Quote of the Week- you first, Dr. Thompson

Some days I think it can’t get any crazier out there, and then I’m surprised yet again.

qotw_cropped

From Dr. Loonie Lonnie Thompson, of Ohio State University:

“I think we’ll have to get off this planet for glaciology to have a future,” Thompson, a climate researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center said at an international symposium at Ohio State University.

His next surprise came just last month, when he and a crew of OSU researchers went to Papua New Guinea’s largest ice cap to collect ice core samples.

The temperature was 50 degrees Fahrenheit when it should have been at least at the freezing point. Rain, not snow, fell on the crew.

The rain and the warm air threatened to erase the ice cap.

“That’s the scary part – the surprises and the things you don’t understand,” Thompson said.

=================================

Dr. Thompson if you leave Earth, will you leave the ice core data archives behind that Steve McIntyre has been asking for, for years now?

Kaufman et al: Obstructed by Thompson and Jacoby

“Thus, several years later, not just me, but young Arctic scientists are frustrated by data obstruction by Thompson and Jacoby. Unfortunately, these young scientists are unable or unwilling to record these frustrations in public and the records remain incomplete to this day.”

Advertisements

92 thoughts on “Quote of the Week- you first, Dr. Thompson

  1. Are you going to engage with the science or just make snide remarks?
    REPLY: Perhaps you should ask that question of Dr. Thompson, anyone who suggests we all have to leave Earth to save his profession is really off the rails. He deserves the drubbing, especially since he won’t share data. You’d ensure no less in your blogospheric travels if I said something equally crazy. – Anthony

  2. Brings back memories of Lonnie’s thermometer in Gore’s AIT. Wasn’t there a circular verification issue involving Thompson and Mann (MBH99)?

  3. Yes, I can see his point. This is after all the first time in the history of the planet that ice has disappeared.
    (Now where is those darm sarc tags…..)

  4. lol @ richard telford…
    Engage with the science now? Wait… is clinical psychology a science or a discipline?

  5. “The temperature was 50 degrees Fahrenheit when it should have been at least at the freezing point.”
    The pendant in me wishes to point out that “at least at the freezing point” should be reworded to “at most at the freezing point.”
    REPLY: And the journalist in me says “don’t rewrite the spoken quotes of people” – Anthony

  6. “The temperature was 50 degrees Fahrenheit when it should have been at least at the freezing point. ”
    So the temperature anomaly at Papua New Guinea exceeds 18 degrees F (or10 K)? Doesn’t look like that much on the global map.

  7. CodeTech said at 7:53 am
    Wait… is clinical psychology a science or a discipline?
    Neither. It’s a art form.

  8. “That’s the scary part – the surprises and the things you don’t understand,” Thompson said.
    ======================================================
    Thus the market for adult Depends
    These people really are the weakest link. They are scared.

  9. By the way, since we’re on it, I was at a backyard birthday BBQ on Saturday night. The temperature was 50F when it should have been at least 65. More likely it was a lot cooler. In fact, even many of my agw believer acquaintances (I don’t say friends, most of MY friends are smart people) are commenting on how we’ve skipped summer this year.

    “That’s the scary part – the surprises and the things you don’t understand,” Thompson said.

    There are promising new therapies out there to help you deal with this, Dr. Thompson. However, you can start by realizing that the vast, overwhelming majority of things are things we don’t understand.

  10. Vince Causey August 23, 2010 at 7:59 am
    “The pendant in me wishes to point out…”
    Must…suppress…internal pedant….
    😉

  11. Selected quotes: 1-6.
    James Cameron’s key climate quotes:
    Director James Cameron Unleashed: Calls for gun fight with global warming skeptics: ‘I want to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads’
    Cameron: ‘If we don’t do something, we’re all going to die! What’s it going to take, a big f#cking disaster with all kinds of people dying?’ March 1, 2010 – Grist Mag.
    Cameron: ‘Anybody that is a global-warming denier at this point in time has got their head so deeply up their ass I’m not sure they could hear me.’ March 24, 2010
    Director James Cameron: Climate Deniers Using ‘Talk-Show Host Puppets’ for ‘Disinformation Campaign’
    James Cameron: Climate Change ‘As Great As The Threat’ U.S. Faced in World War II
    James Cameron boldly slammed global warming skeptics as “swine” on the day he was supposed to be debating them. “I think they’re swine”
    …-
    “From King of the World to Chicken of the Sea: Director James Cameron challenges climate skeptics to debate and then bails out at last minute
    Hide the Debate: Cameron ducks Climate Debate with Breitbart, Morano, & McElhinney”
    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/7772/From-King-of-the-World-to-Chicken-of-the-Sea-Director-James-Cameron-challenges-climate-skeptics-to-debate-and-then-bails-out-at-last-minute

  12. Well I would blame the head hunters for the missing ice cap.
    Earth to Dr Thompson; we are talking about Papua New Guinea which lies between -3 and -10 deg latitude; and is about one of the most tropical places there is on this planet.
    I would certainly be concenred if Papua was losing some of its fabulous wildlife; but it it hardly the last repository on earth of endangered ice caps. We’re coming out of an ice age Dr Tmompson; get over it.

