Soon and Baliunas controversy: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
rv back to me, per talk
Reverted to revision 382017296 by Prolog; restoring sourced material repeatedly being deleted by WMC without consensus. (TW)
Line 12: Line 12:


[[Paleoclimatologist]] [[Michael E. Mann]] was especially critical of Soon and Baliunas' paper, calling its conclusions, "absurd, almost laughable." Mann said that the paper made no attempt to find if the past warm temperatures it reported were contemporaneous or merely one-off scattered events.<ref>Pearce, Fred, "[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/peer-review-block-scientific-papers Emails reveal strenuous efforts by climate scientists to 'censor' their critics]", ''[[The Guardian]]'', 9 February 2010, retrieved on 24 August 2010.</ref>
[[Paleoclimatologist]] [[Michael E. Mann]] was especially critical of Soon and Baliunas' paper, calling its conclusions, "absurd, almost laughable." Mann said that the paper made no attempt to find if the past warm temperatures it reported were contemporaneous or merely one-off scattered events.<ref>Pearce, Fred, "[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/peer-review-block-scientific-papers Emails reveal strenuous efforts by climate scientists to 'censor' their critics]", ''[[The Guardian]]'', 9 February 2010, retrieved on 24 August 2010.</ref>

In an email (released in 2009 as part of the [[Climatic Research Unit email controversy]]) in early March 2003, Mann proposes to other scientists that they publicly ignore Soon and Baliunas' paper. [[Phil Jones (climatologist)|Phil Jones]], a CRU scientist, however, responds on 11 March that he thought the paper would be used by sceptics to further their agenda and therefore the paper's conclusions should be challenged. Mann's email responses to Jones the same day criticized de Freitas and von Storch and stated that, "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."<ref>[[Fred Pearce|Pearce, Fred]], "[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/peer-review-block-scientific-papers Emails reveal strenuous efforts by climate scientists to 'censor' their critics]", ''[[The Guardian]]'', 9 February 2010; date of Jones and Mann emails of 11 March documented in: {{cite book| first=A.W.| last=Montford| title=[[The Hockey Stick Illusion]] | series=| isbn=978-1-906768-35-5|year=2010| location= London| publisher=[[Stacey International]]| pages=403-404}}.</ref>


[[File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png|thumb|Reconstructions of [[Northern Hemisphere]] [[Temperature record of the past 1000 years|temperatures over the past thousand years]] according to various older articles (bluish lines), newer articles (reddish lines), and instrumental record (black line)]] In July 2003, the journal ''[[Eos (journal)|Eos]]'' published a paper authored by 13 prominent climate scientists, most of whom had been cited in the Soon and Baliunas 2003 paper (SB03).<ref>http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/eos03.pdf</ref> The key criticisms noted in the Eos paper were that SB03 had conflated precipitation proxies and temperature proxies and that regional temperature changes were taken as global changes. Other objections included the allegation that SB03 reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends.
[[File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png|thumb|Reconstructions of [[Northern Hemisphere]] [[Temperature record of the past 1000 years|temperatures over the past thousand years]] according to various older articles (bluish lines), newer articles (reddish lines), and instrumental record (black line)]] In July 2003, the journal ''[[Eos (journal)|Eos]]'' published a paper authored by 13 prominent climate scientists, most of whom had been cited in the Soon and Baliunas 2003 paper (SB03).<ref>http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/eos03.pdf</ref> The key criticisms noted in the Eos paper were that SB03 had conflated precipitation proxies and temperature proxies and that regional temperature changes were taken as global changes. Other objections included the allegation that SB03 reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends.
Line 33: Line 31:


The Soon and Baliunas paper had a significant political impact {{Citation needed|date=August 2010}} and has been widely promoted by opponents of regulatory action to tackle greenhouse gases. Republican Senator [[James Inhofe]] devoted half of a Senate hearing on climate change to a discussion of the article, asserting that its authors had refuted the scientific consensus on climate change; Soon was among those whom Inhofe invited to give testimony at the hearing.<ref name=Revkin /> The [[Presidency of George W. Bush|Bush administration]] also attempted to cite the paper in an [[Environmental Protection Agency]] report on the state of the environment.<ref name=Vanderheiden />
The Soon and Baliunas paper had a significant political impact {{Citation needed|date=August 2010}} and has been widely promoted by opponents of regulatory action to tackle greenhouse gases. Republican Senator [[James Inhofe]] devoted half of a Senate hearing on climate change to a discussion of the article, asserting that its authors had refuted the scientific consensus on climate change; Soon was among those whom Inhofe invited to give testimony at the hearing.<ref name=Revkin /> The [[Presidency of George W. Bush|Bush administration]] also attempted to cite the paper in an [[Environmental Protection Agency]] report on the state of the environment.<ref name=Vanderheiden />

