von storch bak

---note no more  color belowsee pause hiatus BS9/13=<div></div><div>
</div><div>mashey 2012</div><div>p141</div><div>
</div><div>Z.2005.06-14 James M. Taylor</div><div>Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming</div><div>Alarmist “consensus” does not exist</div><div>
</div><div> A survey of climatologists from more than 20 nations has revealed scientists</div><div>are evenly split on whether humans are responsible for changes in global</div><div>climate. Meme-03</div><div>
</div><div> The findings refute699 a widely reported study by a California “Gender and</div><div>Science” professor700 who claimed that, based on her personal examination of</div><div>928 scientific papers on the issue, every single one reached the conclusion that</div><div>global warming is real and primarily caused by humans.</div><div>Professor Claims Scientific Unanimity701</div><div>
</div><div> In December 2004, Dr. Naomi Oreskes of the University of California at San</div><div>Diego received widespread media attention for claiming her review of scientific</div><div>literature showed scientists were in unanimous agreement that global warming is</div><div>occurring and is being caused primarily by humans.</div><div>
</div><div> In an article titled “Undeniable Global Warming,” Oreskes wrote in the</div><div>December 26 Washington Post, “There is a scientific consensus on the fact that</div><div>Earth’s climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason. We</div><div>need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and</div><div>start talking seriously about the right approach to address it.”</div><div>
</div><div>Climatologists Dispute Oreskes</div><div> The May 1 London Telegraph, however, noted Oreskes’ “unequivocal</div><div>conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of</div><div>many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.” The newspaper</div><div>reported that Dr. Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at</div><div>Liverpool John Moores University, “decided to conduct his own analysis of the</div><div>same set of 1,000 documents [cited by Oreskes]—and concluded that only one</div><div>third backed the consensus view, while only 1 percent did so explicitly.”702</div><div>
</div><div>----</div><div>notes</div><div>699 No, neither Peiser nor Bray did that.</div><div>700 Taylor denigrated an award-winning scholar and then relied on Peiser. Oreskes</div><div>was an exploration geologist before her Stanford PhD in geosciences and science</div><div>history and is Professor of History and Science Studies at UCSD.</div><div>history.ucsd.edu/people/faculty/oreskes-naomi.html</div><div>Calling her a Professor of “Gender and Science” is an obvious, purposeful attempt</div><div>to attack her credibility with the E&CN audience.” When she has spoken at</div><div>Stanford, members of the National Academy of Sciences take time to hear her.</div><div>701 Consensus is not unanimity and she did not claim the latter. She knows better.</div><div>Taylor tries to conflate the study with views of scientists, who have a strong</div><div>consensus, but no unanimity.</div><div>702 Peiser was a social (sports) anthropologist at a low-ranked UK school.</div><div>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Peiser</div><div>----</div><div> The London Times then reported on Professor Dennis Bray, of Germany’s</div><div>GKSS National Research Centre. Bray surveyed hundreds of international</div><div>climate scientists, asking the question, “To what extent do you agree or disagree</div><div>that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?” Bray received</div><div>530 responses from climatologists in 27 different countries.</div><div>
</div><div> With a value of 1 indicating “strongly agree” and a value of 7 indicating</div><div>“strongly disagree,” Bray reported the average of the 530 responses was 3.62,</div><div>almost right down the middle. More climatologists “strongly disagreed” than</div><div>“strongly agreed” that climate change is mostly attributable to humans.</div><div>“The results, i.e. the mean of 3.62, seem to suggest that consensus is not all that</div><div>strong,” Bray reported in his findings. “Results of surveys of climate scientists</div><div>themselves indicate the possibility that Oreskes’ conclusion is not as obvious as</div><div>stated.”703</div><div>
</div><div>Journals Swayed by Politics</div><div>Lorne Gunter, a columnist for the Canadian journal National Post, was more</div><div>blunt in his assessment of the survey.704</div><div> “It’s a long way from a consensus backing the most extreme global warming</div><div>scenarios, as environmentalists and UN officials would have us believe,”</div><div>observed Gunter.</div><div> “Interestingly but hardly surprisingly, Dr. Bray has had trouble getting his</div><div>findings published. Science magazine turned down even a letter-to-the-editor</div><div>from him,” Gunter added. “That’s doubly galling because back in December...</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>----</div><div>notes</div><div>His study got whittled down to nothing, as he was finally forced to admit.</div><div>
</div><div>“Peiser says he withdrew his criticism in March this year.”(2006) --Media Watch.</div><div>“Peiser obviously doesn’t know the difference between consensus and uncertainty,</div><div>between different kinds of uncertainty, or between research on climate and</div><div>research on climate policy.” - Sylvia Tognetti.</div><div>
</div><div>notes:</div><div>www.desmogblog.com/skeptics-journal-publishes-plagiarized-paper pp.7-8.</div><div>
</div><div>703 Even professional poll designers make errors, and Bray and von Storch were</div><div>not professionals. See comm.stanford.edu/faculty/krosnick for studies.</div><div>The 2003 Bray/von Storch survey was not well designed: the question was</div><div>ambiguous and the online poll arrangement allowed for gaming.</div><div>www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/a-statistical-analysis-of-theconsensus</div><div>
</div><div> I think they did a better job in August 2008:</div><div>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change</div><div>‘To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future</div><div>climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were</div><div>34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent,</div><div>and 1.35% not agreeing at all.”’</div><div>704 Why does Lorne Gunter’s opinion matter? He is no scientist, but he has a long</div><div>history of opinions, www.desmogblog.com/search/node/lorne%20gunter .</div><div>---</div><div>...Science didn’t hesitate for a second to print a discreditable paper by Dr. Naomi</div><div>Oreskes of UC San Diego in which she claimed that in her analysis of 928</div><div>abstracts from peer-reviewed climate research papers, ‘Remarkably, none of the</div><div>papers disagreed with the consensus position.’” Concluded Gunter, “Actually,</div><div>were Dr. Oreskes’ assertion of unanimity true, it might only prove how totally</div><div>co-opted the peer journals have become by enviro group-think and how willing</div><div>they are to censor dissenting views in an effort to preserve and polish the notion</div><div>of worldwide scientific consensus.”</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>This was a direct and false attack on Oreskes. IRS-3E</div><div></div>=<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Willie_Soon" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy
</a> 6 eds resigned, incl mainoreskes:

In 2003, Soon and Baliunas published an article, partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute, in a small journal called Climate Research. Presenting a review of existing literature rather than new research, the two concluded “the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.” They had, in effect, challenged both Mann and the IPCC, and in so doing presented global warming skeptics with a cause to rally around. Another version of the paper was quickly published with three additional authors: David Legates of the University of Delaware, and longtime skeptics Craig and Sherwood Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change in Tempe, Arizona. All have ExxonMobil connections: the Idsos received $40,000 from ExxonMobil for their center in the year the study was published, while Legates is an adjunct scholar at the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis (which got $205,000 between 2000 and 2003).Calling the paper “a powerful new work of science” that would “shiver the timbers of the adrift Chicken Little crowd,” Senator Inhofe devoted half of a Senate hearing to it, bringing in both Soon and Legates to testify against Mann. The day before, Hans Von Storch, the editor-in-chief of Climate Research—where the Soon and Baliunas paper originally appeared—resigned to protest deficiencies in the review process that led to its publication; two editors soon joined him. Von Storch later told the Chronicle of Higher Education that climate science skeptics “had identified Climate Research as a journal where some editors were not as rigorous in the review process as is otherwise common.” Meanwhile, Mann and 12 other leading climate scientists wrote a blistering critique of Soon and Baliunas’ paper in the American Geophysical Union publication Eos, noting, among other flaws, that they’d used historic precipitation records to reconstruct past temperatures—an approach Mann told Congress was “fundamentally unsound.”----=2003 bogus paper allowed B43 pivot?
guardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-reviewguard uk no links
...The head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, as a top expert in his field, was regularly asked to review papers and he sometimes wrote critical reviews that may have had the effect of blackballing papers criticising his work.
Here is how it worked in one case.
A key component in the story of 20th-century warming is data from sparse weather stations in Siberia. This huge area appears to have seen exceptional warming of up to 2C in the past century. But in such a remote region, actual data is sparse. So how reliable is that data, and do scientists interpret it correctly?
In March 2004, Jones wrote to Professor Michael Mann, a leading climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, saying that he had "recently rejected two papers [one for the Journal of Geophysical Research and one for Geophysical Research Letters] from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised".
He did not specify which papers he had reviewed, nor what his grounds for rejecting them were. But the Guardian has established that one was probably from Lars Kamel a Swedish astrophysicist formerly of the University of Uppsala. It is the only paper published on the topic in the journal that year.
Kamel analysed the temperature records from weather stations in part of southern Siberia, around Lake Baikal. He claimed to find much less warming than Jones, despite analysing much the same data.
Kamel told the Guardian: "Siberia is a test case, because it is supposed to be the land area with most warming in the 20th century." The finding sounded important, but his paper was rejected by Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) that year.Kamel was leaving academic science and never tried to publish it elsewhere. But the draft seen by the Guardian asserts that the difference between his findings on Siberia temperatures and that of Jones is "probably because the CRU compilation contains too little correction for urban warming." He does not, however, justify that conclusion with any data or analysis.  Kamel says he no longer has a copy of the anonymous referee judgments on the paper, so we don't know why it was rejected. The paper could be criticised for being slight and for not revealing details about its methods of analysis. A reviewer such as Jones would certainly have been aware of Kamel's views about mainstream climate research, which he had called "pseudo-science". He would also have known that its publication in a journal like GRL would have attracted the attention of professional climate sceptics. Nonetheless, the paper raised important questions about the quality of CRU's Siberian data, and was a rare example of someone trying to replicate Jones's analysis. On those grounds alone, some would have recommended its publication.
Kamel's paper admits the discrepancy "does not necessarily mean the CRU surface record for the entire globe is in error". But it argues that the result suggests it "should be checked in more regions and even globally". Jones was not able to comment on the incident.
Critics of Jones such as the prominent sceptical Stephen McIntyre, who runs the Climate Audit blog have long accused him of preventing critical research from having an airing. McIntyre wrote on his web site in December: "CRU's policies of obstructing critical articles in the peer-reviewed literature and withholding data from critics have unfortunately placed issues into play that might otherwise have been settled long ago." He also says obstructing publication undermine claims that all is well in scientific peer review.Dr Myles Allen, a climate modeller at the University of Oxford and Professor Hans von Storch, a climate scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research, in Geesthacht, Germany signed a joint column in Nature when the email hacking story broke, in which they said that "no grounds have arisen to doubt the validity of the thermometer-based temperature record since it began in about 1850." But that argument is harder to make if such evidence, flawed though it might be, is actively being kept out of the journals.In another email exchange CRU scientist Dr Keith Briffa initiates what looks like an attempt to have a paper rejected. In June 2003, as an editor of an unnamed journal, Briffa emailed fellow tree-ring researcher Edward Cook, a researcher at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, saying: "Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting [an unnamed paper] – to support Dave Stahle's and really as soon as you can. Please."Stahle is a tree-ring professor from the University of Arkansas. This request appears to subvert the convention that reviewers should be both independent and anonymous.
