Prompted by some comments over at CA I’ve been wondering again about the Hans von Storch and Eduardo Zorita post at Nature. A moment ago I said that McI was justifiably annoyed that S/Z appeared to be claiming prior credit for demolishing the HS (just for ref I don’t think it has been demolished, but thats an old argument). But is this wrong? M&M’s claim to priority is based on their E&E 2003 paper (“your paper apparently the being the seminal date for the beginning of the “healthy” debate (at least in your minds)… which is a back-handed way of saying the publication of M&M 2003 critique was inconsquential noise” as comment 22 over there says), which has subsequently been largely forgotten. Their scientific case (whatever you think of its merits) rests on the GRL 2005 paper; so in fact von S/Z *do* have priority, in at least one sense.