Climate sceptic wins landmark data victory ‘for price of a stamp’
Belfast ecologist forced to hand over tree-ring data describes order from information commission as a ‘staggering injustice’
by Fred Pearce The Guardian, Tuesday 20 April 2010
The Queen’s University of Belfast, Northern Ireland, must hand over 40 years’ worth of data on 7,000 years of Irish tree rings. Photograph: Ron Sachs / Rex Features/Rex Features
An arch-critic of climate scientists has won a major victory in his campaign to win access to British university data that could reveal details of Europe’s past climate.
In a landmark ruling, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office has ruled that Queen’s University Belfast must hand over data obtained during 40 years of research into 7,000 years of Irish tree rings to a City banker and part-time climate analyst, Doug Keenan.
This week, the Belfast ecologist who collected most of the data, Professor Mike Baillie, described the ruling as “a staggering injustice … We are the ones who trudged miles over bogs and fields carrying chain saws. We prepared the samples and – using quite a lot of expertise and judgment – we measured the ring patterns. Each ring pattern therefore has strong claims to be our copyright. Now, for the price of a stamp, Keenan feels he is entitled to be given all this data.”
Keenan revealed this week that he is launching a new assault. On Monday, he demanded the university also hand over emails that could reveal a three-year conspiracy to block his data request.
Keenan has become notorious for pursuing a series of vitriolic disputes with British academics over climate data. Two years ago, he accused Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia of “fraud” over his analysis of data from weather stations in China. Jones recently conceded he may have to revise the paper concerned.
The latest ruling comes from Graham Smith, deputy information commissioner, who in January said information requests to CRU from climate sceptics were “not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation.” In the Belfast case, as well as insisting the university hand over the data, Smith has accused the university authorities of “a number of procedural breaches.”
The case goes back to April 2007, when Keenan asked Queen’s University for all data from tree-ring studies by Baillie and others. The data covers more than 7,000 years. They contain upwards of 1m measurements from 11,000 tree samples, mostly of oak. The university turned down Keenan’s request, citing a range of exemptions allowed under both the Freedom of Information Act and the European Union’s environmental information regulations. Keenan appealed to the information commissioner.
more at the Guardian
It will be interesting to see what independent analysis shows.
“Each ring pattern therefore has strong claims to be our copyright.”
No it does not. If anyone owns it the people who paid for it do and that ain’t you sonny!
Perish the thought that ‘copyright’ would stop ‘replication’.
Hmm – if I write a book and sell it as non-fiction, I have every right to expect copyright protection. If, however, that book is used by governments and corporations to define policy, they should have every right to access my sources and methods in order to determine their accuracy.
Or, to be even more obvious:
If I’m doing something wrong, I don’t want people to find out. It is human nature (and also quite correct) to suspect someone’s honesty if they are being evasive.
As far as I can see, the “skeptic camp” always tried to play nice and it got them (us) nowhere. It is far beyond time to take off the gloves and play hardball.
Baillee’s whining notwithstanding, this is a significant victory for everyone… most people would just have to have a lot of explaining to understand why.
“Now, for the price of a stamp, Keenan feels he is entitled to be given all this data.”
No, now for the price of years of tax-payer dollars spent on your salary and research, people feel they are entitled to be given all this data. Actually it would be better to not waste the money on the stamp and post the data on the internet.
A treemendous (sic) victory for the good guys. It is in the interests of science to poke holes in any theory, be it global warming or global cooling. It demonstrates what we do not understand and leads us to advancement of our knowledge. Refusal of people to make their data public (especially when government funded) goes against this basic tenant of science.
I’d bet we find out that the “oak” tree rings turn out to be cherry instead … as in cherry picked …
Get over yourself, Baillie – we *paid* you to go trudging with chainsaws, so the copyright, such as it is, is *ours*.
“Each ring pattern therefore has strong claims to be our copyright.” It would seem the researcher does have a right to his data -if – he and not the public paid for its collection, analysis etc. However even were it private research if the data is used to put modern civilization on trial- then we have a right to see the evidence.
