Lonnie Thompson’s work is prominently cited by Al Gore, was cited by the NAS panel of Surface Temperature Reconstructions and is used both in temperature reconstructions and in articles arguing that there was no MWP. One of the remarkable aspects of Thomspon’s corpus is both that the original sample data is unarchived – even for cores that are now over 20 years old – and that Thompson has published many inconsistent versions of key data sets (e.g Dunde dO18 as illustrated below).
Dunde Versions. Heavy black — Yao et al 2006 (3 year rolling average); thin black – MBH98 (annual); red – PNAS 2006 (5-year averages); blue – Clim Chg 2003 (10-year averages); purple – Yang et al 2002 (values in 50 -year intervals); green – Crowley and Lowery 2000 (original in standardized format, re-fitted here for display by regression fit to MBH98).
I’ve been trying for several years to obtain Thompson’s sample data so that these inconsistent results can be reconciled without any success. Last year, Thompson published yet another inconsistent version of his ice core data in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. PNAS has policies that explicitly require authors to archive data sets – see here. I reported earlier this year on letters to NAS asking them to require Thompson to comply with their data policies. My initial inquiry got nowhere as noted here.
I had asked PNAS to require the following:
I request that you ensure that Thompson et al comply with your data policy by forthwith archiving the large datasets used in the PNAS article for each individual ice core (Dunde, Dasuopu, Guliya, Puruoganri, Quelccaya, Sajama, Huascaran) and for the entire suite of isotopes and chemistry. In addition, because the discrepancies may result from changing algorithms for dating the ice cores, I further request that the dating procedure for each core be made available under your Unique Materials policy.
On Apr 30, 2007, not receiving any reply, I sent them a reminder:
Dear Sirs, I didn’t receive any acknowledgement for the request below. Can you advise me on the situation? Regards, Steve McIntyre
On May 10, 2007, Michael Baden-Campbell of PNAS replied. According to his reply, Thompson had claimed (falsely) that the requested data had already been archived. The falseness of this claim could have been easily ascertained had the PNAS editor actually examined the links, but the PNAS editor did no such due diligence. Here is his answer:
Thank you for your messages and your interest in PNAS. I apologize for the delay in getting back to you, but I wanted to speak with Dr. Thompson about this request personally and he was out of the office for quite some time. I was able to reach him via phone the other day, however, and can now address your query. According to Dr. Thompson, the data you seek have all been deposited in the archive you specifically mentioned as well as being mirrored on his own website. Let me know if you have any further questions.
LAter that day, I sent PNAS a detailed letter observing that Thompson’s answer was false and that the data said to have been archived had not been archived. My letter is as follows:
Dear Mr Campbell,
Unfortunately, the following response from Dr Thompson is simply false:
According to Dr. Thompson, the data you seek have all been deposited in the archive you specifically mentioned as well as being mirrored on his own website
I am perfectly aware of the highly incomplete summary information archived at WDCP and at Dr Thompson’s website. Indeed, I used this information to plot the attached figure. You can readily verify for yourself that Dr Thompson’s answer is false.
My request was as follows:
“Thompson et al 2006 describe results from ice cores drilled at Dunde, Guliya, Dasuopu, Puruogangri, Quelccaya, Huascaran and Sajama. For each core, several thousand samples were taken and analyses on a sample-by-sample basis made for isotopes, chemistry and other indicators. The information for each core constitutes a large data set within the meaning of your policies.”
In a responsive data archive, you could identify the sample number, top, bottom, isotope, chemistry and other indicators. Since several thousand samples were taken for each core, there would be several thousand lines in the archive. If there was more than one core for a site, each core would require a separate data file.
In the case of (say) the Dunde ice core, the only information archived by Thompson at WDCP is here:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/trop/dunde/dunde-d18o.txt
This only covers isotope information for part of the core and this is not an a sample-by-sample basis but has been aggregated into decadal averages. The same for other sites.
I re-iterate my request that PNAS ensure that Thompson comply with PNAS policies on these data sets.
Regards, Steve McIntyre
Not hearing back from him, on May 30, 2007, I asked again:
Amy progress with this?
On June 21, still without any reply, I sent another letter, copy to Ralph Cicerone, Persident of NAS, as follows:
Dear Sir, I have received no response to this. As I said in my earlier email, Dr Thompson’s answer on data availability to you was false. I gave you a specific method to verify that his answer was false. Please advise on me on the status of this request and whether you plan to ensure compliance with PNAS policies. Regards, Steve McIntyre
On July 26, I sent another reminder, this time copying Gerry North as well as Ralph Cicerone.
As noted below, Lonnie Thompson’s response in connection to the availability of data was false. I provided you with detailed evidence showing this. Would you please take steps to require Thompson to ocmply with PNAS policies on data availability or rescind the article in question. Regards, Steve McIntyre
On July 29, I received the following letter from Cicerone refusing to intervene:
After receiving your July 26 electronic mail, I inquired again about the Thompson et. al. paper and related data.
Dr. Thompson states, and the PNAS editors concur, that he has met the conditions of publication as stated by PNAS, for example, in PNAS Information for Authors under journal policies.
Have you ever tried to write to him directly at Ohio State University, or to inquire about whether any OSU reports might be available with even more of the meta data that you seek?
Yours sincerely, R. J. Cicerone
I replied as follows:
Dear Dr Cicerone,
I asked for the sample data in order to reconcile inconsistent versions of Guliya and other data sets. At this time, the data is unavailable to resolve these inconsistencies as outlined in my original request. I strongly disagree that the data provided by Thompson complies with PNAS policies and believe that your decision in this matter is incorrect. Do PNAS policies offer an avenue in which I can appeal your decision?
While I disagree that PNAS policies correctly interpreted permit the present obstruction and obfuscation, if this is your view, then you should immediately re-examine your policies to ensure that they are modified so that they no longer permit obstruction and obfuscation in the future. You might consider asking the panel on data archiving for advice in this respect, if you are unable to develop adequate policies yourself.
Upon re-reading my original request, I note that one aspect of the request pertained to meta-data and, while I have asked Thompson for data – which he has not provided – , I have not specifically asked him for meta-data. I will request such information from him, but, given his track record of obstruction, I do not expect any success. It would have been more appropriate had PNAS made the request as I asked.
Your performance in this matter has been shameful. The issues of climate change are important and neither you nor the National Academy of Sciences should be parties to the efforts of certain scientists to obstruct the archiving of important data.
Regards, Steve McIntyre
Climate Audit 
128 Comments
Your title is crap English. To acquiesce means to “express agreement” or agree.
But Cicerone clearly has not agreed to your demands, or assented to your charges of data obstruction.
What you probably mean is that he “agrees with” (not “in”)Thompson’s data obstruction, or is himself
obstructing your access to Thompson’s data.
If you can’t do basic English, how can you do Climate Science?
Dear bigcitylib,
I think you’ll find that you and not Steve McIntyre are unable to understand English (let alone physics).
The title clearly makes the case that Cicerone has “acquiesced” with the obstruction of Thompson and the text makes clear that Cicerone is not interested in applying the data policies that he is meant to be responsible for.
acquiesce: “to assent tacitly; submit or comply silently or without protest”. Cicerone has assented tacitly and/or submitted without protest to Thompson’s Data Obstruction.
