Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment

A frequent source of contention in the global warming debate is the existence of peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments. These have been overwhelmingly proven to exist. Once confronted with this inconvenient truth, alarmists have desperately tried to discredit certain journals that dare publish these papers. One of these is the journal Energy & Environment. This is a reference correcting misinformation about this journal.

Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary scholarly journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
- Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, JournalSeek, Scopus and Thompson Reuters (ISI)
- Found at 173 libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cambridge University, Cornell University, British Library, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, National Library of Australia, Ohio University, Pennsylvania State University, Rutgers University, University of California, University of Delaware, University of Oxford, University of Virginia, and MIT.


Citations:

Citations are a determination of popularity not scientific validity. Regardless, various papers from E&E are widely cited; "Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series" is cited 203 times, "The IPCC emission scenarios: An economic-statistical critique" 110 times and "Reconstructing climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years: a reappraisal" 91 times.


Editor:

E&E's editor Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen has impeccable credentials,

Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, B.A. (Hons) Geography (Thesis: Geomorphology), University of Adelaide (1962), M.A. International Relations, University of Sussex (1971), D.Phil. (Ph.D.) International Relations (Thesis: Limits to the International Control of Marine Pollution) (1981)

Lecturer in Geography, Flinders University, Australia (1963-68), Research Assistant, Institute for Public International Law, Ludwig-Maximillian University, Germany (1982-1985), Consultant, Acid Rain Project, Chatham House, UK (1986-1987), Research Fellow, Science Policy Unit, University of Sussex, UK (1985-1987), Senior Research Fellow, Science Policy Unit, University of Sussex, UK (1987-1993), Member, Working Group on Global Environmental Change, International Political Science Association (1991-1994), Referee, Environmental Research Programme, European Commission (1992), Member, Working Group on Environment and Society, International Sociological Association (1992-Present), Reader of Environmental Science and Management, Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK (1993-2007), Consultant, Climatic Impacts Centre, Macquarie University, Australia (1994), Member, International Geographical Union (1998-Present), Editor, Energy & Environment Journal (1998-Present), Reader Emeritus of Environmental Science and Management, Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK (2007-Present), Expert Reviewer, IPCC (1995, 2001)


Funding:

Energy & Environment is falsely accused to be funded by the energy industry or other politically motivated interests.

"E&E is funded by the publisher Multi-Science and I have nothing to do with financial matters. E&E does not advertise, and I do not get a salary."

- Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Editor, Energy & Environment

Source: Email Correspondence

"E&E doesn't have 'funding'. Like all our journals, it exists on it's subscription income."

- Bill Hughes, Director, Multi-Science Publishing

Source: Email Correspondence

Mission Statement:

"Energy & Environment (E&E) is an interdisciplinary academic journal debating issues arising from aspirations of ‘integrated’ policy-making and academic analysis. It serves as a forum for constructive and professional debate and the search for solutions in a policy area that remains a focus of politics at all levels and involves major regulatory and investment efforts. Social scientists and policy makers, natural scientists as well as technologists are addressed, indeed everybody concerned with the direct and indirect environmental impacts of energy acquisition, transport, production and use. Our objective is to inform across professional and disciplinary boundaries and debate the social, economic, political and technological implications of environmental controls, as well as interrogate the science claims made to justify environmental regulations of the energy industries, including transport. Contributors are asked to use language that bridges disciplinary divides.

E&E appears eight times a year, including one or two Special Issues that are devoted to a single subject, or select papers from a single conference or institution. For example, E&E has long published a selection of papers from the triennial World Energy Congress. Such issues are prepared by a guest editor who is responsible for the selection of the papers, proof reading and an introductory editorial. A recent current special issue selected critical responses to recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports and their implications for energy policy, another dealt with nuclear waste disposal issues from a social science perspective. Special issues in preparation include a selection of papers from the most recent papers on solar theories of global climate change, fuel poverty and hopefully, biofuels. Past special issues have dealt with clean coal, energy consumption issues, the re-emerging nuclear debate in Europe and the UK, as well as critical debates associated with the transition to ‘low carbon’ technologies and fuels.

Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed. Book reviews, conference reports, and letters are usually included, as is the editor’s regular piece 'Fuel for Thought' which aims to keep readers informed about developments in key issue areas impinging on energy policy: energy policy, new energy technologies, the climate change science debate and intergovernmental battles over access to resources and emission reductions. Nuclear developments are summarised with the help of World Nuclear News, from World Nuclear Association, London.