  13. Maybe we’ll get lucky and just Dr. Loonie will leave the planet.
    Let him jump the queue. leave first, satisfy his inner Jorel.

  14. Why are there glaciers at all in Papua New Guinea? Isn’t the snow line at that latitude typically above 19,000 feet? Wouldn’t that be an interesting question to study?
    In regard to the ice core data, if it isn’t shared and the method and results are not public then the data and results are not reproducible and therefore are not science at all. Pseudo science can be done anywhere by any Shaman or witch doctor.

  15. According to Wikipedia, the area with glaciers in Papua is at 4000+ metres. Evidently they have been receding since the end of the LIA. The average temperature is about 0C. They are already small and anomalous. Their disappearance hardly justifies a call for us to abandon the planet.

  16. I was afraid that that silly piece of fluffery on Papua New Guinea would make it on WUWT since the story first appeared several days ago. These people are so enamored of gloom and doom that they’ll likely miss it when the new ice age begins next week — or in a thousand years — except for a few marginalized skeptics.

  17. Hey what do you expect: this from a guy that Al Gore calls a, “good friend”.
    I think, IMHO, that says it all, and on most levels concerning L. Thompsons professional ethic along with his “scientific” turpitude.

  18. Would that Thompson had the courage and wherewithall to respond to this article. Well, thank heaven for Dr Curry. One in a million is not bad in today’s world.

  19. James Cameron’s key climate quotes:
    Director James Cameron Unleashed: Calls for gun fight with global warming skeptics: ‘I want to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads’
    ——–Reply:
    Yup, that makes about as much sense as jumping the planet because there’s rain in Papua New Guinea. RAIN, mind you! *sheesh* Talk about “boneheads”–Thompson and Camerson must be related.

  20. “Jason Box, an OSU geologist and climate expert, said getting the “small community” of glacier researchers together on a regular basis is key to keeping the conversation going about disappearing ice caps.”
    Wow, so what they’re doing is all getting together and hyperventilating about a non-problem, thus self-reinforcing their silly, irrational fears. And these are the so-called “experts”. Now, that’s scary.

  21. Anthony, I must commend you. While Mr. Telford has grown increasingly antagonistic, you have responded calmly and reasonably.
    As to the article, it most certainly is pertinent to the science. A large portion of the “ClimateGate” controversy surrounded scientists’ refusal to provide raw data, while proclaiming that the science-is-settled(tm). Here, we have the same thing on-going, while the scientist provides a carefully crafted snippet to the media to support a particular belief.
    The article you link to on ClimateAudit is interesting reading. This type of data stonewalling needs to be made highly visible. Perhaps Dr. Thompson can catch some of the new fever sweeping through scientific establishments of data transparency; else, his feet should be held to the fire.

  22. Re Cameron’s comments…
    I would argue that he is eminently qualified to make the arguments he makes as he is one of the premier creators of the most realistic fantasies on the planet.
    Actual reality is a much more difficult proposition for him.

  23. Is this the same Anthony Watts who is hiding the surface station data?
    REPLY: No, you are wrong. I’m holding it until paper publication since NCDC decided to use what preliminary data I did publish (in the spirit of openness) inappropriately, without my permission, and against my protestations of it being incomplete and not quality controlled yet. See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/rumours-of-my-death-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/ When our joint paper is published it will all be included in an SI just like McShane and Wyner did. Then people can beat it up all they want. The paper is finished, it is in final mathematics and statistics review by a person we invited to review it with a critical eye. Won’t be much longer.
    Having learned the lesson that people have no scruples and will use your own data to disprove you before you even get your paper finished, it is a prudent thing to do. It is my right to hold it until publication, as do most researchers. My experiment with openess allowed the unscrupulous to take advantage. Thompson on the other hand has published using the data, advised Al Gore and provided graphics for AIT, and yet refuses to share the data for legitimate academic replication. Big big difference. – Anthony

  24. Bob Tisdale says:
    August 23, 2010 at 8:26 am
    Anthony: Does he suggest a specific planet, Zork or Jkjuuvserfchsswq maybe?
    REPLY: I figured it was assumed. Planet Green – Anthony
    _____________________________________________________________________
    Clearly, he is referring to the planet visited by the Starship Enterprise, where the crew took shore-leave, and all their fantasies came true………………….

