Comments on: Lonnie and Ellen, A Serial Non-Archiving Couple

By: The Quelccaya Update « Climate Audit

The Quelccaya Update « Climate Audit — Sun, 07 Apr 2013 16:50:56 +0000

[...] this data prompted some discussion of the Thompsons as serial non-archivers, referring to my post here. It is worth commending Thompson for prompt archiving of the present data, but that does not refute [...]

By: Colin Aldridge

Colin Aldridge — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 22:50:53 +0000

Lots of comments on Thomson non arching over at WUWT but it seems they have archived stuff with NOAA, Any comments on current situation with data archiving or non archiving by Thomson?

Steve: I am completely familiar with the NOAA archive. The archive is incomplete. Pointing to it is simply a trick.

By: Will Lonnie Thompson archive THIS new ice core data? | Watts Up With That?

Will Lonnie Thompson archive THIS new ice core data? | Watts Up With That? — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 18:42:08 +0000

[...] the Ohio State University , taken with a grain of salt since Dr. Thompson and his wife Ellen are serial non archivers of ice core data (even when asked for it), which prevents others from checking his [...]

By: Data Suggests Climate Entering 30 Year Cooling Period, Perhaps Longer - Page 2 - ALIPAC

Sat, 24 Nov 2012 19:41:24 +0000

[...] [...]

By: Week in review 7/6/12 | Climate Etc.

Week in review 7/6/12 | Climate Etc. — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 23:38:01 +0000

[...] integral of the scientist’s contribution. Lonnie could make a huge and lasting impact by archiving his ice core data. Share this:EmailTwitterFacebookDiggStumbleUponPrintRedditLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. [...]

By: Jeff Norman

Jeff Norman — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 21:19:20 +0000

It is completely possible that he did in fact send data to some person named MacIntyre. Who could possibly know other than the sender and the receiver?

It seems to me that consistently spelling someone’s name incorrectly is a sign of disrespect and a form of ad hominem. What do you think anom?

By: Skiphil

Skiphil — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 14:15:26 +0000

Leif, the irony is rich. Roger does toward you what he had falsely accused Steve of doing toward Ellen Mosley-Thompson. Now Roger seems unable or unwilling to acknowledge and apologize. I thought that Roger had so much concern for unjustified personal attacks, but that concern has proved highly selective.

By: lsvalgaard

lsvalgaard — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 13:26:58 +0000

Roger, what you wrote about me is not ‘factually correct’. I never ‘refused’ to archive data, nor do I have an ‘attitude’ towards non-archival. On the contrary, I’m fighting for archival: “We are working on a resolution through IAGA (EWC is the Chair of the IAGA Interdivisional Commission on History) for the next IUGG Scientific Assembly to address the archival and quality control of the extremely valuable early (18th and 19th century) geomagnetic data”.
It is one thing for you to have made mistakes. It is a lot worse not to admit it. Man up and apologize.

By: MrPete

MrPete — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 12:18:16 +0000

Re: Roger (Jul 9 04:13),
Your complaints aren’t controversial here either.

It’s quite simple: you came here with a chip on your shoulder, and made non-factual complaints. You’ve been proven wrong, based on evidence and sources. The facts trump any opinion or attempt at stirring up controversy. (Bottom line: contrary to your assertions, Steve did do his homework; even freely-shared data is not equivalent to archiving; you’re the one making personal attacks, not Steve.)

And now you appear to be imagining that your false accusations can be blithely sidestepped by “standing by” what you wrote (even though proven false) while insinuating that people here are simply the “faithful.”

Roger, I’m sad to say that I can’t see that you’ve added anything helpful or thoughtful, let alone accurate, to the discourse. Maybe you’ll do better next time.

By: Roger

Roger — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 09:13:47 +0000

Steve – I referred consistently to Mrs Lonnie not to Lonnie.
The old correspondence you post on another thread may well refute something I didn’t allege.

This is all getting sterile so I shan’t post again on this. I would advise the faithful not to read too much into this (no paranoia here from me – they’ve already ascribed a number of positions to me which I don’t hold). I stand by everything I’ve written, with the exception of the posts about Leif Svalgaard which, while factually correct, gave an incomplete picture. I’m confident that, outside the world of CA-posters (who themselves represent a tiny subset of CA-readers), my complaints would not be considered remotely controversial.