Cook replied later that day: "OK, today. Promise. Now, something to ask from you." The favour was to provide some data to help Cook review a paper that attacked his own tree-ring work. "If published as is, this paper could really do some damage," he said. "It won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically, but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies, without showing that their improved [inverse regression] method is actually better in a practical sense."Briffa was unable to comment. Cook told the Guardian: "These emails are from a long time ago and the details are not terribly fresh in my mind."Jones did not restrict his harsh criticism of papers he saw as flawed to pre-publication reviews. He and Mann also had a reputation for harsh criticism of journals that published papers they disagreed with.In March 2003, Mann discussed encouraging colleagues to "no longer submit [papers] to, or cite papers in" Climate Research. He was angry about that journal's publication of a series of sceptical papers "that couldn't get published in a reputable journal", according to Mann. His anger at the journal had evidently been building for some time, but was focused in 2003 on a paper published in January that year and written by the Harvard astrophysicists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas. The pair claimed that Mann's famous hockey stick graph of global temperatures over the past 1,000 years was wrong. After analysing 240 studies of past temperatures from tree rings and other sources, they said "the 20th century is neither the warmest century over the last 1,000 years, nor is it the most extreme". It could have been warmer a thousand years before, they suggested.Harvard press-released the paper under the headline "20th century climate not so hot", which would have pleased lobbyists against the climate change consensus from the American Petroleum Institute and George C Marshall Institute, both of which had helped pay for the research. Mann told me at the time the paper was "absurd, almost laughable". He said Soon and Baliunas made no attempt in the paper to show whether the warmth they found at different places and times round the world in past eras was contemporaneous in the way current global warming is. If they were just one-off scattered warm events they did not demonstrate any kind of warm era at all. Soon did not respond to Guardian requests to discuss the paper.The emails show Mann debating with others what he should do. In March 2003, he told Jones: "I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They've already achieved what they wanted – the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper"But Jones told Mann: "I think the sceptics will use this paper to their own ends and it will set [the field of paleoclimate research] back a number of years if it goes unchallenged." He was right. The Soon and Baliunas paper was later read into the Senate record and taken up by the Bush administration, which attempted to get it cited in a report from the Environmental Protection Agency against the wishes of the report's authors.Persuaded that the paper could not be ignored, Mann assembled a group of colleagues to review it. The group included regular CRU emailers Jones, Dr Keith Briffa, Dr Tom Wigley and Dr Kevin Trenberth. They sent their findings to the journal's editorial board, arguing that Soon's study was little more than anecdote. It had cherry-picked data showing warm periods in different places over several centuries and had provided no evidence that they demonstrated any overall warming of the kind seen in the 20th century.The emails reveal that when the journal failed to disown the paper, the scientists figured a "coup" had taken place, and that one editor in particular, a New Zealander called Chris de Freitas, was fast-tracking sceptical papers on to its pages. Mann saw an irony in what had happened. "This was the danger of always criticising the sceptics for not publishing in the peer-reviewed literature. Obviously, they found a solution to that – take over a journal." But Mann had a solution. "I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues … to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."Was this improper pressure? Bloggers responding to the leaking of these emails believe so. Mann denies wanting to "stifle legitimate sceptical views". He maintains that he merely wanted to uphold scientific standards. "Please understand the context of this," he told the Guardian after the scandal broke. "This was in response to a very specific, particularly egregious incident in which one editor of the journal was letting in a paper that clearly did not meet the standards of quality for the journal."Naturally de Freitas defends his actions during the incident. "I was never ever found to have done anything wrong, even in the rumpus over the Soon and Baliunas paper. All accusations against me were fully investigated and my performance as editor of this journal was shown to be flawless."But many on the 10-man editorial board agreed with Mann. There was a revolt. Their chief editor von Storch wrote an editorial saying the Soon paper shouldn't have appeared because of "severe methodological flaws". After their publisher Otto Kinne refused to publish the editorial, von Storch and four other board members resigned in protest. Subsequently Kinne himself admitted that publication had been an error and promised to strengthen the peer review process. Mann had won his argument.Sceptical climatologist and Cato Institute fellow Pat Michaels alleged in the Wall Street Journal in December last year that the resignations by von Storch and his colleagues were a counter-coup initiated by Mann and Jones. This is vehemently denied by von Storch. While one of the editors who resigned was a colleague of Jones at CRU, von Storch had a track record of independence. If anything, he was regarded as a moderate sceptic. Certainly, he had annoyed both mainstream climate scientists and sceptics.Also writing in the Wall Street Journal in December, he said: "I am in the pocket of neither Exxon nor Greenpeace, and for this I come under fire from both sides – the sceptics and alarmists – who have fiercely opposing views but are otherwise siblings in their methods and contempt ... I left the post [as chief editor of Climate Research] with no outside pressure, because of insufficient quality control on a bad paper – a sceptic's paper, at that."The bad blood over this paper lingered. A year later, in July 2004, Jones wrote an email to Mann about two papers recently published in Climate Research – the Soon and Baliunas paper and another he identified as by "MM". This was almost certainly a paper from the Canadian economist Ross McKitrick and Michaels that returned to an old sceptics' theme. It claimed to find urbanisation dominating global warming trends on land. Jones called it "garbage".
More damagingly, he added in an email to Mann with the subject line "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL": "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!"