So BCL, do you agree with Thompson’s data obstruction?
All the fun of a preposition. “Cicerone of NAS Acquiesces to Data Obstruction” would be clearer title.
I prefer ‘in’ to ‘to’. I might add his assent is explicit not tacit. He has done more than acquiesce.
===========================================================
It seems that many journals and organisations have policies about data availability, but don’t actually seem to care. Perhaps it is because after so many years of not enforcing one’s own policies starting now would cause many new publications to end up in the trashcan. No new publications of top-authors however means less income and less prestige …
It would be interesting to see if non-famous authors would get a way with non-archiving too?
What seems to be the case here is that the corruption of science within the NAS extends to the top. Ralph Cicerone is an AGW advocate and a politically astute administrator. He knows where the dollars to support climate reasearch are coming from. God forbid anybody should try to set the record straight.
Item #1 is just another example of what happens so often on this and many other blogs. It is as if there is a cadre of people who monitor and make sure they are the first to respond. The responses are often specious about the science or as here inaccurate nitpicking, either way they are designed to detract from the main issue. Sometimes this can work for a considerable time. Thanks to John A for bringing this one up very short. I first watched Thompson almost thirty years ago and had serious questions about his work then – they haven’t been answered. Cicerone’s track record anticipates his response – a closed mind is a closed mind irrespective of cause.
Another troll throwing out logic fallacies.
BCL,
Like you I read the first 4 words of the title and jumped to the text.
When I finished the text I went back to the title. (Thinking …What the hell?)
Then I learned to finish the job of reading the title.
Then I gained a deep appreciation for the title writing ability of a mining guy.
What is the rhetorical function of a title?
#2, It does not clearly make the case. It confusedly makes the case, but I do understand what
Steve was trying so clumsily to say. He is accusing Cicerone of scientific misconduct.
And it is bizarre that Tim Ball should accuse anyone of inaccurate nitpicking, but I do appreciate
the fact Mr. Ball that you’ve been denying things since before I was born.
As for the content of the post, its one of these fairly typical “McIntyre engages in email exchange
with science bureaucrat, bitches about bureaucracy, hints at conspiracy.” essays. Bit old hat.
As far as Trolls go BCL is harmless. I see no issue feeding him the occasional gerbil
Richard Gere style.
Steve accuses Cicerone of not enforces the rules of the organization of which he is the head. Which is a) not confusing to comprehend and b) true.
I’m sure Tim Ball has denied lots of things like the existence of the tooth fairy and Santa Claus, but not alas about climate change.
What Steve hints at is not conspiracy, but negligence to perform the duties expected of someone in Cicerone’s position. The conspiracy theories we can leave to the Hockey Team and to the gaggle of cronies who hang upon their every word as the Final Revealed Truth.
Does Cicerone’s stonewalling surprise anyone? Not me. From day one I’ve suspected Thompson’s conclusions about Mt. Kilimanjaro and the fact that Thompson has refused to archive his data as required by law just supports my belief that the entire AGW crowd are a bunch of phonies.
Lies, obstruction, disinformation. And some of us naively thought this sort of thing was limited to the political realm. We are no longer naive.
#8,
Unfortunately, it happens on just about every blog, usenet group, message board, etc. Too bad WordPress doesn’t have an ignore feature, where you can create a list of identities you want to skip over their comments.
Steve, is it perhaps time to go to Willis’ nuclear option and start writing to Thompson’s department head and perhaps the faculty senate at Ohio State University to see if they are as accepting of his practices as NAS is?
Uhm, have you been to a Physics Dept. at any of the major universities in the last, oh, twenty-five years? Einstein’s English wasn’t very good when he published the TOR. Oh, but I forget, they’re not doing “Climate Science”, which is obviously THE MOST CHALLENGING AND DIFFICULT SCIENTIFIC FIELD TO MASTER…. EVER!!!! It is the GOD-KING of science, sitting high above all the lesser sciences in the universe!
Re #14, Richard deSousa
Is he actually in violation of any law ?
It has seemed for a long while that this nonsense will continue until someone gets taken to court.
Bcl
I would like to see if anyone tried to post such a comment on realclimate.
Just the fact that your post isn’t deleted proves that this site as nothing to hide compared to real climate that profuciently use censorism on there blog, and or the number of scientist that don’t archive their data and method making sure that no one is able to reproduce or not their work.
Such attitude from many climate scientist is the main reason I’m a skeptic. If their science was so sound what would they be affraid of.
There’s only two real reasons (aside from insanity, jealousy, meaness and the like) to not properly archive raw data that’s supposed to be archived: You don’t have it or it’s false/wrong. If you don’t have it, that would be simple to say. If it’s false or wrong, you don’t want anyone to have it, and you have to hide that fact in something else while also keeping the data to yourself. It certainly seems to me that logically one of those two is the reason.
Anyone have any alternative possibilites that makes sense?
I like that BCL. “You don’t write good, so you can’t do science good. Nyah.”
Too bad it’s not true, and too bad they are indeed acquiescing. You must really be grasping at straws.
As for the to/in thing, here’s what Cambridge has:
acquiesce verb [I] FORMAL
to accept or agree to something, often unwillingly:
Reluctantly, he acquiesced to/in the plans
acquiescent
adjective FORMAL
She has a very acquiescent nature (= agrees to everything without complaining).
acquiescence
noun [U]
I was surprised by her acquiescence to/in the scheme.
BCL:
Why don you answer the question Steve Mcintyre
posed to you?!
“So BCL, do you agree with Thompson’s data obstruction?”
Best H.K
IT is unfortunate that the withholding of data by climate scientists is, as you say, “old hat” and that people like Cicerone acquiesce in this. Just because these people insolently continue their execrable behavior doesn’t mean that it should be tolerated. It is wearisome to record this sort of bad behavior and it shouldn’t be necessary. I believe that continued publicity of this lamentable behavior can occasionally have positive results, as was the case for IPCC review comments.
As to your old hat comment, Alexander Pope said it better:
There is no reason to accept this poor behavior and, just because it has become all too familiar, it is still objectionable.
RE: 12
Ouch…
BCL,
I for one had no trouble understanding the point the title was making.
Why is it that liberals have so much trouble understanding basic english?
Why is it that liberals always assume that it is other people who can’t speak clearly, when quite clearly, the fault lies within them?
Now that Cicerone has indicated that Thompson has “complied” with all the requirements, we now have two people committing “falsehoods”, to put it mildly.
Perhaps BCL can draft a letter in “basic” or “advanced” English to both requesting the data, and copy the letter to CA.
BCL isn’t a liberal, and I regard it as an insult to compare liberals to BCL.
Ever notice how the degree of hysteria in our various AGW proponents essays, almost always varies inversly with the substantiveness of the point they are trying to make.
With all due respect to BCL, I believe the pertinent question here is how obligated publishers are in obtaining sufficiently complete data sets from publishing authors to make sense of their results/conclusions. In terms of the nicely worded aims, goals and rules of the publishing entity, the answer would be that they are obligated, but in real world terms of publishers taking sides they would appear not to be obligated. The example gives one more reason to be skeptical of the published results of climate scientists and place a bit more uncertainty in their conclusions.