==Email controversy==
{{See also|Climatic Research Unit email controversy|Climatic Research Unit documents}}
In November 2009, a database of emails and documents were leaked without authorization or hacked from a server belonging to [[East Anglia University]]. Many of the emails included communication between the climatologists in East Anglia's [[Climatic Research Unit]] (CRU) and other scientists, including Michael E. Mann. Several of the emails revealed conversations about Soon and Baliunas' paper as the controversy was ongoing in 2003 and 2004.<ref>[[Fred Pearce|Pearce, Fred]], "[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/peer-review-block-scientific-papers Emails reveal strenuous efforts by climate scientists to 'censor' their critics]", ''[[The Guardian]]'', 9 February 2010.</ref>

In one of the emails in early March 2003, Mann proposes to other scientists that they publicly ignore Soon and Baliunas' paper. [[Phil Jones (climatologist)|Phil Jones]], a CRU scientist, however, responds on 11 March that he thought the paper would be used by sceptics to further their agenda and therefore the paper's conclusions should be challenged. Mann's email responses to Jones the same day criticized de Freitas and von Storch and stated that, "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."<ref>[[Fred Pearce|Pearce, Fred]], "[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/peer-review-block-scientific-papers Emails reveal strenuous efforts by climate scientists to 'censor' their critics]", ''[[The Guardian]]'', 9 February 2010; date of Jones and Mann emails of 11 March documented in: {{cite book| first=A.W.| last=Montford| title=[[The Hockey Stick Illusion]] | series=| isbn=978-1-906768-35-5|year=2010| location= London| publisher=[[Stacey International]]| pages=403-404}}.</ref> In a 24 April 2003 email, [[Tom Wigley]] suggests that pressure be put on ''Climate Research's'' board members to fire von Storch.<ref>{{cite book| first=A.W.| last=Montford| title=[[The Hockey Stick Illusion]] | series=| isbn=978-1-906768-35-5|year=2010| location= London| publisher=[[Stacey International]]| pages=406-407}}.</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=The Scientists Involved in Deliberately Deceiving the World on Climate |first=Tim |last=Ball |newspaper=Canada Free Press |date=November 30, 2009 |url=http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17364 |accessdate=August 30, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Climate Science and Candor |newspaper=Wall Street Journal |date=November 24, 2009 |url=http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704779704574553652849094482.html |accessdate=August 30, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{Cite report |title=‘Consensus’ Exposed: The CRU Controversy |url=http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=7db3fbd8-f1b4-4fdf-bd15-12b7df1a0b63 |author=Minority Staff |year=2010 |publisher=U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works |accessdate=August 30, 2010}}</ref>

In July 2004, after ''Climate Research'' published a paper by [[Ross McKitrick]] and [[Pat Michaels]], Jones emailed his colleagues in reference to that and Soon and Baliunas's papers, saying, "I can't see either of these papers being in the next [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change|IPCC]] report. Kevin [TRENBERTH] and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" At that time, Jones and [[Kevin E. Trenberth]] were lead authors on a chapter in the [[IPCC Fourth Assessment Report]]. Trenberth told the investigating journalist "I had no role in this whatsoever. I did not make and was not complicit in that statement of Phil's. I am a veteran of three other IPCC assessments. I am well aware that we do not keep any papers out, and none were kept out. We assessed everything [though] we cannot possibly refer to all literature... Both of the papers referred to were in fact cited and discussed in the IPCC." He also made a statement agreed with Jones, that "AR4 was the first time Jones was on the writing team of an IPCC assessment. The comment was naive and sent before he understood the process." Jones could have been expected to be aware of the rules as he had been a contributing author for more than ten years, but this was his first time as a lead author with a responsibility for content of the complete chapter.<ref>[[Fred Pearce|Pearce, Fred]], "[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/peer-review-block-scientific-papers Emails reveal strenuous efforts by climate scientists to 'censor' their critics]", ''[[The Guardian]]'', 9 February 2010.</ref>

