WUWT readers may recall that Queens University Belfast is being asked to provide tree ring data and so far has been refusing all but a small portion. Here is an update on that story first carried in WUWT.
Guest Post by John A
Following on from the last post on Doug Keenan’s struggle to get tree ring data from Queen’s University, Belfast, we have Mike Baillie from QUB to explain to Benny Peiser of CCNet:
Dear Benny,
although I am retired from basic dendrochronological work, I would like to correct a small part of the diatribe against Queen’s University, Belfast, that you carried on CCNet on the 15 August, namely the allegation that we are deliberately withholding data of climatic significance.
Your source, Mr Keenan, gives the impression that data from only one Irish oak site is available, namely Garryland Wood, Co Galway. This is a site he used in an attempted correlation with temperature records. He points out the problem of dealing with data from an individual site, and states that “Those problems could be at least partially addressed by considering the individual trees at the site, rather than the average for the site, and also by considering trees at other sites in the British Isles. Doing so would presumably lead to additional increases in the correlation (that he found between Garryland tree rings and temperature records)”.
Now any fair minded reader would take it from that quotation that “the individual tree” data from Garryland is not available. Also that same reader would take it that data from other “trees at other sites in the British Isles” are not available. Presumably, if the data were available, Mr Keenan would have extended his analysis in the search for an even better correlation between tree-growth in the British Isles and temperature, either local or Hemispheric.
The point is, not only are the individual tree data (14 trees) available from Garryland Wood, but equivalent individual tree-ring data is available from twelve other modern oak sites in Ireland, namely Ardara, Baron’s Court, Breen Wood, Caledon, Cappoquin, Enniscorthy, Glen of the Downs, Killarney, Loch Doon, Rostrevor and Shane’s Castle. Moreover, individual tree data is also available for seven English and Scottish sites originally sampled by myself and colleagues at Belfast. Thus anyone wanting to undertake research on tree-rings from the British Isles with respect to climate variables simply has to go into the NOAA World Data Centre for Paleoclimatology and access the data laboriously assembled, measured, documented and presented by workers at Queen’s University Belfast.
These comments are necessary because Mr Keenan has stated on your web site that at “QUB researchers do not have the expertise to analyse the data themselves and they do not want to share their data with other researchers who do”. Personally I would like an apology from both Mssrs Keenan and Peiser. However, I don’t expect to see one.
Mike Baillie
EDITOR’S NOTE [Benny Peiser]: Mike – Thanks for your response to Doug Keenan’s account. Let me make just one correction, as far as my role as editor of CCNet is concerned. Contrary to your perception, Keenan did not publish his text on my website. He published it on a popular U.S. climate blog called “Watts Up With That.” <http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/14/another-uk-climate-data-scandal-is-emerging/> I only forwarded the essay because I considered it to be in the public interest, particularly in light of the ongoing data withholding controversy surrounding CRU (see <http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090812/full/460787a.html> ). In short, just because I circulated Doug Keenan’s text does not mean that I support his views or claims. As the CCNet disclaimer states explicitly: “The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the articles and texts and in other CCNet contributions do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the editor.” I hope this clarification will reassure you. BJP
Well it appears that Doug Keenan is not apologizing or going away:
D.J. Keenan <doug.keenan@informath.org>
Following are some comments on the claims in the Response of Mike Baillie (CCNet, 18 August 2009).
The Response claims that “anyone wanting to undertake research on tree-rings from the British Isles with respect to climate variables simply has to go into the NOAA World Data Centre for Paleoclimatology and access the data laboriously assembled, measured, documented and presented by workers at Queen’s University Belfast”.
Only a tiny portion of the data from QUB is in the World Data Centre (i.e. ITRDB). For example, there is no data in the ITRDB for prior to AD 1500; yet measurements go back 7000 years–as Baillie’s own publications state.
QUB originally made the same claim, but has now admitted that most data is on disks that have not been uploaded. And the Assistant Information Commissioner has visited QUB, and confirmed that he saw much more data. That most of the data has not been uploaded and that QUB has been “deliberately withholding data of climatic significance” (Baillie’s phrase) is thus provable, acknowledged by QUB, and independently verified.
The Response also claims that my post “gives the impression that data from only one Irish oak site is available, namely Garryland Wood”. It further claims that my post implied “the individual tree data from Garryland is not available”. These claims are not based on my main post, but on the page, linked by my post, at <http://www.informath.org/apprise/a3900/b910.htm>
That page presents a short, simplified, theory how Ireland is uniquely affected by the North Atlantic Drift and deep water formation and how this links with global climate. Briefly, if you had to pick one place in the world to study the climate, Ireland would seem to be it.