#16
Thanks for the comments. I have done hundreds of radio phone in programs on climate and climate change and many of them byass the first few callers and start with callers after a certain number; it varies. They learned this procedure when they had politicians for guests and discovered they had primed their people to phone in right away. What is going on here reflects the degree of poltiticization of climate science.
no worries folks . . BCL is a wannbe writer out of Toronto who maintains a totally inept blog. He is a hardcore Warmonger, a True Believer in the AGW Cult, an Oracle for The Goreacle, a Dr. Fruit Fly fan.
Since he wants to be a writer but can’t even define a simple English word properly, one can’t expect such a liberal/leftoid to understand climate science and accept the facts rather then Gore’s fiction.
Nothing to see here folks, just move along.
Cicerone revealed his hand when he personally intervened to review and pass on Hansen’s Indian Ocean splice, as published in PNAS and reviewed here at CA: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=835.
In the name of climate correctness, top scientists have willingly corrupted some of the leading institutions of science today: The NAS under Cicerone, NASA under Hansen, Science Magazine under Donald Kennedy, the IPCC under John Houghton, Nature (London) under their faceless editorial bureaucracy. I’m sure they all feel wonderfully righteous (no doubt as deeply as does bcl). Marcel Crok spoke of “science popes.” His metaphor was more apt than perhaps he knew.
>> If you can’t do basic English, how can you do Climate Science?
There is a logic disconnect here. Does that mean that only the english speaking world can advance science? Also, Steve M is not trying to “do climate science” in this request for data. He is trying to follow his own expertise, which is statistics, which a vital component in all this. Also, what about your english: “do basic english”?
I wonder if some of what Steve asks for in his letter is data that is not pertaining to the specific PNAS article, but to other published articles or unpublished work.
Acquiesce is poor word choice as it has a connotation of surrendering to pressure, but no pressure has been shown on Cic (other than Steve’s). In addition, Thompson is refusing to surrender (disclose) information. Sure, you can surrender to not surrendering, just like a triple negative can be a negative, but is that clear writing? Better choices would be allows, permits, facilitates, cooperates with, takes part in, supports, etc.
In any case, I would prefer a more neutral title, like “PNAS says that Thompson is complying with data release–I disagree”. And then a dispassionate, revealing analysis.
BCL is exaggerating when he says that Steve is incapable of making a contribution if he can’t write clearly. But he has the nugget of a point. Steve often has poor issue identification/hypothesis construction.
Also, BCL’s type-casting of Steve’s post is amusingly apt. We keep seeing posts, that we’re used to now, but we don’t see science papers, with clear exposition of ideas and falsifiable assertions–the GRL letter was more than 2 years ago. The more Steve allows himself this lattitude, the more it distracts him from quality work in the field.
TCO:
Yes, but where is Thompson’s data? And why are we not allowed to see it? This is the only point worth talking about.
You list six colors in the caption of the graph. I only count five (where is the heavy black line?). Unless the heavy black dots are being referred to.
#36. Fixed, I had linked to an earlier version of the graphic, which had one less inconsistent version.
#37 Steve Mc.,
Fixed faster than you can say “where is the data?” LOL
Great work!
ALL of these came from the SAME data sets?
Words fail me…
Peter: Steve raised the issue of PNAS not following PNAS policy. Discussing that is on-topic.
Regarding why Thompson has not turned over the data, one can speculate many negative (and a few positive) rationales. But you should be a bit wary of over-relying on a Steve-controlled outlet for perspective on Steve-containing pissing matches…
#39. What makes it worse is the use of this data in arguing that the MWP and LIS are a dog’s breakfast of regional signals. 6 of 20 series in Bradley, Hughes and Diaz 2003 are Thompson versions – which ones – who knows? The NAS panel relied on this study. Maybe there is regionalization of signal, but how could one possibly draw any conclusions based on Thompson – whose data is a one-man dog’s breakfast.
#40. If someone wishes to rebut my observations on the unavailability of Thompson sample data, all you have to do is: show me the data. (Not summary data spread over multiple samples – that data is already illustrated in these graphics – the sample data).
42:
I wonder if you asked for some data that was “general Thompson data that you want” rather than “stuff that was covered in the PNAS article”. Please respond “yes” or “no” to that concern. It’s not necessary to see the data itself to answer that, just to read your request and the PNAS article. Since, you’ve read one and written the other, what’s your answer?
Ball’s landed on your side. Call it in or out. But be honest, or I’ll never play tennis with you again.
Perhaps I am missing something or simply do not know.
If the paper was based on the data that was as archived and not the raw data… would Thompson have then satisfied the data policy?
To accuse Thompson of poor practice is one thing but Cicerone and the NAS? I agree with the need for honesty and accuracy but that surely lies with the source.
RE #41:
Steve,
I’ve had occasion to do analysis (although I don’t claim to be the same caliber as you or others who post here) and my initial reaction was indeed to be rendered speechless. It is jaw-dropping in its incompetence.
Keep the pressure on: this needs to get out.
By the way, our dogs get fed better than that.
#43. Thompson’s PNAS article included graphics from all the various sites (Dunde, Guliya,….) and the SI to that article included a version of Dunde data that was inconsistent with all prior versions of Dunde data (see illustration.) My request was specifically based on the PNAS article, rather than just re-cycling old laundry, and was based on careful reading of PNAS policies. I asked for the sample data from which the various averages could be calculated. This isn’t complicated or esoteric. In each hole, there are about 3000 samples with isotope and chemistry information. I presume that there is a database for each core from which the various summaries are calculated. How hard is it to archive this information?
Given that data can get lost (e.g. Crowley’s data), Thompson’s data, which is supposedly irreplaceable, should be in a permanent archive. The present situation is a scandal.
Re 34, 40 and 43
TCO,
Interesting pirouettes, but missing the point. The Thompson/PNAS case aside, fact is we have a number of papers out there which are held up as proof positive for the AGW hypothesis, but for which no archived data has been made available. In the biological sciences, chemistry, physics, etc., any paper submitted without a properly documented “methods and materials” section would be rejected out of hand, since that is precisely the part of the “recipe” necessary to verify/replicate/falsify the science at hand. Somehow, “climate scientists”, with what would appear to be the blessings of PNAS, Nature, Science etc. etc., have been getting away with exempting themselves from this basic Popperian requirement.
Steve, did you ask for any data that was not covered in the PNAS article?
#43 TCO
Perhaps reading the words in the original discussion before moving the fingers on the keyboard could be useful. Steve Mc asked (the bold emphasis is mine):
He received the reply (again my emphasis)
Am I missing something? I think the serve was out.
I think this is the crux of the argument and Steve is not showing the other side (after all, he controls the head post and writes in anger). Maybe Steve’s right and they are not sharing what they are supposed to. Or maybe PNAS is technically correct and Steve is over-reaching.
#48. All the isotopoic data requested was used in the article; the chemistry and dust data is in the same data base and would have been used for dating (which is where the issues ultimately lead) although not specifically illustrated in the article.
As I reported to PNAS, that response is mendacious. I provided links to the url’s and showed that the requested sample data was not archived. Just because Thompson said that the sample data was archived, doesn’t mean that it is. Thompson says that he archived sample data. I say that he archived selected averages. There are about 3000 samples for each core. I say that Thompson hasn’t archived data for 3000 samples from each core. Check for yourselves at WDCP.
