What consensus..........?

[[serious]]

Um, not to belittle Project Steve, but this is about global warming, not evolution.

Darn you tabbed browsing!

Well, still, very few steves on his list

 

[Greatcloud]

More peer reviewed papers dealing with anti-AGW.

On global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate. Are humans involved?
(Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6, August 2006)
- L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar

On the credibility of climate predictions
(Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671-684, 2008)
- D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides

Phanerozoic Climatic Zones and Paleogeography with a Consideration of Atmospheric CO2 Levels
(Paleontological Journal, 2: 3-11, 2003)
- A. J. Boucot, Chen Xu, C. R. Scotese

Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration
(Journal of Climate, 2008)
- Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell

Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D24S09, 2007)
- Ross R. McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

Quantitative implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide climate forcing in the past glacial-interglacial cycles for the likely future climatic impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcings
(arXiv:0707.1276, July 2007)
- Soon, Willie

Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 281-286, March 2008)
- Klaus-Martin Schulte

Seductive Simulations? Uncertainty Distribution Around Climate Models
(Social Studies of Science, Vol. 35, No. 6, 895-922, 2005)
- Myanna Lahsen

Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp. 288–299, March 1990)
- Richard S. Lindzen

Some examples of negative feedback in the Earth climate system
(Central European Journal of Physics, Volume 3, Number 2, June 2005)
- Olavi Kärner

Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)
- S. Fred Singer

Taking GreenHouse Warming Seriously
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 937-950, December 2007)
- Richard S. Lindzen

Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 707-714, September 2006)
- Vincent Gray

Temporal Variability in Local Air Temperature Series Shows Negative Feedback
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1059-1072, December 2007)
- Olavi Kärner

The carbon dioxide thermometer and the cause of global warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 1-18(18), January 1, 1999)
- N. Calder

The cause of global warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 613-629, November 1, 2000)
- Vincent Gray

The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyung Wang
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 985-995, December 2007)
- Douglas J. Keenan

The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 24, No. 18, Pages 2319–2322, 1997)
- David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis

The "Greenhouse Effect" as a Function of Atmospheric Mass
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 351-356, 1 May 2003)
- H. Jelbring

The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 217-238, March 2005)
- A. Rörsch, R. Courtney, D. Thoenes

The IPCC Emission Scenarios: An Economic-Statistical Critique
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 159-185(27), May 1, 2003)
- I. Castles, D. Henderson

The IPCC future projections: are they plausible?
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 155–162, August 1998)
- Vincent Gray

The IPCC: Structure, Processes and Politics Climate Change - the Failure of Science
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1073-1078, December 2007)
- William J.R. Alexander

The UN IPCC's Artful Bias: Summary of Findings: Glaring Omissions, False Confidence and Misleading Statistics in the Summary for Policymakers
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 311-328, July 2002)
- Wojick D. E.

"The Wernerian syndrome"; aspects of global climate change; an analysis of assumptions, data, and conclusions
(Environmental Geosciences, v. 3, no. 4, p. 204-210, December 1996)
- Lee C. Gerhard

Uncertainties in assessing global warming during the 20th century: disagreement between key data sources
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 685-706, September 2006)
- Maxim Ogurtsov, Markus Lindholm

Why Is Climate Sensitivity So Unpredictable?
(Science, Vol. 318, no. 5850, pp. 629 - 632, October 2007)
- Gerard H. Roe, Marcia B. Baker

 

[eri]

Greatcloud, are you ever going to stop cutting and pasting from some random website and actually discuss the issues addressed? Because if you're not, there's really no point in responding to you at all. You haven't shown that you understand the issues here, or that you've read any of these papers. Or that you realize just how many scientists there are in the world - listing a bunch of 'people with advanced degrees who agree with me' is simply ridiculous. I could give you that many from my university alone who don't agree with you. Science is not a democracy.

 

[Molal]

This is fun - you should read your own references..........you may be surprised!!

 

[atomweaver]

Agreed, Molal. Half of them don't even deal with his topic... the others do, but most don't support his assertions. Keep up the self-pwnage, Greatcloud.

