Climategate grows to include other research institutions

UPDATED: By Douglas J. Keenan – special for WUWT

Phil Jones tried to hush my paper. SUNY Albany won’t discuss the investigation my paper initiated. And QUB ignored my three FOI requests for their data.

I used to do mathematical research and financial trading on Wall Street and in the City of London; since 1995, I have been studying independently (for more details, please see my web site).  Some of the e-mails leaked in Climategate discuss my work.  Following is a comment on that and on something more important.

In 2007, I published a peer-reviewed paper alleging that some important research relied upon by the IPCC (for the treatment of urbanization effects) was fraudulent.  The e-mails show that Tom Wigley, one of the most highly-cited climatologists and an extreme warming advocate, thought my paper was “valid”.  They also show that Phil Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit, tried to get the journal editor to not publish my paper.

After my paper was published, the State University of New York, where the research was conducted, carried out an investigation.  During the investigation, I was not interviewed: contrary to the university’s policies, federal regulations, and natural justice.  I was allowed to comment on the report of the investigation, before the report’s release, but I was not allowed to see the report: truly Kafkaesque.

The report apparently concluded that there was no fraud.  The leaked files contain the defense against my allegation.  The defense is obviously and strongly contradicted by the documentary record.  It is no surprise, then, that the university still refuses to release the report.  More details on all this, including source documents are, here.

Relatedly, my paper (§2.4) demonstrates that, by 2001, Jones knew there were severe problems with the urbanization research.  Yet Jones continued to rely on that research in his work, including in his work for the latest report of the IPCC.

The biggest concern with global warming is, arguably, that warming itself will cause further warming.  For example, the polar ice caps reflect sunlight back into space (thereby cooling Earth); if the caps shrink, due to warming, then they will reflect less sunlight, and so Earth will warm further.  It is claimed to be possible that Earth warms so much that it reaches what is called a “tipping point”, where the global climate system is seriously and permanently disrupted—like when a glass of water has been tipped over, and the water cannot realistically be put back into the glass.

There is much scientific debate over how much Earth has to warm before it reaches a tipping point.  No one knows for sure.  About a thousand years ago, though, there was a time known as the “Medieval Warm Period”, when much of Earth appears to have been unusually warm.  It is not currently known just how warm the Medieval Warm Period was.  Clearly, though, the warmth then was below the tipping point, because Earth’s climate continued without problem.

Suppose that during the Medieval Warm Period, Earth was 1°C warmer than today.  That would imply that the tipping point is more than 1°C higher than today’s temperature.  For Earth’s temperature to increase 1°C might take roughly a century (at the rate of increase believed to be currently underway).  So we would not have to be concerned about an imminent disruption of the climate system.  Finding out how warm the Medieval Warm Period was is thus of enormous importance for the study of global warming.

It turns out that global (or at least hemispheric) temperatures are reflected by the climate in western Ireland; for a short explanation of that, see here.  Trees grow in western Ireland, of course, and each year, those trees grow an annual ring.  Rings that are thick indicate years that were good for the trees; rings that are thin indicate the opposite.  If many trees in western Ireland had thick rings in some particular years, then climatic conditions in those years were presumably good.  Tree rings have been used in this way to learn about the climate centuries ago.

Queen’s University Belfast has data on tree rings that goes back millennia, in particular, to the Medieval Warm Period.  QUB researchers have not analyzed the data (because they lack the expertise to do so).  They also refuse to release the data.  I have been trying to obtain the data, via the UK Freedom of Information Act, since April 2007.  The story is scandalous.

As the above illustrates, the problems in global-warming science are with more than just the few directly involved in Climategate.  Indeed, I think it would be unreasonable to suppose such.

Finally, in light of all the slander going around, maybe I should add this: I have received no payment of any kind from any entity for any work that I have done since 1995.

Douglas J. Keenan

======

For some background, see these two guest posts at WUWT:

Ring-a-Round 2: Queens University Belfast v Doug Keenan

Another UK climate data withholding scandal is emerging

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

112 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 1, 2009 9:34 am

I( expect the web of manipulation will broaden much more.
I’m encouraged to see Drudge, Hot Air and talk radio hammer away at this. Public iopinion will be needed to pressure more investigation.

Henry chance
December 1, 2009 9:36 am

“I was allowed to comment on the report of the investigation, before the report’s release.
But I was not allowed to see the report. Truly Kafkaesque”
This reminds me of the Dark Ages. What are they thinking?
The school needs to be sued. They have a report on you and do not own you or information on you. Maybe some of the medical malpractice attorneys can get a few million out of these stonewalling institutions.
“This era brings some wrongfull termination lawsuits. These files are private but not private for you.

Jack Green
December 1, 2009 9:40 am

The plot thickens.

Mike Bryant
December 1, 2009 9:41 am

The Climate Apple is rotten to the core.

