In earlier posts, we observed that Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth claimed that “Dr Thompson’s thermometer” confirmed Michael Mann’s hockey stick, but, when analysed, what Gore described as “Dr Thompson’s thermometer” merely proved to be Michael Mann’s hockey stick mis-identified. No wonder it resembled Mann’s hockey stick – or, to use the phrase more common in climate science, no wonder there was a “remarkable” resemblance.
Recently we’ve seen Pierrehumbert’s hysterics over at RC about Courtillot’s misidentification of a solar series. I’m sure that all of you recall similar hysterics from Pierrehumbert calling Al Gore out on this error. You don’t?
Hu McCulloch of Ohio State University now writes about a recent encounter with Lonnie Thompson, the serial ice core non-archiver:
On January 11, Lonnie Thompson gave a talk on Climate change at Ohio State. After his talk, I asked him if the graph identified by Al Gore as “Dr. Thompson’s Thermometer” in his book and film was really based on his ice core research.
Thompson admitted that an error had been made, and even had a slide ready that showed the data of the Mann Hockey Stick plus Jones instrumental data that Gore’s figure was based on, alongside an average of dO18 z-scores from 6 of his Andean and Himalayan ice cores, similar to the 7-series graph that appeared in his 2006 PNAS article. He stated that he recognized the error right away, and even sent Gore (and Mann, as I recall) an e-mail pointing out the mistake.
When I pressed him if it wouldn’t be appropriate to make a more public announcement, given the high-profile nature of the error, Ellen Mosley-Thompson, his wife and co-author, stood up and offered that it was Gore’s error, not theirs, so that they had no responsibility for it, and that in any event there was no forum in which to make a correction.
I suggested that since OSU’s Byrd Polar Research Center has a website with a News page, it would be trivial and virtually costless to post a press release clarifying the matter for the millions of readers and viewers of Gore’s book and film who are not on Thompson’s e-mail list.
“Gore’s error”. “No responsibility.” “No forum”.
Here’s a picture from the OSU website. See if you can find Waldo. Ohio State University press releases have also stated that Thompson was an adviser to Gore for the documentary. Thompson’s online CV says that he was on the “Science Advisory Board” for Inconvenient Truth prior to its release in April 2006. So he was on the Board but he didn’t bear any responsibility. Sure, Lonnie. Sure, Ellen.
Gore used the term “my friend Lonnie Thompson” and Thompson doesn’t know how to correct the error. Sure, Lonnie.
“No responsibility.” “No forum”. No shame.
Climate Audit 
125 Comments
Don’t go confusing the truth with facts ~ Archie Bunker
I can’t wait to see what is OT for this post. You cover a lot of ground here Steve. 😉
I guess there is no point in correcting other people’s errors if your funding depends on acceptance of the error. An inconvenient truth.
From Al Gore, “Earth in the Balance’ 1992, Earthscan Publications, pp 180-181.
Jeez, you guys, it was all spelled out for you step by step in 1992. Why sound so surprised when it happens? Forgotten Aldous Huxley’s observation that “history’s most important lesson . . . is that man has not learned much at all from history”?
It’s not enough to read only material that agrees with you. Was it not Sun Tsu who wrote something like “If you are to kill a man, first get to know him as your brother”?
Fools their faith in carbon place
To warm this little bit of space.
But watch the sun warm earth apace
Ad freeze their thesis on their face.
======================
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/10/truths/index1.html
“…Lonnie Thompson, a professor at Ohio University, whose work on retreating glaciers from the Andes to Kilimanjaro and Tibet is featured in the film, was happy with the result. “It’s so hard given the breadth of this topic to be factually correct, and make sure you don’t lose your audience,” he says. “As scientists, we publish our papers in Science and Nature, but very few people read those. Here’s another way to get this message out. To me, it’s an excellent overview for an introductory class at a university. What are the issues and what are the possible consequences of not doing anything about those changes? To me, it has tremendous value. It will reach people that scientists will never reach…”
That might’ve been a good “forum” to say something.
Being “scientific advisors” for AIT, it’s interesting that they did not get to see the finished product before the public, so that this error could be corrected.
Here’s how OSU saw the Thompson’s in AIT:
http://www.sbs.ohio-state.edu/sbs/news/?id=1
“…Ellen and Lonnie Thompson are the “heroes” of Mark Bowen’s 2005 book on climate change, Thin Ice: Unlocking the Secrets of Climate in the World’s Highest Mountains, and An Inconvenient Truth, the feature-length documentary of Al Gore’s grass-roots campaign on global warming…”
#6. I notice that Ohio State University press releases http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/ltmdlsci.htm http://regents.ohio.gov/news/excellence/LonnieThompson.pdf state that:
Here’s a question for Ohio State University: if the Thompsons lacked authority to comment on correct errors in connection with their work, in what sense did they act as “advisers” to Inconvenient Truth? If they now say that they have “no forum” and “no responsibility” for correcting the error, then doesn’t Ohio State University have a responsibility to correct its press releases describing their association with the documentary?
RE #6,7, the film gave me the impression that Gore’s friend Thompson had directly advised him on the film and had provided Gore with his 2003 article, from which Gore’s graphics staff overzealously selected the wrong graph.
But if Thompson wasn’t directly and officially involved as scientific advisor, who if anyone was? James Hansen? The Wikipedia article on AIT doesn’t say. Do the film credits list or thank anyone?
Speaking of Wikipedia, how about someone (not me) writes an article on “Dr. Thompson’s Thermometer”, clarifying its significance, and linking it on the adulatory wiki AIT article?
#6 (former #7), good find, Steve! But do the credits specifically mention them and/or anyone else?
Greg Hoke’s unofficial transcript, at http://www.hokeg.dyndns.org/AITruth.htm, does not give the credits. Curiously, although it contains many of Gore’s images and includes Gore’s explanation of DTT, DTT itself is not included.
(In the current #7, I was replying to an earlier version of #6, in which Steve asked the question he now answers.)
re 6 7 8.
You can check the full credits on line. Imdb. The only thompson mentioned is amber
thompson. Carl sagen gets a thanks.