In a 18 December 2009 column in the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', Michaels alleged that pressure from Jones and Mann was responsible for the resignations at ''Climate Research''.<ref>[[Pat Michaels|Michaels, Pat]], "[http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11072 How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus]", ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', 18 December 2009; Michaels statement characterized as "allegations" in: [[Fred Pearce|Pearce, Fred]], "[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/peer-review-block-scientific-papers Emails reveal strenuous efforts by climate scientists to 'censor' their critics]", ''[[The Guardian]]'', 9 February 2010.</ref> Mann, Jones, and Trenberth, however, have denied that they carried through on the threat against the journal or to keep the papers out of the IPCC report. Von Storch has stated that his resignation as editor of ''Climate Research'' had nothing to do with any pressure from Jones, Mann, or anyone else.<ref>[[Fred Pearce|Pearce, Fred]], "[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/peer-review-block-scientific-papers Emails reveal strenuous efforts by climate scientists to 'censor' their critics]", ''[[The Guardian]]'', 9 February 2010.</ref><ref>[[Hans von Storch|Von Storch, Hans]], "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704238104574601443947078538.html Good Science, Bad Politics]", ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', 22 December 2009.</ref>


==See also==
==See also==

Revision as of 22:10, 31 August 2010

The Soon and Baliunas controversy involved the publication of a paper written by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas in the journal Climate Research, which prompted concerns about the peer review process of the paper and resulted in the resignation of several other editors and the eventual repudiation of the paper by the publisher.

Publication

Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

On January 31, 2003, a paper, Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years, written by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, was published in Climate Research after being accepted by editor Chris de Freitas, who is known as a skeptic of anthropogenic global warming.[1][2] The article reviewed 240 previously published papers and tried to find evidence for temperature anomalies in the last thousand years such as the Medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age. It concluded that "Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest or a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium".[3]

On March 31, 2003, Soon and Baliunas, with three additional co-authors, published a longer version of the paper in Energy and Environment.[2] The three additional co-authors were Craig Idso, Sherwood Idso, and David Legates.[4][5]

In the paper, Soon, Baliunas, and their co-authors investigated the correlation between solar variation and temperatures of the Earth's atmosphere. When there are more sunspots, the total solar output increases, and when there are fewer sunspots, it decreases. Soon and Baliunas attribute the Medieval warm period to such an increase in solar output, and believe that decreases in solar output led to the Little Ice Age, a period of cooling from which the earth has been recovering since 1890.[6] In a statement to The Chronicle of Higher Education, Soon stated that, "When you compare the 20th century to the previous nine centuries, you do not see the change in the 20th century as anything unusual or unprecedented."[2]

Criticism and controversy

Following the paper's publication, other scientists criticized the study's methods and argued that the authors had misrepresented or misinterpreted their data.[7] Some of those whose work was referenced by Soon and Baliunas were particularly critical. Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography commented that "the fact that [the paper] has received any attention at all is a result, again in my view, of its utility to those groups who want the global warming issue to just go away". Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona, whose work on dendrochronology was discussed in the paper, called it "so fundamentally misconceived and contain[ing] so many egregious errors that it would take weeks to list and explain them all."[8]

Paleoclimatologist Michael E. Mann was especially critical of Soon and Baliunas' paper, calling its conclusions, "absurd, almost laughable." Mann said that the paper made no attempt to find if the past warm temperatures it reported were contemporaneous or merely one-off scattered events.[9]

Reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the past thousand years according to various older articles (bluish lines), newer articles (reddish lines), and instrumental record (black line)

In July 2003, the journal Eos published a paper authored by 13 prominent climate scientists, most of whom had been cited in the Soon and Baliunas 2003 paper (SB03).[10] The key criticisms noted in the Eos paper were that SB03 had conflated precipitation proxies and temperature proxies and that regional temperature changes were taken as global changes. Other objections included the allegation that SB03 reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends.