E&E does not advertise. It is run on a part-time basis from Hull University in England. We seek to encourage communications between the many branches of the policy-making and research worlds that deal with ‘energy’ and encourage excursions into theory and futuristic speculation. E&E has consistently striven to publish many ‘voices’ and to challenge conventional wisdoms. Perhaps more so than other European energy journal, the editor has made E&E a forum for more skeptical analysis of ‘climate change’ and the advocated solutions. We look for contributions that make energy technology a contributor to improving social and environmental conditions where this is most needed.

Some Journal History and Information about the Editorial Board:

E&E has been published by Multi-Science (UK) since 1989. It was founded by Dr David Everest, formerly chief scientist to the then UK Department of the Environment. After his death in 1998, Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen took over the editorship. She had previously worked with the Energy Group at the Science and Technology Policy Unit at the University of Sussex with Professors John Surrey and Jim Skea. Jim remains on the Editorial Board but John who long supported the journal, had to withdraw in 2007 because of ill health.

The journal benefits from an able and active Editorial Board that is continuously ‘revitalized’ and remains invaluable through its assistance in the time consuming, valuable peer review process. Former members of the Energy and Environment Groups at SPRU remain closely involved, as do members from the Fraunhofer Institute in Germany, the Free University Berlin and the Fridtjof Nansen Institute in Norway, the UK Institute for Economic Affairs and the Danish Environmental Assessment Institute. Max Beran and Jack Barrett, long involved with environmental science research in the UK strengthens our expertise in the natural sciences as they relate to environmental protection.

We have recently enlarged the editorial board by inviting experts from the carbon fuels industries lest these all-important providers of energy are neglected in the current enthusiasm for ‘renewables’. We have links with many academic departments and encourage contributions from authors working in ‘developing’ countries doing research into energy-environment issues that relate to poverty reduction and development. The editorial team, strongly encouraged by the publisher Multi-Science, is working hard to advance the status of the journal in the research community."

Source: Email Correspondence

Misinterpreted Quotes:

"Political Agenda"

An out of context quote of editor Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen has it's meaning frequently distorted, "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway," ... "But isn't that the right of the editor?" (Origin: The Chronicle of Higher Education).


This is the correct interpretation,

"My political agenda is simple and open; it concerns the role of research ambitions in the making of policy.

I concluded from a research project about the IPCC - funded by the UK government during the mid 1990s - that this body was set up to support, initially, climate change research projects supported by the WMO and hence the rapidly evolving art and science of climate modeling. A little later the IPCC came to serve an intergovernmental treaty, the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. This enshrines in law that future climate change would be warming caused by greenhouse gases (this remains debated), is man-made (to what an extend remains debated) as well as dangerous (remains debated). It became a task of the IPCC government selected and government funded, to support the theory that this man-made warming would be dangerous rather than beneficial, as some argue.

The solutions to this assumed problem were worked out by IPCC working group three, which worked largely independently of the science working group one and consisted primarily of parties interested in a 'green' energy agenda, including people from environment agencies, NGOs and environmental economics. This group supplied the science group with emission scenarios that have been widely criticized and which certainly enhanced the 'danger'. From interviews and my own reading I concluded that the climate science debate WAS BY NO MEANS OVER AND SHOULD CONTINUE. However, when I noticed that scientific critics of the IPCC science working group were increasingly side-lined and had difficulties being published - when offered the editorship of E&E, I decided to continue publishing 'climate skeptics' and document the politics associated with the science debate. The implications for energy policy and technology are obvious.

I myself have argued the cause of climate 'realism' - I am a geomorphologist by academic training before switching to environmental international relations - but do so on more the basis of political rather than science-based arguments. As far as the science of climate change is concerned, I would describe myself as agnostic.

In my opinion the global climate research enterprise must be considered as an independent political actor in environmental politics. I have widely published on this subject myself, and my own research conclusions have influenced my editorial policy. I also rely on an excellent and most helpful editorial board which includes a number of experienced scientists. Several of the most respected 'climate skeptics' regularly peer-review IPCC critical papers I publish."

- Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Editor, Energy & Environment

Source: Email Correspondence

"Scientific Truth"

Another out of context quote of editor Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen has it's meaning frequently distorted, "I do not claim that I or my reviewers can arbitrate on the 'scientific' truth of publications that the IPCC selects as most relevant" (Origin: Letter to Michael Mann).


This is the correct interpretation,

"I stand by this, truth is far too strong a term for any reviewer to claim when judging a paper on something as complex and poorly defined a set of phenomena as 'climate'.

