@misc{LewandowskyCowtanRisbeyetal.2018,
  author    = {Lewandowsky, Stephan and Cowtan, Kevin and Risbey, James S. and Mann, Michael E. and Steinman, Byron A. and Oreskes, Naomi and Rahmstorf, Stefan},
  title     = {The 'pause' in global warming in historical context},
  series = {Environmental research letters},
  volume    = {13},
  journal   = {Environmental research letters},
  number    = {12},
  publisher = {IOP Publ. Ltd.},
  address   = {Bristol},
  issn      = {1748-9326},
  doi       = {10.1088/1748-9326/aaf372},
  pages     = {25},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {We review the evidence for a putative early 21st-century divergence between global mean surface temperature (GMST) and Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) projections. We provide a systematic comparison between temperatures and projections using historical versions of GMST products and historical versions of model projections that existed at the times when claims about a divergence were made. The comparisons are conducted with a variety of statistical techniques that correct for problems in previous work, including using continuous trends and a Monte Carlo approach to simulate internal variability. The results show that there is no robust statistical evidence for a divergence between models and observations. The impression of a divergence early in the 21st century was caused by various biases in model interpretation and in the observations, and was unsupported by robust statistics.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{LewandowskyStritzkeOberaueretal.2005,
  author    = {Lewandowsky, Stephan and Stritzke, W. G. K. and Oberauer, Klaus and Morales, M.},
  title     = {Memory for fact, fiction, and misinformation : the Iraq War 2003},
  issn      = {0956-7976},
  year      = {2005},
  abstract  = {Media coverage of the 2003 Iraq War frequently contained corrections and retractions of earlier information. For example, claims that Iraqi forces executed coalition prisoners of war after they surrendered were retracted the day after the claims were made. Similarly, tentative initial reports about the discovery of weapons of mass destruction were all later disconfirmed. We investigated the effects of these retractions and disconfirmations on people's memory for and beliefs about war-related events in two coalition countries (Australia and the United States) and one country that opposed the war (Germany). Participants were queried about (a) true events, (b) events initially presented as fact but subsequently retracted, and (c) fictional events. Participants in the United States did not show sensitivity to the correction of misinformation, whereas participants in Australia and Germany discounted corrected misinformation. Our results are consistent with previous findings in that the differences between samples reflect greater suspicion about the motives underlying the war among people in Australia and Germany than among people in the United States},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{LewandowskyStritzkeOberaueretal.2004,
  author    = {Lewandowsky, Stephan and Stritzke, W. g. k. and Oberauer, Klaus and Morales, M.},
  title     = {Memory for fact, fiction, and misinformation : the Iraq War 2003},
  issn      = {0020-7594},
  year      = {2004},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{LewandowskyCowtanRisbeyetal.2019,
  author    = {Lewandowsky, Stephan and Cowtan, Kevin and Risbey, James S. and Mann, Michael E. and Steinman, Byron A. and Oreskes, Naomi and Rahmstorf, Stefan},
  title     = {Erratum: The 'pause' in global warming in historical context: II. Comparing models to observations (Environmental research letters. - Vol 13, (2018) 123007)},
  series = {Environmental research letters},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {Environmental research letters},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {IOP Publ. Ltd.},
  address   = {Bristol},
  issn      = {1748-9326},
  doi       = {10.1088/1748-9326/aafbb7},
  pages     = {2},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {We review the evidence for a putative early 21st-century divergence between global mean surface temperature (GMST) and Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) projections. We provide a systematic comparison between temperatures and projections using historical versions of GMST products and historical versions of model projections that existed at the times when claims about a divergence were made. The comparisons are conducted with a variety of statistical techniques that correct for problems in previous work, including using continuous trends and a Monte Carlo approach to simulate internal variability. The results show that there is no robust statistical evidence for a divergence between models and observations. The impression of a divergence early in the 21st century was caused by various biases in model interpretation and in the observations, and was unsupported by robust statistics.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{RisbeyLewandowskyCowtanetal.2018,
  author    = {Risbey, James S. and Lewandowsky, Stephan and Cowtan, Kevin and Oreskes, Naomi and Rahmstorf, Stefan and Jokim{\"a}ki, Ari and Foster, Grant},
  title     = {A fluctuation in surface temperature in historical context},
  series = {Environmental research letters},
  volume    = {13},
  journal   = {Environmental research letters},
  number    = {12},
  publisher = {IOP Publ. Ltd.},
  address   = {Bristol},
  issn      = {1748-9326},
  doi       = {10.1088/1748-9326/aaf342},
  pages     = {23},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {This work reviews the literature on an alleged global warming 'pause' in global mean surface temperature (GMST) to determine how it has been defined, what time intervals are used to characterise it, what data are used to measure it, and what methods used to assess it. We test for 'pauses', both in the normally understood meaning of the term to mean no warming trend, as well as for a 'pause' defined as a substantially slower trend in GMST. The tests are carried out with the historical versions of GMST that existed for each pause-interval tested, and with current versions of each of the GMST datasets. The tests are conducted following the common (but questionable) practice of breaking the linear fit at the start of the trend interval ('broken' trends), and also with trends that are continuous with the data bordering the trend interval. We also compare results when appropriate allowance is made for the selection bias problem. The results show that there is little or no statistical evidence for a lack of trend or slower trend in GMST using either the historical data or the current data. The perception that there was a 'pause' in GMST was bolstered by earlier biases in the data in combination with incomplete statistical testing.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{RisbeyLewandowskyCowtanetal.2018,
  author    = {Risbey, James S. and Lewandowsky, Stephan and Cowtan, Kevin and Oreskes, Naomi and Rahmstorf, Stefan and Jokim{\"a}ki, Ari and Foster, Grant},
  title     = {A fluctuation in surface temperature in historical context},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  volume    = {13},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {1023},
  issn      = {1866-8372},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-46804},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-468041},
  pages     = {26},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {This work reviews the literature on an alleged global warming 'pause' in global mean surface temperature (GMST) to determine how it has been defined, what time intervals are used to characterise it, what data are used to measure it, and what methods used to assess it. We test for 'pauses', both in the normally understood meaning of the term to mean no warming trend, as well as for a 'pause' defined as a substantially slower trend in GMST. The tests are carried out with the historical versions of GMST that existed for each pause-interval tested, and with current versions of each of the GMST datasets. The tests are conducted following the common (but questionable) practice of breaking the linear fit at the start of the trend interval ('broken' trends), and also with trends that are continuous with the data bordering the trend interval. We also compare results when appropriate allowance is made for the selection bias problem. The results show that there is little or no statistical evidence for a lack of trend or slower trend in GMST using either the historical data or the current data. The perception that there was a 'pause' in GMST was bolstered by earlier biases in the data in combination with incomplete statistical testing.},
  language  = {en}
}