Open Letter to: Dr. Lonnie G. Thompson    (followed by reply from )
Distinguished University Professor of Geological Sciences
Ohio State University
http://www.esi.utexas.edu/outreach/ols/lectures/Thompson/
RE: 2005 Tuzo Wilson Lecture

Dear Professor Thompson,
I was in the audience on Monday night in Toronto, and witnessed a very disturbing lecture.  I admit I went into the lecture with a great deal of scepticism because I had a premonition that your talk was a GW bandwagon talk.  I was prepared to listen, however, to suspend my bias as much as necessary to accept your presentation and let it stand.  I came away very disturbed that I had witnessed my worst nightmare realized.  I saw the very real work of a well intentioned man corrupted to an immeasurable degree by pressures of big science.   You have fallen in love with your own hypothesis.  There is a crying need in science to present a balanced view. There are other opinions and there are other conclusions in the current literature that needed to be presented and discussed. That balance was completely lacking.  Some other data must be looked at dispassionately.  For
instance, while you were up on the glacier, the Mann 'hockey stick' was shown to be an artefact of incorrect methodology.  Your comparison using isotopes on totally different scales was meaningless.  ...But your audience believed it.

You presented very powerful photographs of the earth's Alpine glaciers and indeed they are wasting.  I know.  I've seen the evidence in Haines Triangle in BC of rapidly melting Alpine glaciers. It is emotionally disturbing to view them and extrapolate.  However, in perspective, these and the glaciers you've shown are small Alpine glaciers and not the vast storehouse of the
global water supply that you infer.  The analogy is defective, calling them "the earth's water towers".  You have glossed over it with your additional analogy to the canary in a coal mine, Alpine glaciers are a small part of the earth's water budget.  Clearly, from the geomorphology of the Canadian Rockies they were far more extensive millennia ago.  Erosion by Alpine glaciers is the principle reason the Rockies diminish in size from Colorado to Alaska; the Canadian Rockies have experienced increasing differential erosion from south to north.  The human race has prospered while they waned.

The pictures, however, are very dramatic and serve you well to show to a prepared audience in Toronto or to the US Congress.  It is easy to suggest that the US congress would not understand the isotopic evidence, and that a picture is worth a thousand words, but highly improper to use your position as a university man to take advantage of them - such arrogant deceit!  You are using your elevated reputation to pull the wool over their eyes.  That's fraud in my world.

There is, to my way of thinking, no scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming that you proselytise.   There is little doubt that the planet is warming, or cooling or doing both simultaneously.  Over the longer term, the planet has  fluctuated and warmed up a few degrees since the heart of the Pleistocene.  That's pretty obvious.  The Sahara was once temperate.
Southern Mexico supported cyprus.  But, conversely, during the Cainozoic, the Canadian Arctic supported stands of pine and hardwood and beaver were as big as hippos.  The global climate fluctuates widely and in geological time - quite rapidly.

Oh by the way - You and the other players on the bandwagon have actually not presented any evidence for GHGs; another misleading analogy.  A greenhouse has a glass ceiling, it is not a complex mixture of many gasses and many different particles.

The reference several times to CO2 as a greenhouse gas was quite disturbing. Geological evidence suggests a weak correlation with  CO2  as a trailing indicator to temperature. Perhaps warming of seawater causes CO2 to evolve.  Inverse solubility of CO2 suggests that might be the process, not the other way around.  The CO2 absorption band, though, has long since passed it's peak effectiveness.  Why not look to water vapour?  I think I can answer that question for you.  Water vapour and other atmospheric gasses like methane might be implicated, but they do not have the political rectitude of CO2, Kyoto, and bashing the hydrocarbon industry.   To hear you blithely suggest alternative energy for the USA, Canada and the world from windmills
and solar panels is practically preposterous and economically incompetent. To make that sort of off-hand suggestion to a very receptive and influential audience is morally bankrupt.

