Klaus-Martin Schulte remains silent on his climate change "research"

Fri, 2007-09-14 19:13Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Klaus-Martin Schulte remains silent on his climate change "research"

It's been well over a week since we sent inquiries to Mr. Klaus-Martin Schulte regarding his relationship to the oil-industry friendly DC lobbyist, Rob Ferguson and the “Science and Public Policy Institute.”

We will continue to update everyone on the response or non-response of Dr. Schulte on these important questions.

Here's the questions we sent him regarding his highly publicized, and highly questionable research:

1. How did Lord Monckton receive a copy of your work so far in advance of it being published?

2. Are you employed by the Science and Policy Institute, or have you received any financial compensation from the Science and Policy Institute?

3. If there is no financial relationship between you and the Science and Policy Institute, how is it that they are privy to such things as your report in advance of its publication and your follow-up “open letters” to Dr. Oreskes?

Comments

Don’t know whether you’ve seen this:
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/7102.html#comments
A little Saturday night fun.

Damn!
All those other tags, but no anchors (a…./a)?

is that Schulte apparently copied much of what he wrote from Monckton. That counts as something you can bring up before an ethics panel.

Yep, we saw that one by Tim Lambert . Someone should contact Energy and the Environment with the plagiarism concerns that have been raised. 

Well, actually, I’m not sure it helps to contact E&E,

because the plagiarism is in the letter from Schulte to Oreskes, which was then posted at SPPI 2 days later, and the next day, Ferguson sent out a blast on BusinessWire (!) about it:

Researcher demands apology for professional discourtesy from essayist who claimed climate “consensus”

Google: researcher demands apology essayist climate consensus
gets >200,000 hits
=====
However, King’s College
and the NHS

may be different stories … and Schulte’s email to Oreskes uses official NHS email letterhead. You may be interested to know that there are some NHS guidelines about having someone else check out external messages, and about honesty, etc.

Also, I’m sure King’s certainly has ethics guidelines. In fact, by amazing coincidence, here it is:
www.kcl.ac.uk/college/policyzone/attachments/good_practice04.pdf

Look in section 2.1; in particular, it may well be that plagiarism is not the only one…

Kevin: expect an update in a day or so.

Eli: you have my email from Rabett Run … if you’d like a detailed update, and can send me an appropriate email, I’ll send you one also.

Oops, forgot:
Think about:
would you prefer that Schulte’s piece be published soon, in E&E … or not.

Take a look at comments from Fergus Brown, who has actually read the Schulte paper, in:

http://fergusbrown.wordpress.com/2007/09/07/the-truth-will-out/

“Thanks to these two show-and-tell projects, we now know that, out of 1467 abstracts on the subject of ‘global climate change’, there are 4 (there may be a few more) which appear to challenge the ‘consensus’ position. That’ll be 0.27%. This means, surely, that 99.73% do not challenge this position. (We won’t go into the details now). Does this look like a scientific consensus?”