AS to not supposedly showing the other side, I’ve copied the full replies that I’ve been given. If anyone can show where I’ve mis-spoken here and Thompson’s sample data is available, I’ll gladly correct matters. Again, I’m not asking people to take my word for it. I provided urls in my email to PNAS for them to check. Any of you can do the same. But please stop pontificating if you haven’t checked.
The two latter comments were given as quotes (not paraphrased text) in Steve’s blog. Since in the long time that I have been reading the posts at this site, I have not found him to be deceptive, I would assume that they were in fact direct quotes from Steve’s correspondence. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I still don’t understand why we cannot see the data. NJones’ data, the Mann data, Thompson’s data. I have little experience of climate science, but lots of business, and when they won’t or can’t show you the data, there is always a reason. When they produce hockey sticks, there is always a faked business case. Here there is a consistent pattern of refusal to give it. There must be a reason. Well, in the case of Jones and Mann we now know what it was, and it was not good reason. What good reason could Thompson have?
Here’s a suggestion: I think that IPCC put their review comments online only after there were quite a few requests from readers – so that it wasn’t just me asking. Maybe the same thing can work here. I would suggest that interested readers write to Ralph Cicerone [rcicerone at nas.edu]and ask him to ensure that Thompson provide a complete archive of sample data for. A suggested text:
It would also be worthwhile contacting Science, who published several of the original articles on individual ice cores. Ensure that you show that you understand that Thompson has archived some data – it’s not that he’s archived nothing, it’s that what he’s archived is incomplete and insuffucient.
Steve, yes you’ve copied there emails, but you’ve also made comments on them “falsely claimed” and “acquiesce in obstruction” which are your side of the story. We haven’t gotten that level from them.
PNAS said that Thompson said that the requested sample data was already in archives; it isn;t. So the claim is false. You can call it “mu side” of the story if you want, but if you want to support the “other side” show me where the Thompson sample data is supposedly archived. It’s black and white. There aren’t two sides to the story. Either the sample data is archived or it isn’t. If it’s archived, show me the url. And – give me a little credit – I’m good with this sort of data and I’m not going to waste powder on something that’s readily refuted. The Thompson sample data isn’t at WDCP.
Similarly, it is a matter of record that Cicerone did not require Thompson to archive his data. That’s not just “my side” of the story; that’s a matter of record. There aren’t two sides to this. I think that it’s reasonable to say from this information that Cicerone has “acquiesced in” Thompson’s data obstruction – the labeling is mine, but there aren’t two sides about what’s happened.
Either it’s there or it’s not. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results, TCO. Pointing out that Steve hasn’t provided the entire story over and over isn’t going to do anything. He has. So what is your point of continuing to suggest he hasn’t?
Steve, maybe it comes down to a disagreement or a misunderstanding of what data is sufficient to be compliant with the PNAS archiving policy. Perhaps they accept less and you expect more. Perhaps, you are right. Perhaps they are. And it’s also very possible, that Thompson is not sufficiently compliant on the “3000 sample data”, but that you are over-reaching in assuming that the dust/chemistry is covered by PNAS policy.
#59. if they wanted to argue that, then they should have archived the dO18 data and claimed an exemption on the chemistry. They didn’t do that. They said that the information was already available.
TCO:
The following is an excerpt from the PNAS publication guidelines.
You may now judge for yourself whether Steve’s position is correct.
It is true that nowhere is “raw data” specified as a requirement. However, it seems clear to me that both the spirit of science and the practical aspects of replicability demand that ALL data be made available. Any other position seems logically indefensible, and Steve’s “tone” is irrelevant.
Sam,
TCO is just performing his usual act. I suspect you weren’t around when he was active here before. But you’ll find messages from him in essentially all the early threads, often posted long after the original thread petered out, as he was reading through all the old messages, something which might now be almost as impossible here as the old tale about how all the Chinese couldn’t march past a given point. With the message count approaching 125,000 one can only search, not re-read.
BTW, I hope the site is being safely copied various places so that anything untoward happened it could be reconstructed. It’s bad enough when the site is down while it’s being “upgraded”. So, to bring this message back on topic. I hope Steve or someone is archiving this site. And not just in some desk drawer where it could join so much climate data.
Re: 59.
TCO, if you go to
PNAS’ information for authors page and search for “Journal Policies” you will find the following:
Do you agree with Cicerone that Thompson’s archived data is sufficient to replicate his results?
IT gets more than a little tiresome when people spend time criticizing me for nuances of how I’ve expressed the request for data and then don’t bother expressing an opinion on the unavailability of the data.
60: Your comment seems legalistic. And of course, you can cite their inconsistency and they can do the same back to you (the chemistry/dust). Let’s get past that.
61. Very good to reference that. I still would want to take the time to read the actual paper and Steve’s actual requests side by side to see what is covered, not covered. He has a tendancy to swing for the fences. And being here on this blog with few to call him on it and with a ready mike to sound out his view of things, makes him more likely to have that behaviour. Heck, for all I know, Steve is 100% justified. I just remain skeptical. The head post did not have sufficient detail to justify things. And I’ve learned to check up on Steve’s assertions.
62. Dardie (oops, oh what the hell): The impermanency of the blog is one of the biggest flaws here. Basically Steve just has one paper in a credible science journal. (EE is not a credible science journal, it’s not abstracted, it’s carried by 7 libraries in the world, it has a partisan editorial policy. Replies to comments are not papers either. They’re too short.)
64. Steve: I support Thompson giving you data. You know I’m a Roman judge. Well capable of finding against both of you.
I think you are getting tired for a variety of reasons. But a big part of it is spending too much time, here talking to the echo chamber and writing inflammatory (and not thorough) posts/arguments and thinking that that is good enough.
#62 Kinda reminds me a lot of Boris. Maybe somebody else, but they all kinda sound the same in tone and look the same in MO….
Actually, it has been my experience that TCO is highly critical, but supportive of Steve’s efforts. It’s sort of like TCO sees merit in all the flaws, but wants _more_ from Steve to demonstrate such merit.
Mark
Sheesh, I don’t believe some of these comments. In essence, some of them are saying, “You don’t publish enough, so you’re not entitled to the raw data”.
What crap.
The PNAS Publicaton Guidelines say:
I don’t see that that means “only those readers we approve of”.
I’ve spent part of my afternoon looking at the “Supporting Data Sets” for Thompson et al. 10.1073/pnas.0603900103.
They’re averages.
I don’t want averages when I look at data, I want to see how those averages were determined.
And I don’t think that’s an unreasonable position.
TCO
Your remarks and criticisms of Steve’s position would be fine (maybe) for pure science done for it’s own sake but when the work becomes the basis for treaties (e.g. Kyoto) and for fiscal policy, it must be audited with similar precision as we expect from auditing accountants and with the same legal force. The data which Steve asks to be archived should really be viewed in a similar vein as the financial records that companies are required to keep.
After all the potential cost to the community (world wide) is likely to be greater than we might expect from even a huge company’s dodgy books.
A final point! Since I have not noticed any arbitrary deletion of posts with contrary views this blog can hardly be considered an echo chamber unlike others that I could mention.