  25. 50F, wow! That’s what we call a mild summers day in northern England, lucky chap!
    Sounds like he’s (Lonnie) been ‘away’ before and when he is ‘here’, does he now regard himself as a visitor?
    You have to laugh:>)
    ~All the ‘serious science’ ( and it didn’t amount to much) has been debunked.
    Here, another one backs down.
    http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/blog/general/481

  26. As an ex- marine I refer to the concept of a few good men.
    That’s the first time I’ve ever seen anyone claim to be an “ex-Marine.”
    Someone should inform Jacoby the obligatory phrase is “former Marine”…

  27. @Bernie
    ‘According to Wikipedia, the area with glaciers in Papua is at 4000+ metres. Evidently they have been receding since the end of the LIA. The average temperature is about 0C. They are already small and anomalous. Their disappearance hardly justifies a call for us to abandon the planet.’
    You missed the point that he and his ilk had to leave the planet to save glaciology. This it with the assumption that you’re not a glaciologist of his ilk, what with checking with wikipedia and all, especially since it should be known who’s probably now gonna try and manipulate the page you read.

  28. Glaciers in Papua New Guinea are quite an interesting thing. Mean free air temperature at the highest peak (4884 m ) is around 1.1C and it has been very similar since the 50’s. It can snow at 1C, and in Papua New Guinea it snows a lot, so snow accumulates. As it has a high albedo and it cools very efficiently it is not easy to melt, so it remains and form glaciers. If you look at the reanalysis data, there is an interesting shift upwards in geopotential height at the end of the 70’s, with a corresponding shift in mean temperature (upwards), of may be 0.3C. However, the most important change might be a shift in precipitation in the 60’s (downwards). Thus the fate of Papua New Guinea’s glaciers might be similar to that of Kilimanjaro’s, they are drying up, rather than warming up.
    Some reanalysis charts here and here.

  29. Patagon says:
    August 23, 2010 at 10:45 am
    That is true of almost all glacier declines. It is not a lack of cold, it is a lack or decline of precipitation in the accumulation zone that shrinks glaciers.

  30. These guys will never take their own advise. Anyway, an appropriate message to James Cameron would be, “Yes, James, we are all going to die and belief in AGW will not change that.”

  31. In keeping with the modern age of science lunacy, as depicted by Thompson’s statement, WUWT readers may want to check out the latest (Sept 2010) issue of Scientific American Magazine. With any luck the December issue should be my last after about 40 years of continuous readership.
    The front cover is in a dark shade of red and carries the title: “the end.” No caps !
    So it is the doomsday issue of SA that carries the message: “We’re all gonna die !”
    One of the first essays on Sustainable Developments, carries the title: “The Deeepening Crisis” by Jeffrey D. Sachs; Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.
    He opens his essay with the glad tidings that this will be his final column under this shingle in Scientific American; to which I say good riddance, although I will no longer be a subscriber after December.
    But in this one page, Sachs manages to drag out his whole sorry tale of woe; the sky is falling, and it’s too late to stop it; and Copenhagen was a bust. If you really want to depress yourself in a sea of misery, you should read Sachs’ last essay.
    I think basically he is decrying that the awakening public is no longer buying the doomsday scenario that the AGW crowd and the green weenies promulgate.
    His third point in his woeful yarn is that the problems are global but politics is local. Obviously Sachs is another of these one world Government do it my way or else kooks.
    I’m not going to drag the whole sorry tale out here; but Sachs leaves no stone unturned in the looney left’s clamor to take over all our lives for the good of the planet.
    So good riddance Jeffrey Sachs; it’s time for you to try and earn an honest living at areal job.
    One other piece of curiousity in this issue is the information that Scientific American is part of the Nature Publishing Group so “Nature” is a kindred publication to SA; which surely helps explain why SA has long since ceased reporting on interesting Science and has become an advocacy journal for the watermelon sect.
    And then enjoy reading a whole issue about why humans won’t be here for ever; well even here, won’t be here for ever; and surprisingly some say, forever itself, will not be here forever.
    Time for a Capuchino again. (isn’t that some kind of monkey ?)

  32. Aug 23, at 10:45 am
    Patagon, checking snow-forecast.com, they show the “normal” 83 cm of new snow the next 6 days… I don’t check so often now as I used to do some years ago, would 20 cm
    a day be sufficient for non-retreat?? According to Wiki, LT says the glaciers will be gone in 4-5 years…[2010] Comparing Mark Serreze…oh not me…

  33. Having a fair amount of experience of glaciers, both in the arctic and elsewhere I would say that while 50 F is indeed rather warm when you are on a glacier it is not that unusual in summer. I can remember it being even warmer (and raining too) at 79 degrees north in Svalbard. The rain as a matter of fact is almost compulsory in such weather situations as the warm air is cooled by the glacier.