This has, rightly, become one of the most famous of the emails. And for once, it means what it seems to mean. Jones and Trenberth, of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, had recently become joint lead authors for a key chapter in the next IPCC assessment report, called AR4....... msn bk: early ~ of hockey stick but later recant/defend? "garbage" in german; hidden stepmurdoch BS aussiomg: IPCC chairman Rajendra K. PachauriIPCC chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri is pictured next to an unidentified Arab official during a meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)truggling to keep a discredited global warming crisis afloat, United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chair Raj Pachauri this week denied the well-documented plateau in temperatures during the past 15-plus years. Pachauri’s denialism contradicted his own admission earlier this year that there has been a 17-year plateau in global temperatures.The IPCC is in full damage-control mode after it leaked advance copies of an upcoming Summary for Policymakers to what it assumed would be friendly journalists. The journalists, however, quickly realized the IPCC Summary for Policymakers contained several embarrassing walk-backs from alarmist statements in prior IPCC reports.Two of the most embarrassing aspects of the Summary for Policymakers are (1) IPCC’s admission that global warming has occurred much slower than IPCC previously forecast and (2) IPCC is unable to explain the ongoing plateau in global temperatures. IPCC computer models have predicted twice as much warming as has occurred in the real world, and virtually none of the IPCC computer models can replicate or account for the recent lack of global warming.Rather than acknowledge that perhaps IPCC overshot its predictions in past reports, Pachauri doubled down on denialism, claiming there has been no slowdown in the pace of global warming.“I don’t think there is a slowdown (in the rate of temperature increase),” Pachauri <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24204323" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">told BBC News Monday</a>.  Pachauri’s astonishing denialism not only undercuts IPCC credibility, it also contradicts his own words earlier this year in an interview with the Australian  MURDOCH. “The UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises,” the Australian’s <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">Graham Lloyd reported</a> in February after interviewing Pachauri.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 25px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">While Pachauri and the IPCC bureaucracy double down on denial, some IPCC scientists are acknowledging the scientific truth. IPCC Lead Author Hans von Storch, a climate scientist and professor at the Meteorological Institute at the University of Hamburg, acknowledged the ongoing temperature plateau in a June interview with der <span style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Spiegel.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 133.875px 19px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 25px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">“So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break,” IPCC Lead Author Hans von Storch told der <span style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Spiegel in a <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">June 2013 interview</a>. Storch said the IPCC will have tone down its climate models unless warming quickly and rapidly accelerates ”According to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero,” Storch told der <em style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Spiegel. “This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.”“At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase,” Storch explained.A cynic may point out that presenting objective scientific evidence was never the goal of the IPCC and global warming alarmists. Instead, it can be correctly noted, the goal is to scare people into implementing the energy restrictions and wealth redistribution prescribed as a cure for the mythical global warming crisis. As prominent global warming scientist/activist<a href="http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/21/stephen-schneider-and-the-%E2%80%9Cdouble-ethical-bind%E2%80%9D-of-climate-change-communication/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"> Steven Schneider advised</a>:<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 133.875px 25px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; quotes: none; position: relative; z-index: 0; left: 25px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“We’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”</blockquote>For IPCC chair Raj Pachauri, there is no balance. There is merely denialist propaganda that he hopes will blind people to the fact that global warming has, at a bare minimum, slowed down dramatically during recent years.The problem for Pachauri and the IPCC is the IPCC’s own scientists, such as Hans von Storch, directly contradict Pachauri’s denialism. And it is not just scientists pointing out Pachaui’s denialism. Even the IPCC’s reliably sympathetic media allies are unwilling to run with Pachauri’s whopper about no recent slowdown in global warming. For example, here are a few recent headlines from some of the most alarmist-friendly media outlets in the world:“Researching global warming’s pause,” reads a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24184337" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">BBC News headline</a>.“A cooler Pacific may be behind recent pause in global warming,” reads a <a href="http://www.npr.org/2013/08/29/216415005/a-cooler-pacific-may-be-behind-recent-pause-in-global-warming" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">National Public Radio headline</a>.“Why has global warming paused?” asks a <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2013/0828/Why-has-global-warming-paused-Pacific-Ocean-s-engine-room-running-cool.-video" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">Christian Science Monitor headline</a>. “What to make of a climate-change plateau,” reads a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">New York Times headline</a>.“Global warming has ‘paused’ because of natural causes but will continue to rise, scientists claim,” reads a UK<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2374777/Global-warming-paused-natural-causes-continue-rise-warn-scientists.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"> Daily Mail headline</a>.To be sure, these reliably activist media outlets are not abandoning their catastrophic global warming agenda, but even they are forced to acknowledge what objective scientific evidence shows and what IPCC chair Raj Pachauri denies; global temperatures have plateaued for more than a decade and there has been, at a bare minimum, a pronounced recent slowdown in global warming.Raj Pachauri and the IPCC are falling into the same trap that discredited Al Gore. Exaggerating the pace and impacts of global warming may provide some short-term propaganda value, but these tall tales will ultimately backfire. People are not stupid. Al Gore may have brought belief in a global warming crisis to new heights following his Hollywood movie production An Inconvenient Truth, but it took an informed public mere months to discover Al Gore and his global warming whoppers were nothing more than the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5IgatESU9A" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">latest incarnation of Joe Isuzu</a>. Raj Pachauri and the IPCC are foolishly drag racing down the same deceptive path. One cannot watch this propaganda train wreck unfold without expectations that Pachauri will soon offer a mini-pony with every copy of the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2cKjoXt6Sg&feature=youtu.be" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">IPCC’s newest report</a>.IPCC chair Raj Pachauri may want us to deny objective scientific facts, but the IPCC’s own scientists, the general public and even Pachauri’s reliable media allies know better.<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/09/26/as-its-global-warming-narrative-unravels-the-ipcc-is-in-damage-control-mode/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/09/26/as-its-global-warming-narrative-unravels-the-ipcc-is-in-damage-control-mode/</a><div>
</div>james taylor iccc cites bray and storch rept that sci in doubt;
<a href="http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/20732.pdf">http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/20732.pdf</a>desmog; pOst climategate?<h3 style="margin: 0pt; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; letter-spacing: 0.39px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">4. “I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal” (from me)</h3> This comment was in response to a very specific incident regarding a paper by Soon and Baliunas published in the journal “Climate Research”.An editor of the journal, with rather contrarian views on climate change, appeared to several of us to be gaming the system to let through papers that clearly did not meet the standards of quality for the journal. The chief editor (Hans von Storch), and half of the editorial board, resigned in protest of the publication of the paper, after the publisher refused to allow von Storch the opportunity to write an editorial about how the peer review process had failed in this instance. [editor note: DeSmogBlog has a <a href="http://desmogblog.com/sallie-baliunas" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">full rundown of this story here</a>]
Please see e.g. this post at <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">RealClimate.</a> (3rd bullet item–see the various links, which lead to letters from chief editor Von Storch, and an article by the journalist Chris Mooney about the incident).
