Anti-climate change paper rejected by journal.
By on Sep 22nd, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Anti-climate change paper rejected by journal.
A “paper claiming to show that the scientific consensus on climate change is not in fact a consensus has been rejected by the journal Energy & Environment.” The journal is run by a “climate change skeptic” and “known for publishing work that denies a link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.” Brandon Keim at Wired writes, “So if Energy and Environment wouldn’t take it, the paper…really is hot air.” More at DeSmogBlog.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Say goodbye to Kennebunkport!
September 22nd, 2007 at 4:16 pmWow! A discredited journal rejecting a discredited paper. What’s next for republicans?
September 22nd, 2007 at 4:25 pmOT:
Welcome, Big Brother
September 22nd, 2007 at 4:28 pmoops, link
September 22nd, 2007 at 4:28 pmI think there was an article here on Think Progress about a month ago, describing the fact that this very paper was in submission with this journal (Energy & Environment) and was being considered for publication. The drooling numbnuts like P-brain were going crazy with giddy joy here, celebrating the fact that a paper expressing skepticism about global warming and climate change was about to be published by an important journal in the climate change field. Oh well, another faded illusion of triumph for the ChimpFluffing crowd.
And this paper, written by an endocrinologist, could not even back up its own claims with statistics, if I recall. The paper reviewed a substantial amount of the scientific literature on the subject of global warming and climate change and could only verify a small percentage that affirmatively found that no climate change was occurring, while most of the other papers it reviewed either didn’t discuss the origins of climate change or were supportive of the notion that it’s due to global warming.
September 22nd, 2007 at 4:38 pmWhat the heck would an endocrinologist know about climate change, anyway?
It’s really unbelievable what some people will accept without question.
September 22nd, 2007 at 4:43 pmLooks like republicans will have to find another “denial of the week” for next week.
September 22nd, 2007 at 4:55 pm“I’m definitely a political scientist,†says Energy & Environment editor Boehmer-Christiansen.
Well that explains alot: Political Propaganda.
September 22nd, 2007 at 5:01 pmSci-American article with sat. photo of North Pole.
September 22nd, 2007 at 5:04 pmEndocrinology… the study of spit? I dunno… makes sense in a weird way. GOOPers spit on everything else, why not this?
September 22nd, 2007 at 5:19 pmThis is a set up for the paper to be published “in shortened form” as a WSJ op-ed piece.
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:20 pmThis story really made the rounds online, before we debunked it — Inhofe’s “mini-me” Marc Morano and a DC “think” tank called the Institute for Science and Public Policy run by an old GOP player named Rob Ferguson seem to have been the nexus.
Here’s everything (or close to it) that we have on Ferguson and his ISPP.If anyone has anything more, please let me know.
Send it along to desmogblog[at]gmail.com
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:07 pmEveryone can deny what’s happening but it will continue until the end. Like the Titanic some people look at today but notice records are being made around the world. When the Rich people get flooded out by water covering land they’ll call FEMA and it wont make a difference then. No one person, Nukes or oil has to destroy this earth it’s being destroy my greedy people until it’s finished.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:17 pmAs I had stated several months, or perhaps more than a year ago, here is an article confirming that biofuels actually create more CO2 per unit of energy than hydrocarbons:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297681,00.html
I understand that some would desire to use biofuels rather than hydrocarbons, so that we stop subsidizing non-viable governments (caliphates, socialist regimes, etc.), but you must also understand the impact to the atmosphere, as well as the conversion of land from grassland / forest to agriculture.
I still believe a carbonless combustion / power source is the only real way to clean up the air, and hydrogen fuels cells and/or electric vehicles powered by hydro-electric dams are the only solutions. The link below is an electric vehicle that can travel 200 miles on $3.00 of house electricity (think 200 miles per gallon economically).
http://www.teslamotors.com/
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:23 pmComment by Jason M. Hendler — September 22, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
Yes, sure, Jason. Just like Crichton “confirmed” global climate change is not happening, and it’s all a misinterpretation of the Urban Heat island effect.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:44 pmYes, I have seen the tesla motor Jason, but its just a 3 phase 4 pole induction motor in many appliances. You should also look at the Kawai and the [Takahashi] magnetic wankel motors.
From what I can tell of the studies on ethanol they are taking into account the energy it takes to grow corn [sunlight, fertilizer, harvesting equipment] They seem to be forgetting that ethanol can be gotten from potatoes or any cellulose material.
September 23rd, 2007 at 1:06 amXisithrus,
Thanks for the info, I will research if those rotory engines currently have the power and size/weight ratio to improve the Tesla sportcar’s performance.
The importance of the Tesla isn’t the technology, but its market approach. Certainly, more sophisitcated motors, batteries and control systems will make an even better vehicle, but designing the right product to create market interest is more important right now.
If your link is correct, then there may be aftermarket opportunities for companies that would “upgrade” these first Tesla Roadsters with their own tech.
Right now, our government should be buidling more hydro-electric dams and shuttering coal burning plants in high pollution areas like the Los Angeles basin.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:45 amXisithrus,
I found the link that defines both approaches you mentioned:
http://www.rexresearch.com/kawai/1kawai.htm
The Kawai version, simply nullifies the magnetic drag in conventional motors, while the magnetic rotory version changes the drag to a boost component.
I could see Tesla Motors incorporating both methods in one motor. For great power/weight performance, they would use control circuits to operate in a magnetic rotory mode for acceleration, then switch to the Kawai configuration for cruise, being the more efficient (assuming secondary boost component being less efficient than primary power transfer).
September 23rd, 2007 at 12:26 pmIt occurs to me, that if you can now use high speed switching to create pulse fields to drive a motor, is there still a need for permanent magnets? Eliminate the permanent magnets, and the motors weight will be reduced dramatically, increasing the power to weight ratio.
September 24th, 2007 at 6:57 pm