  34. Patagon
    I suspected something like that which is why I brought it up. Similar things are causing the famous glaciers in Glacier National Park to shrink. Microclimate changes in a location that is really not all that high or cold.

  35. How do they know it’s a warm temperature anomaly where they went? We only have a few years of temperature data for the entire planet! It’s not like glaciers are cast in stone! It seems to me that way too many scientists have a set picture of what the world is supposed to be and when it doesn’t match their picture they freak out soothsaying doomsday the sky is falling get into your rocket ships and abandon our only home in the universe before it’s too late!
    I hate to be the one to remind them but the Earth is a wee bit older than their doomsday scenarios permit and it’s doing just fine for a very long time.
    Humans have a huge range of adaptability to temperatures, oh at least 80c to 100c from in the minus range to the 40c or so. Personally I’ve lived across the 85c range having lived in Edmonton (-45c) and in Costa Rica (+40c). No big deal either way, although I prefer +25c to 30c). So what is the panic? I just don’t get it.

  36. Athelstan says:
    August 23, 2010 at 10:23 am
    50F, wow! That’s what we call a mild summers day in northern England, lucky chap!
    That’s what we call a heatwave in Scotland…

  37. I’ve read that the plains around the base of Mt Kilimanjaro were once lush rain forest, that provided its own local tropical wet climate that was the source of the snows of Kilimanjaro. Supposedly the native tribes living around the mountain over thousands of years cut all that forestry down for their uses and the area slowly started to desertify. Ofr course the lower slopes of the mountain still retain some forest; but evidently it isn’t like its former glory; so the snow caps sublime from lack of humidity even at Kilimanjaro’s altitude, and equatorial location.
    Papua on the other hand has always seemed to me to be the epitome of remoteness from civilization; even moreso than the Amazon. In my yourth, nothing could match the sense of primitive isolation that Papua conjured up. Sadly WW-II changed all of that; and then the USA and others compounded the felony, in their ignorance, and anti-colonial zeal, and in the Kennedy era pushed for the inclusion of half of Papua into the hodgepodge that is Indonesia; which has about as much ethnic commonality with Papua, as I do.
    Prior to that, I believe Australia had some sort of United Nations protectorate relationshsip with Papua; somewhat similar to the relationship that NZ has or had with some Polynesian outposts like the Cook Islands, and Raratonga; which simply are too small to support common infrastructures of society; like schools and medical facilties (which NZ supplied in the case of those Polynesian islands.
    But the rain forests of Papua have also been under cosntant threat for the hardwood timbers; and mineral explorations; so if it is ongoing, I could see that aiding in desertification on the back burner.
    But luckily we have Vostok and other such magnificanet ice caps; remote from head hunters and tropical rain forests alike.
    As luck would have it; my Cap-of-the-day is a recent birthday present my daughter brought back from Roswell New Mexico; so I shall don that and set out for lunch and hopefully attract some sort of off planetary conveyance for Dr Thompson.

  38. Can’t say at this time regarding Papua New Guinea. I know the Kilimanjaro retreat has been found to be mainly due to deforestation near the mountain, especially early last century, that led to a decrease in precipitation.
    I guess that means it was due to man, but not due to CO2 (Mann made warming).

  39. Actually, although I know the next glacial period is probably quite a ways off yet in human life span terms, it would be kind of nice not to start the next glacial period for as long as possible.
    This interglacial we have now is just fine, and I hope it continues for quite a while. NGW (Natural GW) has been kind of nice since the LIA. Now, can we utilize that pesky AGW to help forestall the next glacial period?
    John

  40. Maybe that is why the attention is now shifted to Papua New Guinea, seeing how the cause of the retreat in Africa is pretty well understood, and is not due to increased temperatures. This has been pretty definatively shown.
    Funny how a disappearing glacier is more interesting if the cause is CO2. I wonder how many more trips to Kilamanjaro Dr. Thompson will make.
    http://e360.yale.edu/content/digest.msp?id=2130
    But Thompson noted the Kilimanjaro melting seems to mirror trends elsewhere in the world, including rapid ice-field melting in South America, Indonesia and the Himalayas. “It’s when you put those together,” he said, “that the evidence becomes very compelling.”

  41. richard telford says:
    August 23, 2010 at 7:44 am
    The *science*,in this case, as proposed by Lonnie Thompson rather falls by its own weight.

  42. RockyRoad says:
    August 23, 2010 at 10:03 am
    “James Cameron’s key climate quotes:
    Director James Cameron Unleashed: Calls for gun fight with global warming skeptics: ‘I want to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads’…”
    Yes, and he used the offensive “D” word as well!