Oh, and the periodical Energy and Environment is not peer reviewed...

 

[[serious]]

Let's play another game. I call it, "Quote sections of a massive list of papers that actually contradict the OP's claims"

The challenge is to actually name which of the papers it's from. I am, of course, assuming you've read these papers and aren't just trying to bluff your way through it.

I'll go first:

We show that the breadth of the distribution and, in particular, the probability of large temperature increases are relatively insensitive to decreases in uncertainties associated with the underlying climate processes.

 

[Blayz]

Can someone explain to me why the fundies are so opposed to AGW? What is the basis for not wanting it to be true? I understand the whole evolution goes against my paper god thing, but I just don't get the anti-AGW sentiment.

 

[[serious]]

Can someone explain to me why the fundies are so opposed to AGW? What is the basis for not wanting it to be true? I understand the whole evolution goes against my paper god thing, but I just don't get the anti-AGW sentiment.

It's largely a function of the pigeon holing of the electorate into 2 categories. global warming deniers, supply siders, and young earthers all sort of poured their own pet causes into the republican platform leading to the current state of the party. The democrats faced a similar mixing of minority rights, pro labor (now fading), environmentalists, populists, etc.

 

[atomweaver]

More peer reviewed papers dealing with anti-AGW.

On global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate. Are humans involved?
(Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6, August 2006)
- L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar

This time, lets take a quick look at an author.

GV Chilingar's Wikipedia entry;
George V. Chilingarian (he uses both Chilingar and Chilingarian as his last name) is a Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California (USC). He is one of the best-known petroleum geologists in the world and the founder of several prestigious journals in the oil and gas industry. Chilingar has published 61 books and hundreds of articles on geology, petroleum engineering and environmental engineering. He serves as president of the U.S. branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences and 17 of his books have been translated into Russian. In recognition of these contributions, the Russian Academy of Sciences has honored him as a Knight of Arts and Sciences.
He received his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in petroleum engineering and a Ph.D. in geology (with a minor in petroleum engineering), all at USC.
His greatest contribution to the petroleum industry may be a means of identifying oil-rich rock by analyzing the ratio of calcium to magnesium in core samples. This method was used in discovering one of Iran’s largest oil fields, which was then named after Chilingar.
He also played a key role in the development of Thailand’s offshore oil reserves. Chilingar saw natural gas bubbles in the Gulf of Siam and redirected exploratory efforts, thus saving the nascent Thai oil industry.
In 2001, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia acknowledged Chilingar’s significant contributions to the success of Saudi Aramco as well as the discovery and extraction of oil reserves around the world. The Saudi consul general in Los Angeles, Ambassador Mohammed A. Al-Salloum, presented the award, a globe signifying the worldwide reach and importance of the petroleum industry and Saudi Aramco.
He served as senior petroleum engineering adviser to the United Nations from 1967 to 1969, and then again from 1978 to 1987. He was also an energy policy adviser to California Governor Ronald Reagan in 1973.
His recent research work concentrated on:

• Environmental aspects of oil and gas production
• Petrophysical properties of rocks and drilling fluids
• Surface and subsurface operations in petroleum production
• Subsidence due to the fluid withdrawal, testing and storage of petroleum products

[edit] Selected honors and awards

• Distinguished Achievement Award for Petroleum Engineering Faculty (The Society of Petroleum Engineers) in recognition for outstanding contributions in the field of petroleum engineering education, 1984
• Editor of Sedimentary Geology (one of the founders)
• Special Issue of Energy Sources Journal, Vol. 21, Nov. 1-2, 1999, A Tribute to Professor George V. Chilingarian
• Crown and Eagle Medal of Honor from the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, 2000
• Gold Medals of Honor from Iran, Thailand, Taiwan, Honduras, El Salvador, Armenia and Russia
• Honorary Professor of Gubkin Russian State University of Oil and Gas

End quote

Wow. That's a whole lotta climatology, right there. He's obviously someone we should pay close attention to, when he talks about the atmosphere...