At some point on RC gavin said he advised gore, not sure if it was for the movie.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/fullcredits
I can see you having a problem with Gore, but Thompson? I don’t get it.
Since your name appeared in the credits for Swindle, do you have responsibility to correct their graphs? 🙂
Steve: Where does my name occur in the credits for Swindle? I can’t imagine why. I was never interviewed by them in the preparation of the documentary nor did I have any input to the film. And to answer your question, I wrote to them immediately after the film came out, specifically urging some immediate corrections. Unlike Gore, they actually did make some changes.
Re #9, where online? The credits are not on the “official website” at http://www.climatecrisis.net/.
List of credtis for AIT—
http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/819652?view=credit&page=1
As an Ohio State alumnus (Chemical Engineering), I am disturbed that an OSU professor is allowing a misrepresentation of his work to remain on public display without making any attempt to corect the error.
It was Gore’s error. The producers of AIT share some of the blame for allowing this error to be in the final cut of the movie. It is nevertheless, an incorrect statement about the Thompsons’ work, and one of them could easily take the time to place a note somewhere which would state that this is an error in AIT.
Yes, BH, the claim of no responsibility is outrageously irresponsible.
======================================
Bors,
What would Thompson’s reaction had been if Durkin had used his material in “Swindle”? Ya think he might have found a forum? Or would he sit there like a bump on a log>
Re #10, Tks.
Re Boris, #11, Thompson is basking in the reflected glory of Gore’s Nobel Prize for his ice core research, as exemplified in DTT, which allegedly demonstrates that
If this important graph is not based on Dr. Thompson’s research, I think he has a scientific and moral, if not legal, obligation, to set the record straight. (Perhaps he could calibrate his actual Z-mometer to temperature at the same time.)
Likewise, if Steve and/or Ross are in the credits for the UK Channel 4 Swindle movie, and their work is substantially misrepresented there, it would be appropriate for them to issue a clarification, say as a post on CA. Particularly if it wins a Nobel Prize or even an Academy Award!
#17. I’m going to follow up on the credits issue with Swindle. Where does my name occur in the credits for Swindle? I was never interviewed by them in the preparation of the documentary nor did I have any input to the film. To my knowledge, they made no reference to work by Ross and myself on the HS (or anything else for that matter.)
After the release of the documentary, I wrote to them pointing out some errors that were within my area of knowledge and urging immediate correction. They were responsive to my requests and, unlike Gore, they actually did make some changes.
Ohio State University said that the Thompsons were “advisers” to Inconvenient Truth. Climate Audit has never said that I was an adviser to Swindle and, indeed, I’m sure that I’ve said previously that I had nothing to do with its preparation (although I’ve corresponded with them after the fact.)
Not only is Lonnie Thompson a “serial ice core non-archiver”, but he’s allowing (condoning?) other students to “non-archive” also.
One student listed in Ohio State’s web site did his Master’s thesis based on the Bona-Churchill data, and he has removed all links to this thesis (and it’s associated data set).
David Durmann
http://davidurmann.com/masters.htm
Currently a Ph.D student at Ohio State University, Byrd Polar Research Center
M.S., Geological Sciences, Ohio State University, 2004
B.S., Geology, Utah State University, 1997
Masters Thesis: Ohio State University, 2004 “ENSO and PDO variability in ice core and lake level records over the past century.”
Table of Contents
Introduction
Chapter 1: Background information: ENSO, PDO, Aleutian Low / PNA
Chapter 2: Analysis of Bona-Churchill Ice Core record
Chapter 3: Records from the Quelccaya Ice Cap and Lake Titicaca
Chapter 4: The Crater Lake Record
Chapter 5 : Reconstructing Interannual Climate Variability: Comparisons of records from Bona – Churchill, Crater Lake, Quelccaya and Lake Titicaca
Conclusions
Data Set Locations
Bibliography
Glossary
Appendix A: Defining ENSO years
Appendix B: Alaskan weather station summaries
Appendix C: Analysis of Great Salt Lake elevation and climate history
RE 11.
Boris, I love you man. Can you link me the credits for swindle and the
applicable union rules for publishing credits.
Now, understand that in the US, credits are controlled by union contracts.
Basically, depending on your status your contribution, and your union contract you
are entitled to a credit of a certain font size.
Moose get the blade, beaver get the shaft.
Steffan can translate:
Lonnie, you got some ‘splaining to do! 😉
More seriously, it strikes me as odd, but unsurprising, that so few people have dared to correct the mistakes in AIT. Its a huge embarassment. If I was a warmer, I’d suspect Al Gore of being a plant, trying to set up straw men for the skeptics.
Would it be Mr Thompson CV ? There is a mention of AIT (search for Truth in the web page)
Click to access thompson_cv.pdf
#22. Good spottng. Thompson’s CV says:
The Science Advisory Board for AIT – who knew? I wonder who else was on the Science Advisory Board? Thompson was on the Board, but he had “no responsibility”.
I’ve edited the post to include this information.
A slight, and possibly insignificant, correction; ‘she said that they had no responsibility’.
======================================
Brooks Hurd writes in #14,
Agreed, but you’re just preaching to the choir here. How about a concerned alumnus e-mail to the President and/or Provost?
Dr. E. Gordon Gee, President, Ohio State University, gee.2ATosuDOTedu
Dr. Joseph A. Alutto, Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, Ohio State University, alutto.1ATosuDOTedu
(Replace AT with @ and DOT with . to make real addresses.)
Whatif Lonnie’s terms were: “Np Cure, No Pay”?
Mrs Thompson says:
Perhaps the good offices of Climate Audit could be made available, or even Real Climate Silence?
#25. Brooks, if you do this, it’s not just that Thompson is an OSU professor, but that Thompson said that he was a member of Gore’s Science Advisory Board (And OSU has itself described Gore as an AIT “adviser”.)
I would have thought that members of the Science Advisory Board would have seen the film prior to its release. If they didn’t, what were their duties and responsibilities?
