Climate Science Fraud at Albany University?

From the Scientific Misconduct Blog, 2 May 2009 (h/t to Benny Peiser)

by Dr.Aubrey Blumsohn

Professor Wei-Chyung Wang is a star scientist in the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center at the University at Albany, New York. He is a key player in the climate change debate (see his self-description here). Wang has been accused of scientific fraud.

I have no inclination to “weigh in” on the topic of climate change. However the case involves issues of integrity that are at the very core of proper science. These issues are the same whether they are raised in a pharmaceutical clinical trial, in a basic science laboratory, by a climate change “denialist” or a “warmist”. The case involves the hiding of data, access to data, and the proper description of “method” in science.

The case is also of interest because it provides yet another example of how *not* to create trust in a scientific misconduct investigation. It adds to the litany of cases suggesting that Universities cannot be allowed to investigate misconduct of their own star academics. The University response has so far been incoherent on its face.

Doug Keenan, the mathematician who raised the case of Wang is on the “sceptic” side of the climate change debate. He maintains that “almost by itself, the withholding of their raw data by [climate] scientists tells us that they are not scientists”.

Below is my own summary of the straightforward substance of this case. I wrote to Wei-Chyung Wang, to Lynn Videka (VP at Albany, responsible for the investigation), and to John H. Reilly (a lawyer at Albany) asking for any correction or comments on the details presented below. My request was acknowledged prior to publication, but no factual correction was suggested.

Case Summary

  1. 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: 169–172. (PDF here)
    • Wang W.-C., Zeng Z., Karl T.R. (1990), “Urban heat islands in China”, Geophysical Research Letters, 17: 2377–2380. (PDF here)
  2. The publications concern temperature at a variety of measuring stations over three decades (1954-1983). Stations are denoted by name or number. A potential confounder in such research is that measuring stations may be moved to different locations at different points in time. It is clearly important that readers of publications understand the methodology, and important confounders.
  3. The publications make the following statements:
    • (Statement A) “The stations were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times.” [Jones et al.]
    • (Statement B) “They were chosen based on station histories: selected stations have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times….” [Wang et al.]
  4. The publications refer to a report produced jointly by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) which details station moves, and the publications further suggest that stations with few if any moves or changes were selected on the basis of that report. However:
    • Of 84 stations that were selected, Keenan found that information about only 35 are available in the DOE/CAS report
    • Of those 35 stations at least half did have substantial moves (e.g 25 km). One station had five different locations during 1954–1983 as far as 41 km apart.
  5. It therefore appears that Statements A and B must be false. If false, readers would have been misled both in terms of the status of the stations and the manner in which they had been selected (or not selected).
  6. Keenan then communicated with the author of one of the publications (Jones) to ask about the source of location information pertaining to the other 49 stations that had not been selected using the described methodology. Jones informed Keenan that his co-author Wang had selected those stations in urban and rural China based on his “extensive knowledge of those networks”.
  7. On 11 April 2007 Keenan E-mailed Wang, asking “How did you ensure the quality of the data?”. Wang did not answer for several weeks, but on 30 April 2007 he replied as follows:

    “The discussion with Ms. Zeng last week in Beijing have re-affirmed that she used the hard copies of station histories to make sure that the selected stations for the study of urban warming in China have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times over the study period (1954-1983)”

  8. Keenan points out that the “hard copies” to which Wang refers were not found by the authors of the DOE/CAS report, who had endeavored to be “comprehensive” (and that the DOE/CAS report was authored in part by Zeng, one of the co-authors on Wang). Keenan further notes that any form of comprehensive data covering these stations during the Cultural Revolution would be implausible.
  9. In August 2007 Keenan submitted a report to the University at Albany, alleging fraud. Wang could at that stage have made the “hard copy” details of the stations selected available to the scientific community. However, he failed to do so.
  10. In May 2008, the University at Albany wrote to Keenan that they had conducted an investigation and asked him to comment on it (see the rather odd letter). However they refused to show him the report of the investigation or any of the evidence to allow any comment (further odd letter).
  11. In August 2008 the University sent Keenan an astonishing letter of “determination” stating that they did not find that Wang had fabricated data, but that they refused to provide any investigation report or any other information at all because “the Office of Research Integrity regulations preclude discussion of any information pertaining to this case with others who were not directly involved in the investigation”.
  12. Wang has still not made the station records available to the scientific community. If he provided such records to the University as part of a misconduct investigation, then the University has apparently concealed them.