Ron de Haan
December 1, 2009 9:43 am

It does not surprise me at all.
Simply click the DDC technical support team page of the IPCC website
http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_secretariat.htm#2
What do we have there:
IPCC Working Group I
Technical Support Unit
C/o University of Bern
Zähringerstrasse 25
3012 Bern
SWITZERLAND
Phone: +41 31 631 5616
Facsimile: +41 31 631 5615
IPCC Working Group II
Technical Support Unit
C/o Carnegie Institution for Science
260 Panama Street
Stanford, CA 94305. USA
Phone: (+1) 650-462-1047
Facsimile: (+1) 650-462-5968
IPCC Working Group III
Technical Support Unit
C/o Postdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)
Telegraphenberg A 51
14473 Potsdam
GERMANY
Phone: +49 331 288-2472
Facsimile: +49 331 288-2640
Technical Support Unit IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
C/o Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi,
Hayama, Kanagawa
240-0115 JAPAN
Phone: +81-46-855-3750
Facsimile: +81-46-855-3808

alleagra
December 1, 2009 9:46 am

The highly influential Lord Stern today has a message for Doug Keenan, WUWT readers and others:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6701828/Climate-change-sceptics-are-muddled-says-Lord-Stern.html
“you’re muddled” and he adds “‘I think it is very important that those with any kind of views on the science or economics have their say – that does not mean that unscientific muddle also has the right to be recognised as searing insight.”
He added: ”If they are muddled and confused, they do not have the right to be described as anything other than muddled and confused.”
The muddled among us should recall that the Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change was released in October 2006. In the Review, climate change is described as an economic externality. Regulation, carbon taxes and carbon trading are recommended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Of course he’s being very polite.

SABR Matt
December 1, 2009 9:47 am

Fantastic…my own university system joins ClimateGate. Different campus…same culpability.

Rich
December 1, 2009 9:48 am

Anybody else sat behind a Websense web filter?
“Reason:
This category is filtered: Potentially Damaging Content. Sites in this category may pose a security threat to network resources or private information, and are blocked by your organization.
URL:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=813&filename=1188557698.txt

Richard
December 1, 2009 9:49 am

Sir Walter Scott – “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive”
It is high time criminal complaints be lodged – any lawyers / judges amongst the 3 million+ viewers here?

Henry chance
December 1, 2009 9:49 am

It is now safer for whistleblowers to come out.
http://www.informath.org/pubs/EnE07a.pdf
Looks like Jones leaves a trail of tarnished studies.

December 1, 2009 9:52 am

I’ve been following science fraud stories like this for some time. Here’s a more detailed synopsis: click. More here.

Raymond
December 1, 2009 9:54 am

“Whom are you going to believe, me or your lying thermometers?”

Arijigoku
December 1, 2009 9:57 am

With Climategate it won’t be the crime that takes them down it’ll be the coverup.

December 1, 2009 9:58 am

The wonderfully talented Lord Stern continues to warble in spite of all the evidence of fraud in research as this thread yet again highlights.But then economists manipulate data all the time so perhaps he thinks this is acceptable behavior .His latest is at this link http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6701810/Copenhagen-climate-summit-5050-chance-of-stopping-catastrophe-Lord-Stern-says.html
Mind you this guy is not a real Lord,he is a pal of Brown and Blair.He is also a nephew of Donald Swann who co-wrote some amusing ditties,perhaps he is continuing a family tradition

AdderW
December 1, 2009 10:01 am

I just love the unwinding of all of theses stories and the inquisition of the IPCC will hopefully commence which in turn will result in the disbandenment of the whole organistation and the burning at the steak of all of its high priests.
Now, where can I get a “Vote for WUWT as president”?

BarryW
December 1, 2009 10:05 am

The Wegman report showed deep interconnections among these researchers. The tentacles reach far and wide and the Jones emails are most likely the tip of the iceberg. This is a climate mafia and will be just as hard to bring down as the Sicilian version.

Evan Jones
Editor
December 1, 2009 10:06 am

The vice governor of the province demanded to see the letter. Perry replied that it was impossible. The letter could not be seen by anyone other than the emperor or one of his princes. But if the governor himself should appear, he would be shown a copy of the letter . . .
Odd that Perry was more open in the conduct of politics than scientists are in the conduct of science.

Henry chance
December 1, 2009 10:06 am

Case Summary
The allegations concern two publications. These are:
Jones P.D., Groisman P.Y., Coughlan M., Plummer N., Wang W.-C., Karl T.R. (1990), �Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land�, Nature, 347: 169
Gang green is a crime syndicate. Jones in a normal world would be punished for his role in covering a fraudulent paper.

Evan Jones
Editor
December 1, 2009 10:11 am

Fantastic…my own university system joins ClimateGate. Different campus…same culpability.
I fee your pain. (M.A., Columbia University.)

Jordan
December 1, 2009 10:16 am

Interesting. One wonders if there is a hidden backlog of researchers who will now want to ask some pretty narky questions about how their articles were treated in peer review. If so, climategate could “ooze disgruntlement” among the academic community for a considerable period, and it will be increasingly difficult for the MSM to sit on it.
The public will put up with a little bad news, if it is allowed to move on. But a steady drip-drip of controversy will be more effective at getting attention of mainstream public opinion.
BTW the BBC evening news just did an article about the challenge of convincing the public of climate change (including a word from Benny Peiser). Any mention of climategate from the BBC? No!

JonesII
December 1, 2009 10:18 am

When will somebody knock at our doors?

yonason
December 1, 2009 10:18 am

Arijigoku (09:57:38) :
“With Climategate it won’t be the crime that takes them down it’ll be the coverup.”
LOL. Just like Watergate.

December 1, 2009 10:18 am

There is nothing useful in the whole climategate affair, a total reset is needed, after the UN IPCC is disbanded and buried.
The wealth transfer scam has been fully exposed.

Michael
December 1, 2009 10:32 am

Sunspot number: 0
Updated 30 Nov 2009
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 8 days
2009 total: 251 days (75%)
Since 2004: 762 days
Typical Solar Min: 485 days
Solar wind
speed: 264.6 km/sec
density: 0.6 protons/cm3
In 23 more spotless days we will have 300 more solar minimum days longer than the typical solar minimum.

ShrNfr
December 1, 2009 10:33 am

Mike Bryant (09:41:10) :
The Climate Apple is rotten to the Gore.

1 2 3 5