Steve writes in #28,
I highly doubt that this was as formal as the IPCC Review Board. I imagine that they just met with Gore, made some suggestions about what points he might make, and offered him some nice visuals, and that his staff took it from there. It’s understood that Thompson is a specialist on ice cores, so that he bears no responsibility, implicit or otherwise, for any errors concerning other matters. But he does bear implicit responsibility for the account of his own research, including in particular this egregious graphic. Presumably it was an innocent mistake by someone in the production department who used the wrong panel from his article, but it’s on him to correct the record, IMHO, even if it’s only after the fact.
#29. Hu – “as formal as the IPCC Review Board”. You jest. To my knowledge, there is no “IPCC Review Board”. There are Review Editors for the chapters, but no one knows what they did, if anything.
We can speculate as to what Gore asked his Scientific Advisory Board to do, if anything. But let’s try to find out some details first – who? when? what? Who was on it? When did they become members? What were they asked to do?
If a member of Gore’s Science Advisory Board noticed an error and brought it to Gore’s attention (and how the error originated doesn’t matter), Gore is obliged to have paid attention? How can Gore ignore an explicit error advisory from a member of his Science Advisory Board?
In fact, Thompson’s wilful blindness becomes even worse now that we know that he was a member of Gore’s Science Advisory Board. Thompson says that he became aware of an error, notified Gore and Gore did nothing. So Thompson just kept silent. If Thompson threatened to resign or took other steps to show he was serious about getting the error fixed, I’m sure that Gore would have fixed the error. If, despite serious efforts, Gore still took no steps to fix the error, then surely Thompson had a responsibility to resign from Gore’s Science Advisory Board and to issue a press advisory that he had resigned from Gore’s Science Advisory Board explaining the reasons.
The story is therefore about how Thompson carried out his duties as a member of the Board, every bit as much as the original error.
Henry, #19, writes,
It looks to me more like this is a new site under construction than that the Forces of Obfuscation have willfully removed the information. I’ve e-mailed Urmann asking him what’s up.
Steve,
Not to mention the larger question of what responsibility that places on him and other board members for the 9 inaccuracies determined by the British court.
RE Steve #28, sure, it would have been prudent for Gore to have asked his panel to view the film before release. But the mere fact that he actually consulted with some scientists before filming probably puts him ahead of most such documentaries.
Steve wrote in #30,
The book undoubtedly went through numerous printings after its first release. It would have been easy enough to have released a second, corrected edition that used the correct graphic, together with a footnote remarking that the first edition and movie contained a goof.
Movies don’t usually go through editions — they are just released as is until they die at the boxoffice. Eventually, however, the ones that aren’t total duds go into DVD. The DVD would have been an ideal opportunity to incorporate the correct graph, together with a “blooper” segment explaining the error.
The fact that there was no corrected edition, and no correction in the DVD, now that we know Thompson notified Gore promptly of his error, speaks much worse for Gore than the initial error. Thompson, for his part, had no control over the DVD or the book, but all the more should have made a public statement about the incorrect representation of his research.
I doubt you will find proof that Thompson notified Gore, nor is it certain that he did. One could imagine he and some friends and colleagues at their first screening of AIT had a conversation akin to this.
“Look Lonnie, that’s not the correct graph. Should we let Al know?”
“Naw, it’s not like it’s a real scientific presentation or anything, and it still illustrates the point Al is trying to get across to his audience”.
My understanding is that the deception is worse than that.
Al used the chart to “prove” that Mann’s hockeystick was valid science. How? Well here’s another chart, independantly generated that shows the same thing.
Except the chart wasn’t independantly generated.
Thus, the chart absolutely did not prove what Gore was claiming in the movie.
It looks to me more like this is a new site under construction than that the Forces of Obfuscation have willfully removed the information. I’ve e-mailed Urmann asking him what’s up.
I hope that’s all it is, because it uses the same Bona-Churchill data that Lonnie Thompson refuses to archive.
Of course Gore isn’t concerned about anything but the message. Who knows, he may have even used the image knowing it was the same source. Ah, well.
IMDB has Swindle:
Tim Ball … Himself (as Professor Tim Ball)
Nir Shaviv … Himself (as Professor Nir Shaviv)
Ian Clark … Himself (as Professor Ian Clark)
Piers Corbyn … Himself
John Christy … Himself (as Professor John Christy)
Philip Stott … Himself (as Professor Philip Stott)
Dr. Paul Reiter … Himself (as Professor Paul Reiter)
Richard Lindzen … Himself (as Professor Richard Lindzen)
Patrick Moore … Himself
Roy Spencer … Himself (as Dr Roy Spencer)
Patrick Michaels … Himself (as Professor Patrick Michaels)
Syun-Ichi Akasofu … Himself (as Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu)
Frederick Singer … Himself (as Professor Frederick Singer)
Eigil Friis-Christensen … Himself (as Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen)
Nigel Calder … Himself
Nigel Lawson … Himself (as Lord Lawson of Blaby)
Paul Driessen … Himself
Ann Mugela … Herself
James Shikwati … Himself
Ok MarkW, so it went like this instead:
Look Lonnie, thats not the correct graph. It’s not proving the point of independent verification at all. Should we let Al know?
Naw, its not like its a real scientific presentation or anything, and it still illustrates the point Al is trying to get across to his audience.
Re 38. Gunnar the mule didnt make the credits?
( sorry gunnar you are one delightfully stubborn guy)
steven, if you can’t say something nice… no idea why you insult me.
Hu McCulloch says:
I found this at: http://www.book-of-thoth.com/ftopict-7230.html
The http://www.climatecrisis.net/advisoryboard.html is dead now but it probably existed at one time.
Steve: the page is on the Wayback Machine.
42, “where the paranormal meets the mind”. Ooooookay…
Larry says:
I did not notice that (it came up during a 60 google search). What was interesting is the dead link to an advisory board on climate crisis which apparently had Thompson on it.
If the committee has disbanded, does this mean the crisis is over?
You can find the original at archive.org. I tried to post a link but the spam filter ate my homework.
