"Thanks" to M (if that is the word) for the pointer to Trapping Carbon Dioxide Or Switching To Nuclear Power Not Enough To Solve Global Warming Problem, Experts Say. This is Nordell pushing his stuff again (did I blog the nonsense here? I forget). It is the first I've heard of the delightful International Journal of Global Warming (IJGW) which is clearly failing in its mission to publish "high-quality original papers". Is there any more to say?
- Log in to post comments
> more
Well, how many Google hits for
IJGW climate
(upwards of 600, at the moment).
Active press office engaged in a PR flood blitz avalanche, succeeding, considering the amount of repetition out there of their PR pieces mostly word for word. That's for this ONE new journal.
Stuff like this, 3rd hand by the time they print it:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090721090127.htm
Then look at the number of NEW journals "Inderscience" has started recently; this is rather awesome:
http://www.inderscience.com/mapper.php?id=26
Someone's got a new business model, I think.
As Tom Lehrer didn't write,
"Pollution, pollution, they got blog and spewage and FUD ..."
Gack, and they roll out new journals that way year after year, 2009 was not unusual.
And they have a blog, the latest bit of which says:
"Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Luxury Intelligence: an International Journal
The previously-announced International Journal of Luxury Intelligence has changed its title to Luxury Intelligence: an International Journal, to avoid conflict with a previously-unknown trademark. Professor Mounir Kehal of the International University of Monaco in Monte Carlo will continue the development of the journal under its new title."
I'm just glad to see you posting again. I was quite concerned when I saw this earlier today: Stoat survives 30-mile journey in front grille of sports car. "The brave Stoat had not only survived the 32-mile journey to Ewerby, near Sleaford, Lincs, but spent the night stuck in the car with just his face and front feet sticking out." That must have been very uncomfortable, William.
[*I* saw it in the Torygraph, a far higher quality place :-). Yes, it was quite a ride, though I did get a bit stuck at the end -W]
You did kind of here:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/10/turkish_delight.php
I haven't had time to look closer on it but some citations looks funny... not to mention the "reasoning"...
Yes, the paper is ... fascinating.
The sun gets mentioned once:
"Before explaining global warming by extraterrestrial heat sources, the net heat emissions
on Earth should be considered. Emissions such as heat dissipation from the global use of
fossil fuels and nuclear power must contribute to global warming. It is a common opinion that the heat emitted by anthropogenic systems is insignificant because it is very small compared to solar energy input. However, this solar energy input does not cause any warming over the year as long as the planet is in thermal balance. Therefore, it is not relevant to compare the net heat emissions with the flux of energy from the sun. What really matters is the change in the energy balance and the occurring net heat emission must, to some extent, contribute to global warming."
Ya know, William, the more I look around at the competition in the stick-your-neck-out-in-public-and-speak-out area, the better Joe Romm sounds by contrast. Have you looked at what's happened to that story the Rice PR folks started by mistake?
He's holding up better, and he got out there sooner than most; RC's just gotten to it now.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/17/climate-science-petm-methane-feed…
[Yes, he has noticed the right thing, and that is good. It would be better just reported as such, without the swift-boater invective. Like RC in fact: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/petm-weirdness/ Though I admit that was slower -W]
I like to see not just a clearly drawn line but a fairly wide cleared firebreak between the science and the emotion (heck, that's where the Rice University press release differs so clearly from the Moana press release about the same paper).
Texas vs. Hawaii -- Texax PR jumpy and twitchy and pulling the trigger before the gun's out of the holster, in classic shoot-yer-own-foot style; Hawaii a few days later, calm, and pointing at the target before letting fly.
Tho' I admit I really like to hear that there is some emotion behind the story.
My first experience with that was in I think 1966, college freshman year, when there was a science debate at my school sponsored by the Biology department on a then brand new controversy. A scientist from a large company versus a researcher from some college somewhere.
Question was, does DDT cause any problems in the environment.
Well, the company guy was a Plimmer, and the university guy wasn't by any means a Romm, he was quite a young guy, probably in his late 20s. And he lost to the crowd, horribly badly. The company guy got a big ovation from the students afterward. A few of us, the biology students, were sitting on our hands feeling sick.
Later we had the researcher at dinner, and he let his cover go and told us what he'd been completely stifling in attempting to match the calm, cool, PR. Described collecting eggs from eagles and having them collapse in his hands, or going to nests and finding it had already happened. Told us how he felt.
Every student there changed hearing this.
I suspect a lot of people really don't yet get it that a lot of scientists now feel sick at heart about what's happening and angry that nobody seems to be paying attention.
Maybe it's got something to do with national culture, how much people think letting the feeling show is appropriate.
Firebreak, get the science down clearly and dryly and dispassionately -- I think is important to convince the scientists. And it's important to convince the scientists.
But I have this notion we're going to be hearing more and more of "if you really knew it was going to happen, why didn't you say it in a way that made clear you cared so much?"
Well, this is far clearer than what I tried to write:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/petm-weirdness/co…
Point being, I guess, that the "wilder shores" are getting bigger and better-funded all the time.
Hmmmm: http://compon.math.upatras.gr/
A, um, seemingly very British approach.
Hmph. Has no one heard of this before?
"... Our policy network method includes the full range of organizations involved in climate change politics .... effective policy response depends upon building an "epistemic community" that ... must include more than scientists; it must embrace an "advocacy network" composed of diverse stakeholders .... Our working hypothesis is that, as advocated by Agenda 21, government provision of venues for direct participation by diverse stakeholders (form[sic] business to NGOs) will result in more effective policy response to climate change...."
Well, okay, let's see what they are presenting -- how the climate news looks through _their_ prism:
http://compon.math.upatras.gr/?q=aggregator/categories/1
Now here's a bit of irony.
Have you read John Brunner's _The Sheep Look Up_?
If so, think back about the ending, and compare it to this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081218094551.htm
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/
EDITORIAL BOARD:
* Sami Solanki (editor in chief),
* J. Christensen-Dalsgaard,
* Bernhard Fleck,
* Eckart Marsch,
* Robert Rosner,
* Takashi Sakurai,
* Karel Schrijver,
* Manfred Schüssler,
* Rainer Schwenn