Jan: It’s an echo chamber based on the people who comment here. There is not a sufficient representation of contrary views. The community is self-selected (moderation and the head posts play a role here). More important than that, Steve is not submitting himself to the level of review that he would get were he submitting to real scientist reviewers or getting comments after having published. (And the sloppiness of the articles shows that.)
Mark: Thanks man.
Steve Moore: Settle down, sailor. I’m not saying that Steve should not get data despite his lousy publishing record. Bart Simpson deserves the data if he asks for it. My main kvetch was with the head post itself, the aggressiveness of the email to Cicerone, the allusion of conspiracy embedded in the word “acquiesce, etc.” I am good enough at disaggregating issues that when I chide Steve on his tone, its relatively independant of the other issue.
TCO,
As usual you are wrong about pretty much everything. You are so tedious.
TCO, the data has not been archived, and apparently NAS have no interest in ensuring that it is. That’s all this post is about.
Rather than meta-complaints about the style of Steve’s request, why don’t you write to Cicerone yourself in your preferred style and help settle this?
73.
J baxter. A most excellant idea. Hey TCO, go fetch the data. and fetch the code while you are at it.
#71 TCO
You are here aren’t you? Your posts are still here are they not?
Perhaps I’m imagining it.
I do grant though that he does try, albeit not always very successfully, to limit discussion to his primary focus but I think that is fair enough.
I also think that Steve has established his credentials as someone capable of auditing the work of others more peer reviewed papers aren’t going to change that.
After all you only need to be a competent and honest accountant to audit a banks financed you don’t have to run the bank as well in fact it would be considered a conflict of interest if you did.
Hi TCO, nice to hear from you again.
Steve has hinted that he has something in the publication pipeline, and I’m sure he’ll tell us all about it at the appropriate time. So maybe lay off the “publish or be damned” rhetoric for a little while.
I don’t share your view that publication is the be-all and end-all of science. In fact, the (career) emphasis on publication has many unintended and unfortunate consequences. I see value in CA and Anthony Watts efforts quite independent of any formal expression of the “science”. As for Watts’ project, it would seem to me that it doesn’t need a hypothesis any more than someone coring an ancient tree would need one. In the latter case the hypothesis might be “we might learn something interesting from these tree rings” and the same would be true in the former case “we might learn something interesting from this station audit”.
TCO,
You are not entirely wrong to suggest that people here will mainly be of the skeptical camp, but that doesn’t make this an “echo chamber” – for that you should go to a site that censure posts for inconvenient questions and bans those that ask them – try surrealclimate.
The issue here is that there is a standard – open access to data used in reports – and that standard is being ignored. What this highlights is not Steve’s attitude to obstructionists but the double standard of those who are in positions of power.
If anyone wanted to publish a paper in PNAS which was highly critical of AGW, you just know that there is no way they could cite a data set that no-one else had access to as “proving” anything. But when you are one of the “true believers” your work is protected from critical scrutiny. Think Hockey Stick, and now Thompson. Can you spot the theme here?
In other fields people talk about transparency as something critical to preventing bad things from happening and maintaining trust in institutions, whether they be companies or governments. In the word of AGW science, we have to rely on assumptions that people are trustworthy and honest. Trust me, I’m a doctor er scientist.
TCO — one other element. In any other arena, auditors work mostly behind the scenes, providing a level of accountability to those who work in more visible arenas.
Auditors do not need to publish in the same venues as those they audit.
What you are asking of Steve is actually inappropriate.
Very apropos analogy: Steve doesn’t write a prospectus when auditing prospectuses. Why should he write a published paper when auditing the same?
TCO, your complaints about my publishing enterprise or lack of enterprise are irrelevant to this thread. If you wish to make such harangues (which are a little unfair given that you don’t know what I’ve attempted to publish), please do so on the Unthreaded thread and do not monopolize threads for such off-topic points.
Steve Moore (#69),
I am fully in agreement with your statements.
Steve M has a legitimate argument about archiving data, especially that which is so crucial to the issues at hand. I have never found that Steve M has been deceptive in his quest for full disclosure. He becomes frustrated with the obfuscation, but I think that is understandable given the obstacles that have been put before him. As a scientist (mathematician) with over 45 publications, I can see no logical reason for these obstacles and the “scientists” that are allowing these issues to delay Steve M should be ashamed of themselves.
Now a few remarks about the need for Steve M to publish. Publication is not a solution for the problems that are endemic in many areas of science.
Here are just a few of the problems I have seen in the peer review system.
I have seen nitpicking about proper English by some reviewers when the reviewer wants to kill a manuscript, but is not able to do so through scientific arguments.
I have seen an Editor kill a manuscript because he was in a delicate position between a reviewer and the Editor’s funding that could be impacted by the reviewer.
I have seen an Editor kill a manuscript because it conflicted with his own research funding, even when the manuscript arguments could be proved through mathematical theorems.
I have seen a manuscript killed by a reviewer thru a single statement with no scientific argument for pure political reasons.
For these (and other documentable reasons) I have very little confidence in the peer review system, especially in what has become known as soft science (science by unverifiable computer models).
By providing an open forum on climateaudit, Steve M has allowed many questionable practices to come to the fore and I believe he is more of a scientist than many of the published variety. If I could, I would give him an honarary degree for his work in this area.
Jerry
Cicerone’s Stonewalling Steams Steve, While Thompson Tippy Toes Through Temperamental Temperature Trends.
I though I would add my two cents on the whole title tribulations.
Yes I have a Thesaurus.
…and are willing to use it .
Have thesaurus, will travel. […must get the treatment ready]
There needs to be a distinction drawn between being a scientist, and being a professional academic. (Unfortuntely.)
And one flew over the cuckoo’s nest. Then another, and another….
The issue is crystal clear and Steve is precisely correct. How can one scientist advance knowledge if another scientist refuses access to critical data?
The way some of you bloggers carry on about the beauty of your own words is terrible. Stick to principles, stick to measurements, forget the mirror in which you see your good selves.
I am reminded of the clairvoyant with dementia who used to forget events before they actually happened. His mind was as convoluted as some of the silly writers above.
Just do as Steve suggested and ask Cicerone why he’s not carrying out clear policy. A thick wad of messages each day does wonders for recalcitrants who acquiesce with other recalcitrants…….
Here at CA, we have few alarmists, mostly because they can’t deal with the criticism and can’t answer the questions being thrown at them.
On the other hand there are few denialists at RC because they get blocked and censored whenever they try to question the masters of the site.
Now tell me again. Which one is the echo chamber?
There are few “alarmists” or “skeptics” here, but a lot of “QUESTIONERS” and “analysts”. So lets use the proper terms.
re 84: “A thick wad of messages each day does wonders for recalcitrants who acquiesce with other recalcitrants…….”
The data thing, and the first post, are variants of the same problem: some people think they own climate science and don’t want to share it with eg maverick statisticians, inquisitive 15 yr olds or anyone outside their select band. It’s psychologically interesting but may be ultimately tragic. People who have been conned can get very shirty and, although I don’t know if AGW is real or a real problem (I haven’t seen the data (!)), I would be extremely wary of publically nailing my colours to the mast of the good ship Global Warming as Dr Cicerone seems to have done. Does he never lie awake at night and wonder ‘what if I’ve chosen the wrong side? Will they string me up when the fan engages the stuff?’ He has a no lose option: publish the data. If AGW is good science then the data will show it: win for the Dr. If the data disproves AGW then the Dr gets the credit for helping to expose the junk science: win for the Dr. The only way he can lose is by hiding the data.