In fact, with reference to the next edition of E&E on paradigms in climate science (edited by Prof. Arthur Rorsch of the Netherlands) I would claim that nobody except people caught inside a fixed paradigm which they mistake for truth, could ever claim to deliver truth by peer review.

Only time and experience will tell the truth…

I do however accept that policy cannot always wait for the truth and rarely does, hence the high risk of policies that get it wrong, and the persuasive power of scaremongers, and the attraction to politics and those with political ambitions of fear. Politics has always been much motivated by fear. coupled with the promise of salvation, or rather being able to solve the problem, in our case by more research and green technology and/or changes in life styles. I am a political scientists and see many motives for the IPCC and its supporters to combine 'alarmism' with grand solutions."

- Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Editor, Energy & Environment

Source: Email Correspondence

Name Origin:

Energy & Environment is falsely accused to be named for a relation to the energy industry.

"The journal's title was devised by me when I started it because (a) there was no other title of the same name and (b) because that was what it was (and is) about. My original interest was sparked by the then reports of Norway (and possibly Germany too) threatening to sue the UK on account of damage to its woodland by acid rain, caused by steel mills in the UK. Specifically I was interested in how that would work, Govt A suing Govt B about the legal activities of a commercial organization in Govt B's jurisdiction. As the idea was talked through, it developed into energy's effects and impacts on the environment, and the political and policy issues which those effects and impacts threw up. And that's been its remit ever since. While it doesn't focus solely on climate change issues, its not surprising they've dominated the journal for the last 15 years, because for the last 15 years what else apart from climate change has been the overriding energy policy issue?"

- Bill Hughes, Director, Multi-Science Publishing

Source: Email Correspondence

Papers:

Certain papers published in E&E are repeatedly brought up as controversial,

1. 180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 2, pp. 259-282, March 2007)
- Ernst-Georg Beck

There has only been one published criticism by Harro A.J. Meijer and Ralph F. Keeling which was rebutted by Ernst-Georg Beck,

- Comments on "180 years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods" (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. 641-646, September 2007)
- Ernst-Georg Beck

It is falsely claimed that this paper was never peer-reviewed,

"...this paper was reviewed by a retired research director (of environmental sciences) from a country deeply involved in climate research; and a professor of radiation chemistry, as well as a number of experts mentioned in the paper" - Daniel C. Goodwin, Comment at RealClimate.org

2. Earth's Heat Source - The Sun
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 1-2, pp. 131-144, January 2009)
- Oliver K. Manuel

This paper was submitted but failed peer-review and could only be published as an opinion piece,

"Just for info, the people i asked did not think much of Oliver's ideas and complained that he has no evidence and mainly cites himself. Hence his paper could not be published as peer reviewed, but as a viewpoint." - Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Editor, Energy & Environment

Dr. Manuel's theory while controversial was published in the peer-review literature and widely reported on in the media,

Superfluidity in the Solar Interior: Implications for Solar Eruptions and Climate
(Journal of Fusion Energy, Volume 21, Numbers 3-4, pp. 193-198, December 2002)
- Oliver K. Manuel et al.

Sun Is Mostly Iron, Not Hydrogen, Professor Says (Science Daily, January 9, 2002)
Scientist Claims Sun Is Already An Iron Monger (Space Daily, January 11, 2002)
An iron Sun: Groundbreaking or cracked? (UPI, July 17, 2002)
The Sun: A Great Ball Of Iron? (Science Daily, July 17, 2002)
Scientist: Sun composed mostly of iron (CNN, July 23, 2002)
Is The Sun An Iron-Rich Powerhouse (Space Daily, November 18, 2003)


Peer-Reviewed:

1. Thompson Reuters Social Sciences Citation Index (ISI) lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal

2. EBSCO Publishing lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (PDF)

EBSCO has been around for over 60 years and their services are used by Colleges, Universities, Hospitals, Medical Institutions, Government Institutions and Public Libraries.

3. Elsevier (parent company of Scopus) correctly lists Energy & Environment as a scholarly peer-reviewed journal on their internal master list. (Source: Email Correspondence)

4. The IPCC cites Energy & Environment multiple times

5. "E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed" - Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

6. "I have published a few papers in E&E. All were peer-reviewed as usual. I have reviewed a few more for the journal." - Richard Tol Ph.D. Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Vrije Universiteit, Netherlands

7. "Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed" - E&E Mission Statement

8. "All Multi-Sciences primary journals are fully refereed" - Multi-Science Publishing


"Right-Wing" Journal:

The editor Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen is a Social-Democrat,

FC: So why does the present approach to global warming and climate change bother you as someone from the social-democratic left?

