Tyson Adams

Putting the 'ill' back in thriller

Book Review: Energy & Environment – short story collections

Edited by Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

There are a lot of publications out there that specialize in short fiction. One that has stood tall amongst the Science Fiction community is the publication Energy & Environment. Published 8 times per year, this periodical prides itself on its consistent quality of short stories. It has become a renowned publication in the sci-fi community, with contributing authors often writing about an alternate reality universe, where the rules of physics do not apply.

Luminaries of the Science Fiction community have been known to publish stories in E&E, notable examples include: Dr Willie Soon, Prof Bob Carter, Prof Ian Plimer, Dr Tim Curtin, Prof Richard Lindzen, Dr Roger Pielke Sr; a veritable who’s who of the Science Fiction world. Energy & Environment attract such great writers because of the favourable editorial standards, allowing startling new sub-genres of Science Fiction to emerge. Some of the most revered works of Science Fiction have been published in Energy and Environment in the last decade as a result of the publication’s regard in the sci-fi community.

Energy & Environment is often regarded as hard sci-fi, due to its heavy use of figures and tables within the stories. These illustrations help to conjure up a vivid impression of the wonderfully weird worlds the stories are based in. Having a science background, these elements of hard sci-fi were an entertaining aside, but most sci-fi fans would be able to enjoy the fictional universes without having to take them in.

Contributors are also known to win the prestigious Heartland Institute award. This is a notable Science Fiction award given by the Heartland Institute to encourage sci-fi writers to continue their work. The award comes with a cash stipend, generously given by Heartland funders such as Exxon. A notable Australian sci-fi author, Bob Carter, is a current recipient of the award, the $1600 a month stipend helping him write sci-fi stories full-time.

If you are looking for funny, entertaining and challenging Science Fiction, then Energy & Environment has a story for you.

View all my reviews

About these ads

Single Post Navigation

18 thoughts on “Book Review: Energy & Environment – short story collections

  1. Nicole Gamble on said:

    For my shame, I have not heard of this author, but seems very interesting! I will look for his books!

  2. Nicole, this was actually satire upon some pseudo-scientists and their journal of choice. A journal that pretends to be peer reviewed but is actually agenda driven.

  3. I’m afraid “Nicole Gamble” was a blogspamming bot just trying to get the ” “iasi.inoras.ro”link into future search results. Lots of that bot around.

    But I can highly recommend a new journal that makes Energy and Environment look rather like sanity, by comparison: http://principia-scientific.org/

    • Thanks Hank. I thought I’d caught all the spam bots.

      And yes, I’ve seen Principia and their “Slaying the Dragon” rubbish. Their finest moment, IMHO, is when they tried to overturn molecular physical properties science with a couple of tubs and some cling wrap. I posted a Tweet yesterday that summed up my thoughts on those sorts of science deniers: There is nothing quite like arguing science with someone whose sole qualification is an internet connection.

  4. Pingback: New climate info graphic | Tyson Adams

  5. Tyson, you seem confused as those are actually highly credentialed scientists,

    Richard S. Lindzen, A.B. Physics Magna Cum Laude, Harvard University (1960); blah blah blah Gish Gallop
    Robert M. Carter, B.Sc. (Hons) Geology, University of Otago (1963), Ph.D. Palaeontology, blah blah blah Gish Gallop
    Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon, B.Sc. University of Southern California (1985), blah blah blah Gish Gallop

    Ian Plimer and Roger A. Pielke Sr. never published in Energy & Environment and Tim Curtin only published an editorial one time.

    NB: Tyson edited so it wasn’t 10 pages of bullshit.

    • Please tell me more about people I don’t care about.

    • PopTech, I’m well aware of your climate science denial drivel and your post here is not really welcome.

      Firstly; THE POST WAS SATIRE!!
      Secondly; Listing qualifications is a logical fallacy, the argument from authority, and has nothing to do with whether their arguments or papers are correct.
      Thirdly; Tim Curtin didn’t write an editorial, he wrote a paper that I have debated him on due to his obvious lack of knowledge on plant physiology.
      Fourthly; Mistaking Pielke Snr for Jnr is hardly a crime worth noting since both of them are wrong on their climate change stances.
      Fifthly; Ian Plimer was included on the list for reasons other than being an author there.

      Finally, science is on my side, so my claims are valid. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

      • populartechnology on said:

        Tyson, I am disappointed to see you are so scared of anyone reading their qualifications you felt the need to edit them and falsely claim they are “gish gallop”.

        I do not deny there is such a thing as climate science so your comment does not really make any sense.