I don't care any more what science may be shown from the isotopic proxy for temperature as you called it.  All I feel sure about is that I have a headache because the use of fluid inclusions from ice core seems a very
dubious methodology.  I've seen many unreliable secondary inclusions in sphalerite using cathodolumonescence.  Calcite is even more notoriously useless for inclusion studies.  What allows you to use data from ice, which must constitute a very open system indeed as a proxy for temperature?  The compressed stratigraphy with depth of ice core must certainly indicate that creep has destroyed and mixed the phases to a serious degree.  I suggest lighter isotopes are more mobile and have differentially left your system, particularly for the top few metres of core where your hockey stick occurs. Your graphs probably show an artefact of differential consolidation, compaction and creep.

If I were you, I would modify that lecture little by little, step by step, to include the possibility that global warming, which seems inexorably real like a pathological liar,  is not significantly influenced by human intervention.  Global warming is going to be a good thing, better than the alternative.  It will be slow and fluctuate and  allow crops to be planted where  they've never been planted before, and people will adjust.  Just as our ancestors around the globe adjusted by moving from the continental
shelves onto the continent as the ice sheet melted - over, and over, and over again.  Global warming may allow us to rely less on fuel to heat our homes. Sea level may rise, but ever so slowly, little by little.  The Dutch will teach us all how to survive the 10 mm rise over the next century.  If only New Orleans had the vision of the Dutch to prepare, traditional jazz music would have been preserved forever.

My advice is return to science.  As an exploration geologist, I admire your perseverance to lift drilling equipment to thousands of metres into totally deadly environments at the top of the world's glaciers and to recover ice core that has priceless history that is melting away as we watch.  The study has great drama.  Don't let that beguile you.  It's more heroic to find a little answer somewhere that lets our children sleep more comfortably.  In my opinion, there is global warming.  it is not the result of a
self-destructive human race.  As I read the literature, 95% of our improvement in climate is extraterrestrial from solar activity.

Fran Manns Artesian Geological Research
Toronto
artesian1 (at sign) sympatico.ca
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Nolan" <fnman@uaf.edu>
To: <vanderveen.1@osu.edu>
Cc: <cryolist@lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 4:07 AM
Subject: Re: [CRYOLIST]: attachments