After presenting the theory to support that, the page gives a simple example, to illustrate that the theory works in practice. The example uses averages from one site in Ireland–Garryland Wood–and some basic mathematics–correlation and addition. This was done so that readers who are unfamiliar with the relevant science could judge the viability of the theory for themselves, at least to some extent. (The page was originally written for people who might not have any scientific training — staff at the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Aarhus Convention Secretariat, to support my requests for the data.)
After presenting the simplified example, the page notes that a proper analysis should consider individual trees, trees at other sites, and more sophisticated mathematics. The claims of the Response are based on misrepresenting all this, as if the example comprised the only data and the only mathematics that were available. Those claims are thus baseless.
The Response additionally quotes from my post, “QUB researchers do not have the expertise to analyse the data themselves”, and says that Baillie wants an apology for that. If Baillie has the expertise, why did he never publish any research using it? Moreover, I have had several discussions with Baillie over the years, and have a rough idea of his mathematical skills. The branch of statistics that seems most relevant for analyzing the data (multidimensional time series, probably nonlinear) is difficult and specialized: if Baillie can pass an introductory-level examination in the subject, I’ll pay a large sum. (Note: I would not pass either.)
To summarize, the untruthfulness in Baillie’s Response is so obvious that it seems unlikely that it was intended to be believed. Rather, this is perhaps just Baillie’s way of saying “go away”. Up until 2005, there would have been nothing that could be done. In 2005, though, the UK Freedom of Information Act came into effect. I look forward to seeing the Act enforced for such important data.
Douglas J. Keenan
Now all of this is really about principles – the question of ownership of scientific data and the principle of scientific replicability and analysis that can only happen if data and methodology are willingly shared.
Doug also noted to me that the blog at Nature also mentions this spat and Doug appears to think that Nature is being rather disparaging about him being praised on Climate Audit. I can’t quite see the slight myself but then I’m not an academic trying to protect my hoard of data from hordes of unwashed mathematical analysts who “might find something wrong with it”.
I think more importantly that both Climate Audit and WUWT have both opened the way for many people to reanalyze what we’re been told by populist magazines like Nature or Science which cheerfully admits that they filter their received papers to those that are deemed “provocative” by junior editors. Its easy to see how a science magazine’s published output can be skewed to the belief system of those junior editors.
I wish to apologise unequivocally to Mike Baillie for allowing an ad hominem attack to be included in a CCNet posting on 19 August 2009. I value vigorous and open debate, even hard-nosed controversies. It is essential for truth-finding in science. But I abhor personal attacks. This is the first time that such an issue has arisen on CCNet in more than 12 years. I will ensure that it won’t happen again as attacks on the integrity of CCNet members and other individuals are totally inappropriate in an academic network.
Benny Peiser
I hope “go the distance” means the fastest route possible to outing the frauds who pretend they are “practicing” science — a field where the pretenders-practitioners believe they can demand “consensus” (the science is settled) as to the current treatment plan (send the developed world back to the Dark Ages by any means possible). We usually call them quacks. And we are finding quacks at Nature and Science??? Ohhhh, Myyyyy!
So, he didn’t really expect an apology? Heh!
===========================
But Keenan could expect an apology for the spelling in the headline, or at least a correction. Double Heh Heh!!
=====================================
OT: This message appeared this morning on spaceweather.com
BLANK SUN: The sun is entering its 41st consecutive day without sunspots. This remarkable string of blank suns shows that we are still in the pits of the deepest solar minimum in a century. If the streak continues for 11 more days, it will match the longest blank spell of the current cycle.
So where was the 51-day streak? I have been watching the site daily for nearly a year. Did they retroactively uncount some of the specks after retroactively counting them?
@peat (07:58:26) :
According to SWPC the period from 07/21/08 to 09/10/08 was spot free for 52 days, there were a couple of days that SPIC said there was a spot in that period but as far as I know SWPC never changed their records to reflect those.
They wriggle, they squirm, but the truth will out in the end.
I meant SIDC, SPIC is another area of interest totally, sorry 🙂
Keenan – that name rang a bell… yes, Climate Audit did a page on his challenge of the grape harvest “evidence” for warming… and I read his paper challenging Prof Wang. Keenan’s Introduction says
The work of Jones et al. (1990) is a significant paper in global warming studies (see below for details). In February 2007, Stephen McIntyre blogged about evidence he had found showing that it was “impossible” for Jones et al. to have carried out their work as they had claimed. An anonymous comment on the blog then indicated potential issues with the closely-related work of Wang et al. (1990). Further study by myself found additional evidence of problems. The evidence particularly implicates Wei-Chyung Wang—the lead author of Wang et al. and a co-author of Jones et al.