Comments

  1. In the absence of any explanation to the contrary, it seems that the methodology for station selection as described in these two publications was false and misleading.
  2. Wang maintains that hard copy records do exist detailing the location of stations selected by himself outwith the published methodology. However the refusal to clarify “method” is inappropriate and a form of misconduct in and of itself. It does not lend credence to Wang’s assertion that fraud did not take place. It would also be necessary to see records of stations that were not selected, in order to confirm that selection was indeed random, and only “on the basis of station history”.
  3. The University at Albany is in a difficult position.
    • If the University received such records as part of the supposed misconduct investigation, then they could easily resolve the problem by making them available to the scientific community and to readers.
    • If the University does not have such records then they have been complicit in misconduct and in coverup of misconduct.
    • If the University at Albany does have such records, but such records are not in accordance with the stated methodology of the publications, then the University has more serious difficulties.
  4. “Investigations” of scientific misconduct should themselves align with the usual principles of scientific discourse (open discussion, honesty, transparency of method, public disclosure of evidence, open public analysis and public discussion and reasoning underlying any conclusion). This was not the case at the University at Albany. When you see universities reluctant to investigate things properly, it provides reasonable evidence that they really don’t want to investigate things properly.

For further information on this case see here and here.

=====================

(2) THE FRAUD ALLEGATION AGAINST SOME CLIMATIC RESEARCH OF WEI-CHYUNG WANG

Informath, April 2009

http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620.htm

Douglas J. Keenan

Following are some remarks about my exposé, “The fraud allegation against some climatic research of Wei-Chyung Wang“.


Wei-Chyung Wang is a professor at the University at Albany, State University of New York. He has been doing research on climate for over 30 years, and he has authored or co-authored more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific articles. He has also received an Appreciation Plaque from the Office of Science in the U.S.A., commending him, “For your insightful counsel and excellent science. …”. The plaque resulted in particular from his research on global warming.

I have formally alleged that Wang committed fraud in important parts of his global-warming research. Below is a relevant timeline.

03 August 2007 My report, “Wei-Chyung Wang fabricated some scientific claims“, is sent to the Vice President for Research at Wang’s university.
31 August 2007 The university notifies me that it is initiating an inquiry into suspected research misconduct by Wang. (The notification includes a copy of the university’s Policy and Procedures on Misconduct in Research and Scholarship.)
12 November 2007 My exposé on Wang’s alleged fraud is published (reference below).
07 December 2007 Myself and the university’s Inquiry Committee have a conference call.
20 February 2008 The university sends me the Report of the Inquiry Committee. The Committee unanimously concluded that “there was no data” (thus implicitly concluding Wang must have fabricated data) and that a full investigation should be undertaken.
23 May 2008 The university sends me a notice: the Investigation Committee has completed its work and found no evidence of fraud. The investigation was conducted without interviewing me, which is a violation of the university’s policy. The university asks me to comment on the Committee’s report; I am, however, not allowed to see the report.
04 June 2008 The university informs me that I am not allowed to see the report because they did not interview me when preparing it.
06 June 2008 I submit comments to the university, listing ways in which I believe the university has acted in breach of U.S. regulations and its own policy.
11 July 2008 I submit a complaint to the Public Integrity Bureau at the Office of the Attorney General of New York State, alleging criminal fraud.
12 August 2008 The university sends me the determination for its investigation, saying that there is “no evidence whatsoever [of] … any research misconduct”.
07 October 2008 I telephone the Public Integrity Bureau and am told that it might be some months before the Bureau begins to review the complaint.
17 March 2009 I telephone the Public Integrity Bureau and am told that the complaint is under review by an attorney.
18 March 2009 I file three requests under the Freedom of Information Law of New York State: for a copy of the full report by the Inquiry Committee; for a copy of the full report by the Investigation Committee; and, given that the relevant federal funding agencies are required to be notified when a misconduct investigation is initiated, for copies of all such notifications that were sent by the university and pertain to the investigation of Wang.
24 March 2009 Given that Wang received funding for the fraudulent research from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and that the DOE has since supplied more funding to Wang, I report the fraud and the university’s apparent cover up to the Office of Inspector General at the DOE.

This web page will be updated with news about the case, as the investigations progress.

