Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Op-ed in Wall Street Journal

Hans von Storch: Good science, bad politics


Richard Tol said...

well done

Anonymous said...

Well said, Sir.

ghost said...

good comment.

PS: Is it possible to bring that stuff also in a more "left" newspaper, like the German "taz"?

Hoi Polloi said...

Seems Herr Professor Von Storch is very much interested in keeping up the appearances about AGW being uncontested, even though it has been seriously damaged by a group of climate scientists.
Don't you think Herr Prof. Von Storch that at least all the temperature proxies, data base and models first need to be radically examined by a bunch of unbiased scientist (can those still be found, I wonder??) before we make any defintive statements re Climate Change?
Until it's absolutely proven WHAT (and IF) causes Global Warming scepticism is still the preferred attitude, at least that should be in science, far away from any chance to become politics, as it is now in the IPCC.
And BTW could you pls refrain from sweeping all sceptics on one heap, as much as you want not to be associated with the CRU gang, Danke schön.

ghost said...

one additional remark: looking into the comments at WSJ, your article was almost worthless, I am afraid. Still conspiracy theories, denying of physical foundations, dirty allegations and insults and of course off-topic stuff. I must say: such stuff you almost never see from a non-"skeptic" or skeptic site. Almost never.

It is not easy to be the honest broker.

Anonymous said...

Dr. von Storch,

Thanks for sharing your opinions about the CRU emails et al. in your Wall Street Journal piece.

One thing that keeps being bandied about is your resignation from Climate Research. I understand that this is old news, but it keeps coming up, and in fact, you mention it yourself in the WSJ article.

It has been my impression that you resigned from Climate Research, not because “of insufficient quality control on a bad paper” but because the journal did not modify its review (i.e. quality control) procedure in the aftermath. There is a difference between these two reasons that is not insignificant—one seems quite specific to a particular paper the other seems more about general procedures. In Otto Kinne’s Climate Research editorial concerning the resignations at Climate Research, he seems to describe the latter—a description seemingly at odds with your WSJ statement.

Thanks for any clarification you can provide.

-Chip Knappenberger

Anonymous said...

Hans, an excellent and well balanced article.
If only more climate scientists were 'odd individuals' rather than sheep following the rest of the herd!

Like Chip I would like to hear more about why you resigned your editorship. I have never seen a convincing explanation of what was wrong with Soon and Baliunas.

Hans von Storch said...

@Chip - yes, that is true, what you say.

I would have continued as Cheif-editor if the practice of maintaining sufficient quality would have been improved so that a sloppy review, as has happened with the article in question, would likely not repeat. I was convinced that such a likelihood was not given.

I came to the conclusion that many questions should have been asked as obvious ones - as demonstrated by the Mann et al. EOS paper.

I would not be able to say, if the paper after suitable review and demands for clarification, additional analysis etc. would have been suitable for publication. The version, which was actually published, was not suitable because of insufficient quality.

Anonymous said...

Dr. von Storch,

Thanks for the reply.

I do understand your concerns and conclusions about the Soon and Baliunas paper and am not contesting them.

But I was hoping to get clarification that you resigned because you felt the procedures were not going to be put in place to assure the level of quality control that you would have liked, not specifically that CR published the Soon&Baliunas piece (after all, someone's opinion of 'bad' papers are published all thge time!).

And you provided that.

Thanks again,


Anonymous said...

Well, I do read a lot of blogs and articles from skeptic scientists, and I didn't realize ...

They say these words show that everything was a hoax—not just the historical temperature results in question, but also the warming documented by different groups using thermometer data.

But who knows. Is there no way to distinguish between "the warming documented by" and "the precise amount of warming documented by .."?

Anyway, thanks.