Shulte vs. Oreskes: Tim Lambert Updates

Thu, 2007-09-13 14:39Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Shulte vs. Oreskes: Tim Lambert Updates

Tim Lambert, who does excellent work on his Deltoid blog, offers a devastating critique of the Shulte attack on Naomi Oreskes, demonstrating, for example, that Shulte has cribbed parts of his paper from the already discredited Benny Peiser (photo).

Very, very shabby, you bumbling deniers. 

Previous Comments

Re: Tim’s devastating critique
I summarize what Tim’s nice sleuthing showed:

A) Mr. Schulte copied, word-for-word, including formatting (using Wingding arrows) the 5 citations claimed to reject consensus that Oreskes should have seen. Lord Monckton got those 5, including identical errors in the cites, from Peiser’s letter to Science, which of course Tim had done great work analyzing earlier.
Monckton mentions them in a section that discusses Peiser’s (discredited) work, although the references are several paragraphs away from mention of Peiser, so attribution is slightly ambiguous.

Schulte’s letter has no mention of Monckton or Peiser. One might speculate why.

B) Then, Tim did side-by-side comparisons of other paragraphs, between Schulte and Monckton, and the reader should look at Tim’s blog and form their own opinion.

On occasion, academe takes plagiarism seriously…


By the 1950s, smoking's cause of disease had risen to strong scientific consensus, but Big Tobacco needed an illusion of scientific controversy to keep the public in doubt. As seen in the new film Merchants of Doubt,  they developed superb marketing tactics copied by others, including the fossil fuel industry and allies.

The scientific consensus on human causation of climate change is just as strong as that on smoking, so the same tactics are used against it, plus Internet-amplified harassment of...

read more