Why would the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons publish a paper on global warming?

Question

In another question, someone linked a website by James S. Aber of Emporia State University (in Kansas, if you were wondering) which tries to paint a rosy picture of the Midieval Warm Period (MWP), even renaming it the "Medieval climatic optimum".

http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec19/lec19.htm#m_optimum

On this website, he claims that the MWP was warmer than today, citing "Robinson et al. 2007." So I searched for this paper, and found it in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

"Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide"

http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/robinson.pdf

http://www.jpands.org

Coincidentally this paper only plotted surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea, not global temperatures. So really it wasn't even relevant to Aber's argument.

This got me wondering though - why would a supposedly climate science paper be published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons? Anyone got any ideas?

Answer 1

Fascinating:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_...

Some past articles and commentaries published in the journal have argued:

- that the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are unconstitutional,[27]

- that "humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution,[28]

- that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has not caused global warming,[29]

- that HIV does not cause AIDS,[30]

- that the "g*y male lifestyle" shortens life expectancy by 20 years.[31]

A series of articles by pro-life authors published in the journal argued for the existence of a link between abortion and breast cancer;[32][33] such a link has been rejected by the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the mainstream scientific community.[34][35]

---

Once again knee-jerk denial proves to be equivalent to a religious faith, sponsored by special interests.

Funny that many of the so-called skeptics here embraced it without question.

Answer 2

My guess, is that the U.S. government or some other source provided a grant to a medical school for researching effects of global warming on health issues.

Answer 3

Pesky Medievel warming period!!

It takes the alarm away from the alarmists.  

It's been this warm before.  That warming wasn't caused by CO2.  The shift was sudden.

Are you one of those people, Dana, who is going to say that the warming of Greenland over a centuries long period was "local".

Again, get a grip.  You've got religion and you've got it bad.

Answer 4

1) It never would have made it through the peer review process in an actual physical science related journal

2) The journal is a fairly new small outfit that's probably hungry for content

3) They appear to pride themselves as being challengers to mainstream thought.  A quick look shows them promoting things contrary to accepted medical science as well.

Answer 5

What you really have to love is the comparison of data from the Sargasso Sea to Oregon air temperatures.  What the???

Considering Exxon and others are paying out around $10,000 a pop for articles and reports refuting Climate Change, this is sadly no surprise.

Good catch though.

Answer 6

Still trying to explain away natural and rapid climate change I see. Why are you in such denial about the onset of the LIA as a very rapid, widespread, destructuctive and natural event?

Answer 7

If you read any of the complaints from scientists who doubt AGW it is that most of the "peer review" journals refused to accept publications from them.  From Mckitrick:

We submitted a letter to Nature about this flaw in the MBH98 procedure. After a long (8-month) reviewing process they notified us that they would not publish it. They concluded it could not be explained in the 500-word limit they were prepared to give us, and one of the referees said he found the material was quite technical and unlikely to be of interest to the general readers. Instead Mann et al. were permitted to make a coy disclosure in their July Corrigendum. In an on-line Supplement (but not in the printed text itself) they revealed the nonstandard method, and added the unsupported claim that it did not affect the results.

I suggest you read the whole article.  It is an eye opener.  Especially on the politics of the IPCC.

http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files...

Answer 8

Because they know that nobody ever reads them anyway.

Answer 9

hehe

well, i think i found the answer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_...

can you say "political motivation"

i'm guessing most american physicians and surgeons don't read "The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons". If i found out mine did - i would find a new one.

Sounds like it should be called: "the journal of american right

wing evangelical physicians and surgeons"

Answer 10

Wow, Michael Mann used MCO in a 2001 paper.  Please is you are going so say someone "renamed" something please be accurate about it.  Now since I didn't even make it though the first paragraph before finding an error, I will not bother with the rest.

Mann, M.E. 2001. Medieval climatic optimum. In Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change, ed. M.C. MacCracken and J.S. Perry. London: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Answer 11

Scientists are funded by global warming now. We invest so much, so why not try to cash in a few million? The research itself doesn't seem to happen, but the money is going somewhere.

The journals/artifles go through a examination board of sorts. I assume the board is probably biased towards pro-global warming and would publish any reasonable findings.

Answer 12

Ok, this is rich, the AAPS, controlling organization of j**s has filed an amicus brief in support of the 2nd amendment clause of gun rights (they are for less regulation of firearms).

http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/helle...

The main website, www.aapsonline.org, has a lot of other illuminating information.  They are one of these ugly organizations that have a thin veneer of civility overlying a vast cesspool of nastiness.  

So a Soon climate article gets into j**s because they have no peer-review and AAPS is really a mouthpiece organization for a whole range of right-wing issues.  If this were a real review paper on climate, it would appear in Reviews of Geophysics.

Answer 13

I'm glad you keep us informed of the different ways the 'Jello's' are attacking AGW.

JL says scientists are funded by AGW even though there seem to be plenty of people who are 'skeptical' or flat out deny it (prob. b/c they feel helpless to do anything about it-gotta feel sorry for them). Besides, the main deniers that started with bogus info. were obviously in league with big corporations tied into oil companies-I've never seen/heard anything about scientists being paid by AGW people. Of course, there are people/companies that take advantage of a bad situation for financial gain...Isn't that the American way, though?

BTW, there's really no reason a GW paper should be in a 'physician and surgeon's' magazine...unless they're trying to relate climate to illnesses effected by temperature changes...