Seems OMICS International will publish anything

A new paper in the Environment Pollution and Climate Change journal (published by OMICS International) claims to have provided a refutation of the climate greenhouse theory. It’s, of course, utter nonsense, so I’m not planning on saying much.

What is remarkable is that, according to the PDF, it was accepted less than a month after being received. I’ve been looking through some of my recent papers, and even mostly uncontroversial papers that receive quite positive reviews tend to have a couple of months between being received and being accepted. Here, however, is a paper that, if right (which it is not), would rewrite our understanding of one of the most important scientific topics of the current age, and it takes less than a month. You’d think it might undergo a bit more scrutiny. You’d also like to think that the $519 article processing charge didn’t play a role in the speediness of the decision making (you might, however, be wrong if you did think this).

I had a quick skim through the article and rather gave up when it started arguing (on page 5) that it’s incorrect to use the cross-sectional area of the Earth when determining the amount of energy we receive from the Sun, and also incorrect to use the surface area of the Earth when determining how much we – on average – radiate. This is just silly.

To give you a final flavour of the paper, I’ll quote from the conclusions:

In fact, it would be feasible to refute the climate greenhouse theory already by some simple arguments:

Okay, let’s see these simple arguments.

The fact, that the atmospheric carbon-dioxide has increased while the average global temperature has increased, too, does not at all reveal a causal relationship but solely an analogous one.

Indeed, but it’s extremely difficult to explain the rise in global surface temperature without including the influence of increasing atmospheric CO2. The reason that we think that increasing atmospheric CO2 is the main cause of the rise in global surface temperature is not only because it is consistent with our understanding of its influence, but also because it is extremely difficult to construct a physically plausible alternative.

Moreover, a greenhouse needs a solid transparent roof which is absent in the case of the atmosphere.

What? Really? This is one of the simple arguments? Referring to it as the greenhouse effect is simply an analogy, and an imperfect one at that. This isn’t a refutation of the theory, but an indication that the author hasn’t given this much thought at all.

And finally, it seems unlikely that the extremely low carbon-dioxide concentration of 0.04 percent is able to co-warm the entire atmosphere to a perceptible extent.

And an argument from incredulity to end. Brilliant! I suspect I don’t really need to say anything more. I’ve never published anything in an OMICS International journal (at least, I don’t think I have) and, after this, I certainly don’t have any intention of starting now.

This entry was posted in Climate change, ClimateBall, Comedy, Global warming, Greenhouse effect, Research, Science, The scientific method and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Seems OMICS International will publish anything

  1. Pingback: Courtesy of Omics Online’s “Environment Pollution & Climate Change”: a ‘refutation’ of centuries of science & emergent requirement for massive sprinkers?

  2. Andrew Dodds says:

    The references list makes good reading. I’m not sure that this guy is completely current with the literature.

  3. Magma says:

    This is something of a throwback to the days when amateur cranks would write (unpublishable, back then) treatises on quantum mechanics, general relativity, cosmology or other high-profile and non-intuitive scientific fields.

    It’s kind of sad, actually. Mr. Allmendinger has confucted a series of experiments, carried out analyses, and written an 18-page paper, and all for nothing since his basic premises are so flawed. A shame he didn’t direct his efforts to any number of useful ‘citizen science’ projects that could have benefited from his labor and energy.

  4. Andrew,

    The references list makes good reading. I’m not sure that this guy is completely current with the literature.

    Somewhat of an understatement 😉

    Thanks. I hadn’t even tried to look him up. Seems, from his other papers, that he’s repeated one of the well known test of IR absorption by gases that has been known for a long time to not be appropriate for testing the greenhouse effect.

  5. Magma says:

    ‘conducted’ a series of experiments

    That was a typo, not a sly insult.

  6. the 3%ers are making a living developing, writing and publishing some remarkably inept science. Long live the Controversy, I guess. Pretty discouraging to see this kind of stuff get published. Flat earth science journal.

  7. BBD says:

    That was a typo, not a sly insult.

    A happy accident, perhaps.

  8. The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse says:

    From the article:

    Apart from this, at least twenty crucial errors are revealed which suggest abandoning the theory as a whole.

    If the author is only a mere 5% correct, then we must paradigm-shift to a whole new physical theory.

    The only possible possibility is that the Earth actually is in a greenhouse.

  9. Marco says:

    Since someone already pointed to Viterito, he’s got two other papers in press in his own journal (oh, no worries, they are “Editorials”), where in one he updates an earlier claim that global warming is mainly due to seismic activity, and the other ends with a wonderful conspiracy (apparently google suppressed one of his papers…).

  10. I guess in a way you could say the atmosphere is analogous to the air in a green house. The glass roof that contains the greenhouse’s air and stops it floating away, is behaving in exactly the same way as the force of gravity which contains Earth’s atmosphere and stops it floating off into space.

    So there, Mr Allmendinger.

  11. lerpo says:

    “OMICS Publishing Group is a publisher of open access journals that is widely regarded as predatory.” –

  12. russellseitz says:

    Call it the argument from molecular minimalism.

    What possible harm can adding 400 ppm of carbon nonoxide do to your washing machine & bath water, or 400 teentsy parts per million of O3 to the oxygen in your breathing air?

  13. russellseitz says:

    Any good cartoonist can explain how harmless all small numbers must be

  14. Tim Roberts says:

    It takes a certain amount of arrogance for one to believe that your “backyard science” is as good or better than decades of research by teams of expert men and women working in an area.

  15. MikeR says:

    Due to their minority status, gases that are only tiny amount of the earths atmosphere should be dispensed with. There would be no longer  endless disputes about the effects of these trace gases, if CO2 (0.04%) and ozone (0.00006%). were removed.

     On a personal note I  could get a reallly good tan, once the basal cell carcinomas are removed.

  16. angech says:

    MikeR says “On a personal note I could get a reallly good tan, once the basal cell carcinomas are removed.”
    I’m sure the tan would be there for a while before the BCC’s came.
    Do they actually publish anything sensible as well?

  17. Andrew Dodds says:

    Personally, I vote for a 100% oxygen atmosphere. That’s the one we really need, the others are just space fillers.

  18. Simon Carter says:

    That would certainly help with anti smoking campaigns

  19. russellseitz says:

    Really Simon? The vapers will have no trouble adjust their rheostats, but the vegans will be toast, and cocktail shakers may go hypergolic.

  20. dikranmarsupial says:

    a rather inflammatory suggestion, I thought…

  21. Nathan Tetlaw says:

    What’s really interesting is that this blog can be viewed in China, but not Nick Stoke’s Moyhu… Wonder what is different…

  22. russellseitz says:

    Omics International has been eclipsed by The Daily Beast‘s account of Mark Steyn’s latest reversal of fortune:

  23. Pingback: Confutata la teoria dell'effetto serra (no) - Ocasapiens - Blog -

  24. Susan Anderson says:

    Oh lovely, thanks Russell. As often, a few days behind (au secours, au secours, je suis gauche derriere) but that’s priceless! I had wondered why Steyn wasn’t front and center in the Trumpodump.

  25. Pingback: Fake Climate Change denial papers in Fake scientific journals - Skeptical Science

  26. Pingback: A brief roundup: the BBC and OMICS | …and Then There's Physics

  27. Pingback: 2017: A year in review | …and Then There's Physics

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.