No matter what the data reveals, this is a victory for Science!
Let the chips fall where they may.
Independant skeptical analysis is required.
He hasn’t got the data yet, the University can appeal.
I paid indirectly for this data, hope he gets hold of it, though funnily enough the scirentists say the data is only good for rainfall proxy not temp proxy. Wonder if they have passed that gem onto Mann and Biffa.
The real travesty is not that the data took so long to hand over, but that there weren’t any publicly paid researchers to do the work of analysing this data in an independent way.
Science only works when theories are not only open to scrutiny, but when there are people with the funding to scrutinise. The real crime of climate “science” is that it has been a one party state denying funding to anyone who disagreed with their bogus claptrap.
So what is the greatest fear? Getting caught cherry picking data?
I can’t exhale CO2 without consent of my gubment and I remember when salt was not yet contraband. Things are changing.
Have change for a paradigm???
Do these English have a different version of scientific rigor than the rest of us?
Apparently, he is forgeting that the chainsaws were bought with public money.
The arrogance of these folk is astonishing, who does he think pays his salary and expenses, even the trips to Bali and Kyoto, Copenhagen – They never do Scunthorpe or Bristol do they?
Get over it Prof, with good grace, and good manners, after all, if you are right, you will be able to say “See, I told you so”, but what if it is found that you were wrong? Is that what keeps you awake at night?
If he wants copyright, he can work in the private sector with private sector money. If it’s publically funded, it belongs to the public. Academia has been living in a comfortable cloistered little world for too long. Time to wake up and smell the new reality!
I’m thinking he didn’t create the trees. The ‘copyright’ on them isn’t his. Is he implying he invented the data?
As also noted, he was employed to do this. If I do technical writing for a firm, including research, the data and the final product do not belong to me, but to the firm.
You should read the venomous hatred being poured out against Keenan by most of the Guardian commenters. Very interesting that eco-fanatics pushed so hard for legislation so that THEY could get information, especially environmental information. But now they find it’s a double edged sword, because it also allows anyone who is interested to find out that the so-called science underpinning their agenda is a house of cards – so goes the law of unintended consequences: unintended from the eco-fanatic point of view, of course. It’s OK for eco-fanatics to be able to use the law to get hold of information from publicly-funded bodies to advance their agenda, but not anyone else. Peel off the green mask and you will find the face of fascism.
Baillie sounds ridiculous: if the cry baby doesn’t want his data and research to be available to the tax-paying public he should move to a private institution and try his luck there.
“Now, for the price of a stamp, Keenan feels he is entitled to be given all this data.”
Professor Mike Baillie seems to have missed the point – the Information Commissioner has made it clear that Keenan is entitled to it. Feelings have nothing to do with it.
Nobody forced Baillie et al to take taxpayers money and to trudge miles over bogs and fields carrying chain saws. Do these people realise how ridiculous their petty complaints must seem to outside observers?
Fundamentally at their core Freedom of Information Acts establish that stuff paid for by tax dollars is not proprietary.
The law is the law and while you might disagree with it; you are a criminal if you act in accordance with a belief that the law is wrong.
Persistence pays off,eventually. A small but potentially important ruling on FOI which may be cited as a precedent in future cases.
Of course the data should be in the public realm, we paid for it and Baillie’s career and probably his education. Amazing the effect of living in a socialist nanny state has on even the most intelligent of people.
Well done Doug Keegan.
“a staggering injustice … We are the ones who trudged miles over bogs and fields carrying chain saws. We prepared the samples and – using quite a lot of expertise and judgment – we measured the ring patterns. Each ring pattern therefore has strong claims to be our copyright. Now, for the price of a stamp, Keenan feels he is entitled to be given all this data.”