Scientists all choose journals in which we publish and we all recommend to each other and our students which journals they should publish in.People are free to publish wherever they can and are free to recommend some journals over others.For an example of this behavior in daily life, people make choices and recommendations all the time in their purchasing habits. It is highly unusual for a chief editor and half of an editorial board to resign and that indicates a journal in turmoil that should possibly be avoided. Similarly, authors are allowed to cite any papers they want, although usually the editor will note incorrect or insufficient citing.
I support the publication of “skeptical” papers that meet the basic standards of scientific quality and merit.I myself have published scientific work that has been considered by some as representing a skeptical point of view on matters relating to climate change  (for example, my work demonstrating the importance of natural oscillations of the climate on multidecadal timescales). Skepticism in the truest scientific sense of the word is good and is indeed essential to science.  Skepticism should not be confused, however, with contrarianism that does not meet the basic standards of scientific inquiry.

oreskes:

In 2003, Soon and Baliunas published an article, partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute, in a small journal called Climate Research. Presenting a review of existing literature rather than new research, the two concluded “the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.” They had, in effect, challenged both Mann and the IPCC, and in so doing presented global warming skeptics with a cause to rally around. Another version of the paper was quickly published with three additional authors: David Legates of the University of Delaware, and longtime skeptics Craig and Sherwood Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change in Tempe, Arizona. All have ExxonMobil connections: the Idsos received $40,000 from ExxonMobil for their center in the year the study was published, while Legates is an adjunct scholar at the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis (which got $205,000 between 2000 and 2003).Calling the paper “a powerful new work of science” that would “shiver the timbers of the adrift Chicken Little crowd,” Senator Inhofe devoted half of a Senate hearing to it, bringing in both Soon and Legates to testify against Mann. The day before, Hans Von Storch, the editor-in-chief of Climate Research—where the Soon and Baliunas paper originally appeared—resigned to protest deficiencies in the review process that led to its publication; two editors soon joined him. Von Storch later told the Chronicle of Higher Education that climate science skeptics “had identified Climate Research as a journal where some editors were not as rigorous in the review process as is otherwise common.” Meanwhile, Mann and 12 other leading climate scientists wrote a blistering critique of Soon and Baliunas’ paper in the American Geophysical Union publication Eos, noting, among other flaws, that they’d used historic precipitation records to reconstruct past temperatures—an approach Mann told Congress was “fundamentally unsound.”
resigned after publishing BS
 <h2>Response of journal editors</h2>On 20 June 2003 the publisher of Climate Research, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Kinne" title="Otto Kinne">Otto Kinne</a>, agreed to ask de Freitas for copies of the reviewer's evaluations: after studying the response, he advised the editors of his "Conclusions: 1) The reviewers consulted (4 for each ms) by the editor presented detailed, critical and helpful evaluations. 2) The editor properly analyzed the evaluations and requested appropriate revisions. 3) The authors revised their manuscripts accordingly. Summary: Chris de Freitas has done a good and correct job as editor."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_note-EPA_vol3-27">[28]</a>The journal had 10 editors, each acting independently in accepting manuscripts from authors. One of the editors, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clare_Goodess&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Clare Goodess (page does not exist)">Clare Goodess</a>, recalled that many of them were "somewhat confused and still very concerned about what had happened". The paper "had apparently gone to four reviewers none of whom had recommended rejection", and "The review process had apparently been correct, but a fundamentally flawed paper had been published." She and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch" title="Hans von Storch">Hans von Storch</a> knew of three earlier papers edited by de Freitas where concerns had been raised about the review process.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_note-Goodess_Nov03-21">[22]</a>To meet the concerns, Kinne introduced a new system where instead of editors acting independently, Hans von Storch would be upgraded from editor to editor in chief as of 1 August 2003.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_note-Goodess_Nov03-21">[22]</a> At first von Storch thought the objections to the Soon and Balunas paper should be presented in a comment which they could consider for publication, but when he saw a preprint of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eos%28journal%29" title="Eos (journal)" class="mw-redirect">Eos</a> rebuttal of the paper he decided that "We should say that we have a problem here, that the manuscript was flawed, that the manuscript should not have been published in this way. The problem is that the conclusions are not supported by the evidence presented in the paper."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_note-mona2003-11">[12]</a>On 28 July von Storch drafted an editorial stating that "the review process of CR failed to confront the authors with necessary and legitimate methodological questions which should have been addressed in the finally printed paper", and proposing a new system in which all new papers were to be sent to the editor in chief rather than directly to individual editors as previously.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_note-HvS_editorial-28">[29]</a> While Kinne agreed that the Soon and Baliunas paper should not have been published as it was, he did not accept von Storch's proposal and wanted prior agreement from all the other editors before von Storch's editorial was published. When von Storch found that some of the other editors thought the Soon and Baliunas paper was acceptable, he "concluded that we have different standards", and suspected that "some of the skeptics had identified Climate Research as a journal where some editors were not as rigorous in the review process as is otherwise common.".<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_note-mona2003-11">[12]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_note-Mooney-13">[14]</a> He felt that "editors used different scales for judging the validity of an article. Some editors considered the problem of the Soon & Baliunas paper as merely a problem of 'opinion', while it was really a problem of severe methodological flaws. Thus, I decided that I had to disconnect from that journal, which I had served proudly for about 10 years."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_note-HvS_CR_Problem-29">[30]</a>Hans von Storch resigned on the same day, 28 July,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_note-HvS_editorial-28">[29]</a> and condemned the journal's review process in his resignation letter: "The review process had utterly failed; important questions have not been asked ... the methodological basis for such a conclusion (that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climate period of the last millennium) was simply not given."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_note-30">[31]</a> Clare Goodess also resigned later that day.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_note-Goodess_Nov03-21">[22]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy
</a> [before retractionwatch?]

