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
Ron de Haan
December 1, 2009 1:20 pm

Jeff (11:27:12) :
“I am calling BS on the lost raw data claim … given that to get to their “value-added” data they would have had to run their programs/hacks against digital data … that means someone converted the paper and magnetic tape data into a database of some sort, most likely a simple text file … but a text file on a hard drive … later this was converted to a real database I’m sure …
The point being that there is no way the actual data is gone … They are hiding it …
[REPLY – I agree completely. I made the same point in WSJ comments. ~ Evan]”
Of course they are hiding it.
It’s the ultimate proof in a legal case.

Frederick Michael
December 1, 2009 1:27 pm

Wow. This thing is picking up stream really fast. No, that’s not the right word. Is it that it’s starting to “snowball”? No that’s the word I’m looking for.
I got it; it’s a “tipping point!”

ammonite
December 1, 2009 2:13 pm

Now the ‘shredder’ starts, there must be others out there who will come forward, but how long have we got before the man with the white paint pot visits? There is no one I know who believes utterly in the matra from Copenhagen. It is the media perception that must be woken up to give this impetus just as much as the factual elements so graphically referred to the e-mails. I suggest we all phone the media esp. the BBC

ammonite
December 1, 2009 2:20 pm

Science … commits suicide when it adopts a creed
Thomas Huxley

Tim Clark
December 1, 2009 2:23 pm

Sowell (12:03:58) :
There are a host of non-criminal matters that will likely be brought against certain persons, (civil matters), which may include issues such as fraud, negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and some others. Plaintiffs in such legal actions would be those who can show a direct harm resulting from the alleged acts of defendants.

What about a class action suit? The harm being increased taxes paying for fraudulent work, or increased utility bills. I know, hard to prove, but the CASE ITSELF would be priceless.

December 1, 2009 2:24 pm

Thought you guys would like this. There’s a group called “We are change” in Chicago that confronted Al Gore about Climategate at a Borders book signing:

Good video. Normally I wouldn’t feel comfortable with this sort badgering, confrontational speech, but to me this is the Left being confronted with their own tactics. If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out. Since Gore will not answer questions about his own AGW advocacy, this is what people are left with.

tallbloke
December 1, 2009 2:25 pm

forfismum (11:44:36) :
tallbloke I used the words “The wonderfully talented Lord Stern ” .I was of course taking the pi** 🙂

Worry not, my irony detector is not rusty.
My comment was aimed at alleagra (09:46:36) :

DJ Meredith
December 1, 2009 2:45 pm

My personal award goes to Henry chance for coining “Gang green”!!!!
(….unless noted previously, that is)

Craig Loehle
December 1, 2009 2:49 pm

A year ago Jones revisited the China problem and found a huge UHI effect:
Jones, P.D., D.H. Lister, and Q. Li (2008), Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D16122, doi:10.1029/2008JD009916
So much for the work Keenan is questioning being “robust”

Craig Moore
December 1, 2009 2:54 pm

OT but related. I would like to see WUWT revisit Steig’s Antarctica outcome in light of these additional revelations of hiding the supporting data ball. Possibly, the University of Washington should be scrutinized as well.

boballab
December 1, 2009 2:59 pm

Now this is going to leave a mark.
Beck had James Delingpole on his show and for anyone that was watching the show that hadn’t looked at or even know about the Harry Read Me text file now knows. Mr. Delingpole was asked what would be the one thing people should look at and that is where Mr. Delingpole pointed to and stated that they should Google “Harry Read Me”.

MikeF
December 1, 2009 3:30 pm

Roger Sowell (12:03:58) :
, 9:49 “It is high time criminal complaints be lodged – any lawyers / judges amongst the 3 million+ viewers here?”
….
There are a host of non-criminal matters that will likely be brought against certain persons, (civil matters), which may include issues such as fraud, negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and some others. Plaintiffs in such legal actions would be those who can show a direct harm resulting from the alleged acts of defendants.

Most of those are going to be scientists whos careers had been compromised. It would not be easy to prove that in the court and payoffs would be fairly small, not very attractive for lawyers to take it on contingency and too risky for many to finance out of pocket.
Fraud was committed, but it would be hard to show damage for individuals harmed and put specific amounts of money to the damages.
Normally government should be the one bringing criminal charge here but we know it is not very likely to happen.
Would it be possible to bring class action suit with taxpayers as class members?

Alan Wilkinson
December 1, 2009 3:38 pm

Lord Stern is not only arrogantly wrong about many things, but pompous and obnoxious to boot.
Were his publications peer reviewed?

April E. Coggins
December 1, 2009 3:39 pm

“Possibly, the University of Washington should be scrutinized as well.”
I agree. Let’s start with Phil Mote.

Craig Moore
December 1, 2009 4:02 pm

April E. Coggins,
you sparked a memory iof this fiasco: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003618979_warming15m.html
Funny how there is a reoccurring scenario of bullying and suppression.

April E. Coggins
December 1, 2009 4:15 pm

Craig Moore: Bingo!

hunter
December 1, 2009 4:30 pm

Mark Miller,
I am opposed to anything that encourages book burning.
We do not need ‘new world order’ stuff to take down Gore’s bs.
Gore’s bs, exposed, takes down Gore. Frankly it almost sounds LaRouche-like.
The use of burning book imagery, for someone in my generation and background, is a total turnoff.
That said, I am totally in favor of heating up Gore’s public presence. He has received a ridiculous amount of soft ball, cream puff, vapid fawning coverage. He obviously has few resources to actaully deal with thought demanding questions. He clearly, as he proved by his incredibly ignorant understanding of geology 101, gets in over his head in the wading pool.
We just need to get him out into the pool without the support he depends on to see him as he is.

Roger Knights
December 1, 2009 4:41 pm

Jordan (10:16:15) :
“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.”

That’s my view of it too. What went around will be coming around, good and hard.

timbrom
December 1, 2009 4:54 pm

Stern is a buffoon. Being very busy he clearly doesn’t have the time or inclination to look at the “evidence,” as you can see from his reference to the ice cores. These demonstrate conclusively that CO2 lags temperature. If he doesn’t know this, his views are worthless. Sadly they are also hugely influential.

December 1, 2009 5:07 pm

This is all beginning to read like a bland but classical segment of a turn of the century novel where an old and very trusted friend retires to the den of a dignified gentleman to partake of a postprandial brandy and a communal cigar.
Alas, come morning the butler stands accused at his master’s side, as the friend and mistress leave quietly by the servants’ entrance.

Craig Moore
December 1, 2009 5:15 pm

OT, April, too bad the Cougars could not adapt to the UW climate change. 30-0. Ugly has a score.

April E. Coggins
December 1, 2009 5:29 pm

Craig Moore: Not only am I a global warming denier, I am also a bad football season denier. What score? ; )

Craig Moore
December 1, 2009 5:42 pm

April, UW Huskies 30 the Pullman WSU Cougars 0 in the Apple Cup

Jason
December 1, 2009 6:20 pm

So let me get this straight, in Copenhagen they are going to potentially agree to cut global carbon emissions from 47 billion to 44 billion tonnes, a drop of 7%.
And this is going to help stop the human Co2 contribution “tippin the balance” how exactly?
I am so muddled….

tokyoboy
December 1, 2009 7:14 pm

This reminds me of the Cold Fusion fiasco twenty years ago.