More recently, Osborn and Briffa repeated the Baliunas and Soon study but restricted themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies, and came to a different result.[11][12] The Soon and Baliunas paper had been sent to four reviewers during publication, none of whom recommended rejecting it.[13]

Questions also were raised about connections between the paper's authors and oil industry groups: five percent of the study, or $53,000, was funded by the American Petroleum Institute (the remainder was provided by NASA and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research). Soon and Baliunas were at the time paid consultants of the Marshall Institute, which opposes limits on carbon dioxide emissions.[14]

In defense, Soon stated that the critics had mischaracterized the research in the paper. He explained that he had used precipitation data because too many scientists had concentrated on temperature records which, in Soon's opinion, are not the only measures of climate. Added Soon, "Some of the proxy information doesn't contain directly the temperature information, but it fits the general description of the medieval warm climatic anomaly. This is a first-order study to try to collect as much data as possible and try not to make the pretension that we know how to separate the information in the proxy."[2]

Impact of the criticisms

After seeing the critiques of the paper, its chief editor Hans von Storch sought to make changes to Climate Research's review process. However, when other editors at the journal refused, von Storch decided to resign.[1] He 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."[15] Eventually half of the journal's editorial board resigned along with von Storch.[13] Von Storch later stated that climate change sceptics "had identified Climate Research as a journal where some editors were not as rigorous in the review process as is otherwise common"[16] and complained that he had been pressured to publish the paper and had not been allowed to publish a rebuttal contesting the authors' conclusions.[5]

In a later editorial Otto Kinne, president of the organization that publishes Climate Research, stated that "While these statements [the conclusion of the paper] may be true, the critics point out that they cannot be concluded convincingly from the evidence provided in the paper. CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."[17] Kinne told the New York Times that "I have not stood behind the paper by Soon and Baliunas. Indeed: the reviewers failed to detect methodological flaws."[18] According to the climate skeptic Andrew Montford, the paper had little impact on the prevailing scientific opinion that the Medieval Warm Period was primarily a regional phenomenon and was a "huge disappointment" to the climate skeptic community.[19]

The Soon and Baliunas paper had a significant political impact[citation needed] and has been widely promoted by opponents of regulatory action to tackle greenhouse gases. Republican Senator James Inhofe devoted half of a Senate hearing on climate change to a discussion of the article, asserting that its authors had refuted the scientific consensus on climate change; Soon was among those whom Inhofe invited to give testimony at the hearing.[18] The Bush administration also attempted to cite the paper in an Environmental Protection Agency report on the state of the environment.[5]

Email controversy

In November 2009, a database of emails and documents were leaked without authorization or hacked from a server belonging to East Anglia University. Many of the emails included communication between the climatologists in East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and other scientists, including Michael E. Mann. Several of the emails revealed conversations about Soon and Baliunas' paper as the controversy was ongoing in 2003 and 2004.[20]

In one of the emails in early March 2003, Mann proposes to other scientists that they publicly ignore Soon and Baliunas' paper. Phil Jones, a CRU scientist, however, responds on 11 March that he thought the paper would be used by sceptics to further their agenda and therefore the paper's conclusions should be challenged. Mann's email responses to Jones the same day criticized de Freitas and von Storch and stated that, "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."[21] In a 24 April 2003 email, Tom Wigley suggests that pressure be put on Climate Research's board members to fire von Storch.[22][23][24][25]

In July 2004, after Climate Research published a paper by Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels, Jones emailed his colleagues in reference to that and Soon and Baliunas's papers, saying, "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!" At that time, Jones and Kevin E. Trenberth were lead authors on a chapter in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Trenberth told the investigating journalist "I had no role in this whatsoever. I did not make and was not complicit in that statement of Phil's. I am a veteran of three other IPCC assessments. I am well aware that we do not keep any papers out, and none were kept out. We assessed everything [though] we cannot possibly refer to all literature... Both of the papers referred to were in fact cited and discussed in the IPCC." He also made a statement agreed with Jones, that "AR4 was the first time Jones was on the writing team of an IPCC assessment. The comment was naive and sent before he understood the process." Jones could have been expected to be aware of the rules as he had been a contributing author for more than ten years, but this was his first time as a lead author with a responsibility for content of the complete chapter.[26]