I suppose this data hide-and-seek is why I can’t find the C isotope data from 1935 to 1950. I predict a large delta C13 anomaly beginning in late ’39 and ending in the late 40s.
JF
Steve, I won’t talk about your failure to publish on this thread any more. Had already said that, but here is a positive statement. I do not promise to only discuss it in unthreaded however. It is relevant in other threads where you substitute half-baked blog posting for formed science papers. On those threads, I will mention it. I will also make occasional rejoinders to the cheering section, when they make comments about how much you’ve done or express amazement that more response/change has not been generated from working scientists. (In those cases, my comments will be on topic.)
I myself don’t see how asking if the temperature anomaly at point x is both accurate and indicative of the area as a whole, or if it’s meaningful, or suggesting there are various alternative explanations, or if the data supports the conclusions is “denying” anything. Or that thinking the reported temperature trend anomaly might be meaningful, might be correlated to increased CO2, might be causing that warming, and so we should reduce our CO2 output is being “alarmist” about it.
Unless you totally discount the opinion of the other person you’re talking to. It’s just not at all clear sometimes what the issue is in the discussion.
hmm, i have some sympathy with TCO’s point that the language used was overly strong. Once you start saying that something Thompson has said is “false”, you are into a rather awkward world just in terms of the social relationships involved. The same point could have been made, without adding the rather pointed insult; and it would have been much easier for PNAS to deal with.
PNAS have now entered a strange world where “data” are what is published, and everything prior to that is “meta-data”. That is obviously uncomfortable, but perhaps less embarrassing than calling out one of their authors as issuing falsehoods. It is difficult enough to get journals to police data policies; if you deliberately alienate the journals, they just won’t co-operate.
Having said that, it is obviously a perverse situation, and one where the facts are rather clear. The trouble is that publishing on a blog doesn’t necessarily provide further ammunition. There are journals devoted to research ethics, or geo journals; perhaps it would be a suggestion to write up your experience of attempting to audit particular papers in an area, and the issues arising ? A peer-reviewed paper noting such problems could well become quite a highly cited article.
per
Why tiptoe away from the word “false” when what Thompson said was indeed false? Why carefuly skirt the conversation around the elephant in the middle of the room in order to be polite to the elephant’s owner? If Thompson or Cicerone have a problem with somebody calling the statement “false”, then perhaps an email explaining why they don’t belie it is false would be appropriate. Otherwise, by accepting the statement as is and not refuting it, they are admitting it to be correct.
per says “Once you start saying that something Thompson has said is “false”, you are into a rather awkward world just in terms of the social relationships involved.”
When I first read Steve’s email using the word “false” I thought that he was being very diplomatic. Many people would have called Thompson a liar.
Ratcheting up the rhetoric and making PNAS feel uncomfortable is preferrable to them feeling comfortable obstructing and obfuscating climate science.
Re #90:
Perhaps the reason the verifiability of papers purportedly to be climate science have become so difficult is precisely because nobody has been willing to speak up and call a spade a spade. A lie is a lie. It is not a case of “I misspoke”. Maybe the dog ate Thompson’s homework.
As for TCO, instead of characterizing this site as an echo chamber, perhaps he can point to a case where any of his posts have been censored. If he has any integrity at all, he might try to post a message on RC or CS which questions one of their pet AGW positions…the Lockwood paper, or the hockey stick for example…and see how far he gets, and then comes back here to share his results with us.
#93 Why would he do that, seemingly he’s here from there to bother Steve about Steve’s lack of papers and his opinions on Steve’s temper and/or social skills.
Seriously, in actuality, I sometimes myself think Steve is a little strongly worded. However, it is possible they could be far more strongly worded. It’s none of my business. As much as they stone-wall (or even ignore forever polite requests) I’m sure it’s very frustrating and I totally understand why, when all he wants to do is run the data and see if it’s valid and the conclusions are supported by it.
Don’t you think if someone had nothing to hide they’d share it? I do.
And TCO, if you honestly think Steve’s not having done any papers has some sort of bearing on that, it doesn’t make any sense. Why would they care about giving data (THAT THEY SHOULD BE GIVING TO EVERYONE) to somebody that doesn’t do anything with it?
TCO (#88),
And exactly what are your academic credentials so that you are one to judge others in the scientific arena? Please cite some of your publications so they can be perused and so that you are not hiding behind initials. Thank you.
Jerry
Re. 88:
TCO, please reconsider. Your tone is patronising and makes this forum a less pleasant place to visit. I suspect most people come here to follow or participate in an interesting debate. The quality of an argument is not improved merely by having it published in a journal. In every open forum there will be a certain amount of poor argument and off-topic discussion. It would be much appreciated if you assumed the general readership has the wit to recognise such cases. It is tedious in the extreme when people feed these distractions by commenting, as you do at great length, on these posts rather than contributing in any meaningful way. Put another way, your recent flurry of activity has noticably raised the noise to signal ratio here.
If I might venture some advice: please don’t feed the trolls. There are the usual pains who invariably comment only on the perceived motivations of others or judge the value of an argument based on who said what or where they had it published. Responding to such posts is just a waste of effort and lowers the tone.
TCO’s -and those related to TCO- guidelines:
– They demand that others listen to them, but they don’t listen to others.
– They demand that others have published “peer reviews” to grant them the right to expose their knowledge, but they do not criticize themselves to opine without having published a single peer review.
– They demand that others present algorithms on which they expose, but they never can present a simple arithmetical proof.
– They accuse the others of vetoing, but all their commentaries are published without veto and in addition they do not publish the opposite ideas in their forums (they exert veto to which could be “inconvenient”).
– They go into every forum on where the validity of certain arguments published all along and the wide thing of the world is discussed to contradict every assertion (even the physics laws), but they don’t allow that others touch their sacrosanct “forums”.
The writing on the previous paragraphs is not to offend those people. I don’t have the authority to do it because I am not the owner of this site; simply, I want to make them understand that we must respect the objectives and course of action of this site, which I think it was opened so that who wants to express his/her opinion can do it openly, although on a meticulous scientific support.
Steve started this thread with a subordinate issue and most of the comments have descended from there toward trivia. The primary issue is the replicability of research. If work cannot be replicated it is not science on which new research or policy should be based. If it has not yet been replicated by independent, preferably skeptical independent, researchers the validity of the work remains in question.
Has the important work of climate science been replicated by independent skeptical researchers? If it has not been replicated doing so should be the highest priority for everyone in the field, regardless of political opinion. If it has been it would be most helpful if someone would post reference to the documentation.
In the meantime, while helpful, it should not be necessary that the independent skeptical researcher be pleasant or widely published.
#99
allanj, you are correct. The thread here is about open access to scientific data. However, the discussion, such as it is, has been centering around something that illuminates the entire subject, rather than being trivia. From comments, it is rather well proven that there are indeed people that do not believe the data should be available to just anyone, and will use similar tactics as seen in the discussion here (as well as various other tactics) in order to hamper access to that data, even to the point where it’s never available.
