it’s the scientific content. What the site is is meaningless. Sometimes realclimate is right, sometimes it is wrong. Anyone who either believes or disbelieves something based on the site (realclimate) rather than the cite (the scientific claims made) is … well … someone like you.
And I agree, don’t trust anyone on a message board … or off a message board. Check the facts, do the math, think about the claims. Don’t believe me, or you, or anyone, scientist or not. Believe the facts.