        I am well aware the post was satire but your misinformation still came through.

        Strawman, I did not use their qualifications as an argument that their papers are correct. I used them as an argument that they are not psuedo-scientists but actually credentialed.

        The only article that Tim Curtin wrote in E&E was not peer-reviewed,
        http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/eg96h373l4x0342h/

        Neither of Pielke Jr.’s articles in E&E were peer-reviewed.

        It is not possible to have a rational debate with someone like yourself on climate science here since you have already demonstrated your lack of respect for my comments by censoring them.

      • Gish Gallop: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gish%20Gallop “a Gish Gallop involves spewing so much bullshit in such a short span on that your opponent can’t address let alone counter all of it.”
        Listing off a vast list of things rather than succinct points is a way of burying your opponent in claims that are either irrelevant, inconsequential or false, is a form of Gish Gallop. It is also an argument from authority because it pretends that the qualifications or standing of the person is more important than their actual argument. The people I listed are all climate change deniers, this means that my claims have nothing to do with their standing and everything to do with their stance on the science of climate change. So your rebuttal cannot be a list of their credentials, but has to be how their arguments are not flawed (something that isn’t possible, since they are mostly wrong on the topic of climate change).

        I don’t think you understand what a strawman is, because you have used the term incorrectly.

        The link you provide on Tim Curtin confirms my claims, not yours. You fail. Plus, Curtin is adamant that his article was thoroughly peer reviewed by E&E, as I questioned how his article could ever get past peer review with its errors, including his cherry picking of the work of Howden and Crimp (which says the opposite of what he claims). In fact, Curtin claims that all agricultural productivity gains since the 1970s have been from increased CO2 in the atmosphere, and not any of the plant breeding, improved agronomics, improved rotations, disease, weed and pest control, fertilisers, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

        Rational debate? Your posts were pathetic logical fallacies and straight out fallacious claims? And yes, I don’t respect ignorant fools. The Popular Tech website is rife with ad hominem attacks and climate change denial rhetoric. Where do you get off pretending that climate change science is a leftist, socialist, NWO conspiracy? Hell, your latest article (28th Feb 2013) is factually misleading, since there were ~76 climate science papers in the 70s, 7 claimed cooling, ~45 claimed warming and the rest weren’t making claims either way. That means that the science was indicating GLOBAL WARMING.

        If you can’t take a joke, nor accept actual science, nor read books, you have no place here.

  6. populartechnology on said:

    You can find corrections to the misinformation you hold about the journal here,

    You may not be aware but E&E is indexed in the ISI and cited by the IPCC multiple times,

    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 hundreds of libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form.
    The have no monetary connection to any organization. The editor who is a social-democrat is highly credentialed,

    Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, B.A. (Hons) Geography (Thesis: Geomorphology), blah blah blah, Gish Gallop

    I understand you post was satrical but it is important to get your facts straight regardless.

    NB: Tyson edited so it wasn’t 10 pages of bullshit.

    • populartechnology on said:

      Tyson, it is clear you have no interest in intellectual honesty which is a shame.

    • Wow, I’m so impressed with your cut and paste of irrelevant nonsense.
      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/ee-threatens-a-libel-suit/

    • No, I’m not misinformed about E&E. Quite simply, any journal that can continually publish articles that are factually incorrect (e.g. CO2 is not plant food, water and essential elements like nitrogen and phosphorus are) and contradicted by every reputable scientist and science organisation, is not deserving of any respect. Hell, this is a journal that published a paper on “solid iron core of the sun”, something that Ian Plimer (the reason I mentioned him) also stated, which is just plain bullshit.

      E&E is not listed as a peer reviewed SCIENCE journal, it is listed as a SOCIAL science journal. Seriously, get your facts straight. Listing off a Gish Gallop of stuff about E&E doesn’t change the fact that the review process is not carried out by actual peers. E.g. when I published my papers on plant science, they were reviewed by other plant scientists, not by a geologist or political scientist who have no idea about the topic.

      So, you accused me of not getting my facts straight in a satirical piece, yet you have failed to even get your own facts straight. Next you’ll be trying to tell me that 150 years of climate science is wrong because you failed physics in high school and can’t believe this stuff.

  7. Pingback: Is science broken? | Tyson Adams

  8. click here on said:

    Write more, thats all I have to say. Literally, it seems as though you relied
    on the video to make your point. You definitely
    know what youre talking about, why throw away
    your intelligence on just posting videos
    to your site when you could be giving us something enlightening
    to read?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 884 other followers

%d bloggers like this: