![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
climate change, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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 hunted down two papers referenced in the article with the following words:
While the papers uncover certain weaknesses, I think that's a bit too strong. It's also something not about von Storch, but about MBH. Maybe we should rewrite this as:
Any comments? -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 00:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Hans von Storch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hans von Storch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Parts of this article have been added by the notorious source faker, Polentarion/Polentario/Serten/Bakulan. It probably contains stuff which seems to be sourced to reliable sources but is really not, since the sources do not say what the article says. The German article has the same problem. I already removed in irrelevant paragraph where Storch is lauded by a denialist. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
climate change, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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 hunted down two papers referenced in the article with the following words:
While the papers uncover certain weaknesses, I think that's a bit too strong. It's also something not about von Storch, but about MBH. Maybe we should rewrite this as:
Any comments? -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 00:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Hans von Storch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hans von Storch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Parts of this article have been added by the notorious source faker, Polentarion/Polentario/Serten/Bakulan. It probably contains stuff which seems to be sourced to reliable sources but is really not, since the sources do not say what the article says. The German article has the same problem. I already removed in irrelevant paragraph where Storch is lauded by a denialist. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)