===========

(3) KAFKA AT ALBANY

Freeborn John, 15 March 2009

http://freebornjohn.blogspot.com/2009/03/kafka-at-albany.html

Peter Risdon

Last June I reported on the allegations of academic fraud levelled by a British mathematician, Doug Keenan, against Professor Wei-Chyung Wang of New York State University at Albany.

Dr Keenan alleged that in work that has come to be widely cited in climate studies, work that included the collation of data from temperature measuring stations in China, Professor Wang made statements that “cannot be true and could not be in error by accident. The statements are fabricated.”

In August 2007, Dr Keenan submitted a report (pdf) of his allegations to the Vice President for Research at Wang’s university and an inquiry was initiated. In February 2008 this was escalated into a full investigation by the Inquiry Committee.

All this was summarised in my earlier post, together with quotations from Dr Keenan’s allegation.

So far, things had run as might be expected. A fraud had been alleged, the University at Albany looked into it and decided to hold a formal investigation. Dr Keenan waited to be contacted by the investigation and asked to put his case, in line with the university’s Policy and Procedures on Misconduct in Research and Scholarship (.doc). The relevant section of this document runs as follows (emphasis added):

III. A. Rights and Responsibilities of the Complainant

Rights: The Vice President for Research will make every effort to ensure the privacy and confidentiality of complainants. The University will protect, to the maximum extent possible, the position and the reputation of those who in good faith report alleged misconduct in research.

The Vice President for Research will work to ensure that complainants will not be retaliated against in the terms and conditions of their employment or other status at the University and will review instances of alleged retaliation for appropriate action. Any alleged or apparent retaliation should be reported immediately to the Vice President for Research.

The complainant will be provided a copy of the formal allegations when and if an inquiry is opened. The complainant will have the opportunity to review portions of the inquiry and investigation reports pertinent to the complainant’s report or testimony, and will be informed in writing of the results of the inquiry and investigation, and of the final determination. After the final determination and upon request to the Vice President for Research, the complainant shall be given access to the full documentation.

Responsibilities: The complainant is responsible for making allegations in good faith, maintaining confidentiality, and cooperating fully with an inquiry and/or investigation.

Dr Keenan lived up to the responsibility as stated in the final paragraph above so far as he could. He had made the allegation in good faith and given Professor Wang an opportunity to explain how he had reached his results, an opportunity the Professor had not taken. Keenan maintained confidentiality. In order to cooperate with the investigation, though he would first have to be contacted by it. Dr Keenan waited.

Late in May 2008 a communication arrived from Albany. It said:

After careful review of the evidence and thoughtful deliberation, the Investigation Committee finds no evidence of the alleged fabrication of results and nothing that rises to the level of research misconduct having been committed by DR. Wang.

As the institutional official responsible for this case, I have accepted the Committee’s findings and the Report. You have fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of this letter to provide any comments to add to the report for the record.

Contrary to its own rules, the Committee had not given Keenan the opportunity to “review portions of the inquiry and investigation reports”.

That’s astonishing, but here’s where it becomes Kafkaesque. Keenan was being asked, in this most recent communication, to comment on the report of the Committee. But he was not sent a copy of the report. When he challenged this, he received an email from Adrienne Bonilla explaining that:

[Keenan] did not receive a copy of the Investigation report because the report did not include portions addressing your role and opinions in the investigation phase.

Per the UAlbany Misconduct policy:

VI. E. Investigation Report and Recommendations of the Vice President for Research

“…The Vice President for Research will provide the respondent with a copy of the draft investigation report for comment and rebuttal and will provide the complainant with those portions of the draft report that address the complainant’s role and opinions in the investigation. The respondent and complainant will be given 14 calendar days from the transmission of the report to provide their written comments. Any written responses to the report by either party will be made part of the report and record.

Keenan then wrote to the Vice President for Research at Albany, Lynn Videka, pointing out the various ways in which the University had breached its own policy, stating that its behaviour was consistent with a cover up, and pointing out that Professor Wang has received more than $7 million in grants from a couple of US federal agencies.

In August 2008, Lynn Videka wrote to Keenan enclosing a final copy of a “determination” of the investigation. In her covering note, she stated:

I am notifying you of the case outcome because you were the complainant in this case. The University’s misconduct policies and the Office of Research Integrity regulations preclude discussion of any information pertaining to this case with others who were not directly involved in the investigation.