Why don’t they give a reason? It could be as simple as they think the person asking is too far beneath them to bother giving an answer. Or the true answer is not givable, such as “I want to keep my data because I’m scared others will learn our methods, copy them, do our work but better and we’ll get fired.” More likely, either the data does not exist as raw data, or does not support the conclusions. It is possible it’s made up.
But all we can do is guess at the reasons and motivations — and this is one of the things that upsets some people.
[snip]
One of the exigencies for all scientific works is replicability. Some times someone could argue that he cannot show his procedures (codes) because most of his work lies inaccessible, so the phenomena only can be “observed” and not replicated; when saying the last, the person feels or put him on a safe haven, where his appreciations cannot be properly tested, falsified, or verified. The last is known in Philosophy like “irrefutable hypothesis”. Obligatorily, the searcher has to show the measures by which he obtained the final conclusions. If the researcher is unable to show his procedures, then he becomes suspicious of having falsified the final results or conclusions. If any investigator denies showing his measures and codes, then he is not making a valid scientific work because nobody could verify further his observations and the conclusions will be unverifiable. Those reports are dismissed immediately by the scientific community because there is not a systematic methodology, even mathematically, to corroborate if it is true or false. No scientist must hide his procedures, no matter the further intentions of those that ask for the procedures. The scientific knowledge is founded in the replicability of observations and experimentations. A scientific finding that cannot be replicated is immediately discredited, even more when the investigator refuses to show OPENLY his methodology to other researchers working on that field.
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/85/i31/8531news4.html
This shouldn’t be limited to the NIH. All publicly funded research should require public access to both the papers and all related raw data. This transfer of IP is normal for private companies providing systems to the government, so certainly, it should also apply to government funded research.
Nasif,
great point, well put. You are of course correct that even if the research is not publicly funded, it should be given no credence, if the raw data is not provided for verification.
Imagine if Sutton had not disclosed his methodology, techniques, algorithms, data, codes, etc., to evaluate the diurnal motions of plankton populations… How other scientists could track those diurnal movements of plankton in other water deposits? To hide the codes or methodology from the public access merely because they don’t want that other scientists “copy” his methods and occupy his jobs is distorted science. How could other microbiologists study bacteria if Gavià±o had not published his methodology to culture bacteria. Perhaps they try that nobody except them can have access to the scientific knowledge or to the techniques and methods used on sciences? Is it a cream of the crop knowledge?
re: #15
Unfortunately, global warming research exists almost entirely within the political realm right now. Kudos to Mr. McIntyre and others for their efforts at bringing it back within the realm of science. Only after that has been accomplished will there be a chance of forming appropriate public policy on the issue.
#55
I just recieved a reply for your suggested mail.
Such a charade.
It’s sad when the only way you can break through the fog is to sue somebody. Or find their boss.
Who does the NAS president work for, time to go up the chain.
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/Other/Act_to_incorporate.asp
Looks like Congress. Time to start writing, emailing and calling Senators, Representatives and committee chairs.
106: Have you researched this sufficiently to say for sure that it is a charade? Don’t just take Steve on faith and send in letters. Have you read the paper, the SI, the info repository? HAve you experience with reading the literature? Do you really have enough of a perspective so that you can dispassionately and shrewdly weigh in on the difference of opinion on what is in/out of scope.
P.s. Steve, may EVEN be right here. But I bet you have not really thought this through well. Are just jumping on a bandwagon. And are a lightweight.
P.s.s Steve, may EVEN be right here. But I’ve seen him overreach before.
107: This is shrill silliness.
Yeren, have you read the PNAS article all the way through, thoughtfully. Have you read Steve’s data request? Have you done things like ask/think about the dust/chemistry which is not explicitly in the article?
P.s. Fallacy #1. (even were I a lightweight, it would not make you less of one.)
P.s.s. kudos for your knowledge of a foreign language (this is non-sarcastic.)
#110
I guess the link-button didn’t work like it’s supposed too.
…For instance, not much here, a few files with averages.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/ …
.. oh, and I forgot to thank you TCO for one of the strangest welcomes I ever had. (Since that was my first post here.)
re # 84
As a senior scientist from far-away Australia, I have followed this thread most carefully, rejecting the abundant needless commentary that has little to do with scientific excellence.
As a result of the record of credibility earned by Steve McIntyre and his open mind to commentary of all types, I did what was suggested.
Today I posted a formal letter to Ralph Cicerone requesting that the rules be followed and the sought information be released.
Adverse practices conducted in the USA often impact on the policies and dogmas of other countries. We in those other countries can see underperformance just as easily as those from the country that first put Man on the moon.
Why does it take Canadians like Steve and Australians like Warwick Hughes to keep the USA scientifically honest? Where are the home-grown Americans who, knowing what should be done, do nothing?
I think that too many American scientists lack balls or the female equivalent. Too many are under the thumb, they refuse to see a problem that blind Freddie can see, they are worried about losing Green Cards, Social Security, research grants, promotions, or getting hit by Oprah or a limp wrist. Too many of you USA guys/girls have a collective, generic problem of timidity that is prostituting the fine established principles of Science.
Take a lesson from one of your own:
“In our time all it takes for evil to flourish is for a few good men to be a little wrong and have a great deal of power, and for the vast majority of their fellow citizens to remain indifferent.”
“Some people think that to do something truly evil you have to be some kind of Bengal tiger. In fact, it is enough to be a tame tabby, a nicely packaged citizen, safe, polite, obedient, and sterile. It’s enough to be a nice guy, as opposed to a good man.”
— The late clergyman and peace activist William Sloane Coffin, in Yale Alumni Magazine (1967) and Credo (2004), respectively.
Just a question. Where does the money for NAS come from?
I am an Ozzie so do not the answer to this. If they get
federal money, the best way forward is to threaten the
money supply. I do not know the specifics of how to do
this, but find the money supply for PNAS and see if you
can attack there.
Just for the sake of interest I enclose the following statement
from the American Physical Society code of ethics. This is a
very good statement.
—————————————————————
Research Results
The results of research should be recorded and maintained in a form that allows analysis and review. Research data should be immediately available to scientific collaborators. Following publication, the data should be retained for a reasonable period in order to be available promptly and completely to responsible scientists. Exceptions may be appropriate in certain circumstances in order to preserve privacy, to assure patent protection, or for similar reasons.
Fabrication of data or selective reporting of data with the intent to mislead or deceive is an egregious departure from the expected norms of scientific conduct, as is the theft of data or research results from others.
——————————————————————-
Is it worthwhile to write to some high-level members of NAS
who are members of APS?
So why aren’t they publishing? Oh…I bet cause they are scared of retribution! But wait, Steve is self-financed and he does not publish. Instead makes these crappy posts on his site and fosters a little community of hoi polloi nitwits.
Bwak, bwak, bwak, chickens. Lay it on the line. Christy and Landsea do. Zorita does. But then those guys are ballsy scientists, not twidgety little sophists.
TCO: “Steve, yes you’ve copied there they’re emails, but you’ve also made comments on them “falsely claimed” and “acquiesce in obstruction” which are your side of the story. We haven’t gotten that level from them.” Poor grammar there TCO… spelling is not good either.
All:
This was supposed to be a thread about PNAS and their seeming acquiescence to data obfuscation. Instead, it has become a defence of Dr. McIntyre’s right and obligation to request PNAS to meet its own policies and ensure that authors diligently archive data, regardless of who the author is.
The alarmist tactic of bait and switch worked well. Led by BCL who deflected the attention from PNAS to Steve, followed by TCO who questioned not only Steve’s actions but his motives and credibility as a researcher, the two derailed the conversation.
Rather than simply ignoring BCL and TCO, which IMHO would have been more productive, most participants leapt to Steve’s defence; honourable, but unnecessary since the thread was not about any failing on Steve’s part.
I’ve noticed this tactic on many other blogs, deflect, bait, switch, the elements required to derail dialogue. I think it’s in the manual “How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic.”
My comment was in direct reply to a comment from Steve. He claimed to have represented the viewpoint of the PNAS by shoiwng their emails. I responded that it was not sufficient or fair, given that he did more than just piblish heis eamls but also made provacative, accusatory comments.
My comments are ON TOPIC and in RESPONSE to Steve.
If you just want an echo chamber to agree with each other (usually with low levels of sophistication in the issue analysis), feel free. But drop the crap about how this site is so great for discussion and examining issues and allowing contrary views.
#108 #110 You actually make a good point. It’s possible the data is there and that most have not checked. It doesn’t matter though. You know why? Steve has earned our trust. And also, I’ve gone and looked before at other data, and I know they have nothing much there. They have earned our distrust.
So what did you find when you checked?
#109 #115 Sigh.
#113 The money comes from government funding (but not appropriations directly to them). They are private non-profits created by Congress in the mid-1800s.
What is the relationship of the National Academies to the government?
The Academy and its associated organizations are private, not governmental, organizations and do not receive direct federal appropriations for their work. Studies undertaken for the government by the National Academies usually are funded out of appropriations made available to federal agencies.
What is the Research Council’s major source of funding?
The federal government funds about 85 percent of the institution’s work.
Is there an annual congressional appropriation for the National Academies?
No. Support from the federal government comes in the form of individual contracts and grants.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/about/faq1.html
#116 Ah, but you see, TCO illustrated well their obfuscatory tactics by misdirection and lack of positive input to converstations. It’s very illuminating to those new here or those that don’t understand their tactics. And to see them put into action semi real-time. That’s why (at least on this thread about obstruction) TCO was on topic regardless of what was said. Also, somes TCO does bring up some good points or conversation topics sometimes (when not being incredibly disruptive, way off topic or extremely illogical).
re: #117 TCO,
Just went back and reread your responses to Steve M in order. It’s quite clear what you do. You make a general remark, while sticking a little knife in Steve. He replies. You make a variation of your general remark and then stick in another knife. This continues as long as Steve will allow it. You never accept anything Steve says and always denegrate him in one way or another (while claiming to like him and wanting to help him). I was uncertain what you were about before this little excapade. Now I’ve arrived at the conclusion you’re just a more sophisticated troll than average. Bye.
#119 Ah, yes, as I said in #118 (which I was writing, and so didn’t even see #117) it’s a very good learning experience, isn’t it? It’s always nice to have people teaching us by example.
I had my own point made for me while I was making it myself.
But I’m sure that’s nothing more than shrill silliness.
Dave:
Discuss my method of commenting in Unthreaded. The flutter-clacking about “how TCO talks” is more of a distraction than my knives themselves.
Oh…and you only notice the distraction because of the enraging nature of it (even ifIF it is off topic.) and you yourself, are one of the worst offenders at off topic stuff. You speculate in content threads on my lutiplicty, etc.
“multiplicity” (darn comment box)
TCO and BCL your arrogant posts only damage you and boost the respect that I have for Steve McIntyre.
You may think your our superiors, we should all shut up and do as we’re told; but all that does is make me trust Steve and the other contributors more.
So I ask you TCO, what give you the right to class us as hoi polloi’ and twidgety little sophists’. What are your credentials, what are the papers you’ve published and how can you call any scientist ballsy’ it’s hardly a life threatening occupation.
Paul, there are many answers I could give you. I could discuss how being honest and selfless is a form of bravery. I could cite your post as the rightie inverse of leftist faith-based world view. I could explain how my sins do not validate Steve’s sins. I could use the numbered fallacy list. But I will do none of that. I will just say…Steve: please erase 123 and then erase my response.
As debate over personalities of commenters are off topic to the Cic data request head post.b
I ignore any posts by BCL or TCO (whether this person is one moron or a group of morons)
If people are fed up with these two, ignore them completely. Just skim by their posts.
Re: #112,
FWIW, on August 1st, I wrote Cicerone a request as follows:
Dear Dr. Cicerone,
It has come to my attention that Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University has failed to provide a complete archive of ice core sample data from Dunde, Dasuopu, Puruogangri, Guliya, Sajama, Huascaran and Quelccaya from which the purported 5-year averages (located at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/data/0603900103/DC1/2) or the inconsistent 10-year averages (located for Dunde at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/trop/dunde/dunde-d18o.txt) can be calculated or to provide an archive of sample chemistry data from which his dating of these cores can be confirmed. These data averages were used in the PNAS article “Abrupt tropical climate change: Past and present”.
It is my understanding that you have been requested to require Dr Thompson to provide an adequate archive and elected not to do so. I think this is unfortunate given your stature as president of the National Academy of Sciences.
Climate change is an important issue; in order to ensure the best possible understanding, all relevant data should be archived, allowing outiside scrutiny.
I request that you re-consider your decision and ask Dr. Thompson to provide a complete archive of all relevant isotope and chemical information on a sample-by-sample basis for all ice cores discussed in the PNAS article as quickly as possible.
Regards,
Jim O’Toole
Bristol, Connecticut
On August 2nd, I received the following reply from Ken Fulton, publisher of PNAS:
I write in response to your message to NAS president Ralph J. Cicerone about data collected by Lonnie Thompson. A paper by Thompson et. al. was published in PNAS, whose editors informed Dr. Cicerone that they concur in Dr. Thompson’s statement that he has met the conditions of publication required by the policies governing materials and data availability of the journal As noted in PNAS “Information for Authors,” these policies stipulate that data be provided in a public repository and/or as supplemental information to a PNAS paper online. Dr. Thompson and his coauthors fulfilled both of those requirements.
Practices with respect to data deposition vary from discipline to discipline, and the Academies Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy is the midst of the major study on Assuring the Integrity of Research Data in a Digital Age, which will consider these and other important issues.
Best regards,
Kenneth R. Fulton
Executive Director, NAS
Publisher, PNAS
JIm O’Toole #126 It was my understanding that Lonnie Thompson did not meet the stated requirements. COuld you ask them their methodology for determining how Dr. Thompson met their requirements in that it appears that there is disagreemtnt and that their explanation of how Dr. Thompson met the requirements would be appreciated?
#126, 127. O’Toole and Pittman.
I hope the matter is pursued as Pittman suggests. But in addition to asking what procedures, etc. they used I would ask them explicitly where the data is today and/or what PNAS paper meets the requirement.
Asking for the methodology they used will just let them refer you to a boilerplate handbook of standards and guidelines. It will not lead to the data.