---
wiki
 Hans von Storch (born 13 August 1949 in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyk_auf_F%C3%B6hr" title="Wyk auf Föhr">Wyk auf Föhr</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleswig-Holstein" title="Schleswig-Holstein">Schleswig-Holstein</a>) is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany" title="Germany">German</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate" title="Climate">climate</a> scientist. He is Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Hamburg" title="University of Hamburg">University of Hamburg</a>, and (since 2001) Director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre (previously: GKSS Research Center) in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geesthacht" title="Geesthacht">Geesthacht</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany" title="Germany">Germany</a>. He is a member of the advisory boards of the journals <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Climate" title="Journal of Climate">Journal of Climate</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annals_of_Geophysics&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Annals of Geophysics (page does not exist)">Annals of Geophysics</a>.<table id="toc" class="toc"><tbody><tr><td><div id="toctitle"><h2>Contents</h2></div><ul><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#Opinion_on_global_warming">1 Opinion on global warming</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#Climategate_Controversy">2 Climategate Controversy</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-3"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#Climate_Research_controversy">3 Climate Research controversy</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-4"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#Publications_and_awards">4 Publications and awards</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-5"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#Donald_Duck">5 Donald Duck</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-6"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#References">6 References</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-7"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#Selected_publications">7 Selected publications</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-8"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#External_links">8 External links</a></li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table><h2>Opinion on global warming</h2>He said that global warming exists:<dl><dd>"Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_note-1">[2]</a></dd></dl>He is also known for an article in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Spiegel" title="Der Spiegel">Der Spiegel</a> he co-wrote with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nico_Stehr" title="Nico Stehr">Nico Stehr</a>, which states that:<dl><dd>"Scientific research faces a crisis because its public figures are overselling the issues to gain attention in a hotly contested market for newsworthy information."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_note-2">[3]</a></dd></dl><dl><dd>"The alarmists think that climate change is something extremely dangerous, extremely bad and that overselling a little bit, if it serves a good purpose, is not that bad."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_note-bbc060420-3">[4]</a></dd></dl>In December 2009, he expressed concern about the credibility of climate scientists and compared Global Warming alarmism to the German Waldsterben (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_dieback" title="Forest dieback">Forest dieback</a>) hype of the 1980s:<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_note-4">[5]</a><dl><dd>Research about the forest die back in Germany may serve as an example at the other end of the spectrum. The science of forest damages was in the 1980s heavily politicized, and used as support for a specific preconceived "good" policy of environmental protection. The resulting overselling and dramatization broke down in the 1990s, and news about adverse developments in German forests is now a hard sell in Germany. An observer wrote in 2004: "The damage for the scientists is enormous. Nobody believes them any longer." Of course, the damage was not only limited to the forest researchers, but also to other environmental scientists and politicians as well.</dd></dl>In January 2011, Storch was counted among the 100 most influential Germans by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus%28German_magazine%29" title="Focus (German magazine)">Focus magazine</a> for being a "climate realist".<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_note-5">[6]</a><h2>Climategate Controversy</h2>Hans von Storch, who also concurs with the mainstream view on global warming,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_note-Storch-6">[7]</a> said that the University of East Anglia (UEA) had "violated a fundamental principle of science" by refusing to share data with other researchers. "They play science as a power game," he said.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_note-wsjms-7">[8]</a><h2>Climate Research controversy</h2><div class="rellink relarticle mainarticle">Main article: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Balliunas_controversy" title="Soon and Balliunas controversy" class="mw-redirect">Soon and Balliunas controversy</a></div>In 2003 von Storch was appointed as editor-in-chief of the journal <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Research%28journal%29" title="Climate Research (journal)">Climate Research</a> (having been on the editorial board since 1994), with effect from 1 August 2003, after a controversial article (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon" title="Willie Soon">Soon</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas" title="Sallie Baliunas">Baliunas</a> 2003<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_note-8">[9]</a>) had raised questions about the decentralised review process (with no editor-in-chief); and the editorial policy of one editor, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_de_Freitas" title="Chris de Freitas">Chris de Freitas</a>.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_note-9">[10]</a> Von Storch drafted and circulated an editorial on the new regime, reserving for himself the right to censor manuscripts accepted by the editors, but following the publisher's refusal to publish it unless all editors serving on the board endorsed the new policy, von Storch resigned four days before he was due to start his new position.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_note-10">[11]</a> Four other editors later followed. Von Storch later told the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicle_of_Higher_Education" title="Chronicle of Higher Education" class="mw-redirect">Chronicle of Higher Education</a> that climate science skeptics “had identified Climate Research as a journal where some editors were not as rigorous in the review process as is otherwise common.”