  43. A book I have titled El Niño by J. M. Nash (2002) has many pages expounding on the innovative, exhausting, and amazing work being done by Lonnie Thompson. I was quite surprised to read of his subsequent lack of cooperation with others trying to understand the growth and decline of glaciers – about which he now says: “That’s the scary part – the surprises and the things you don’t understand,”.
    ~ ~ ~
    Locally [Bowers Field, WA (KELN)] , on August 17th it was 86 F at Noon and 100 F at 4 PM.. Today at Noon it is 74 F and the forecast is for a high of 77 F.
    Moral: Weather changes.

  44. “I think we’ll have to get off this planet for glaciology to have a future,”
    You folks may be missing the point of the quote. He doesn’t say galciologists, I think the correct interpretation of the quote is:
    Mankind will have to leave the planet for ice to have a future.
    To which I respond, “Not as long as I have sufficient fossil fuel derived energy to power my freezer. Hey Sweetheart, another Jack and Coke on the rocks, please.”

  45. George E. Smith says: about Sci-American/red cover/”The End”
    Some of this issue is as you imply but much is not. The last page under the heading “Shaky Grounds” by Steve Mirsky is interesting, funny, and sad all at the same time. And the cover title “The End” is not about AGW as some might think from what you have written.
    ~ ~ ~
    This and other “science” magazines often carry interesting articles that I would miss if I did not subscribe to them. Paying the cost of entry to one article behind a “pay wall” is about as costly as a subscription to the journal. I’ve considered not getting such magazines but come to a solution opposite yours. I read the science parts and laugh at the pseudo-science. Another thought is that if you pay for TV reception you could likely pay for 2 or 3 magazine subscriptions for each month of service. You don’t have to read all the material or respect the editor’s choices. Likewise, with TV, you pay for a lot of things you don’t want, won’t watch, and would hate it if you did. Will you unsubscribe the TV also?

  46. You cant handle the truth, Anthony is a hyporcite and this blog is turning into an RC style snipping-fest with anyone who makes him look ridiculous.
    REPLY: Well I beg to differ. So far your posts have appeared within the policy of the blog (witness this one), and you haven’t successfully refuted what I’ve had to say about the issue, except to leave ad homs like the above. Nobody else is getting snipped, because they are staying within policy- Anthony

  47. ….And IF Lonnie Thompson really went to Papua New Guinea, it’s not surprising he didn’t find any ice for the Scotch… Highest peak Mount Wilhelm is at 4509 m ASL…
    [That is above me…LOL]… Puncak Jaya aka Carstensz Pyramid, after Jan Carstensz who were lucky to see the glaciers on a rare clear day in 1623 [FREAK ANTARCTIC
    OUTBREAK above 4000 m ASL???] is in the Irian Jaya province of Indonesia… Jan Carstensz was a Dutch explorer and he was
    ridiculed in the Netherlands because nobody thought snow and ice could exist that
    close to the equator…[wiki]

  48. “REPLY: Perhaps you should ask that question of Dr. Thompson, anyone who suggests we all have to leave Earth to save his profession is really off the rails. ”
    OH I thought he meant that the Glaciologists would have to leave the Earth in order to find new glaciers to molest.
    No credit to the sciences either way.

  49. PS! Another Guinea, Guinea-Conacry, may receive snow!!! That is if you are to believe
    a German site. Last time snow fell, was in 1951…??!! Little town called Mali-Ville at
    1400 m ASL…The very recent cold temp record there is +1.4C…[some 13 or so degrees N…] Maybe no readings in 1951,
    regrettably…There is [was?] some site about possible snowfall countries [in a 100 years
    perspective…] and a majority of African countries may have snow then, if not even
    sticking…

  50. Besides all of this ice decapitation is just weather. The last pictures I have seen of Mt Kilimanjaro showed that there was plenty of snow on the top of that peak; at least in the wintertime; so it comes and it goes.
    I would bemoan the local loss of the forests on those plains, rather than the loss of icecap itself. I’m under the impression that not too much melt water makes it down rivers to where those tribes live; because it mostly sublimes.
    And the mountain evidently has some very special local and typically desert like Flora that isn’t found anywhere else; so it would seem that episodes of low moisture have happened before; and evidently many times to develop those kinds of low water need plants. I have talked with one person who actually has done the hike to the top and he reported that the ice was in retreat at the time; which was actually “sometime in the last 15 years.”
    I’m all in favor of preserving forestry where we have alternatives. To simply cut it to burn it; or to turn very poor rain forest type soil, into even worse agricultural use; or worse than that to grow ethanoleum in its place is inexcusable.
    I can’t fault erstwhile primitive nomadic tribes, whose short life spans perhaps hid from them, the errors of their forestry management practices.