To summarise, the university initiated an investigation, then broke its own rules by not involving Dr Keenan. It then produced a report that carefully avoided mentioning Dr Keenan, so it could claim he was not entitled to see a copy of this report. It then asked Keenan to comment on the report. It has completely disregarded its own policy that “After the final determination and upon request to the Vice President for Research, the complainant shall be given access to the full documentation.”

But Doug Keenan is a tenacious man. In July 2008, after being refused sight of the report, he submitted a formal complaint (pdf) to the Public Integrity Bureau at the Office of the Attorney General of New York State, alleging criminal fraud. In this complaint, he said:

Wei-Chyung Wang is a professor at the University at Albany, State University of New York. He has been doing research for over 30 years. For this research, Wang has received at least $7 million. The funds have come primarily from the Department of Energy, with additional funding from other federal agencies (DOD, FAA, NSF). I have formally alleged that Wang committed fraud in important parts of his research. My allegation was submitted to the University at Albany; a copy is enclosed.

The university conducted a preliminary inquiry; a copy of the report from the inquiry is enclosed (redacted, by the university). Briefly, Wang claimed that there were some documents that could exonerate him. The inquiry concluded that there should be a full investigation, which should be “charged with obtaining and reviewing any such additional evidence … so that a final resolution may be made regarding the allegation against Dr. Wang”.

Wang had been claiming the existence of such exonerating documents for nearly a year, but he has not been able to produce them. Additionally, there was a report published in 1991 (with a second version in 1997) explicitly stating that no such documents exist. Moreover, the report was published as part of the Department of Energy Carbon Dioxide Research Program, and Wang was the Chief Scientist of that program.

The university conducted an investigation. The investigation concluded that Wang is innocent. I believe that the case against Wang is strong and clear, and that the university is trying to cover up the fraud so as to protect its reputation. Wang is one of the university’s star professors. The conduct of the investigation violated several of the university’s own stated policies: details are given in an attached e-mail (dated 06 June 2008).

The e-mail was sent to Lynn Videka, Vice President for Research at the university: Videka was in charge of overseeing the investigation. Note, in particular, that the documents that Wang was relying on were never produced.

I have only examined a little of Wang’s research; so I do not know the full extent of the fraud. It is difficult to examine more in part because Wang has not willingly made his data available: when asked for the data from the research that I later reported as fraudulent, Wang refused. For that research, though, Wang had a co-worker in Britain. In Britain, the Freedom of Information Act requires that data from publicly-funded research be made available. I was able to get the data by requiring Wang’s co-worker to release it, under British law. It was only then that I was able to confirm that Wang had committed fraud. Details are given in my report to the university (page 4, last paragraph). I would be willing to help examine other research that Wang has done, if more data were made available.

There was another case of research fraud with a professor at the University of Vermont, in 2005. There, Prof. Eric Poehlman was convicted of making false statements on federal grant applications; he was sentenced to a year and a day in prison. Wang has done the same as Poehlman. The fraudulent work described in my report dates from 1990; Wang has been relyingon that work in some of his grant applications since then. As I understand things, each of those applications is a violation of statute. (Additionally, Wang has been using the grants to go on frequent trips to China.)

In October 2008 Dr Keenan was told there could be a wait of several months while his complaint is investigated.

I’ll let you know when there are any further developments.

UPDATE: I didn’t mention this in the main piece above, but I did mail the relevant person at Albany myself, some time ago, asking for news of the investigation against Professor Wang. I received no reply.

However, within a couple of hours of this being posted, someone at Albany came to look at it, from the host aspmini-cc326.cc.albany.edu (169.226.172.35), having apparently been sent an email about it.

So even if they are not communicative about this case, it seems someone at Albany is keeping their eyes open for reports of it.

UPDATE: On reflection, the hit from Albany is also consistent with someone using Google Alerts to monitor coverage of this issue.

UPDATE: Doug Keenan has been told on the telephone that this case is now under review by an attorney at the OAG Public Integrity Bureau.

UPDATE: Also see new findings on the effect of urban warming.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
crosspatch

The lack of disclosure of data methods supporting research claims of AGW seems to be rule rather than the exception. That is one reason why it is so difficult to take their claims seriously.

crosspatch

Meant “data and methods”, not “data methods”.

All is well at the Schloss.

TerryBixler

Follow the money.