> Kees,
>
> I deleted it as well, but I'm glad it made it into text.  Though I got a
> great kick out of your reply (I guess I'm just part of the global
> scientific conspiracy or brainwash), I'm afraid you're not the first to
try
> to (re?)educate Fran.  I searched on his name and company, and found
> several prior attempts which apparently also failed, so I think the joke
is
> really on us...
>
> http://www.newsbackup.com/about738277.html
>
> http://www.groupsrv.com/science/about101989.html
>
> They're a nice diversion, but only if you like broken records.
>
> Cheers,
> Matt
>
>
>
>
> At 11:07 PM 12/2/2005 -0500, CORNELIS VANDERVEEN wrote:
>
> >Fran:
> >
> >I must admit I deleted your email immediately - sending around
attachments
> >with no text in the mail is, to me, shall we say, a tad suspicious?  But,
> >since Bruce shared your views with all of us, I guess I feel compelled to
> >respond.
> >
> >I have no idea who you are or what your area of expertise is, but let me
> >offer you two suggestions:
> >
> >(1)  if you have doubts about the methodology followed by Lonnie and many
> >other ice-core folks, I suggest you write these up and submit to a
> >peer-reviewed journal.  If you can prove the oxygen-isotope method is
> >essentially useless to reconstruct past temperatures, I'm sure you can
> >immortalize yourself in the pages of Science or Nature - hey, who knows,
> >you might even make it into Rolling Stone or Time Magazine as the
> >scientist who opened our eyes.
> >
> >(2)  even if you disagree with what Lonnie said in his presentation, it
is
> >generally not a good idea to stoop down to the level of attacking
personal
> >integrity and motivations.  Terms like  "arrogant deceit",  "fraud",
> >"morally bankrupt" don't do much to bolster your side of the
> >argument.  "My advice is return to science" - geez, girl, how much more
> >condescending can you get?  You're talking to a member of the NAS who
> >actually spends most of his time doing science!!  These comments are
> >completely out of line and, in my opinion, require a public apology from
> >you.  So, you attended a one-hour lecture by Lonnie (clearly, I was not
> >there, but from your comments I gather it was similar to the talk he gave
> >at Byrd a few weeks ago).  I have known Lonnie for 20-some years (we work
> >in the same place) and I can assure you that he is one of the few people
I
> >know whose opinions and insights I truly value - someone who has no
> >political agenda o ther than to try to change the ills of our society as
> >he sees them, a scientist with great integrity.  Yes, over the course of
> >his long career, Lonnie (and many others like him) has become convinced
> >that global warming and man's impact on climate is a serious issue that
we
> >should deal with.  In your last paragraph you talk about "letting our
> >children sleep more comfortably."  Well, your optimistic denial ensures
> >your kids may become sleep-deprived, as they search for food, energy, and
> >what not (I'll come back to that below).
> >
> >
> >
> >I am getting oh-so tired of rebutting these types of "arguments" - not in
> >the least because it does no good whatsoever.  Once blindfolded, no
amount
> >of sound reasoning will make you change your mind.  So be it.  Frankly,
> >Fran, I couldn't care less what you think.
> >
> >But, since this "crap" (quoting Lev) has made it to the list, let me
point
> >out a few glaring idiotic statements.
> >
> >"these and the glaciers you've shown are small Alpine glaciers and not
the
> >vast
> >storehouse of the global water supply that you infer. The analogy is
> >defective, calling them "the earth's water towers"."
> >
> >I must admit, the few times I visited Toronto I did not see any water
> >towers, but I'm sure the smaller towns around you must have them.  If you
> >get a chance, drive out to one and check it out.  Admittedly, I'm not
sure
> >how much water these towers hold, but probably not much compared to water
> >consumption.  It's elementary, my dear.  A water tower is not the same as
> >a water storage facility - ya see, in the good old days, the water tower
> >supplied the pressure to force the water to your faucet.  In other words,
> >the water tower is not so much the storage tank as well as the regulator
> >of water supply.  This is exactly how glacier work.  They store water
when
> >it rains or snows in the winter months, and slowly release this water
> >during the spring and summer.  Take away the glaciers and your winter
rain
> >and snow will drain immediately.  Who cares?  The farmers do.....  most
> >crops grow in the spring so that's when they need the wa ter - not in the
> >middle of winter.
> >
> >
> >
> >"You have glossed over it with your additional analogy to the canary in a
> >coal mine."
> >
> >It is well-established in the glaciological community that small mountain
> >glaciers are sensitive indicators of changing climate conditions.
> >
> >
> >
> >"There is little doubt that the planet is warming, or cooling or doing
> >both simultaneously. "
> >
> >Oh, now, come on - read what you write before sending out.
