Talk:Hans von Storch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

[edit] validation of climate model

It is stated that Storch et al is a validation of the climate model. I don't see it that way. He just used a climate model to generate date which he used to test the method of Mann. I propose to correct this piece of text.--MichaelSirks 19:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Makes no sense to me. I removed the para. William M. Connolley 22:11:38, 2005-09-04 (UTC).

It was JH's. Sorry Josh William M. Connolley 22:14:05, 2005-09-04 (UTC).

Not that it matters (but just to prove I didn't make it up), the "10 editors" thing came from here (7th para). Rd232 23:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Thats an interesting article. I think I'd browsed it some time ago, but had obviously forgotten. William M. Connolley 09:02:36, 2005-09-05 (UTC).

[edit] Surprise, surprise

Don't forget to weigh in on Climate alarmism, doc. I already put your Storch quote there. --Uncle Ed 21:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Error

The comments about "Science noting an error" is unsat. Science published a comment on the paper. And included a reply. And it did not "note" errors. The comment alleged them and made comments on interpretation. This is the normal process of science. And the citation to Real Climate (a blog, which Mann, who's been criticized by VS, runs) rather than to the Science comment itself is biased. I'm going to fix this bias. I won't bother with the edit war, though. I just hate that aspect of Wikipedia too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.146.144 (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've restored it, with slight changes. Adding a link is useful. Perhaps you could find the Sci thing directly? William M. Connolley 08:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)