Was I being unfair to Energy and Environment when I described it as a forum for laundering pseudo-science? I mean, didn’t they reject Schulte? According to Boehmer-Christiansen:

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.

Nothing had been published when she wrote that, but now his patchy and nothing new survey of papers has been published in Energy and Environment. (And there weren’t any significant changes to it.) (Hat tip: bi)

Meanwhile Theo has used the EG Beck methodology to disprove the consensus that pi is a constant.


Monckton should do a piece on this and Schulte should plagiarize it.


  1. #1 Ian Gould
    March 23, 2008

    Never having looked at E&R, I have to ask – do they publish anything that ISN’T crap?

    Do papers from there ever get cited in other scientific journals?

  2. #2 bi
    March 23, 2008

    Gratias for the hat tip!

    Never having looked at E&R, I have to ask – do they publish anything that ISN’T crap?

    That’s a good question…

    I’d also really love to see how Schulte arrived at the conclusion that “climate alarmism” is bad for patients.

    Myself, I’m not worried that I’ll die in 2012 or whatever — since global warming can be mitigated, in principle — but I am angry that there are people who would do everything in their power to prevent any steps from being taken to solve the problem. How’s that for Dr. Schulte?

  3. #3 Eli Rabett
    March 23, 2008

    If the issues raised by John Mashey, our host and others reamin, complaints to the medical council where Schulte practices should be in order. Moreover, given that the discussion was quite public, a complaint against E&E and its editors might not be out of order.

  4. #4 John Mashey
    March 23, 2008

    bi: as I pointed outline the paper Eli references, it is known that Monckton had endocrine problems, and Schulte is an endocrine surgeon. We cannot know if Monckton was Schulte’s patient, but if so, he may well have had one patient stressed by (his view of) climate alarmism.

  5. #5 Tom Rees
    March 23, 2008

    It must be almighty junk It doesn’t even appear in SCImago – a database which holds almost every journal published. http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php

  6. #6 bi
    March 23, 2008

    John Mashey:

    We cannot know if Monckton was Schulte’s patient, but if so, he may well have had one patient stressed by (his view of) climate alarmism.

    That’ll be weird, since Monckton is obviously not a “climate alarmist”. Unless the story goes that Monckton used to believe he was going to die in 2012, and this caused endocrine problems, and when he started joining the Church of Global Warming Denialism all his endocrine problems miraculously disappeared…

  7. #7 bi
    March 23, 2008

    If, on the other hand, Monckton had been a denialist all along — which is more possible — then perhaps an initial case can be made that, in fact, it’s global warming denialism that’s hazardous to health.

  8. #8 John Mashey
    March 24, 2008

    re: #6 bi

    Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
    Schulte’s intro says:
    “Recently, patients alarmed by the tone of media reports and political speeches on
    climate change have been voicing distress, for fear of the imagined consequences of
    anthropogenic “global warming”. In my clinical practice patients with benign and
    malignant disorders are concerned that their disease may be caused by or related to
    “climate change” and that they might have remained healthy without it. In discussions,
    they are sometimes specifically distressed that climate change is man-made and that
    inefficiency or carelessness of policy makers could thus be the origin of their
    individual suffering.”

    and we know Monckton is certainly upset with awful “alarmists” like Al Gore.

    Yes, it’s a bizarre interpretation. I have asked several NHS friends if climate worries were high on patients’ lists. They laughed.

  9. #9 bi
    March 24, 2008

    Wow, truly bizarre indeed… from “patients worry their conditions may be caused by AGW” (a claim which is itself in doubt), Schulte executes a masterful leap in logic to conclude that “GW alarmism hurts patients’ health” and also “patients are worried about catastrophic AGW oh noes!”…

  10. #10 Brian Schmidt
    March 24, 2008

    Tim says there have been no significant changes, and I don’t feel like buying access to this article. Can anyone with access tell us whether the plagiarized sections that Tim had previously identified:


    are still in there? As Eli points out, plagiarism is grounds for complaint against Schulte in his academic field, but it’s also grounds to demand that E&E withdraw the paper.

    Apparently the plagiarism was in the submitted preprint, so even removing it from the final is not an adequate response by E&E to a serious ethics violation.

  11. #11 bi
    March 24, 2008

    it’s also grounds to demand that E&E withdraw the paper.

    Personally I won’t bother: it’s not a real journal anyway, so let’s stop pretending as if it’s supposed to be one.