Climatecrisis.net has certainly changed since my last visit. There are now other people pictured and identifed besides Gore. And “the science” page finally has some footnoted references. Of course, some of them are woefully pathetic, such as #5: “Nature.” Hey, could you be a little more specific about which issue, who the author was, etc? And others still completely lack a reference.
From whois on climatecrisis.net:
Nuff said.
I just looked at the credits at the end of Swindle. First off it says “With thanks” and the list that follows includes both McKitrick and McIntyre.
Steve: This is the same thing that you said in #43, where you had also just looked at the credits and provided a freeze frame. Presumably you had “just looked” at the credits at that previous time. My answer here is the same as above, where I said:
#49. Do you have URL for this?
Steve, it’s on the DVD – dunno about the original TV broadcast version.
re 41. Dang, that was Nice! for me, relatively speaking. Gunnar,
Did you ever have a friend who would punch you in the shoulder really hard
FOR NO GOOD REASON? No? well, you got one now.
Someday I want to hear you laugh. It’s my mission.
“With thanks” is not being in the movie or providing science advice.
I found a version of the video http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle . It lists a number of names, saying “With Thanks”. Now that I think of it, one of their producers was at the KTH conference in Stockholm in Sep 2006 and I chatted with her. I notice that Fred Goldberg of KTH was thanked as well. They were going to interview Ross and I in October 2006, but cancelled the meeting. Otherwise I had no contact with them prior to the release of the documentary.
Anyway now that I’ve located the reference, #11 asks asks:
They don’t mention any results by McKitrick or me in the video. (I think that their handling of the Hockey Stick would have been more effective had they followed up and interviewed me.) So I don’t think that I have any “responsibility” to correct their graphs, most of which pertain to issues that I’ve not written on. Having said that, as noted above, even though I had no personal responsibility to do so, I did take the initiative to contact them to urge them to correct two graphs (temperature and Friis-Christensen) where I was aware of direct errors and it is my understanding that they did so in subsequent versions.
Unlike Gore, I wasn’t on any Science Advisory Board for the film. Had I been on a Science Advisory Board for Swindle, I would have insisted on seeing the documentary prior to its release; if I was not permitted to do so, I would have resigned and issued a statement. Then, if I gave advice and the director did not accept my advice, I would have resigned from the Board and issued a statement. Had an error inadvertently slipped through, I would have asked that the error be corrected and if the error was not corrected, I would have resigned from the Board and issued a statement. I’m not suggesting that Thompson do anything that I wouldn’t have done.
Well Mosh, at least we got a good laugh out of St Mac when we recommended a ….. assist him at AGU next year. I still think he should do it.
Awaiting the snip.
Here is a snapshot of the relevant part of the closing credits (if the link works). I have an avi of the movie, but its just shy of a Gigabyte.
Steve: see my response in #54 above.
I notice that Wegman is thanked as well. That hardly makes him after-the-fact “responsible” for checking all the statistics in the documentary.
Re: #5
Lonnie Thompson … “To me, it’s an excellent overview for an introductory class at a university.” I’m under the impression that many local school committees in the US have declared AIT to be required reading. I guess “scare-politics” trumps science again
I’d guess the ‘with thanks’ is for having this site and/or the published paper on the HS. Hardly advising anyone. Non-issue. Steve has been vindicated!
re 50. “With thanks” is not a credit or billing.
basically credits and billings are governed by contracts, for example the writers guild has
very exacting rules on who should be credited with what and how big the name will be and how
long it will appear on the screen. the credits and billings are subject to contract, and yes some poor
guy sits through the film and audits it for guilds like the WGA. Same for SAG and for all the
other union players on the set.
The “with thanks” are gifts passed out AFTER the end of all credits. You got “thanks” not
CREDIT FOR.
This distinction matters to folks in the business.
Re:30
SteveM
The unfortunate reality is that what you refer to as “wilfull blindness” extends well beyond Lornie Thompson and his wife, in that it has become endemic in what passes for “climate science”.
re 62. butt of course
RE # 64. Epaté, Sir Mosh.
I don’t know what you are all up in arms about. You should be down on your knees, thankful for what’s been handed you.
====================================
If these “with thanks” are only in the DVD version, he could be thanking Steve for pointing out errors that needed correcting.
You can get a “with thanks” mention for bringing cookies to the set.
Steve M.
With all due respect, does Dr. Thompson’s ‘excuse’ for not publicly correcting the graph really surprise you?
We have embarked into a new age of reason where need trumps truth. All of us needs to recognize the harm we are doing to our planet. If AIT does this, then so be it. This then does not rely on the absolute ‘truth of science’ but rather on the moral obligations science has on civilizations. Dr. Thompson, by his willful inaction, is part of that unity plan all for the greater good of man.
You’re honorable in your quest for accurate science. Here’s a thanks to you and a small donation to your tip jar.
False Beard and Wig:
The reason why it took so long for CA to figure out that the true identity of “Dr. Thompson’s Thermometer” in AIT was the discredited Mann et al Hockey Stick is that Gore had literally disguised it with a false beard and wig, by splicing it into the instrumental record as if it were a single time series. See
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2335.
On close examination, the eyes, nose and ears are Mann’s, but the distinctively wild chin whiskers and hairdo at the right end were enough to deceive the unwary until Tim Lambert of the Deltoid blog spilled the beans here last last year.
In Thompson’s presentation last week, he presented the same data on a single graph, in an area graph much like Gore’s. However, he was careful to use two shades of red above the axis, two shades of blue below the axis, and a soft line separating the regions, so that one could see that two separate series were being plotted. The idea of using a single shade of red above the axis, a single shade of blue below the axis, and no separating line in order to disguise the HS presumably came from Gore himself, from someone else on his scientific advisory board, or perhaps just from someone on his graphics staff.
Steve and all,
I do realize there is a difference between Steve’s contribution to Swindle–apparently there wasn’t one–and Thompson’s to AIT.
And someone (was it mosh?) said that if Swindle had misrepresented Thompson, he would have been yelling from the mountaintops, I’d have to agree. Though there is a difference in using a scientist’s data incorrectly in such a way so as to support the opposite of their own conclusions.
