Schulte’s Analysis Challenging Climate Consensus Has Been Rejected

DeSmogBlog has the details. Apparently, “cut-and-paste” Schulte didn’t have anything new to say, not even enough for a journal like Energy and Environment to take it. Although, Richard Littlemore’s letter discussing his loose use of other researchers contributions might have helped.

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

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 Bochmer-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

“Nothing new” indeed. That’s the nice way of putting it. So good job Tim and others for detecting the BS and shutting down yet another repetitive and debunked crank paper.

And for a humorous take on the situation see Nexus6 on the fiasco (H/T Tim).