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 coauthored more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers. 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 written a Report that details evidence that Wang committed scientific fraud.
I read up the “other side” on Keenan; I read up Keenan’s own story, and thought at the time, the academics are circling the waggons – but this is not good enough since global policies are implicated. My guess is, QUB already have a “stance” on Keenan from all that.
Typo in title:
Keenan not Heenan
REPLY: John A wrote the post, and I did not see it until you pointed it out. Thanks. – A
Sounds like a food fight to me. 😉
This is almost like the Reformation and Renaissance eras combined when the
Primacy of the Roman Church was questioned by a lot of people.
The response from the authorities is too…
“Things ain’t changed all that much”
‘ol Cowboy philosopher/poet-FD McCoy
Lucy:
Indeed, the wagons have definitely been circled for Keenan. I was thinking the same thing as I read the post.
I have submitted your linked PDF to reddit.com. ( http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/9ci5v/land_use_is_a_1storder_anthropogenic_climate/ ) Figured I should let you know.
I think more importantly that both Climate Audit and WUWT have both opened the way for many people to reanalyze what we’re been told by populist magazines like Nature or Science which cheerfully admits that they filter their received papers to those that are deemed “provocative” by junior editors. Its easy to see how a science magazine’s published output can be skewed to the belief system of those junior editors.
As one of those “many people” who are reanalyzing some of the stuff we’ve been fed and called ‘science’ when it clearly isn’t… I’m most grateful for all the efforts folks have made. If GIStemp had not been pried loose, just think what we would not know about it… (And I’d be in the back yard enjoying the sun in my garden instead of coding FORTRAN to convert degrees to radians and calculate equal area latitude bands by degrees… Gee, maybe it wasn’t such a good thing 8-}
BTW, if anyone just happens to know what the latitudes, in degrees, would be for a set of, oh, 9? 10? equal area latitude bands on the globe, that would save me re-learning how to do all that radians and spherical area stuff… and converting it to degrees. (Area of a band is R(squared)delta(angle in radians)cos(angle in radians); then I need to to solve for [earth area / (that area of what deltaAngle)] = 1/9; then I need to extract deltaAngle, then I need to turn that into degrees… then I need to repeat it for 9 slices of the earth and then… And I can do that, but it would be quicker if someone just happens to have a table of equal area latitude bands by degrees latitude… )
Prediction: This will go the distance.
Uh, yup!
QUB: “My Data! Mine, Mine, Mine, Mine, MINE!”
FOIA: “You have to share…”
QUB: “But Maaa!”
Doug: “QUB won’t share and called me a poo head!”
QUB: “I let him smell the data, that’s sharing! And he is a poo head!”
Us: “Would you grow up already? And his request is reasonable.”
FOIA: “You have to share…”
QUB: “My Data! Mine, Mine, Mine, “…
the only questions are the size of the “do loop” limit and the destination of the exit clause…
Maybe we just need a blanket rule that any article where the author is unwilling to share the data and methods must be automatically retracted by any peer reviewed journal (on the grounds of irreproducibility). Maybe that would do it… Seems like a reasonable rule to me…
Per Nature and Science: They let the Junior editors make the first cut? Oh Gawd… The senior editor ought to at least have a few “picks” that he seasons the trough with (and if the juniors don’t sniff out the truffles, they then get sent back for more “training”…)
Anyone with a clue knows that letting the most clueless set the agenda will result in the best stuff being missed and only sensational (but more likely to be wrong) stuff making it through the filter. The best science is often subtile, and hardest to predict its impacts.
Let the junior guy decide what goes on the menu before the chef gets to cook, and you get a lot of burgers & garlic fries with tabasco sauce … not a lot of subtile flavors and fine insights about spices and herbs… and certainly no steak cooked “bleu” (steak started at a nice room temperature or it won’t work, gently introduced to a clean grill just long enough for the deep red inside to turn to a deep blueish red. Somewhere between “tartar” and very rare. While I don’t like rare meat, a friend ordered a steak this way at a very fine restaurant and shared a bite. I must admit, it was a surprisingly good experience. But only the best chefs have a clue what it is, and only some of them know how to do it, and only a few of them have a steak at room temperature with which to begin the process…)
No wonder their magazines lost my interest a few years (decades?) back. It was the feint smell of bubble gum seeping through…
After my reply to Baillie’s response was posted on CCNet, Baillie submitted the following to the CCNet editor.
My surrejoinder was as follows.
(The editor of CCNet opted to not publish this.)
