At least 75 per cent of known fossil fuel reserves must remain in the ground to avoid catastrophic climate change, but not only are fossil fuel...
It's been a week since I sent the following email to Mr. Klaus Martin-Shulte regarding his connection to the oil-industry friendly lobbyist, Rob Ferguson:Dear Mr. Martin Shulte… I am wondering if you could clear up the following questions that I have outstanding…
Last week I wrote a piece about the people and organizations involved in the latest attack on the work of Dr. Naomi Oreseks. They were: Dr. Klaus Martin-Shulte, Christopher Monckton and Rob Ferguson, who was formerly employed by the oil-industry backed “think” tank, the Frontiers of Freedom. Ferguson now runs his own think tank called the “Science and Public Policy Institute.”
After exhausting resources on the internet, I had a few important questions left outstanding, so I sent emails to Ferguson and Martin-Shulte almost a week ago with no response as of yet.
Here are the questions I sent Ferguson…
The breathless debate spawned by U.K. endocrinologist Dr. Klaus-Martin Shulte offers a perfect case study in how NOT to debate serious scientific issues.
Shulte - motivated, we are led to believe, by a desire to ease the minds of defenceless children who are worried about climate change - has launched what can fairly be described as an effort to repudiate the work of Dr. Naomi Oreskes.
Well-known denier Benny Peiser complains in a recent Reuters story that: “scientific journals refused to take papers from scientists who doubted climate change.”
Of course, this speaks to the worn-out claim that there is a grand scientific conspiracy to silence those who deny the realities of climate change. What if we assume instead that Peiser's unimpressive publication rate is a reflection of a “conspiracy” among journal editors to favour high quality research?
Normally, we would advise against scientists responding to this public misinformation because it only adds to the appearance of a debate, which is exactly what the skeptics aim to do. However, Oreskes piece is very well written and clearly reinforces the message that the debate on climate change has been over for a long time.