Schulte has published a reply to Oreskes’ response. While Schulte claims not to be a contrarian, Kevin Grandia has been looking at his links with Christopher Monckton. Meanwhile, John Lynch posts on Shulte’s reply and commenter “Chris” (who is, I suspect, Christopher Monckton) threatens lawsuits against Oreskes and Lynch:
By making the allegations his own and endorsing them with such lamentably unscientific enthusiasm, however, he has exposed himself to the legal action which may well follow if Oreskes does not come forward quickly with an unreserved apology to Schulte.
Also posting is Fergus Brown who reckons that Monckton and Inhofe’s gang are to blame for stirring up trouble between Oreskes and Schulte.
What interests me is that Schulte provides five more papers that he reckons reject the consensus, so we can further evaluate his skill at this task. So far he has a failing score of 3 out of 7.
Even before we look at any abstracts, it’s clear that his reading comprehension leaves something to be desired. Schulte writes:
>With all respect, the statement’s declaration that the starting-point for Oreskes’ research was that “we realized that the basic issue was settled” would, if true, cast considerable doubt upon the impartiality and reliability of her research.
But Oreskes said that that was the **ending point**:
>Biologists today never write papers in which they explicitly say “we endorse evolution”. Earth scientists never say “we explicitly endorse plate tectonics.” This is because these things are now taken for granted. So when we read these papers and observed this pattern, we took this to be very significant. We realized that the basic issue was settled, and we observed that scientists had moved on to discussing details of the problem, mostly tempo and mode issues: how fast, how soon, in what manner, with what impacts, etc.
Anyway, let’s see what he says about these five papers.
>However, since she has seen fit to raise the question of unanimity in the peer-reviewed journals, I have now inspected the papers which she had reviewed. Some examples of papers which fell within her search criterion and within her timeframe, but which do not appear to me, prima facie, to support even her limited definition of the “consensus”, are as follows -
Wow, impressive, he went through 900 odd papers in a couple of days.
>AMMANN et al. (2003) detected evidence for close ties between solar variations and surface climate.
Well yes, that’s the consensus view. Trouble is that solar variations do not explain recent warming and the paper’s [abstract](http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/clima/unclassified/todo/127.html) does not contradict this. Schulte gives an incorrect cite for this paper:
>AMMANN, C.M. et al. 2003. Close ties between solar variations and surface climate. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 65 (2): 191-201.
The correct cite is:
OH, H.S. et al. 2003. Multi-resolution time series analysis applied to solar irradiance and climate reconstructions. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 65 (2): 191-201.
>REID (1997) found that “the importance of solar variability as a factor in climate change over the last few decades may have been underestimated in recent studies”.
The [abstract](http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/clima/unclassified/todo/629.html) states:
>solar forcing and anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcing made roughly equal contributions to the rise in global temperature that took place between 1900 and 1955.
This seems to agree with the consensus that **since 1955** anthropogenic forcings have been more important.
>KONDRATYEV and Varotsos (1996) criticize “the undoubtedly overemphasized contribution of the greenhouse effect to the global climate change”.
Schulte gives another incorrect cite:
>KONDRATYEV, K., and Varotsos, C. 1996. Annual Review. Energy and Environment 21: 31-67.
The correct cite is:
KONDRATYEV, K.Y., and Varotsos, C 1995. Atmospheric Greenhouse-Effect in the Context of Global Climate-Change. Nuovo Cimento della Societa Italiana di Fisica C-Geophysics and Space Physics 18 (2): 123-151.
ISI classifies this as a review and not an article, so it was not included in Oreskes’ sample and should not have been included by Schulte either.
>GERHARD and Hanson (2000): “The American Association of Petroleum Geologists’ Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues … there is no discernible human influence on global climate at this time.”
This is wrongly classified as an article by ISI when it is a review. But since the mistake is ISI’s, I’ll give him a point on this one.
>FERNAU et al. (1993):
This is in the Social Science Citation Index, not the Science Citation Index, so was not included in Oreskes’ sample.
Schulte fails again with a score of one out of five.