Let’s hope that Thompson does issue a correction. I think it would be a good thing to do, even though I don’t see it as his responsibility.
If he does it, would you guys denounce the rabid wave of news stories and Inhofe press releases that would surely follow, exaggerating the correction to score political points?
Sorry this post is so poorly written, but I’ve got to go. Cheers.
Correction to accuracy needs all the political points it can get, B.
==========================
I hear rabid exaggerations every time the temperature goes one degree above the norm for that day, or there is a storm in the Atlantic. Who needs to tone it down?
But Greg, in your ‘Goodland’, there is no there there.
================================
18 Steve McIntyre says on January 14th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Well, maybe someone with some scientific standing (hint, hint) should contact the OSU Press Office, Department Chairs, Board of Regents, etc, etc, and enlighten them.
Moshpit 61 – thanks for the link. I’d totally forgotten about the thump on the ol’ war helm. Gunnar, that was funny. You are laughing, right?
#66 Greg
I can’t tell from your post whether you are serious or tongue in cheek.
No, Dr. Thompson’s ‘excuse’ for not publicly correcting the graph does not surprise me. He presumably is firm in his conviction that we are stumbling towards some climate precipice. Does this justify his action?
The assumption that it is acceptable for him or for others to exagerate, misrepresent, or mislead based on “moral obligation” belies an arrogance that such a group is superior in its possession and understanding of a “truth” that the rest of us are incapable of grasping. They must therefore assume upon themselves the obligation for all of us to pursue a course of action which they have deemed necessary to avoid the perceived disaster. When our governments do this, we usually use terms like “tyranny” or “dictatorship” to describe such behavior and we find it unacceptable. But we are supposed to allow this from a group which we have not elected to lead us, but who have selected themselves based on their beliefs. No, it is not justified for Dr. Thompson or any group to subsume upon themselves the right to use intentional misinformation to advocate any belief regardless of how strongly it may be held.
The interesting thing is that by failing to admit and correct these mispresentations and innacuracies when they are brought to their attention they actually provide a valid reason – no, a genuine need – for blogs such as CA to exist and to separate what the real truth is from the alarmist propaganda that has been almost inextricably woven with that truth.
Greg would fashion a shepard’s crook from a hockey stick. RM, if he’s tongue in cheek, the irony is delicious; if not, it’s only unconscious.
============================================
re 72. I hope he’s laughing, otherwise I’ll turn him into a newt.
The thump on the head is great.
Roman
Your comment is representative of my meaning. Science is truth. Just expressing a little misguided mindset/motive of those who place need higher on the scale than truth.
My kudos to Steve & CA expresses my true intent.
Greg, your contribution to the tip jar was so contradictory to the tone of the rest of your post that I questioned whether it might tongue in cheek. The comments were such an accurate matter-of-fact representation of the views (which have lately started to explicitly appear in the media) of some extremists in the AGW movement that for a moment I was left wondering whether you somehow shared in that view. I think that we are both seem to be quite in agreement on the subject.
#68. Boris, in most fields, you learn that it’s always a good idea to deal with bad news quickly. Thompson should have ensured that Gore dealt with the Thompson thermometer problem at the first opportunity.
Had they dealt with the error promptly, there might have been a little flack, but probably not much. Instead they seemed to have hoped that no one would ever notice the error. People are entitled to hold them accountable for not reporting or disclosing the problem.
And BTW when is Thompson going to report his Bona-Churchill results? (Note here: Hu has sent me a snail copy of a thesis on Bona-Churchill which I’ll report on some day.)
It should also be noted that Lonnie Thompson states in his CV that he participated in a discussion panel for the opening of the film “An Inconvenient Truth,” at the Drexel Gateway Theater, Columbus, Ohio on the 21st of January 2006. So, Thompson and the other members of the discussion panel did indeed have an opportunity to publicly disclose any errors noted in the film as of that date, yet they apparently did not do so.
I leave it for you to ponder on that many AGW supporters (scientists) do not see any errors in AIT, even though a certain 15 yr old with her own web site could find them…
It is acceptable for me and others to exagerate, misrepresent, mislead or do anything else we wish, in order to extricate humanity from this horrible disaster looming that you are too ignorant to understand, much less see. We have a moral obligation, and yes, our group is superior in our possession and understanding of a truth and the rest of you indeed are incapable of grasping it. Your intellect is far too limited to reach our level of god-like understanding, and you are also incapable of reaching anywhere near our lofty moral plateau of all that is good and kind. So, sadly, yes, we must therefore assume upon ourselves the obligation and burden to pursue a course of action which is necessary to avoid the obvious and pressing disaster. We have not just the responsibility but the right to intentionally misinform the masses in order to have the action taken now as it needs to be, or the sheep will forstall it so long the disaster will totally destroy the entire planet, in fact, probably even the solar system, if not the galaxy. One day some of you will become intelligent enough to realize this, and that day you shall thank us for having the strength, courage and foresight to take care of those who can not take care of themselves, the blind that could not see they were stumbling towards a climate precipice.
In advance; you’re welcome.
#81
That about sums it up, thanks for the perspective!
Re #42. The WaybackMachine page Steve refers to, with both Lonnie and Ellen Thompson on the Science Advisory Board for AIT, is at
http://web.archive.org/web/20060414105614/http://www.climatecrisis.net/advisoryboard.html.
The page has them advising ClimateCrisis.net rather than AIT per se, but http://www.climatecrisis.net is the official website for AIT, so these are in fact interchangeable.
Sam, you took the words right out of my mouth… 😉
Re #79, we don’t know if Thompson did or didn’t acknowledge the error at this viewing back in Jan 2006, but even if he did, the announcement was only to those present, and not in a published form (web or hard copy) that can be referred to by anyone interested. Likewise, his admission last Friday at OSU that there was an error was only heard by those present, so that others still have at most only hearsay confirmation of it.