In May 2008, the University at Albany wrote to Keenan that they had conducted an investigation and asked him to comment on it (see the rather odd letter). However they refused to show him the report of the investigation or any of the evidence to allow any comment (further odd letter).
This kind of (mis)conduct seems to be widespread. We even had a case right here on our very own blog where a blogger issues a challenge, but refuses to say what the challenge is. From another thread http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/25/examining-sorce-data-shows-the-sun-continues-its-slide-toward-somnolence/#comment-125654 :
Leif Svalgaard (19:07:44) :
Paul Vaughan (13:40:34) :
“And I wonder how many decent scientists choose to not participate because…”
It is normal and decent scientific behavior that if a challenge is issued, the scientist challenged gets to know what the challenge is and gets a forum to rebut the challenge. In the usual Journals there are rather strict rules for how this should play out: you can submit a ‘comment’ [usually negative] on a published paper, to which the scientist being challenged has a right to rebut with a ‘reply’. The ‘comment’ and ‘reply’ will then be published back-to-back…

Mikkel r

phew… what to say. Amazing really. Read the original post on the Scientific Misconduct blog just a few hours ago and thought: Wonder how much attention this will get?
And BAM!!! WUWT to the rescue! – or at least assistance. With the attention at this site we can hope the story will be picked up by some of the MSM. As it is an issue that does not as such “weigh in on the topic of Climate Change” it is possible journalists won’t be to scared of diving into the issue. The scientific community needs a good whooping and pressure to clean up their act. Will be interesting to see how the story plays out.

Oh what a tangled web they weave,
it, frankly, makes me want to heave.

Prof. Wang brings in big money. No wonder the university wants to protect him:

Keenan then wrote to the Vice President for Research at Albany, Lynn Videka [Research Integrity Officer], pointing out the various ways in which the University had breached its own policy, stating that its behaviour was consistent with a cover up, and pointing out that Professor Wang has received more than $7 million in grants from a couple of US federal agencies.

Before she retired, Mrs. Smokey was a Principal for 17 years. I saw first hand how school districts fight like ravenous hyenas over the relatively few individuals who are able to successfully write grant proposals. It is a specialized skill. The ones that have a proven track record of winning big grant bucks are coddled and protected, and they can pretty much write their own ticket.
The university jettisoned its integrity to protect Wang. Anyone who brings in an extra $7 million is more precious than some pesky old non-paying ethics policy. It will be interesting to see where this leads.

Bill Illis

If it wasn’t fraud, it was very wrong. Even if it was not fabricated, the data chosen gave a completely incorrect view of what was really happening.
Even Phil Jones effectively repudiated the original study last year by publishing a new estimate of 0.1C per decade Urban Heat Island effect in China since 1951.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008JD009916.shtml
This was one of the cornerstones of global warming theory, that the Urban Heat Island had not significantly impacted the global temperature trend.
Well that pillar is now gone. It rates up there with the “we must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period” – “we must get rid of the Urban Heat Island.” But they still have not corrected the overall record with the new “obvious from the start” results.

Richard Henry Lee

Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit had similar problems getting information about the Chinese stations. See http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3255 for example for a response from NOAA’s NCDC that they did not have the Chinese data.
The same paper cited above was involved in McIntyre’s request as well: Jones, P.D., P.Y. Groisman, M. Coughlan, N. Plummcr, W.C. Wang and T.R. Karl, 1990, Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land, Nature 347,169-172. I.

P Folkens

Unfortunately, this ethical problem is may not be an isolated incident. There are plenty of similar examples of withholding data, denying access, and questionable methodology.

This looks similar to the story of “Arming America, The Origins of a National Gun Culture” by former Emory University professor of history Dr. Michael A. Bellesiles (Sept 2000). Critics went through several cycles of debate with him about his evidence, eventually proving the sources he stated did not have the data in question.
Eventually “On the day that the report was released (July 2002), Bellesiles resigned from Emory. The trustees of Columbia University then rescinded Bellesiles’ Bancroft Prize, after which Knopf withdrew the book from distribution. From Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_America,_The_Origins_of_a_National_Gun_Culture#Emory_Ethics_Investigation

Steve Keohane

Thanks for bringing this to light Anthony. This appears symptomatic of the climate ‘science’ being purveyed these days. Steve McIntyre seems to run into the same closed methodology over and over again. Out of curiosity, I did a search recently, looking for ice-core drilling to bedrock in Greenland and Antarctica, trying to discover the length of continual glaciation. A paper on Greenland which made several claims denying aternatives to AGW by CO2 had eleven citations for references. Every one of the citations was written by one or more of the same group in the original paper. It is getting ever more difficult to find anything worth reading. Even Science News has an editorial this week by the secretary-general of the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, just another politician angling for perpetual existence. He claims the “WMO is working on a global framework for developing and providing climate services to meet users’ needs.” To be released 8/31-9/4 at the WCC in Geneva. He seems to draw a sense of importantance in advising based on the IPCC’s projections of the predicaments to come via climate change. This is absurd.