    (Then again, personally I’d be more interested in seeing Christopher “Cloistered Lord” Monckton have his day in the court of law…)

  12. #12 John Mashey
    March 24, 2008

    #10 Brian

    I bought the article, not being able to resist [@ $18, it’s a fraction of a tank of gas :-)].

    1) The actual Schulte paper claims:
    Cao, Gerhard, Leiserowitz, Lai, Shaviv, Zhen-Shan&Xian.

    2) The plagiarism identified by Tim was in Schulte’s reply to Oreskes, i.e., NOT in the paper itself. The set of references is distinct, as even the Gerhard reference is to a different AAPG publication.

  13. #13 bigcitylib
    March 24, 2008

    Theo has made my day. Here’s my take on “The Great Math Swindle”. I blame the Platonists.


  14. #14 John Mashey
    March 25, 2008

    If somebody isn’t tired of this yet, I updated my tome on Monckton / Schulte / Oreskes and DeSmogBlog posted

    it here

  15. #15 Max Lini
    March 25, 2008

    Ha! This is a number with no practical application, that could be understating, overstating, or missing any actual change in climate. One that nobdy can prove or disprove isn’t just a reflection of gathering the data, or only showing noise or in some margin of error. Why is everyone so angry? Have a beer!

  16. #16 bi
    March 25, 2008

    What’s Max Lini babbling about?

  17. #17 z
    March 26, 2008

    “What’s Max Lini babbling about?”

    i caughte the word beer,and that sounded like a good idea.

  18. #18 Monckton of Brenchley
    March 27, 2008

    Mr. Schulte did not plagiarize my work. The research was his and his alone. “Dr.” Mashey’s over-long complaint to Mr. Schulte’s academic institution was dismissed on this and all other counts. Perhaps this blog would be of more use if it devoted itself to scientific discussion rather than to elaborately-constructed ad-hominem attacks. Mr. Schulte’s paper was published because the peer-reviewers considered that it merited publication. Those who disagree can always submit a rebuttal for peer-review.

  19. #19 guthrie
    March 27, 2008

    Are you the real Monckton of Brenchley?
    I’m sure people here have a number of questions for you.
    Personally, I’d like to know how E&E is regarded as a worthwhile place to publish. In scientific terms, it is effectively the same as publishing in Answers in Genesis’ new journal.

    As for the science, you are aware that just about everyone is bored with your own attempts at puffing yourself up, and total avoidance of actual scientific debate with real scientists? If you are the real Monckton, my how the mighty are fallen, reduced to making statements on blogs where nobody will take them seriously. Of course the reason we don’t take you seriously is that you have nothing useful or interesting to say, see the many posts at various blogs for more information. If I had more time I’d post some links, but I’m sure someone of your supposed intelligence would be able to find the requisite posts.

  20. #20 Max Lini
    March 27, 2008

    Beer’s always a good idea, z!

    I’m babbling about your offset from average, bi. The “WARMING” as in HadCRUT2v shows a trendline of +.6 celsius since 1870. Trouble is, you have no clue if it’s understated and things are worse than we think.

    It’s almost like Anders the astonomist designed a thermometer, and decided water would boil at 0 and freeze at 100, and Carl the botanist reversed it.

    I’ve come to the conclusion the denialists have a better sense of humor than the alarmists do. You’re both deluded, but that’s always true about the polarized. So don’t worry, be happy!


  21. #21 John Mashey
    March 27, 2008

    re: #18
    The Viscount only gave Deltoid a short comment. For a much longer one, and my reply, see:

    Once again, as far as I know, the plagiarism identified by Tim wasn’t in the paper submitted to E&E, or published there, it was in the threatening letter sent by Schulte to Oreskes, and published at SPPI within about a day.

    THE READER MAY ASSESS whether the Viscount’s DeSMogBlog comment may have effectively confirmed the patient-doctor relationship between him and Mr. Schulte.

  22. #22 Eli Rabett
    March 28, 2008

    Something actually interesting here. Monckton claims that Mashey’s complaint was dismissed. Where is the correspondence about this. It appears to me that at least the person who made the complaint should have received the conclusion AND all responses from Schulte and Monckton to the complaint.

  23. #23 luminous beauty
    March 28, 2008

    “I’ve come to the conclusion the denialists have a better sense of humor than the alarmists do.”

    Watching a contortionist capable of inserting his head entirely past his sphincter is amusing.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.