There seems to be much leeway given AIT by the REAL Climate folks:
There is no mention of the Hockey stick in this review of AIT. They seem to have no problem with Thompson being credited with their work. They also praise the film and say the few errors don’t prevent it from being mostly accurate. I think it is more of the “flawed but accurate” mentality.
and now for a more elegant link
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/#more-299
Yes, yes I did RomanM! 😉
Sorry, I couldn’t resist. Another tongue in cheek overhyped satire!
Well said, “M. Simon!” Could not have said it any better!
Boris says on January 15th, 2008 at 8:04 am:
When the Thompsons and their University boast of being scientifc advisors to AIT, they assume that responsibilty. A responsible scientist would of course issue a public correction even without that goad. The Thompson’s disingenuous claim of “no forum” has a Mighty Wind bouquet about it, “a god-lesse & rock-shivering blaste.”
Perhaps the most fascinating thing about the the whole AIT phenomenon: That AGW-invested climatologists seem to be almost stumbling over each other to assert that a film that is wrong in every particular is somehow “broadly accurate.” That that attitude is fundementally anti-scientific appears completely lost on them. Climatology will some day be grouped with some other -ologies – Sociology, Scientology, etc.
True, so far as it goes. However, Lonnie Thompson used and is using his curriculum vitae to advertise his participation in a discussion panel held at the film opening to promote and advertise the scientific merits of the motion picture, which can be fairly described as a past and present ongoing deception by omission of the known scientific falsehood. Although Thompson’s failure to make a disclosure at the film opening has some ambiguous significance, there is no such ambiguity in the significance of Thompson’s continuing promotion of his association with the motion picture long after he had to have known of the deceptive misuse of his scientific works by the motion picture.
In other words, Lonnie Thompson is still promoting his relationship with the motion picture without also disclosing a false and deceptive attribution lending Thompson’s own personal reputation to vouch for the scientific accuracy of the subject matter of the motion picture. If Lonnie Thompson can use his curriculum vitae to promote his association with the science in the motion picture and lend the motion picture some measure of his own personal reputation, then Lonnie Thompson is no less capable of also including any necessary disclosures about false and deceptive misuses of his scientific works in that same motion picture. The solution for Lonnie Thompson is quite simply a disclaimer alongside any of his communications taking credit for an association with the motion picture. If Lonnie Thompson can use his CV to garner fame and reward of any kind from his association with the motion picture, he must also accept the infamy and consequences resulting from a knowing failure to disclose in the same communication any known and deceptive misuse of his scientific works by that same motion picture.
Since it is not unlikely that Dr. Thompson, Gavin, Mann, and perhaps even Hansen will be reading this thread, rather than just criticize or demean their behavior, I would like to offer them a way out of the well they have dug for themselves.
Dr. Thompson, in a short period, perhaps less than 20 years, science ethics classes will be studying the current practitioners of climatology and will be using your behavior as a case study. Refusing to archive data and preventing any sort of replication of your work by non-fellow travelers will be recognized as 100% unethical as regards upholding any claim to practicing science in a constructive manner. On your current course you and the others noted above will be demonized by future generations and your lifes’ work ridiculed and used an as example of how not to behave.
You and the others noted above have a straightforward and non-embarrassing way out of this deep deep predicament. You can follow the lead of Piers Forster, who when presented with a manuscript recently by Roy Spencer which directly challenged his previous work, demonstrated intellectually honesty by admitting previous error, as noted by Dr. Spencer in his post on the subject in Climate Audit.
Dr. Thompson, you and the rest have a way out of being scorned and despised by future generations. You can do it incrementally and without admitting anything, and become intellectual heroes of the future.
Step 1. Slowly begin to do the right thing in discussions, use fewer straw men, engage in real discourse. Don’t be reactionary or defensive. Do this slowly so a sudden shift isn’t noticed.
Step 2. Incrementally begin to archive data, source code, and methods. Share with other researchers. Try to falsify your own research. Work to be better scientists.
Step 3. Stick to best practices for documentation and archiving of all future work. Don’t worry about the past, that’s too big a mess to clean up and too intimidating to ever confront.
Step 4. Incorporate this new philosophy into the IPCC, whichever way it takes you.
Make these changes gradually over two or three years. Sleep better. Rinse and repeat.
Re jeez, #92,
I disagree with your call for gradualism. The best policy would be to do all these things right away, cheerfully leading others to believe that this had been your policy all along.
In particular, the past may be too big a mess to straighten up entirely, but a cleanup of the big items — like “Dr. Thompson’s Thermometer” and Bona Churchill — would be essential.
No Controlling Legal Authority
Vice President Al Gore.
When it comes to the Church of Global Warming and it’s high Priest Al Gore, there aren’t any authorities or reasons to change your statements or actions. It’s what YOU want to do, only.
But doesn’t the university have any control over it’s department chairs? If the university president wants his school to look clean, can’t he force it’s professors to come clean? Is there some sort of policy letter that Thompson would have to adhere to?
Re #95, if Thompson had personally disguised Mann’s tree ring-based HS by splicing it together with another series while concealing the splice, and then had passed it off as his own ice core research in a published article, the university would undoubtedly take action. However, the fact that it was Gore who passed it off as Thompson’s research, while his “Science Advisor” sat by with his mouth shut but smiling, probably means that all the administration could do would be to ask him some uncomfortable questions.
All this is besides the point. The graph is not an independent verification of graph in MBH, it is a disguised version of the same thing. Regardless of who knew what when, the fact is that everyone now knows it’s a disguised version of the same thing. To not publically and notoriously correct it casts such a bad light upon so many of the character traits involved is DISGUSTING.
Pride is a horrible thing
snip
Transparency is the key. I say, do the right thing; ‘fess up.
I’ve just sent Dr. Thompson a polite email (with copies to OSU’s President and his Deans) urging him to deal with this matter. I’ll relay any replies.
Hu, if you send me your email, I’ll copy you: pdtillmanATgmailDOTcom
Cheers — Pete Tillman
Be careful Peter; they might yank your climatologist card if you make too many waves.
We don’t need no steenkin climatologist card!
Anyway, none of us old miners can get one. Except St. Albert 🙂
Pete
—
“Free Horse Manure Available From BLM”
–headline, Deseret News (Salt Lake City), April 9
This is just a continuation of a pre-existing trend. Do any of these (paraphrases) sound familiar?