But that’s not his final score, because where have we seen those bad cites before? Look at the references in [Benny Peiser's rejected letter to Science](http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm):
>4.) C. M. Ammann et al., for instance, claim to have detected evidence for “close ties between solar variations and surface climate”, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 65:2 (2003): 191-201. While G.C. Reid stresses: “The importance of solar variability as a factor in climate change over the last few decades may have been underestimated in recent studies.” Solar forcing of global climate change since the mid-17th century. Climate Change. 37 (2): 391-405
>6) Russian scientists K. Kondratyev and C Varotsos criticise “the undoubtfully overemphasised contribution of the greenhouse effect to the global climate change”. K. Kondratyev and C Varotsos (1996). Annual Review of Energy and the Environment. 21: 31-67
>7) M.E. Fernau, W.J. Makofske, D.W. South (1993) Review and Impacts of climate change uncertainties. Futures 25 (8): 850-863.
>8) L.C. Gerhard and B.M. Hanson (2000) AAPG Bulletin 84 (4): 466-471
Not only did Peiser make the same mistakes in his cites, all of the Schulte’s examples come from Peiser’s letter. Schulte must have copied his examples and cites from Peiser. Schulte does not cite or acknowledge Peiser as a source. That’s plagiarism, so I’m taking away the one point he got and giving him a final score of zero.
**Update:** Oh good grief. Compare Schulte with [Monckton](http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/consensus.pdf):
Some examples of papers which fell within her search criterion and within her timeframe, but which do not appear to me, prima facie, to support even her limited definition of the “consensus”, are as follows -
Two abstracts, in particular, directly rejected the “consensus” as Oreskes had defined it
GERHARD and Hanson (2000): “The American Association of Petroleum Geologists’ Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues has studied the supposition of human-induced climate change since the committee’s inception in January 1998. This paper details the progress and findings of the committee through June 1999, At that time there had been essentially no geologic input into the global climate change debate. The following statements reflect the current state of climate knowledge from the geologic perspective as interpreted by the majority of the committee membership. The committee recognizes that new data could change its conclusions. The earth’s climate is constantly changing owing to natural variability in earth processes. Natural climate variability over recent geological time is greater than reasonable estimates of potential human-induced greenhouse gas changes. Because no tool is available to test the supposition of human-induced climate change and the range of natural variability is so great, there is no discernible human influence on global climate at this time.”
FERNAU et al. (1993): “This article examines the status of the scientific uncertainties in predicting and verifying global climate change that hinder aggressive policy making. More and better measurements and statistical techniques are needed to detect and confirm the existence of greenhouse-gas-induced climate change, which currently cannot be distinguished from natural climate variability in the historical record. Uncertainties about the amount and rate of change of greenhouse gas emissions also make prediction of the magnitude and timing of climate change difficult. Because of inadequacies in the knowledge and depiction of physical processes and limited computer technology, predictions from existing computer models vary widely, particularly on a regional basis, and are not accurate enough yet for use in policy decisions. The extent of all these uncertainties is such that moving beyond no-regrets measures such as conservation will take political courage and may be delayed until scientific uncertainties are reduced.”
I am given to understand that Oreskes has pointed out that the paper by Gerhard and Hansen was not peer-reviewed. However, it is not clear to me that her essay was peer-reviewed either. It was published as an “Essay” in the comment section of Science under the subhead “Beyond The Ivory Tower” – an essay series which, according to the editors of Science, “highlights the benefits that scientists, science, and technology have brought to society throughout history”.
It may or may not be that the authors of the above-cited abstracts personally believe that humankind is responsible for more than half of the observed warming of the past half century. It may or may not be that most climate scientists published in the journals believe that. However, the published papers which I have cited above, and the numerous papers which I have cited in my own study of papers published after the end of Oreskes’ study, do raise grave doubts about the unanimity which Oreskes said she had found in the papers which she had reviewed when preparing her 2004 essay.
Some examples of papers which fell within Oreskes’ search criteron
Two abstracts reviewed by Oreskes directly and bluntly rejected the
GERHARD and Hanson (2000): “The American Association of Petroleum Geologists’ Ad Hoc Committee
FERNAU et al. (1993): “This article examines the status of the scientific uncertainties in
Though Oreskes has challenged Dr. Peiser’s analysis by pointing out
It may even be the case
Now Monckton makes it clear that he is reporting Peiser’s work but Schulte carefully removed the references to Peiser after he cut and pasted from Monckton. Schulte plagiarised his text from Monckton and his references from Peiser. And he’s not some first year student who doesn’t know how to cite properly — he’s a published researcher who should know better.