> >
> >
> >
> >"Oh by the way - You and the other players on the bandwagon have actually
> >not presented any evidence for GHGs; another misleading analogy. A
> >greenhouse has a glass ceiling, it is not a complex mixture of many
gasses
> >and many different particles."
> >
> >You are correct in pointing out that the "greenhouse" analogy is flawed,
> >although judging by what you wrote, I'm not sure you understand why.  So,
> >let me explain briefly: a greenhouse warms up because the glass prevents
> >turbulent mixing of the warm air in the greenhouse with the colder air
> >outside.  Greenhouse gases absorb outgoing longwave radiation, while
being
> >transparent to incoming sshort-wave solar radiation.  The effect of the
> >glass greenhouse, and GHG in the atmosphere is the same: warming of the
> >surface.  If you want to take issue with this, go to France - Mariotte,
> >deSausure, Fourier, etc. are the ones to blame for this imperfect
analogy.
> >
> >
> >
> >"To hear you blithely suggest alternative energy for the USA, Canada and
> >the world
> >from windmills and solar panels is practically preposterous and
> >economically incompetent.  To make that sort of off-hand suggestion to a
> >very receptive and influential audience is morally bankrupt."
> >
> >Well, well.  Hey, when you have a chance, go visit Bruce Power up north
> >from you - the Canadians are actually developing these "alternative"
> >resources.  Any idea how much oil and gas is left?  Irrespective of
> >climate warming, and pumping CO2 in the atmosphere, we have to divert to
> >other energy resources, simply because in the very near future (if not
> >already) production of oil and gas cannot keep up with demand.  Your
> >denial is "morally bankrupt" and responsible for your kids to freeze to
> >death in the coming cold Toronto winters.
> >
> >
> >
> >"I've seen many unreliable secondary inclusions in
> >sphalerite using cathodolumonescence. Calcite is even more notoriously
> >useless for inclusion studies. What allows you to use data from ice,
which
> >must constitute a very open system indeed as a proxy for temperature?"
> >
> >Yoohoo.....  living up north from here, I'm sure you have seen ice
> >before.  Let me suggest a little experiment you can conduct
> >yourself.  Freeze some water in an open container.  Now, place the
> >container with the ice on your driveway or sidewalk.  Pick a sunny day
> >that is not too cold and pour some water on the ice and on the driveway
or
> >sidewalk and take note of what happens to the water.  See, there's a few
> >differences between rocks and ice.
> >
> >
> >
> >"Global warming is going to be a good thing, better than the
> >alternative. It will be slow and fluctuate and allow crops to be planted
> >where they've never been planted before, and people will adjust. Just as
> >our ancestors around the globe adjusted by moving from the continental
> >shelves onto the continent as the ice sheet melted - over, and over, and
> >over again. Global warming may allow us to rely less on fuel to heat our
> >homes.  Sea level may rise, but ever so slowly, little by little. The
> >Dutch will teach us all how to survive the 10 mm rise over the next
> >century. If only New Orleans had the vision of the Dutch to prepare,
> >traditional jazz music would have been preserved forever."
> >
> >At this point, I'm not sure whether I should cry or laugh....  What the
> >hell are you thinking?  Get rid of these Rosy-colored glasses that
distort
> >you vision.  Yup, we may need less fuel to heat our homes, but what about
> >the warmer summers?  Right, more AC - or we die, like a few years back in
> >France.  I am glad that you have such confidence in my fellow countrymen
> >to protect the world against sea-level rise.  Apart from the fact that
> >it's lilely to be significantly more than 10 mm over the next century, my
> >question is "who's gonna pay for this?"  Oh, sure, Canada, the US,
Western
> >Europe, are rich enough to build protective dikes and what not (as an
> >aside, a sea level rise of 10 or 50 cm does not mean it is enough to
> >heighten the dikes by that amount - in shallow coastal seas, the
frequency
> >of high water levels during storm surges increases rapidly as the water
> >depth increases, so the dikes will have to be heightened much more than
> >the SLR).   But how about them island nations in the Pacific, or the
> >millions in southeast Asia living in coastal areas that are essentially
at
> >sea level?  Are you going to pay for coastal protection of Bangla
> >Desh?  Probably not, since you're denying that humans (read: northern
> >developed industrial nations) are responsible for these effects.  OK,
fair
> >enough.  Then let's resort to the adaptations humans made in the past to
> >cope with changing climates.  Move elsewhere.  How many "environmental
> >refugees" will Canada accept?  Right.
> >
> >
> >
> >Oh well, another evening wasted.
> >
> >"Ignorance is bliss"
> >
> >"Ignorance of the law is no excuse"
> >
> >
> >
> >Kees van der Veen


Back to Coolwire Index
Back to WarwickHughes.com