SC: It’s just my experience in Europe. ...If you look at the distribution of political beliefs I just don’t think the political Right, certainly not in Europe, can win against ‘environmentalism’…. The Right in Europe is actually very green anyway. To oppose climate alarmism you have to have a broad political alliance. You cannot say what somebody just said to me “I’ll be for this.” I’m a bit frightened by what I’ve observed here in America, the anger and the lack of comprehension of socialism. Socialism is not communism and socialism in its stark form is much more individual anti-liberty than social democracy. People know very little of what actually happens in Europe.

Science Journal:

E&E makes no claim to be a pure natural science journal but instead explicitly states that they are an interdisciplinary journal that includes papers that cover both the natural and social sciences. This is effectively stated on their webpage,

"Energy and Environment is an interdisciplinary journal aimed at natural scientists, technologists and the international social science and policy communities covering the direct and indirect environmental impacts of energy acquisition, transport, production and use. A particular objective is to cover the social, economic and political dimensions of such issues at local, national and international level. The technological and scientific aspects of energy and environment questions including energy conservation, and the interaction of energy forms and systems with the physical environment, are covered, including the relationship of such questions to wider economic and socio-political issues. A major aim of Energy and Environment is to act as a forum for constructive and professional debate between scientists and technologists, social scientists and economists from academia, government and the energy industries on energy and environment issues in both a national and international context. It is also the aim to include the informed and environmentally concerned public and their organizations in the debate."

Impact Factor

Impact Factor is a subjective determination of popularity not scientific validity,

The Number That's Devouring Science (PDF) (The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 15, 2005)

European Association of Science Editors statement on inappropriate use of impact factors (PDF) (European Association of Science Editors, November 2007)

"Quality not Quantity" – DFG Adopts Rules to Counter the Flood of Publications in Research (German Research Foundation, February 2010)

Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research (PDF)
(British Medical Journal, Volume 314, pp. 498–502, February 1997)
- Per O. Seglen

The Impact Factor Game
(PLoS Medicine, Volume 3, Issue 6, June 2006)
- The PLoS Medicine Editors

Show Me The Data
(The Journal of Cell Biology, Volume 179, Number 6, pp. 1091-1092, December 2007)
- Mike Rossner, Heather Van Epps, Emma Hill

Irreproducible results: a response to Thomson Scientific
(The Journal of Cell Biology, Volume 180, Number 2, pp. 254-255, January 2008)
- Mike Rossner, Heather Van Epps, Emma Hill

Nefarious Numbers (PDF)
(arXiv:1010.0278, October 2010)
- Douglas N. Arnold, Kristine K. Fowler


Trade Journal:

Scopus incorrectly listed E&E as a "trade journal" while EBSCO correctly lists it as a scholarly journal. E&E is not associated with any specific "trade" such as "chemical engineering" and it failed to match their criteria for defining a "trade journal",

Coverage of Source Types (Scopus)

1. "Trade Journal: a serial publication covering and intended to reach a specific industry, trade or type of business."

Fail - E&E is not targeted at any specific industry, trade or business. It is explicitly stated that it is an interdisciplinary journal,

interdisciplinary (defined) - "involving two or more academic, scientific, or artistic disciplines."


2. "Characteristics: usually a glossy magazine type of periodical with articles on topical subjects,"

Fail - E&E is not a glossy magazine type of periodical.


3. "many news items and advertisements that will appeal to those in the field."

Fail - E&E has no advertisements.


4. "Trade Journals are seldom refereed"

Fail - E&E is refereed. The word "seldom" implies some are, thus a trade journal listing does not mean it cannot be peer-reviewed.


5. "...and do not always have an editorial board."

Fail - E&E has an editorial board.


6. "Abstracts are usually short or non-existent, and few or no references are given."

Fail - E&E abstracts are average length and extensive references are given. Examples,

A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
- Craig Loehle

Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick


7. Finally it is stated, "Trade journals are included in Scopus because users and librarians consider selected articles to be scientifically relevant." Clearly Scopus editors choose to include E&E due to the scientific relevance of some of it's articles, this is contrary to the claims made by it's critics.


Conclusion: The criticisms of E&E do not hold up against the facts.


Update: Elsevier (parent company of Scopus) correctly lists Energy & Environment as a scholarly peer-reviewed journal on their internal master list. (Source: Email Correspondence)

Update 2: Scopus now correctly lists Energy & Environment as a scholarly peer-reviewed journal.