Benjamin P.

Clear evidence that ALL climate scientists are just in it for the money.
amirite?

Juraj V.

This has been discussed at CA in 2007:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1741
UHI claim at 0.005 deg C/decade is obvious nonsense for anybody with experience of living in a city. Recent correction by Jones stated that “urban-related warming over China is shown to be about 0.1 degree per decade over the period 1951–2004, with true climatic warming accounting for 0.81°C over this period. .” – can you see hiding the 0.53 deg UHI, creating 2/3 of total warming?

Peter

Would this be the paper that has allowed Phil Jones to claim that there is no significant UHI effect and therefore no need to correct for it in the HadCRUT dataset?
If so, the warmists will circle the wagons no matter how egregious the offence.

Phillip Bratby

There are six co-authors with Wang for the two papers. I am surprised that not one of them saw the data or was suspicious of the data. It makes you wonder what the co-authors’ contributions to the papers were. If I were a co-author of a paper, I would want to be pretty certain of the contents of the paper to which I was putting my name and reputation.
These people either have no integrity or they just want to get their names for citation on as many papers as possible, regardless of the content.

A sad day for science . . .

Jeremy

I fear that bogus research is unfortunately becoming all too common everywhere (not just Climate science). Many professors publish as many as five papers a year. The powerful PC allows prolific output and keeps people at a distance from proper mathematical and statistical analysis – as well as making it possible simply to generate papers without doing any fundamental lab work or proper research of one’s own. Often there is no time to follow proper scientific protocol. The peer review process seems to be a joke and the sheer volume of bad science out there means that inevitably as much as 25% (if not more) journal papers are complete rubbish.
For example, how many thousands of PC word-smithed papers cite or leverage data gathered from a few bristlecone tree ring plugs made by one fellow in Colorado more than 20 years ago?
We stand on the shoulders of those before us….unfortunately, in science at least, more and more often, we are discovering that those before us were standing on a heap of bull manure.

David Holliday

It seems to me that if Professor Wang’s research is being funded through DOE and NSF that Dr. Keenan should take his complaint to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for both those agencies. They would be the persons most directly responsible for verifying that there was no fraud involved.

Brian

I have the dubious distinction of being on the NYC alumni committee for UofAlbany. Our group’s purpose is supposed to be to help support the University financially and to further its reputation. It appears that by it’s action (or should I say inactions), that the University is working against us. I will bring this to the attention of others in the group.
Thanks to all that contribute to WUWT; it is very informative and a great read for those like me who have an interest in the climate debate but do not work directly in any of the related areas.

lord garth

Bad data. Analysis that is not reproducible. Key Assumptions not stated explicitly.
I spent a career with the Federal Government and these things happened over and over again. Unfortunately, people who want promotions only pay attention to such things when the conclusions go against what the ruling class wants.

Pierre Gosselin

Hello!
We’re are talking about a science that has been politically corrupted.
All of this here is nothing new.
Whose bread one eats, whose words one speaks.

Ian M

I read the linked email from Adrienne D Bonilla at U. at Albany, explaining why they did not provide a copy of the report to Keenan. She said:
“You did not receive a copy of the Investigation report because the report did not include portions addressing your role and opinions in the investigation phase.”
This clearly misapplies the university’s policy; and Keenan, as complainant, is, in any event, entitled to a copy of the final report.
(From s. III.A. “Rights and Responsibilities of the Complainant”, in the University at Albany Policy and Procedures on Misconduct in Research and Scholarship)
“The complainant will be provided a copy of the formal allegations when and if an inquiry is opened. The complainant will have the opportunity to review portions of the inquiry and investigation reports PERTINENT to the complainant’s report or testimony, and will be informed in writing of the results of the inquiry and investigation, and of the final determination. After the final determination and upon request to the Vice President for Research, the complainant shall be given access to the full documentation.” (emphasis added)
The question, therefore, is not whether the report specifically referenced Keenan or his complaints – he has a right to review those portions that are “pertinent” to his complaints, a far broader concept. He also has a right to the “full documentation” upon request to the VP for Research.