  51. @
    ” Vince Causey says:
    August 23, 2010 at 7:59 am
    “The temperature was 50 degrees Fahrenheit when it should have been at least at the freezing point.”
    The pendant in me wishes to point out that “at least at the freezing point” should be reworded to “at most at the freezing point.”
    REPLY: And the journalist in me says “don’t rewrite the spoken quotes of people” – Anthony”
    And the pedant in ME wishes to point out that a pendant is something that hangs from the neck, while a pedant is something almost no one can spell, much less say.

  52. “”” John F. Hultquist says:
    August 23, 2010 at 1:03 pm
    George E. Smith says: about Sci-American/red cover/”The End”
    Some of this issue is as you imply but much is not. The last page under the heading “Shaky Grounds” by Steve Mirsky is interesting, funny, and sad all at the same time. And the cover title “The End” is not about AGW as some might think from what you have written. “””
    Well John they would have to do a great deal of inferring, to make up for my lack of implying, that the issue is about AGW. The only part in which I even mentioned AGW, was in the departure essay of Jeffery D. Sachs; whcih was little but an aside to the main story of the issue.
    “”””” And then enjoy reading a whole issue about why humans won’t be here for ever; well even here, won’t be here for ever; and surprisingly some say, forever itself, will not be here forever. “””””
    Now doesn’t that give some clues to the nature of the issues in this issue; and isn’t it entirely devoid of reference to AGW.
    Reading between the lines, is NOT a licence to write something between the lines, that isn’t there.

  53. Let’s do it in chronological order…
    MikeC says:
    August 23, 2010 at 11:24 am
    [You can make your point without the insults and snarkiness directed at our host. ~dbs, mod.]
    ………………………………………………………………. then…
    MikeC says:
    August 23, 2010 at 1:05 pm
    You cant handle the truth, Anthony is a hyporcite and this blog is turning into an RC style snipping-fest with anyone who makes him look ridiculous.
    REPLY: Well I beg to differ. So far your posts have appeared within the policy of the blog (witness this one), and you haven’t successfully refuted what I’ve had to say about the issue, except to leave ad homs like the above. Nobody else is getting snipped, because they are staying within policy- Anthony
    and here is what was snipped from the 11:24 AM post
    Re: Anthony’s reply, August 23, 2010 at 10:17 am
    Any of your excuses are no more valid than excuses offered by various climate scientists for hiding their data. If some one has used your data preliminarily, then you have the opportunity to make that point to refute their conclusions when you publish.
    When this project got started, a key characteristic was openness. At no time did Anthony Watts say he’d start crying like a baby and dive under the table when things didn’t go his way, regardless if the analysis came from JohnV or Matt Menne. And I wouldn’t have driven a bunch of whiney ass teenagers from state to state if I thought for a moment that my gas money or time were going to be used for partisan purposes. Keep your word, quit acting like Loonie Thompson, Michael Mann and Phil Jones… RELEASE THE DATA… lay the cards on the table and allow them to fall as they will.
    REPLY: I added my full response, since you saw it before I finished. I’ve decided to leave this post intact to demonstrate just how juvenile MikeC has been acting with comments, though technically I should snip this comment. As I said, I most certainly will release my data in an SI (properly per regular academic procedure) when I and my co-authors publish. I am under no obligation to do so beforehand. I’ll point out that with all the failures of disclosure you cite above with other scientists came AFTER they published their paper and people asked for the data and code, not before. That’s the big difference. Plus, all the photography and notes are online right now at surfacestations.org, only the final data and analysis remains to be published. It will done academically and appropriately. If waiting for that bothers you, tough noogies. -Anthony

  54. MikeC,
    The data will be released when the author is ready to release the paper. That’s how it works. Throwing out insults won’t make it happen faster.

  55. MikeC says:
    August 23, 2010 at 1:05 pm
    You cant handle the truth, Anthony is a hyporcite and this blog is turning into an RC style snipping-fest with anyone who makes him look ridiculous.
    ____________________
    I’m with Anthony on this. The only one who looks ridiculous is you. You might also consider words that are under-lined in red as possible misspells. May the truth find you open-minded.

