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.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Email 1104, March 2005: Heinz Wanner says he was highly critical of the hockey stick as an official IPCC reviewer in 2001, but "My review was classified "unsignificant" even I inquired several times"