[serious] is right... With Greatcloud, it seems he's just another good little Republican who eats whatever his masters feed him


The Party Line

 

[Greatcloud]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/dearth-of-sunspot-activity-to-herald-new-ice-age.html

Some scientists say a Maunder minimum is coming and that the sun is shutting down. We shall see;I predict another severe winter 2008/2009. As tempertures go down, CO2 will continue to rise;thus disproving GHGT.

 

[Molal]

The sun is shutting down.........eeeeeek. Better get my winter woollies ready

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

The sun is shutting down.........eeeeeek. Better get my winter woollies ready

Nothing to worry about; god will keep us all alive like he did with plants before he created the sun!!!!

 

[atomweaver]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/dearth-of-sunspot-activity-to-herald-new-ice-age.html

Some scientists say a Maunder minimum is coming and that the sun is shutting down. We shall see;I predict another severe winter 2008/2009. As tempertures go down, CO2 will continue to rise;thus disproving GHGT.

You post supposed peer-reviewed articles supporting your claim, when a cursory review finds that you are just populating lists with articles that mostly have nothing to do with the topic you claim they support. Address your distortions from previous posts, or recognize that you have lost any and all credibility.

Here's the next article from your list;


On the credibility of climate predictions
(Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671-684, 2008)
- D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides


As the Hydrological Sciences Journal home page table of contents tells us, this entry is not a peer reviewed scientific paper, it is a rapid communication;

http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/toc/hysj/53/4?cookieSet=1

...basically, a "letter to the audience", delivered in a journal. You're 3 for 3 in terms of unreliability, Greatcloud. Tell us, again, why anyone should trust your cut-n-pastes?

 

[atomweaver]

In our continuing series, here is Greatcloud's third reference from Post #22;


Phanerozoic Climatic Zones and Paleogeography with a Consideration of Atmospheric CO2 Levels
(Paleontological Journal, 2: 3-11, 2003)
- A. J. Boucot, Chen Xu, C. R. Scotese

[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Abstract—Compilation of climatically sensitive deposits (chiefly evaporites, calcretes, coals, bauxites, kaolins
and kaolinites, tillites, dropstones, glendonites and cool-water marine sediments, palms, as well as crocodilians etc.)
through twenty-seven Phanerozoic time intervals enables one to revise the contemporary paleogeography in a
manner consistent with the climatic information. We also take account of some of the available biogeographic
information. Comparison of the changing Phanerozoic global climatic gradients based on geological evidence
with the previously published models of Phanerozoic atmospheric CO2 based on geochemical assumptions
indicates that either the assumptions on which the geochemical models are based are erroneous or that atmo-
spheric CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. We prefer the former possibility. [/FONT]

End quote--

Bold emphasis mine, the author's don't support Greatcloud's position.

You're now 4 for 4, Greatcloud.

 

[atomweaver]

Entry 5...


Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration
(Journal of Climate, 2008)
- Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell

This is not a peer-reviewed article, it is an Early Online Release (which is why you couldn't cite a volume and page number);

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-toc-aop&issn=1520-0442

2/3rds of the way down, entered online April 29, 2008.

5 for 5, Greatcloud... For the love of honesty, when will the lies end?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Fer the love o' Mike, GreatCloud, mount a substantive defense! You obviously took the time to find and post a truck load of references and Atomweaver is addressing them one at a time.

Rather than post more lists of articles, give us a reason to believe that AGW is somehow so fundamentally in error that we shouldn't believe "...all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter..."(SOURCE)

No one is arguing that there aren't dissenters. The point is moot. We know there is dissenting opinion. But there's dissenting opinion on almost any given proposition. What is the most compelling reason to prefer the dissent over the work and opinion of "...all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter ..."?

Most of us are scientists, we can handle detail and information. Please, bless us with knowledge!

 

[Greatcloud]

This is the first paper on my second list

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
(International Journal of Climatology, 5 Dec 2007)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

This is a peer reviewed PDF file that basically says the climate models are wrong and observed data is correct.

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
(International Journal of Climatology, 5 Dec 2007)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

This is a peer reviewed PDF file that says review of available literature shows a cherry picking of valid data that does not support AGW.


Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L13208, 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

Abstract

As a consequence of greenhouse forcing, all state-of-the-art general circulation models predict a positive temperature trend that is greater for the troposphere than the surface. This predicted positive trend increases in value with altitude until it reaches a maximum ratio with respect to the surface of as much as 1.5 to 2.0 at about 200–400 hPa. However, the temperature trends from several independent observational data sets show decreasing as well as mostly negative values. This disparity indicates that the three models examined here fail to account for the effects of greenhouse forcings

This basically states that the models are wrong and observation is right.

That is three for three all three are anti-AGW peer reviewed papers.




The models are wrong but they will keep trying.

 

[[serious]]

This is the first paper on my second list

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
(International Journal of Climatology, 5 Dec 2007)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

This is a peer reviewed PDF file that basically says the climate models are wrong and observed data is correct.

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
(International Journal of Climatology, 5 Dec 2007)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

This is a peer reviewed PDF file that says review of available literature shows a cherry picking of valid data that does not support AGW.


Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L13208, 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

Abstract

As a consequence of greenhouse forcing, all state-of-the-art general circulation models predict a positive temperature trend that is greater for the troposphere than the surface. This predicted positive trend increases in value with altitude until it reaches a maximum ratio with respect to the surface of as much as 1.5 to 2.0 at about 200–400 hPa. However, the temperature trends from several independent observational data sets show decreasing as well as mostly negative values. This disparity indicates that the three models examined here fail to account for the effects of greenhouse forcings

This basically states that the models are wrong and observation is right.

That is three for three all three are anti-AGW peer reviewed papers.

actually, given that he has already addressed 5, that brings you up to 3/8 in paper count. Given that all three papers you just listed are by the same person, you are 1/6 for scientists/authors.

Now, as has been mentioned, Energy and Environment fails to meet peer review standards for inclusion in the ISI. We can then discount the following selections from your list:

Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The "Hockey-Stick" Affair and Its Implications (PDF) (David Holland, Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 951-983, December 2007)

180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 2, pp. 259-282(24), March 2007)
- Beck, Ernst-Georg

An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK's Hadley Centre
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999)
- R. S. Courtney

Climate Change - A Natural Hazard
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 215-232(18), May 1, 2003)
- W. Kininmonth

Climate change and the world bank: Opportunity for global governance?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 27-50(24), January 1, 1999)
- S. A. Boehmer-Christiansen

Climate change in the Arctic and its empirical diagnostics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 469-482, September 1999)
- V.V. Adamenko, K.Y. Kondratyev, C.A. Varotsos

Crystal balls, virtual realities and 'storylines'
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 343-349, July 2001)
- R.S. Courtney

Dangerous global warming remains unproven
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, pp. 167-169, January 2007)
- R.M. Carter

Does CO2 really drive global warming?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 351-355, July 2001)
- R.H. Essenhigh

Earth's rising atmospheric CO2 concentration: Impacts on the biosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 287-310, July 2001)
- C.D. Idso

Evidence for "publication Bias" Concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 287-301, March 2008)
- Patrick J. Michaels

Global Warming: The Social Construction of A Quasi-Reality?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 6, pp. 805-813, November 2007)
- Dennis Ambler

Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 997-1021, December 2007)
- Keston C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong

Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Actual Evolution of the Weather Dynamics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 297-322, May 2003)
- M. Leroux

Is a Richer-but-warmer World Better than Poorer-but-cooler Worlds?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1023-1048, December 2007)
- Indur M. Goklany

Key Aspects of Global Climate Change
(Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 3, pp. 469-503(35), July 1, 2004)
- Ya. K. Kondratyev

New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 327-350, 1 May 2003)
- Landscheidt T.

Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 281-286, March 2008)
- Klaus-Martin Schulte

Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)
- S. Fred Singer

Taking GreenHouse Warming Seriously
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 937-950, December 2007)
- Richard S. Lindzen

Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 707-714, September 2006)
- Vincent Gray

Temporal Variability in Local Air Temperature Series Shows Negative Feedback
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1059-1072, December 2007)
- Olavi Kärner

The carbon dioxide thermometer and the cause of global warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 1-18(18), January 1, 1999)
- N. Calder

The cause of global warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 613-629, November 1, 2000)
- Vincent Gray

The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyung Wang
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 985-995, December 2007)
- Douglas J. Keenan

The "Greenhouse Effect" as a Function of Atmospheric Mass
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 351-356, 1 May 2003)
- H. Jelbring

The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 217-238, March 2005)
- A. Rörsch, R. Courtney, D. Thoenes

The IPCC Emission Scenarios: An Economic-Statistical Critique
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 159-185(27), May 1, 2003)
- I. Castles, D. Henderson

The IPCC: Structure, Processes and Politics Climate Change - the Failure of Science
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1073-1078, December 2007)
- William J.R. Alexander

The UN IPCC's Artful Bias: Summary of Findings: Glaring Omissions, False Confidence and Misleading Statistics in the Summary for Policymakers
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 311-328, July 2002)
- Wojick D. E.

Uncertainties in assessing global warming during the 20th century: disagreement between key data sources
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 685-706, September 2006)
- Maxim Ogurtsov, Markus Lindholm



We also have my previous quote from:

Why Is Climate Sensitivity So Unpredictable?
(Science, Vol. 318, no. 5850, pp. 629 - 632, October 2007)
- Gerard H. Roe, Marcia B. Baker

which said that we could not rule out considerably greater warming than the models predict. Which is, you know, the opposite of what you are arguing.

This brings you down to 3/40 in your own list

 

[Greatcloud]

Now, as has been mentioned, Energy and Environment fails to meet peer review standards for inclusion in the ISI. We can then discount the following selections from your list:

Energy and Environment is peer reviewed it has a peer reviewed process. So it is just not included in the ISI.
Energy and Environment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search
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." The journal's publisher is Multi-Science and its editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, who is a former Reader in Geography at the University of Hull in England and writer on the political and policy aspects of climate change. The journal's editorial advisory board has 20 members, including 11 professors and 5 other PhDs in 2008.
Energy and Environment ("E&E") has been published since 1996. People who have published in this journal include Sallie Baliunas, Ian Castles, Bjorn Lomborg, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Roger Pielke Jr., Willie Soon, Richard Tol, and Gary Yohe. The journal is not listed in the ISI's Journal Citation Reports indexing service for academic journals.[1]. According to the WorldCat.org database, the journal can be found at 26 libraries worldwide, mostly at universities.[2]
The journal's peer-review process has at times been criticised for publishing substandard papers [1][3].Roger A. Pielke (Jr), who published a paper on hurricane mitigation in the journal, said in a post answering a question on Nature's blog in May about peer-reviewed references and why he published in E&E: "...had we known then how that outlet would evolve beyond 1999 we certainly wouldn't have published there. The journal is not carried in the ISI and thus its papers rarely cited. (Then we thought it soon would be.) We were invited to submit a piece in 1997 or 1998 and we had this in prep and sent it in."[4]
Numerous people considered climate skeptics or contrarians have published in the journal. Skeptics on the journal's editorial staff include Boehmer-Christiansen herself and anthropologist Benny Peiser. Some of the journal's articles opposing the scientific consensus on climate change have been quoted by policy makers known to be skeptical of the subject, such as U.S. Senator James Inhofe and U.S. Congressman Joe Barton.[1] When asked about the publication of these papers Boehmer-Christiansen replied, "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway. But isn't that the right of the editor?"[5]
The publication's ISSN is 0958-305X and OCLC is 21187549

The publication has a peer review process therefore it is peer reviewed.

 

[[serious]]

E&E's review process is substandard at best. Peer review means more than just having someone else read it, it's a process where a paper is sent to highly regarded experts in the very specific field the paper relates to. This is supposed to be free from the political interests of the editors. Speaking of:

The journal's editor, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in
geography at the University of Hull, in England, says she
sometimes publishes scientific papers challenging the view
that global warming is a problem, because that position is
often stifled in other outlets. "I'm following my political
agenda -- a bit, anyway," she says. "But isn't that the right
of the editor?"

http://www.arp.harvard.edu/sci/climate/journalclub/ChronicleEd.pdf

Uh oh... that sounds like a broken review process to me...