<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_note-11">[12]</a><h2>Publications and awards</h2>In late 2004 his team published an article in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science%28journal%29" title="Science (journal)">Science</a> that tested multiproxy methods such as those used by Mann, Bradley and Hughes, 1998, often called MBH98,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_note-12">[13]</a> or Mann and Jones<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_note-13">[14]</a> to obtain the global <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years" title="Temperature record of the past 1000 years">temperature variations in the past 1000 years</a>. The test showed that the method used in MBH98 would inherently underestimate large variations had they occurred; but has subsequently been challenged: see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy" title="Hockey stick controversy">hockey stick controversy</a> for more detail.To reach this conclusion, von Storch et al. used a climate model to generate a series of annual temperature maps for the world over the past several centuries. They then added white noise to the proxy data and applied the methods used in MBH98, a variation of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_component_analysis" title="Principal component analysis">principal component analysis</a>, to the computed temperature maps and found that the amount of variation was considerably reduced.[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed" title="Wikipedia:Citation needed">citation needed</a>]In April 2006, Science published a comment, authored by Wahl and collaborators, asserting errors in the 2004 paper, stating that "their conclusion was based on incorrect implementation of the reconstruction procedure" a mistake with Repercussions;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_note-14">[15]</a> and a disputing VS Reply. In this reply, VS and his team demonstrated that caveats raised in the Wahl comment did not invalidate their original conclusion. The inadequacy of the MBH98 methodology for climate reconstructions was later independently confirmed in other publications, for instance by Lee, Zwiers and Tsao, 2008<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_note-15">[16]</a> or by Christiansen et al., 2009.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_note-16">[17]</a>Von Storch received the IMSC achievement award at the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Meetings_on_Statistical_Climatology&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="International Meetings on Statistical Climatology (page does not exist)">International Meetings on Statistical Climatologyin</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh" title="Edinburgh">Edinburgh</a> in 2010, to "recognize his key contributions to statistical downscaling, reconstruction of temperature series, analyses of climatic variability, and detection and attribution of climate change."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_note-17">[18]</a><h2>Donald Duck</h2><div class="rellink boilerplate seealso">See also: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donaldism#Germany" title="Donaldism">Donaldism#Germany</a></div>In 1977, Hans von Storch co-founded a 100-member Donald Duck Club, defending <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Duck" title="Donald Duck">Donald Duck</a> against the accusations of indecent behavior. Between 1976 and 1985 he was publisher of a magazine on Donald Duck, Der Hamburger Donaldist.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_note-18">[19]</a><h2>References</h2><div class="reflist" style="list-style-type: decimal;"><ol class="references"><li id="cite_note-0"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_ref-0">^{</a> }<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/">Official website</a></li><li id="cite_note-1"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_ref-1">^{</a> }von Storch, Hans. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/060619_ushouse_energycommercehvs.pdf">"Statement to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, July 19, 2006 Hearing "Questions Surrounding the ‘Hockey Stick’ Temperature Studies: Implications for Climate Change Assessments""</a>. Retrieved 6 August 2010.</li><li id="cite_note-2"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_ref-2">^{</a> }Hans von Storch; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nico_Stehr" title="Nico Stehr">Nico Stehr</a> (24 January 2005). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,342376,00.html">"How Global Warming Research is Creating a Climate of Fear"</a>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Spiegel" title="Der Spiegel">Der Spiegel</a>.</li><li id="cite_note-bbc060420-3"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_ref-bbc060420_3-0">^{</a> }Simon Cox, Richard Vadon (20 April 2006). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4923504.stm">"A load of hot air?"</a>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC" title="BBC">BBC</a>. "Even government agencies have been criticised for overselling climate change."</li><li id="cite_note-4"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_ref-4">^{</a> }<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/12/guest-post-by-hans-von-storch.html">"The Sustainability of Climate Science"</a> Guest post by Hans Von Storch at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A.Pielke,Jr." title="Roger A. Pielke, Jr.">Roger A. Pielke, Jr.</a>'s Blog, 5 December 2009</li><li id="cite_note-5"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_ref-5">^{</a> }<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.focus.de/magazin/archiv/jahrgang_2011/ausgabe_2/">"Die 100 einflussreichsten Deutschen"</a> (in German). <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus%28German_magazine%29" title="Focus (German magazine)">Focus</a> (2). 2011.</li><li id="cite_note-Storch-6"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_ref-Storch_6-0">^{</a> }<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.webcitation.org/5lnG6nbG4">"Hans von Storch"</a>. coast.gkss.de. Archived from <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://coast.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/">the original</a> on 5 December 2009. Retrieved 28 November 2009.</li><li id="cite_note-wsjms-7"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_ref-wsjms_7-0">^{</a> }Johnson, Keith (24 November 2009). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125902685372961609.html">"Lawmakers Probe Climate Emails"</a>. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 26 July 2010.</li><li id="cite_note-8"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_ref-8">^{</a> }Soon, Willie; Sallie Baliunas (January 31, 2003). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf">"Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years"</a> (PDF). Climate Research 23: 89–110. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier" title="Digital object identifier">DOI</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3354%2Fcr023089">10.3354/cr023089</a>.</li><li id="cite_note-9"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_ref-9">^{</a> }<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/StormyTimes_NL28.htm">"Stormy Times for Climate Research"</a>. Scientists for Global Responsibility. 28 November 2003.</li><li id="cite_note-10"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_ref-10">^{</a> }Hans von Storch (23 November 2009). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://coast.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/CR-problem/cr.2003.htm">"The CR Problem"</a>.</li><li id="cite_note-11"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_ref-11">^{</a> }<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html">"Some Like It Hot"</a>. Mother Jones. May 2005.</li><li id="cite_note-12"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_ref-12">^{</a> }Mann M.E., Bradley R.S., Hughes M.K. (1998). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann1998/frames.htm">"Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries"</a>. Nature 392 (6678): 779–787. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibcode" title="Bibcode">Bibcode</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998Natur.392..779M">1998Natur.392..779M</a>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier" title="Digital object identifier">DOI</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2F33859">10.1038/33859</a>.</li><li id="cite_note-13"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_ref-13">^{</a> }<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Jones%28climatologist%29" title="Phil Jones (climatologist)">Jones P.D.</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E.Mann" title="Michael E. Mann">Mann M.E.</a> (6 May 2004). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/jones2004/jones2004.html">"Climate Over Past Millennia"</a>. Reviews of Geophysics 42 (2): RG2002. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibcode" title="Bibcode">Bibcode</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004RvGeo..42.2002J">2004RvGeo..42.2002J</a>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier" title="Digital object identifier">DOI</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029%2F2003RG000143">10.1029/2003RG000143</a>.</li><li id="cite_note-14"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_ref-14">^{</a> }<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/a-correction-with-repercussions/">"A Mistake with Repercussions"</a>. RealClimate. 27 April 2006.</li><li id="cite_note-15"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_ref-15">^{</a> }Lee, Terry C. K.; Francis W. Zwiers and Min Tsao (August 2008). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://ugrad.stat.ubc.ca/_{stat547/Leeetal.pdf">}"Evaluation of proxy-based millennial reconstruction methods"</a>. Climate Dynamics 31 (2-3): 263–281. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibcode" title="Bibcode">Bibcode</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ClDy...31..263L">2008ClDy...31..263L</a>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier" title="Digital object identifier">DOI</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00382-007-0351-9">10.1007/s00382-007-0351-9</a>.</li><li id="cite_note-16"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_ref-16">^{</a> }Christiansen, B.; Schmith, T. and Thejll, P. (2009). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/staff/boc/reconstr.ps">"A surrogate ensemble study of climate reconstruction methods: stochasticity and robustness"</a> (Postscript). Journal of Climate 22 (4): 951–976. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibcode" title="Bibcode">Bibcode</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009JCli...22..951C">2009JCli...22..951C</a>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier" title="Digital object identifier">DOI</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175%2F2008JCLI2301.1">10.1175/2008JCLI2301.1</a>.</li><li id="cite_note-17"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_ref-17">^{</a> }<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://cccma.seos.uvic.ca/imsc/awards_storch.shtml">"Hans von Storch was awarded the IMSC achievement award [...]"</a>. International Meetings on Statistical Climatology. Retrieved 24 September 2011.</li><li id="cite_note-18"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch#cite_ref-18">^{</a> }<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.donald.org/DD/hd/">"Der Hamburger Donaldist"</a>. Retrieved 8 August 2010.</li></ol></div><h2>Selected publications</h2><ul><li><del> </del>, Zorita, E., Cubasch, U. (1993). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.enseignement.polytechnique.fr/profs/mecanique/Thomas.Dubos/MEC580/2008/Leleu_VonStorch93.pdf">"Downscaling of global climate change estimates to regional scales: An application to Iberian rainfall in wintertime"</a> (PDF). <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Climate" title="Journal of Climate">Journal of Climate</a> 6 (6): 1161–71. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibcode" title="Bibcode">Bibcode</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993JCli....6.1161V">1993JCli....6.1161V</a>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier" title="Digital object identifier">DOI</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175%2F1520-0442%281993%29006%3C1161%3ADOGCCE%3E2.0.CO%3B2">10.1175/1520-0442(1993)006<1161:DOGCCE>2.0.CO;2</a>.</li><li><del> </del>, Zwiers, F.W. (1999). Statistical analysis in climate research. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_University_Press" title="Cambridge University Press">Cambridge University Press</a>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number" title="International Standard Book Number">ISBN</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-521-45071-3" title="Special:BookSources/0-521-45071-3">0-521-45071-3</a>.</li><li><del> </del>, Zorita, E., Jones, J.M., Dimitriev, Y., Gonzalez-Rouco, F., Tett, S.F.B. (October 2004). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/vonStorchEtAl2004.pdf">"Reconstructing past climate from noisy data"</a> (PDF). <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_%28journal%29" title="Science (journal)">Science</a> 306 (5696): 679–82. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibcode" title="Bibcode">Bibcode</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004Sci...306..679V">2004Sci...306..679V</a>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier" title="Digital object identifier">DOI</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1096109">10.1126/science.1096109</a>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier" title="PubMed Identifier" class="mw-redirect">PMID</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15459344">15459344</a>.</li><li>Brázdil, R., Pfister, C., Wanner, H., Storch, H.V., Luterbacher, J. (2005). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.giub.unibe.ch/klimet/docs/climdyn_2004_brazdiletal.pdf">"Historical climatology in Europe — the state of the art"</a> (PDF). <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Change" title="Climatic Change">Climatic Change</a> 70 (3): 363–430. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier" title="Digital object identifier">DOI</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10584-005-5924-1">10.1007/s10584-005-5924-1</a>.</li></ul><h2>External links</h2><ul><li><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/">von Storch's web page at the Helmholtz Center</a> (with Biography, links to publications, etc.)</li><li><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/">His blog</a></li></ul>=