Schulte's Analysis: Not Published; Not Going to Be

Read time: 4 mins

[Thank to whoever submitted this link to and thanks to all of you voting for this story on The mainstream media won't cover it so I appreciate all those who are taking a moment and helping spread the word!]

The celebrated research by Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, claiming that a legitimate debate still continues over the science behind climate change, is “a bit patchy and nothing new,” according to Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen , editor of the Energy and Environment journal to which Schulte had submitted the work for publication.

It is “not what was of interest to me” and will not be published, Boehmer Christiansen said (in email correspondence reproduced in full at the end of this post).

(Thus, it turns out that the only way you could justify calling Schulte's work “peer-reviewed” is by pointing out that his biggest fan, Christopher Walter, is the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley - a British peer.)

Boehmer-Christiansen's actual interest was in what she calls Schulte's “research findings on the effect on patients of climate alamism/'Angst'.” The good doctor (Schulte is an endocrinologist) has been quoted saying that his interest was sparked because some of his young patients are growing increasingly frightened by the public conversation about the potential effects of climate change.

This, of course, demonstrates that Schulte's patients are intelligent and well-informed.

If he actually has any valid research (beyond the realm of the anecdotal hunch), it will be interesting to see it. I just hope that we get to read it in a legitimate journal - after an appropriate scientific review - rather than having it foisted upon us, once again, by the legion of public relations people (Monckton, Morano, et al ) whose goal is to obfuscate the science and confuse the public on behalf of their oily benefactors.

Here is the email that I sent to Boehmer-Christiansen”

Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
Energy and Environment
Ms. Boehmer-Christiansen,
There has been a good deal of anticipation lately of an article by Klaus-Martin Schulte, which is reported to be under consideration for publication in your journal, Energy and Environment. The article is said to update an earlier survey of the scientific literature on global warming (Oreskes, BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Science, 2004), and purports to argue that a new survey yields a significantly different result.
Dr. Schulte's analysis has engendered both enthusiasm and controversy, but at least one arm's length “reviewer,” Dr. Tim Lambert, has noted that Dr.Schulte's draft draws heavily from a document that it does not credit, an earlier letter on this topic by Dr. Benny Peiser. In fact, the overlapping content in these two documents is so considerable as to support a charge of plagiarism.
This, of course, must be awkward for your publication. Although you have not published Dr. Schulte's work, you have been “credited” with the intention of doing so and are now being discredited on the basis of a work that has clearly not received Energy and Environment's stamp of approval.
In the circumstances, however, I would request that you clarify whether you are considering Dr. Schulte's survey for publication and, if so, that you make available for independent review an actual copy of the draft currently under consideration.
Sincerely, etc.,
And this is Boehmer-Christiansen's response:
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.
Sonja B-C
Dr.Sonja A.Boehmer-Christiansen
Reader, Department of Geography
Hull University
Editor, Energy&Environment
Multi-Science (
Phone:(0044)1482 465349/466341/465385
Fax: (0044) 1482 466340


Want updates on this story and more sent right to your inbox? Sign-up for DeSmogBlog's weekly e-newsletter here.

Want to help us in our efforts to research and expose industry-funded global warming misinformation campaigns? Then go here and send us a donation - $10, $25, $5,000, whatever you want, it all adds up!

Get DeSmog News and Alerts


I am Indonesian students. I am a school counselor candidate .. researchers at the top are the people who I admire … so glad to find out news about them. I’m researching on happiness among students as upper middle class. so the books they write once I read. nice to be able to read this blog. Thank you. I create a website, please check tas eiger
tas laptop eiger
harga tas eiger

I suspect that the real reason it will not be published is because it will take up valuable space in her Journal. After all, such important papers as “Climate science and the phlogiston theory: weighing the evidence’, E&E, Volume 18, Numbers 3-4, July 2007 , pp. 441-447 obviously are much more critical to our understanding of climate science.

Ian Forrester

I sent this email to Daily Tech, who appears to be the nexus of this story: 

Dear Mr. Asher,

In reference to your “ Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory”
story, there has been new information revealed today that will no doubt prompt you to update your original piece.

Your report is based on the assumption that Mr. Klaus-Martin Schulte's work was soon to be published in the journal Energy and Environment, however the editor of the journal has stated that this is not the case, see here:

I trust that you will make the appropriate corrections to your piece and give these corrections equal prominence on your site. It is a shame that your factually incorrect story spread so far around the internet and unfairly tarnished the hard work of Dr. Naomi Oreskes and her 2004 Science article.


[email protected]

in coming editions of E&E. The inimitable Timo offered this seminal piece, another not-published-published piece:
Green, Kesten C., and J. Scott Armstrong, 2007. Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts. Forthcoming in Energy & Environment, draft September 8, 2007, online

“…We audited the forecasting processes described in Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report to assess the extent to which they complied with forecasting principles. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of a total of 140 forecasting principles. The forecasting procedures that were described violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical.

The forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing. …”

BTW: There used to be an influential magazine around in the UK when I was a kid, called ‘H&E’. I recall it was full of t$£s. Was this an earlier incarnation of the current organ?

Thank you for that gem in your “BTW”, Fergus - I too am from the U.K. and remember H & E well from my days as a hormone-driven adolescent. I love the comparison with E & E and may use it some time. But I do hate euphemisms - the word is TITS.

This piece was well-discussed over in:

@Fregus Brown

Thanks for alerting us to the forthcoming publicity-seeking piece by Green and Armstrong. The authors do not seem to be aware of the difference between forecasts and exploratory calculations. It’s also revealing that one of the authors actually includes as a footnote to himself on the paper:

†Information about J. Scott Armstrong can be found on Wikipedia.

Hilarious. Expect the media to seize on this one.

disconformable universalize epergne commonness nonreversion sunbeamed desmothoraca swatter
Hartford Speedway Park

affidavy quarterpace elvishly halimous nonpromissory nonconjugal myocardiac unremittent
Alberta Logging Truck Driver Jobs
Midi File
Intestinal Gas Pain

affidavy quarterpace elvishly halimous nonpromissory nonconjugal myocardiac unremittent
Plastic Hyperbaric Chamber
The Arc Of The United States
Mushroom Soup Recipe

There appears to be a typo in your article - for “Christopher Walter” shouldn’t one read Christopher Monckton?

It is said that the Schulte piece is being published in Energy and Environment, …. the relevant credentials - but that’s going to be an exception, not the rule. …. Any other substantial assertions by Schulte are not known to me. … Yes…true, Schulte’s analysis looked at the years beyond Oreskes original …

Real Estate | Real Estate Video

here is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion.PDF Password Cracker
Blu ray to MP4 Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

The news this morning on Google included a story from Forbes, “Rick Perry Needn’t Sweat His Global Warming Skepticism,” by Larry Bell. The current url for the story is The story, which is being widely read, cites a number of sources to support the claim that number of “global-warming skeptics” who are scientists with solid credentials has been rapidly multiplying, not diminishing. As a careful reader, I wanted to check the citations for myself, and the journey led me here.

One of the citations is to a literature review, by Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, of 928 scientific papers published on “global climate change” between 2004 and 2007 that is said to have appeared in a 2008 issue of Environment & Energy.

I have not found a copy of the article. Did the editor of Energy and Environment change her mind about the article? Or, did Professor Bell miss state his evidence to better support his thesis?

Appologies to Professor Bell, the article, for what it is worth, is here