I drafted the paper because I had become concerned that patients were being perhaps unduly alarmed by media reports of catastrophic climate change and were coming to harm through resultant stress. Peer-reviewed studies of patients’ views on the subject of climate change had reinforced my concern… I am an endocrine surgeon with numerous published papers in the medical journals. My sole concern in this debate is the welfare of patients.
Ummmm. Let’s move on. While Schulte makes much about Oreskes responding to his paper (which he sees as being “forthcoming but not yet finalized”), he doesn’t reprimand those contrarians who used hsi paper. I wonder why?
I’ll skip to the end because it becomes clear that poor old Schulte can’t handle the rough and tumble of academic debate.
[Oreskes] has been less than courteous, and less than professional, in having failed to verify the facts with me before thrice having used the word “misrepresentation” in connection with a draft of a paper by me which he or she cannot have read at the time. Worse, the author of the statement has used the word “foolish” about me when he or she had not done me the usual professional courtesy either of contacting me or even of reading what I had written before making haste to comment upon it. I should not expect any properly-qualified and impartially-motivated scientist to behave thus.
If the statement was indeed authored by Oreskes, I expect her to apologize for her professional discourtesy to me, and I invite the Chancellor of her university to enquire into the matter and then, if she be the statement’s author, to ensure that she apologizes promptly and unreservedly.
Well, if you are going to be foolish, you’re going to be called on it. And you don’t need to give someone permission before they call you so. To imagine that you do is, eh, foolish.
[HT to John Mashey for the tip]