  56. How it’s usually done is irrelevant because Anthony promised to do things differently by keeping everything out in the open… and he did have everything out in the open until Menne 2010. But even Anthony’s claims about Menne and the gang at NCDC coming after him do not justify going back on his word. So I say again, Anthony, RELEASE THE DATA.
    REPLY: Nope, sorry. Final data with final paper. NCDC changed the game with their unprofessional behavior. Now I’ll do it like all other academics (except the ones you cited above) and publish it all in an SI in sync with paper publication. You’ll just have to wait like everyone else. Be as annoyed as you wish. You point in forcing it is quite frankly, just baseless. If I was withholding data AFTER publication, you’d have an argument.
    I’ll also point out that the raw data is all there at surfacestations.org for anyone to look at right now, which is far and above what the others you cited have done. That’s way more open than anyone else you cite. And with a preliminary release of the data improperly used by Menne et al, I’m still ahead of all of them. – Anthony

  57. Nice one MikeC.
    You’ve clearly transcended your guardians expectations, your teachers predictions but thanks for that hidden talent that none of the former detected.
    Your ability to make one chortle is, simply, superb. And I really mean the adjective!
    Keep the narrative flowing. Your provision of meaningful data is fecund and admirable. Unlike Mr T whose life appears to revolve around finding someone to fund trips to out of the way places for the occasional agenda supporting narrative?
    You is a bloke.

  58. Release the Data?
    How strange!
    This is not Climatology as we know it.
    Methinks that you are ask the right question to the wrong person!

  59. What Matt Menne or John V did with your data, preliminary or unprofessional is completely irrelevant. Your promise to US needs to be upheld. YOU NEED TO RELEASE THE DATA
    REPLY: And it has been, with preliminary data released and used by these people, and will be in entirety, at the appropriate time, with publication. In the meantime the entire project is online for anyone too look at. Shouting won’t help. – Anthony

  60. Ask yourself just one question MC.
    Who responds to your questions without censure?
    Let’s pretend that the questions you posed were unwelcome, or even heretical, who let those questions visible?
    Questions defeat Dogma. Answers may be subject to interpretation of what questions were asked.

  61. “I think we’ll have to get off this planet for glaciology to have a future,”
    I read this as a plea by Dr Thompson for specific satellite monitoring of glaciers; probably providing him and other glaciologists with a lot more and more accurate data that will support several more decades worth of analysis.
    I’m guessing everybody else is right and this isn’t his meaning but can we be absolutely sure?

  62. That wasn’t the deal, Anthony… It was openess, transparancy, no games, let the science be out in the open… YOU NEED TO RELEASE THE DATA
    REPLY: OK this is the last comment either of us will be making on this, because additional comments on this subject are going to be snipped because they have already been asked and answered. Your insistence is redundant, and the process of the publication and review with several co-authors has already started, I’m not changing anything just because you’ve decided to raise an imagined issue that you feel you must harp on, while ignoring the real facts central to the article of Dr. Thompson. Like I said, all will be released with the publication. After that anybody can use the data beat me up any way they see fit. Be as upset as you wish, hurl insults and shout all you want, but that’s how the process is currently happening and will proceed to finish. This project has been open and transparent, and all the data, raw and preliminary collated data is on surfacestations.org Final data with paper, in an SI, just like the rest of the science world does it. – Anthony

  63. Just wanted to say I eagerly await the publishing of the surface stations project, Anthony. MikeC can [snip] for all I care since he is clearly trolling anyway.
    Thanks for all you have done Anthony!
    The REST of us still support you.

  64. Sometimes I feel I’m in a time warp in the middle ages when disease was caused by “bad vapours”.
    Goodness me, New Guinea overall a warm and humid climate -what would you expect. !
    Australia’s “ice cap” in the Snowy Mountains in winter often has temperatures above freezing with rain . Whats new.
    What a load of piffle and hogwash. No understanding of the weather in NG.

  65. Vince Causey August 23, 2010 at 7:59 am
    “The pendant in me wishes to point out…”

    If it won’t pass on its own, you should see a doctor.
    What?
    Oh, pedant…
    Never mind.

  66. Actually, if Dr Thompson and his warmist colleagues were to leave the planet, it probably would lead to global cooling. They are responsible for remarkable volumes of hot air.

  67. Anthony – I’m glad to hear that the surfacestations.org paper is almost ready. To me, that paper should be getting the majority of your attention (maybe not now that you’re having a stats person review it) to help establish the sceptical side of the science.
    I expect it to get railed on hardcore through the peer review process. My experience with peer review is that scooping someone or stepping on their toes ensures a fiery review, even if it is unjustified. Hopefully you know of an open and unbiased editor who will be able to ignore the political side of the equation. I thankfully got that once when I had a reviewer harp on an entire paper without any real scientific arguments…it made the entire process much better.
    Best of luck to you,
    -Scott

