Von Storch: ‘Stupid, politicized action by IPCC’

In email 0555 (February 2005) we see an exchange between Simon Tett of Met Office and Hans von Storch. Shortly before McIntyre’s and McKitrick’s (MM) GRL paper criticising the hockey stick had been published as had been my take on the whole affair in Natuurwetenschap & Techniek.

Tett has been asked by Defra to give an update about the literature in this area. He seems a bit desperate:


Defra do ask the impossible! Can you help me?

Are there other papers I should be aware of?  Hans/Chris are the statistical criticisms of Mackintyre and McKitrick OK?

Philip — do you have any thoughts? [Beyond that the paleo community cannot do stats!]

This is quite an admission. Von Storch then answers:


I think one should list three publications which have stirred some disucsions, namely ours, the one by Anders Moberg and colleagues and Steve Mcintyre’s  in GRL.

I would assign the following significance ot these articles (just among us, please):

– ours: methodical basis for hockey stick reconstruction is weak; discussion was unwisely limited by IPCC declaring MBH to be “true”. (Stupid, politicized action by IPCC, not MBH’s responsbilkity. 

IPCC did one more of these silly oversellings -  by showing the damage curve by Munich Re without proper caveat in the fig caption);

Von Storch then says MM are right: Lees verder…


Briffa about divergence: there is no reconstruction after 1960

I lost a lot of my emails when I left my job as editor of the magazine Natuurwetenschap & Techniek (NWT) in April 2008. One of the emails I was ‘missing’ was a reply of Keith Briffa to questions of mine about the divergence problem. Thanks to climategate 2.0 the email is back. It’s number 2990 and it even contains some interesting correspondence between Rob Wilson and Keith Briffa regarding my questions.

I was writing a news article about the divergence problem. The review comments on AR4 had become available and as regular readers of Climate Audit know, McIntyre had as a reviewer of AR4 asked the lead authors to deal with the divergence problem:

Show the Briffa et al reconstruction through to its end; don’t stop in 1960. Then comment and deal with the “divergence problem” if you need to. Don’t cover up the divergence by truncating this graphic. This was done in IPCC TAR; this was misleading. (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 309-18)]

The answer of the IPCC was (Briffa being a lead author of the chapter):

Rejected — though note divergence’ issue will be discussed, still considered inappropriate to show recent section of Briffa et al. series. Lees verder…




Donate to support investigative journalism on global warming

My blog list