1. “While the scenarios used to tell the stories about the future impacts of greenhouse emissions are limited they are broadly accurate in illustrating why it is necessary for us to implement Kyoto as soon as possible”
2. “While it is generally accepted that the surface temperature network is limited in accurately describing global temperatures it is broadly accurate in describing the global warming impacts of greenhouse gas emissions.”
Fake, but broadly accurate.
=================
Accurate, but broadly fake.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let me rephrase an earlier comment please.
It doesn’t matter your reasons or your motivations. It doesn’t matter what you think or what you’re trying to do.
If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck, people will think it’s a duck. Even if it’s a goose in disguise.
The truth is not reality, it’s perception.
Something like that.
Hu M, I offer gradualism as a means to save face although done with the proper Chutzpah, it could be done quickly as well.
Step 2 covered the archiving and sharing of current important data.
And BTW, thank you very much for calling Dr. Thompson on this.
You gotta be kidding – even if the acadamies had any residual standards & intellectual spine (except, of course, to enforce political correctitude) why would OSU cut the ground out from under one of its best rain-makers? Even the hard-nosed realists at Rolling Stone have endorsed him. You can’t argue with that.
To the best of my knowledge, Thompson has never actually calibrated his composite ice core Z-score graph to temperature, so that at present there is no real “Dr. Thompson’s Thermometer”, only a Dr. Thompson’s “Z-mometer” (or “Octodecaoxymometer” if you prefer).
However, I found that it is not hard at all to calibrate the decadal 7-core index from Thompson’s 2006 PNAS article to decadal averages of the
HadCRUT3 global temperature index (1961-90 = 0). Using 15 observations from the 1850s to 1990s, and using Weighted Least Squares with the variance of the errors proportional to the inverse of the number of complete core series (7 except for 6 in 1980s, and 2 in 1990s, contrary to the caption in the PNAS Fig. 6), I found
Z = 1.227 + 2.337 T
(.198) (.695)
(se’s in parentheses).
The t-statistic on the slope is 3.37, which has a highly significant
p-value of .0051 despite only 13 DOF. The Durbin-Watson statistic of 2.35 actually indicates moderate negative serial correlation, so that at this frequency at least, overstatement of the significance level from serial correlation is not a problem.
Inverting this relationship as recommended (I think) by UC per P.J. Brown (J. Royal Statistical Society B 44 (1982), pp. 287-321) yields the following median estimate of T as a function of Z outside the calibration period:
T = -.525 + .428 Z .
Asymmetric confidence intervals up to the significance level of the slope coefficient may then be found by inverting the hyperbolic confidence interval bounds of the original regression of Z on T (including the WLS regression error, which is an only slight complication).
I haven’t computed the actual reconstruction, but it looks as though the series indeed would not show as pronounced a MWP or LIA as most other non-treering proxies. See, eg. the average of 9 low-resolution T-calibrated non-treering proxies in Figure 2a of Moberg et al in Nature 10 Feb 05 (but ignore the rest of that otherwise unfortunate article), or the average of 18 such proxies in Craig Loehle’s article in Energy and Environment, 2007, 1049-1058.
I don’t know why the difference, but there is hardly a “scientific consensus” here that there was no MWP to speak of.
(Craig has submitted a dating-corrected version of his reconstruction to E&E, with myself as coauthor providing panel standard errors, but there is not much change in the resulting series. Evidently the Yang et al (2002) China composite series used by Craig employed some of Thompson’s Tibetan data, though I haven’t checked how it entered or was calibrated.)
I’m guessing that other instrumental indices, such as CRU land-only, or GISS, would give similar results, but haven’t tried them.
Medieval Cool Period (MCP) discovered!
I’ve now plugged the pre-instrumental 7-core z-score data from Thompson’s 2006 PNAS article into the calibration mentioned in #107, and perhaps have found why Thompson has been so reluctant to calibrate his data to temperature: Taking 5-decade averages of the very noisy decadal reconstructions, it turns out that the entire period from the 5th through early 19th century was more likely than not cooler than even the late 19th century, i.e. in terms of the median point estimate.
Using Thompson’s actual data rather than Gore’s bogus version, the alleged MWP thus appears not as a small but positive warming, but actually as a cool period — the heretofore unrecognized MCP!
Following IPCC’s “Guidance Notes For Lead Authors on Addressing Uncertainties,” I’ve also constructed 80% confidence intervals (with 10% probability in each tail), by inverting the hyperbolic confidence intervals for Z as a function of T per Brown.
The CI is pretty wide, but still the same period is generally (as averaged over 5-decade periods) very likely, in IPCC terminology, cooler than the first half of the 20th century, since the probability exceeds 90% that it was cooler. (The gushy, Cosmo-style italics are obligatory in IPCC notation.)
As noted in #107, most other proxies show a distinct MWP rather than a MCP. This must mean either that they are wrong on average, or else that there is something wrong or non-representative about either Thompson’s data or the CRU calibration data.
I have no idea what the problem really is, but here are some (uninformed) ideas: Perhaps his high-altitude ice cores are not representative of ordinary-altitude temperatures in the reconstruction period? Perhaps the altitude gradient of temperature is different in the later portion of the calibration period because of increased CO2? Or perhaps the CRU index of urban airport temperatures overstates warming for the calibration period? Or maybe the dO18 readings are somehow responding to something different in the calibration period than just temperature — possibly even anthropogenic traditional pollutants like SO2, lead, freon, etc. Just some suggestions.
Any ideas?
(More anon on the calibration.)
When you take additive errors (as Mann does) and scaling errors (as Hegerl does) and combine them (as should be done) the CI can get quite wide.
Interesting! I guess we’ll see no more CVM + calibration residual based CIs in peer-reviewed climatological literature after the message gets through (and the if the message won’t go through, I’ll get an impression that Team members are just gatekeepers of the house of cards 🙂 ).
#108 — Hu wrote, “perhaps [I] have found why Thompson has been so reluctant to calibrate his data to temperature.”