Pierre Gosselin

It is a fraud.
The energy driving this behaviour is not truth, but rather it is the desire to deceive in order to reach a political end.
McIntyre and others have exposed it time and again.

Ron de Haan

How about climate science fraud by the State Secretary Steven Chu still using the debunked Hockey Stick Graph from Mann in current presentations?
How about climate science fraud by EPA declaring CO2 a toxin?
How about telling plain lies to the American public by the President of the United States about out climate?
How about climate science fraud by Al Gore?
How about climate science fraud by the UN IPCC?
Are these the next cases?

Jim Watson (10:24:54) :
Oh what a tangled web they weave,
it, frankly, makes me want to heave.
“….Now the tapestry is unraveling…he´s come to take me back”
(Carole King:”Tapestry”)
..of course, back to where they belong…

Steve Keohane (10:40:17) :

… Even Science News has an editorial this week by the secretary-general of the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, just another politician angling for perpetual existence. He claims the “WMO is working on a global framework for developing and providing climate services to meet users’ needs.”

Science News as in http://sciencenews.org/ ? I don’t see it there, in their search engine, or at news.google.com. Pointers welcome!
I suppose I should go check my paper copies, but that seems so 20th century. 🙂

fred

“He maintains that ‘almost by itself, the withholding of their raw data by [climate] scientists tells us that they are not scientists’.”
I agree, if you omit the “almost”. The kind of stuff highlighted at Climate Audit is what prompted me to dig on my own and convinced me that fraud is involved on the AGW side.

Mike McMillan

Publicly funded research on which public policy will be founded should be required to make all data publicly available. If the data cannot be verified, if the results/conclusions cannot be replicated, then the “research” should be ashcanned.
Folks shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to confirm what the establishment pronounces, as did the team that re-did Graybill’s bristle cone pine cores study that Mann used in his hockey stick paper (and found it inaccurate).
Perhaps I should have said “taxpayer funded research on which taxation increases policy will be rationalized.” The whole global warming debate would be mere entertainment for geeks like moi, were it not for the drive to DO something about it.

Buffalo Bill

Professor Wei-Chyung Wang is a Climate Fear Profiteer Scientist. The University at Albany, State University of New York is a Climate Fear Profiteer University. GE-NBC is a Climate Fear Profiteer Propaganda Division. GE is a Climate Fear Profiteer Transnational Corporation.
“GE is wholly or partially liable for at least 78 Federal Superfund Sites.”
http://www.cleanupge.org/gemisdeeds.html
However, don’t pay attention to the man behind the Green Smokescreen CO2 Curtain. If the public focuses on superfund sites, people might expect the Government to GET MONEY from GE. If the public fears “man-made CO2 global warming”, people will demand that the Government PAY GE for windmills and other inefficient “green” products.

“….the tapestry is unraveling..
so don´t stop WUWT, keep unceasingly unweaving!!

John M

Interesting.
If you Google his name, he certainly has bona fide whistleblowing credentials. No corporate shill here.
I wonder how the usual crowd is going to try to attack him.
Hope he has an unlisted phone number and address.

Mike McMillan (12:18:11) :
Publicly funded research on which public policy will be founded should be required to make all data publicly available

If not make available then funds should be returned.

Caleb

You can duck some of the peer review all of the time
And
You can duck all of the peer review some of the time
But
You cannot duck all of the peer review all of the time.

Robert Bateman

“WMO is working on a global framework for developing and providing climate services to meet users’ needs.”
Once you start doing things at that scale, modifying whole climactic regions, the dominoe effect will cascade around the globe. Keep doing it and there’s no way to stop, because if you do, the consequences are waiting to be paid.
Nations ordering this climate will ruin their neighbors downstream, like dumping toxins kills the fish downriver. Back up enough of nature’s relentless efforts to balance out and the climatic alteration capability is overwhelmed.
If you want cause & effect testing, go dig up the Hurricane seeding experiments that were called off.
These people don’t intend to get along with nature, they intend to defy it, modify it, channel it and charge for it.
You might as well call this the Climactic Bubble, because it will surely pop when it can no longer be controlled.
A real Frankenstein Monster straight out of the horror movies.