Douglas DC 11:13:56
Yes, I agree, the parallels are abundant. This cracking of the paradigm that CO2=AGW will not have quite so grand an effect on man’s conception of his place in the universe as Galileo’s heresy did, but the immediate social consequences will be far greater.
===================================
Baillie mentioned a few QU data collections which are on that Centre. Keenan already pointed out that QU has made some data available, but not all of it, and the QU inquiries have confirmed that there is a lot of data which is not yet available.
Baillie does state that for some meanings of “available”, the data is available. If you go to QUB you can get the data, for some meanings of “can”. It doesn’t sound like the data is on open shelves in the library, so you’d have to get permission from the proper people to dig around in the filing cabinets to find the data and copy it. Having a hundred visiting researchers digging around in filing cabinets, and wearing out the disks, somehow seems like it would require more effort from QUB than copying the data once to a modern high-capacity storage device.
There is the problem that the tree ring laboratory is closed, so there is no staff assigned to assist visiting researchers. Nor to arrange the lab’s data. There should be an executor assigned to the lab’s estate to get its belongings in order; in the case of data, that should include access by researchers who can continue the deceased lab’s work.
Baillie thinks that QUB researchers are qualified to do work on this data. Yet inquiries indicate that the data is not in a readily accessible form. So if they’re qualified to work with the data, why is the data not being used? There has been no indication that certain parts of the data are already in modern storage devices due to researchers currently working on it. Or perhaps QUB’s researchers only have computers with floppy disk drives, and only the administrative staff has computers powerful enough to handle Internet technologies.
So given that the tree section isa fake; been a lot of that stuff around lately; does anybody have a decent picture of a real tree section so we can see if the fake is typical of real.
In any case, I’m quite sure the sampling methodology is sub par.
George
Now all of this is really about principles – the question of ownership of scientific data and the principle of scientific replicability and analysis that can only happen if data and methodology are willingly shared.
This is not about principles, and it is a mistake to characterise it as such.
You misrepresent scientific replicability. Using someones existing data and your own analysis is not replication.
Replication of the study would require boring the same or equivalent trees and performing an equivalent analysis.
And,
Ownership of data is a legal issue. Principles have nothing to do with it. If the UK;s FOI makes this data public domain then pursue that with the relevant authorities.
Remember, angry and inflammatory language will get you nowhere with these ombudsman type functions.
What is needed is to state your case clearly and document the relevant facts, Then use facts to counter whatever the other party claims.
The FOI authority doesn’t understand the issues and history behind an FOI request, Nor should they. It is their job to enforce the law as written. Nor do they care about the emotions and motivations of the parties involved,
Make their job easy by phrasing what you require in terms of the legislation and provide the relevant facts, and just the facts.
Otherwise,
Science where the data is kept secret is second class science and should not be cited. But this an unrelated issue to FOI.
OT:
Anthony, I noticed Peter Sinclair’s video is back on YouTube. WUWT?
I am sure scientific fraud occurs far more than anyone is prepared to admit. Experiments don’t work for many reasons and frequently there isn’t the time or money to redo the experiment properly. A dud experiment means you can’t publish. So there is a strong motivation to hide the problems and massage the data. This is especially true in the highly politicized climate science, where ‘everyone’ knows the result you should get.
But making accusations of scientific fraud is very serious and if proven would result in ruined careers.
However, scientific fraud also has nothing to do with FOI except to the extent the FOI legislation states possible fraud is a basis for an FOI request. And I very much doubt this is the case.
This just in from the AP
In hot water: World sets ocean temperature record
Meteorologists said there’s a combination of forces at work: A natural El Nino system just getting started on top of worsening man-made global warming, and a dash of random weather variations. The resulting ocean heat is already harming threatened coral reefs. It could also hasten the melting of Arctic sea ice and help hurricanes strengthen.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090820/ap_on_sc/us_sci_warm_oceans
We are all doomed and everyone here just sits and does nothing to stop it.
Can’t someone block out the sun or something?
Wink
EM Smith, Damn, but you had my mouth watering with your excellent description of a real bleu steak……
And back on topic, Nature stopped being a reliable science journal several years ago and is now little more than a political comic. I would not even use it for toilet paper.
E.M.Smith (12:45:46) :
head over to CA. Hu or others can help. there was a long thread on mapping and projections.
have you got gistemp running?
Joe Miner (08:53:00) :
Yes, I remember watching the record unfold. When the monthly SIDC reports came out, there were statistical spoiler Tiny Tims that smashed the observed run. They were fleeting and faint occurences that had no real bearing on the true nature of what transpired. They didn’t count those 100 yrs ago.
It was very sad to see.