  68. Thanks Anthony, for putting up MikeC’s petard from which he continues to dangle himself. To me it seems he was trying to make a show of legitimacy with the term ‘publish the data’ when the data is already available – I have seen it. What he did not made clear is that he wants to see your statistical and mathematical treatment of the data during a check by peers before you publish it, which is entirely different and none of his or my business.
    Dr Thompson’s hiding of data and processes is what I have come to expect from those who make a living from it. It is a form of priestcraft. “I have seen the hidden messages secreted in the private vaults and because of my superior knowledge of the inner meanings, I now know what will happen future. It looks really bad. What you must do/not do is….. Believe me.” Priestcraft. The age of priests is over.
    The long-standing refusal by the CRU to release data and then to respond to FIOA requests with ‘it is already on our webservers’ is illustrative of the priestly mentality. Yes the whole data was (evenetually) on the servers (at least that is what we are led to believe) but they would not say which of the sites on the servers were used to make their astonishing claims for warming. Thus no one could infer their math because no one knew which sites were selected to generate their conclusions. The pretense of compliance matched the pretense of their claimed level of global warming.
    Personally I prefer to share raw data and my calculation methods for my work because there are wide disagreements on how to process it and what to state at the end. How better then to get collegial, corrective input? Maybe I am just less afraid of contradiction.
    Perhaps there is just too much money in the GW industry. Will people now be patenting their calculation methods to ensure 20 years of steady income? If so, it really is worse than I thought.

  69. Anthony, if Thompson won’t share data, why don’t you submit a FOIA to Ohio State. It is a public university in Columbus, and there should be many people in Columbus who would be happy to help you with this. (I am in Southwest Ohio). The fact that the Ohio Supreme Court is in Columbus, means any challenge should be relatively economical to make.
    JD

  70. We worked with Lonnie here in Alaska on ice cores. We are NOT scientists, only the ones who take care of them. We wondered about some ideas he had at that time. Now we really wonder. By the way, we were out on the glaciers that surround us two days ago and it was pouring rain. Sometimes the temps are in the high 70’s while we are on the ice and somehow we are still surrounded by the things…

  71. Anthony,
    Just a nitpick – your claim that all researchers hold their data until publication is not genuine. I’m sure some do, but in general, government policy for government funded grants limits data exclusivity to a small time frame just after the experiment in question to give PIs sufficient time to start on publications.
    Of all the projects I’ve been involved with (in atmospheric science), all have required the public release of data after 6 months regardless of whether or not a paper had been published using said data. Even non-QCed data had to be released.
    Now, I do agree that MikeC is being a bit juvenile here in his continuous demand for data, and personally, I couldn’t care less if the data is public or not. If it was collected from private donations (or on your own dime), and the understanding of whomever contributed was that the data would be private until publication then thats fine. But I want to point out that if your data does support your claims, and if your paper is strong enough to stand on its own, then it shouldn’t be an issue if others have access to the data before a paper is published. Especially if the paper is in final review.

  72. Couldn’t we do a ‘Hitchikers guide’ on them and send the glaciologists off on the first spaceship and tell them we’ll follow on the next….? 🙂
    cheers David

  73. Matt says:
    August 24, 2010 at 1:13 am
    Odd, none of the atmospheric science projects I’ve worked on have required all the results to be made public at any time, and definitely not within 6 months. On the other hand, the projects I’ve worked on have all been for methodology development rather than massive data collection.
    -Scott

  74. Scott:
    Who are you funded by? All projects I’ve been involved with have been funded by US gov’t agencies. But not all agencies/governments/etc have such a guarantee to open data.
    Also, note, I’m talking about data, not results. The raw stuff. For an example, see here: http://www.arm.gov/data/docs/policy, specifically the section on IOPs. Looks like their policy is even less than 6 months now…

    Data originating from ARM funded sources during IOPs will be quality assured and released to the ARM External Data Center as soon as possible after collection, but no later than 90 days from the date of completion of the IOP or campaign. When released to the ARM External Data Center, data are considered publishable, but users are cautioned to confirm data version with the originator before publication.

  75. Sounds to me like the data is open and public. If the raw data is on surfacestations.org, then it HAS BEEN released. The analysis is under review. Making rough drafts of a paper really doesn’t make sense. I really don’t understand the problem.

  76. “”” MikeC says:
    August 23, 2010 at 3:40 pm
    How it’s usually done is irrelevant because Anthony promised to do things differently by keeping everything out in the open… and he did have everything out in the open until Menne 2010. But even Anthony’s claims about Menne and the gang at NCDC coming after him do not justify going back on his word. So I say again, Anthony, RELEASE THE DATA. “””
    That will be a scientific first. I can just see one of the peer reviewed journals (maybe Reviews of Modern Physics) publishing barefoot pages of data; with nary an abstract; let alone a paper to connect the data to.
    Maybe if I sent them my local phone directory numbers they might print them; well after peer review of course.
    Evidently Mike; it seems totally lost on you just how silly it is to publish data, without anything to connect it with. I’m sure that even after Anthony does release his paper and its data, that it is going to be ages before the journals get it into print anyhow. You might even have to come to WUWT to read it.

Comments are closed.