I had to give several interviews (TV, radio, newspapers) but tried just to explain science. Now an old story is warmed up. I was a reviewer of the IPCC-TAR report 2001. In my review which I can not find again in its precise wording I critcized the fact that the whole Mann hockeytick is being printed in its full length in the IPCC-TAR report. In 1999 I made the following comments:
My review was classified "unsignificant" even I inquired several times. Now the internationally well known newspaper SPIEGEL got the information about these early statements because I expressed my opinion in several talks, mainly in Germany, in 2002 and 2003. I just refused to give an exclusive interview to SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science. I just told a woman from SPIEGEL that I do carefully follow the activities and the forthcoming of the next IPCC report and I will then take position concerning the paleoclimate chapter there. I thought it is meaningful to infomr you about this fact./blockquote>
- The spatial, temporal (tree-ring data in the midlatitudes mainly contain "summer information") and spectral coverage and behaviour of the data is questionable, mainly before 1500-1600 AD. 2. It is in my opinion not appropriate already to make statements for the southern hemisphere and for the period prior to 1500 AD.
New Video : “Climatologists Vs. Science”
3 hours ago