In a 18 December 2009 column in the Wall Street Journal, Michaels alleged that pressure from Jones and Mann was responsible for the resignations at Climate Research.[27] Mann, Jones, and Trenberth, however, have denied that they carried through on the threat against the journal or to keep the papers out of the IPCC report. Von Storch has stated that his resignation as editor of Climate Research had nothing to do with any pressure from Jones, Mann, or anyone else.[28][29]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b Mooney, Chris (2004-09-13). "Déjà vu All Over Again". Skeptical Inquirer.
  2. ^ a b c d Monastersky, Richard (2003). "Storm Brews Over Global Warming" (PDF). The Chronicle of Higher Education. 50 (2): A16. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  3. ^ Soon, Willie (January 31, 2003). "Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years" (PDF). Climate Research. 23. Inter-Research Science Center: 89–110. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, "20th Century Climate Not So Hot," (Press release), March 31, 2003, retrieved on 24 August 2010. Harvard press release documented in secondary source: Pearce, Fred, "Emails reveal strenuous efforts by climate scientists to 'censor' their critics", The Guardian, 9 February 2010, retrieved on 24 August 2010.
  5. ^ a b c Vanderheiden, Steve (2008). Atmospheric justice: a political theory of climate change. Oxford University Press US. pp. 35–36. ISBN 9780195334609.
  6. ^ Powell, Alvin (April 24, 2003). "Sun's warming is global: CfA lecture links solar activity and climate change". Harvard University Gazette. Retrieved 2007-04-17.
  7. ^ Hoggan, James; Littlemore, Richard (2009). Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming. Greystone Books. pp. 104–5. ISBN 9781553654858.
  8. ^ Appell, David (2006). Human, Katy (ed.). Critical Perspectives on World Climate. The Rosen Publishing Group. p. 171. ISBN 9781404206885.
  9. ^ Pearce, Fred, "Emails reveal strenuous efforts by climate scientists to 'censor' their critics", The Guardian, 9 February 2010, retrieved on 24 August 2010.
  10. ^ http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/eos03.pdf
  11. ^ Mann, Michael E. (February 9, 2006). "A New Take on an Old Millennium". RealClimate. Retrieved 2007-04-17.
  12. ^ Osborn T.J., Briffa K.R. (2006). "The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years". Science. 311 (5762): 841–844. doi:10.1126/science.1120514. PMID 16469924.
  13. ^ a b Goodess, Clare (28 November 2003). "Stormy Times for Climate Research". Scientists for Global Responsibility Newsletter. Retrieved 14 December 2009.
  14. ^ Sanchez, Irene (2005-11-13). "Warming study draws fire". The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved 2009-05-30.
  15. ^ Cauchi, Stephen (2004-01-17). "Global warming: a load of hot air?". The Age.
  16. ^ "Some Like It Hot | Mother Jones". Retrieved 2009-12-01.
  17. ^ Kinne, Otto (5 August 2003). "Climate Research: an article unleashed worldwide storms" (PDF). Climate Research. 24. Inter-Research Science Center: 197–198.
  18. ^ a b Revkin, Andrew (2003-08-05). "Politics Reasserts Itself in the Debate Over Climate Change and Its Hazards". The New York Times.
  19. ^ Montford, A.W. (2010). The Hockey Stick Illusion. London: Stacey International. p. 56. ISBN 978-1-906768-35-5..
  20. ^ Pearce, Fred, "Emails reveal strenuous efforts by climate scientists to 'censor' their critics", The Guardian, 9 February 2010.
  21. ^ Pearce, Fred, "Emails reveal strenuous efforts by climate scientists to 'censor' their critics", The Guardian, 9 February 2010; date of Jones and Mann emails of 11 March documented in: Montford, A.W. (2010). The Hockey Stick Illusion. London: Stacey International. pp. 403–404. ISBN 978-1-906768-35-5..
  22. ^ Montford, A.W. (2010). The Hockey Stick Illusion. London: Stacey International. pp. 406–407. ISBN 978-1-906768-35-5..
  23. ^ Ball, Tim (November 30, 2009). "The Scientists Involved in Deliberately Deceiving the World on Climate". Canada Free Press. Retrieved August 30, 2010.
  24. ^ "Climate Science and Candor". Wall Street Journal. November 24, 2009. Retrieved August 30, 2010.
  25. ^ Minority Staff (2010). ‘Consensus’ Exposed: The CRU Controversy (Report). U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Retrieved August 30, 2010.
  26. ^ Pearce, Fred, "Emails reveal strenuous efforts by climate scientists to 'censor' their critics", The Guardian, 9 February 2010.
  27. ^ Michaels, Pat, "How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus", Wall Street Journal, 18 December 2009; Michaels statement characterized as "allegations" in: Pearce, Fred, "Emails reveal strenuous efforts by climate scientists to 'censor' their critics", The Guardian, 9 February 2010.
  28. ^ Pearce, Fred, "Emails reveal strenuous efforts by climate scientists to 'censor' their critics", The Guardian, 9 February 2010.
  29. ^ Von Storch, Hans, "Good Science, Bad Politics", Wall Street Journal, 22 December 2009.

External links