To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (969 ) 9/5/2011 7:00:11 PM From: Brumar89 2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 85487 Wharf's post was fallacious. The Soon and Baliunas paper was correct and shouldn't even be controversial. 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] en.wikipedia.org At the time, climate alarmists were claiming the MWP and LIA hadn't existed or were only minor local affairs. But the evidence that those were real worldwide phenomema is overwhelming. The only problem was that it conflicted with Mann's hockey stick chart. Now the hockey stick chart has been debunked and the novel denial that there was a MWP or LIA is, I think, dead. en.wikipedia.org 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. [22] 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." [23] In a 24 April 2003 email, Tom Wigley suggests that pressure be put on Climate Research's board members to remove von Storch. [24] [25] [26] [27] In a 18 December 2009 column in the Wall Street Journal , Pat Michaels alleged that pressure from Jones and Mann was responsible for the resignations at Climate Research. [28] 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, but instead "because of insufficient quality control on a bad paper" [22] [29] en.wikipedia.org I doubt Storch even knows what happened to him. It's hard to believe Storch wasn't pushed out by climategaters pressure because, after all we have their emails saying they were going to force him out and he was.