Mark

What the heck is “google alerts?” I’ve never heard of this.

Re David Holliday (11:29:58):
I submitted a report about Wang to the Office of the Inspector General at the DOE on March 24th. This is mentioned on my web page about Wang (with a link to the report); the direct link is
http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620/b090324.htm

anon

There is a pointed and amusing account of this matter and related matters, placing it in the context of the Hockey Stick, and putting all the various arguments and considerations in their place, at
http://www.oftwominds.com/journal/global-warming6-07.html
It seems to have been written about a year ago.

Dave Middleton

If for-profit scientists behave this way in the oil and gas industry behave this way…They get fired…If not sued.

Dave Middleton

Fortunately…we don’t often get fired for butchering the English language…;)

Daniel M

Methinks the level of greenwashing is increasing faster than global sea ice as the realization sets in that the window of opportunity for climate change legislation is quickly closing. Will Obama keep his word to put science ahead of politics, or will the fruitless (and deceitful) search for AGWMDs be his administrations undoing?

Just Want Truth...

“24 March 2009 Given that Wang received funding for the fraudulent research from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and that the DOE has since supplied more funding to Wang, I report the fraud and the university’s apparent cover up to the Office of Inspector General at the DOE.”
Given that Steven Chu is Secretary of Energy at the DOE, and that he himself uses the questionable science of the Mann Hockey Hockey Stick graph, there may not be much concern coming from the DOE to crack down on activities like this that are related to global warming.
And thus, isn’t it perfectly in keeping with the political power of global warming “that the DOE has since supplied more funding to Wang”? That’s something to think about.
ref.
Steven Chu :
http://www.energy.gov/organization/dr_steven_chu.htm
Steven Chu using the Mann Hockey Stick, on page 7 of this pdf :
http://www.eia.doe.gov/plenary/Chu.pdf
at this conference :
http://www.eia.doe.gov/plenary/plenary_main.html#DrChu

Just Want Truth...

This appears to not be just a case against Wei-Chyung Wang but against something much bigger than him. It looks to be a shout against the entire global warming farrago.
The delays to its resolution may just be beginning.

Jesper

It is likely that Jones wrote:
The stations were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times.” [Jones et al.]
And likely that Wang wrote:
“They were chosen based on station histories: selected stations have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times….” [Wang et al.]
The language ‘relatively few’ is meaningless, since there is no comparison given for the term ‘relatively’. This might give Wang an out on fraud charges, but hopefully this situation can lead to opening of the Chinese records.

Claude Harvey

Right on, Bulldog! Chase him to ground and chew off his taxpayer funded shorts!

Ron de Haan

You can sue a scientist or a University for Climate Science Fraud, but what if the fraud is performed by the President of the United States”.
Looking for a role model anyone?
[snip – we’ll leave this OT out of the current discussion. The issue is a peer reviewed science paper, not presidential politics – Anthony]

Aron

I find it highly implausible that any Chinese researchers gave a damn about keeping accurate temperature records (or any form of reliable data recording) for half a century when they had a hard enough time dealing with hunger and development in the face of poverty and state sanctioned murder. Climate change is not an issue for the poor or developing nations. It is only an issue for well off, well fed armchair socialists and elitists in the West…who can’t get temperature data recording or climate modelling right even with all the creature comforts and best technology that the modern world has to offer.

Paul Vaughan

Re: Leif Svalgaard (10:07:59)
Leif, I thought we had reached the stage of respectful disagreement and now I discover you dragging out the past here.

Leif: “In the usual Journals there are rather strict rules for how this should play out”
Leif, we are not “in the usual Journals”. We are in a fully public forum populated by volunteers.
The respectful thing for you to do is let this matter rest.
REPLY: I would agree, if only for the reason that it is off-topic to the subject being discussed, Wang et al. Review methodology however, is fair game.- Anthony

Tim McHenry

What am I missing in this whole issue? If anyone denies UHI then why are the temps greater in the city measurements? I have lived in rural areas most of my life and its commonly known that it gets colder outside the city!! Why is it so hard to test this and get a “correction factor” or whatever they want to use (and not the ridiculous one suggested in the paper above)?
Of course, the sensible thing to do would be to follow the guidelines on how to measure temp., but I guess nobody’s going to put out the money it would take to get the locations up to spec!