Schulte's Analysis: Not Published; Not Going to Be

Schulte's Analysis: Not Published; Not Going to Be
on

[Thank to whoever submitted this link to Fark.com and thanks to all of you voting for this story on Digg.com. The mainstream media won’t cover it so I appreciate all those who are taking a moment and helping spread the word!]

The celebrated research by Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, claiming that a legitimate debate still continues over the science behind climate change, is “a bit patchy and nothing new,” according to Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen , editor of the Energy and Environment journal to which Schulte had submitted the work for publication.

It is “not what was of interest to me” and will not be published, Boehmer Christiansen said (in email correspondence reproduced in full at the end of this post).

(Thus, it turns out that the only way you could justify calling Schulte’s work “peer-reviewed” is by pointing out that his biggest fan, Christopher Walter, is the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley – a British peer.)

Boehmer-Christiansen’s actual interest was in what she calls Schulte’s “research findings on the effect on patients of climate alamism/’Angst’.” The good doctor (Schulte is an endocrinologist) has been quoted saying that his interest was sparked because some of his young patients are growing increasingly frightened by the public conversation about the potential effects of climate change.

This, of course, demonstrates that Schulte’s patients are intelligent and well-informed.

If he actually has any valid research (beyond the realm of the anecdotal hunch), it will be interesting to see it. I just hope that we get to read it in a legitimate journal – after an appropriate scientific review – rather than having it foisted upon us, once again, by the legion of public relations people (Monckton, Morano, et al ) whose goal is to obfuscate the science and confuse the public on behalf of their oily benefactors.

Here is the email that I sent to Boehmer-Christiansen”

Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
Editor
Energy and Environment
Ms. Boehmer-Christiansen,
There has been a good deal of anticipation lately of an article by Klaus-Martin Schulte, which is reported to be under consideration for publication in your journal, Energy and Environment. The article is said to update an earlier survey of the scientific literature on global warming (Oreskes, BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Science, 2004), and purports to argue that a new survey yields a significantly different result.
Dr. Schulte’s analysis has engendered both enthusiasm and controversy, but at least one arm’s length “reviewer,” Dr. Tim Lambert, has noted that Dr.Schulte’s draft draws heavily from a document that it does not credit, an earlier letter on this topic by Dr. Benny Peiser. In fact, the overlapping content in these two documents is so considerable as to support a charge of plagiarism.
This, of course, must be awkward for your publication. Although you have not published Dr. Schulte’s work, you have been “credited” with the intention of doing so and are now being discredited on the basis of a work that has clearly not received Energy and Environment’s stamp of approval.
In the circumstances, however, I would request that you clarify whether you are considering Dr. Schulte’s survey for publication and, if so, that you make available for independent review an actual copy of the draft currently under consideration.
Sincerely, etc.,
And this is Boehmer-Christiansen’s response:
For your information, I have informed Dr.Schulte that I am happy to publish his own research findings on the effect on patients of climate alamism/’Angst’.
His survey of papers critical of the consensus was a bit patchy and nothing new, as you point out. it was not what was of interest to me; nothing has been published.
Sincerely
Sonja B-C

Dr.Sonja A.Boehmer-Christiansen
Reader, Department of Geography
Hull University
Editor, Energy&Environment
Multi-Science (www.multi-science.co.uk)
HULL HU6 7RX
Phone:(0044)1482 465349/466341/465385
Fax: (0044) 1482 466340

 

Want updates on this story and more sent right to your inbox? Sign-up for DeSmogBlog’s weekly e-newsletter here.

Want to help us in our efforts to research and expose industry-funded global warming misinformation campaigns? Then go here and send us a donation – $10, $25, $5,000, whatever you want, it all adds up!

Related Posts

Analysis
on

The total cost of decommission offshore oil wells around the world is expected to be over $100 billion by 2030.

The total cost of decommission offshore oil wells around the world is expected to be over $100 billion by 2030.
on

The institution is already under intense pressure from campaigners over its existing relationships with oil companies.

The institution is already under intense pressure from campaigners over its existing relationships with oil companies.
on

While pipeline protesters risk harsh new penalties enacted in various states, security companies hired to police fossil fuel projects are operating with little oversight.

While pipeline protesters risk harsh new penalties enacted in various states, security companies hired to police fossil fuel projects are operating with little oversight.
on

Fossil fuel companies, experts say, “cannot be relied upon to decarbonize at the speed and scale needed” to tackle rising global emissions.

Fossil fuel companies, experts say, “cannot be relied upon to decarbonize at the speed and scale needed” to tackle rising global emissions.