You can bet Thompson has calibratred his ice core data to temperature. He just hasn’t published it.
Probably because he discovered, as you have, Hu, that the results are embarassing. The temperature calibrated results are probably sitting in a deep directory with a cryptic name, or else deleted. Likely the former, though, because scientists hate to throw anything out.
proof of mwp divergence
Please disregard my #107 and 108 for the time being — It turns out that Thompson’s Z-mometer is not an independent composite of ice core dO18 values after all, but rather has been calibrated to something by carefully selecting very different coefficients on each ice core series.
If it’s already been calibrated to instrumental temperature by estimating 6 or 7 free parameters, the standard errors found by regressing the “composite” on the same or similar temperature series would provide very misleading estimates of the precision of the reconstruction. Or, if it’s been calibrated to the Hockey Stick, as may have been the case, it provides no independent validation of the HS!
So, maybe there wasn’t an MCP after all. Sorry for the false alarm!
More later, in a new thread.
A video of Lonnie Thompson’s 1/11 talk at OSU, with his and Ellen Thompson’s replies to my question about “Dr. Thompson’s Thermometer” is online at http://sg60.oar.net/OSC/, in either Windows Media Player or Quicktime format. The question perid begins right at minute 54:00.
(Thompson says that he and Mann sent Gore e-mails correcting it in 2004 or 2005, but then says it was right after the film came out, which was summer 2006, so the earlier dates must have been a misspeak.)
Re #113, given that the video of Thompson’s 1/11/08 admission that Gore’s 2006 graphic was not his is publicly available on the internet, it can now be said that he has publicly acknowledged this, if only belatedly, and if only at minute 54 of a scratchy video that is nearly impossible for the average interested high school student to find.
I still think it would serve his research interests better to issue a more conspicuous statement on his website, explaining how his actual Z-mometer was derived from ice core data, and why he thinks it tells us something about temperature. But if he chooses not to take advantage of what should be a prime teaching opportunity, that is his call.
Re Hu, Dr T’s thermometer
No reply as yet to my letter of 1-16-08.
FWIW, I resent my polite letter re this. If no response (what I expect), I’ll write OSU’s president directly, with cc’s to Dr. T et al.
Cheers — Pete Tillman, not holding my breath
Pete,
I suspect Dr. Thompson thinks he is invincible and is likely correct as long as the media/politicians/public continues to uncritically accept the AGW narrative. The best that can be done now is make sure that the criticisms are in the public record and hope that Dr. Thompson will be called to account when (if?) the tide turns.
Re 116, Raven
Thompson has done some truly amazing work, and if he hadn’t pioneered the high-altitude ice-core drilling, my impression is the work may well not have ever been done. If you like scientific mountaineering high-adventure stories, THIN ICE (his biography) is your kind of book.
But he has blind spots, and bad habits. The archiving lapse has been ongoing so long, it would take something seismic (ie, loss of funding) to get him to change his behavior, I expect. Or a change of heart? Stranger things have happened.
Cheers — Pete Tillman
—
“The trouble with predicting the future is that it is very hard.”
— Yogi Berra
Dr Thompson’s Thermometer strikes again. This time it has tricked the ever unwary Tamino, who rebukes a reader who said:
as follows:
Uh, no. “Dr Thompson’s thermometer” is none other than the Mann hockey stick spliced with the Jones instrumental record.
Thompson’s known about the error for a very long time and claims to have notified Gore. Yet the error remains uncorrected, misleading the general public and now Tamino.
Re #118 – And the sheep in that pasture are unbelievable!
So let me get this straight, that means Tamino is actually less sharp than Lambert?
Ouch. I wouldn’t want to put that on my CV.
I’ve been tempted to post over there but weighing into that debate looks nauseating. There is no authority on earth that could persuade them that a small change in data samples causing not only a change in conclusions, but a complete loss of significance in the one and only verification statistic that can be made to work, does not “recover” robustness, it reinforces a lack of robustness.
It is remarkable the story you can spin to people who don’t “get” statistics.
If I wasn’t being snipped at Tamino’s, I’d post a reply as follows:
Comment [Response: Are you talking about the MBH98 hockey stick, or hockey sticks in general? Didn’t “An Inconvenient Truth” get its hockey stick from the ice core studies of Thompson et al.? ….]
Reply: We really don’t know if it’s Thompson’s work or not, given his failure to archive his work…
henry,
But it this case we know it really wasn’t Thompson’s work, it was Mann’s discredited work represented by Gore as Thompson’s work. Nevertheless, Thompson should archive his data.
Re 113, 114, 118, the video of Thompson admitting that what Gore called “Dr. Thompson’s Thermometer” is not his seems to be no longer available at the link mentioned at #113, so there in fact is no record of this admission at the present time.
The archiving lapse has been ongoing so long, it would take something seismic (ie, loss of funding) to get him to change his behavior, I expect. Or a change of heart? Stranger things have happened.
Thompson’s Thermometer” is not his seems to be no longer available at the link mentioned at #113, so there in fact is no record of this admission at the present time.
güzel sözler
güzel sözler
güzel sözler
sohbet odaları
2 Trackbacks
[…] of AIT’s Scientific Advisory Board, has made no effort to publicly correct the error. (See Gore Scientific ‘Advisor’ says that he has no ‘responsibility’ for AIT error….) With the simple trick of shading the space between the two lines and the horizontal axis with a […]
[…] In fact, Mann should know that Thompson's ice core data did not actually appear in Gore's AIT: The series Gore identified as “Dr. Thompson’s Thermometer” was in fact Mann’s own Hockey Stick, spliced together with the recent instrumental record so as to make them appear to be a single series. See Al Gore and “Dr thompson’s Thermometer” #2 (CA 11/10/07). During the question period after an OSU seminar on Jan 11, 2008, Thompson, who had been an official Scientific Advisor on the AIT project, admitted this error. I then challenged Thompson to correct this error with a publicly accessible statement, but he still has not done so to the best of my knowledge. See “Gore Scientific “Adviser” says that he has “no responsibility” for AI…. […]