How arrogant, thats like saying I own the research data I collected for the private company I work for. Can you imagine me saying that to my boss. “Hi, I’m taking all this research that you paid me to do for the last couple of years home because I did all the work and you didn’t.” Stupid boss, how dare you think your entitled to my work. What do you think you pay me for anyway?
The person that owns the data is the person who pays for it, thats not me and thats not “Professor Mike Baillie”
yay. A win for science.
Seems the good Professor operates under the belief that he is entitled to his entitlements, even if they are funded from the public purse, because, you know, he’s a Professor or something like that.
@ Matthew Carver (09:23:53) :
” “Now, for the price of a stamp, Keenan feels he is entitled to be given all this data.”
No, now for the price of years of tax-payer dollars spent on your salary and research, people feel they are entitled to be given all this data. Actually it would be better to not waste the money on the stamp and post the data on the internet.”
Indeed. Not to mention the price of all the legislation that has been passed, and is intended to be passed, based largely on this data.
And not to mention the price of our basic freedoms.
The taxpayer paid for this load of old balls, and now we want our balls back.
The Oak Tree
by Johnny Ray Ryder Jr.
A mighty wind blew night and day.
It stole the Oak Tree’s leaves away.
Then snapped its boughs
and pulled its bark
until the Oak was tired and stark.
But still the Oak Tree held its ground
while other trees fell all around.
The weary wind gave up and spoke,
“How can you still be standing Oak?”
The Oak Tree said, I know that you
can break each branch of mine in two,
carry every leaf away,
shake my limbs and make me sway.
But I have roots stretched in the earth,
growing stronger since my birth.
You’ll never touch them, for you see
they are the deepest part of me.
Until today, I wasn’t sure
of just how much I could endure.
But now I’ve found with thanks to you,
I’m stronger than I ever knew
http://lessonsoftheoaktree.blogspot.com/2009/02/we-are-all-children.html
Keenan can hereby be called “The Lord of the Rings”!
Is the argument that this was tax-supported research, and that Baillie therefore has no private copyright claim to it? What is the U’s policy on say university-funded engineering research that has commercial value? (As contrasted with privately funded off-duty-time research.)
How long has this data been around? In US academia, I doubt that anyone would object if a researcher withheld even govt funded data for a reasonable short period until an article based on the data could be published, so that the researcher gets first crack at a publication. (In at least one instance Steve McI has been interested in, even the NSF doesn’t seem to be concerned if research data it funds is never released…)
Good, I hope they are suffering!
Here in the UK we love people like Keenan. Keep fighting, right to the bitter end – it’s what makes us British!
…over 40 years’ worth of data on 7,000 years of Irish tree rings…
Where did they find trees in Ireland that were 7000 years old? Did they dredge them out of bogs?
Prof. Baillie has no copyright on his data. He has first use rights. That means he can keep the data under wraps until he has had the opportunity to analyze it fully, and to publish his results.
As a research scientist myself, I know that this can take some time — some projects longer than others. I’m still slowly wending toward publication of data I acquired 10 years ago, in one project, for example.
So, Prof. Baillie does have some rights. However, if he has acceded the use of his data for public policy, he has given up all right of priority.
This qualifier seems entirely invisible to climate scientists. They both actively, even aggressively, push their results into public policy decisions and then clamor to keep their data private, both at the same time. This is academic want to have my political cake and to eat my academic cake, too. Sorry guys. One or the other, but not both. They’re being either dishonest or terribly ingenuous. It’s hard to know which.
Last time I looked, these were “Irish” tree rings, not “Baillie” tree rings. The operative word for determining ownership or copyright is “Irish”. “Baillie” just happens to be one of the blokes who was paid to get them. (Admittedly it’s easier being a blogger than a bogger, but nobody’s paying any of us anything.)
The attitude of these academics is astounding. This guy is like Jones: he’s worried that someone may find something wrong with his data.
A bit early to celebrate, since Baillie can appeal the ruling.
Since when can you copywrite a measurement? I can see him holding the copywrite on any pulication of an analysis of the measurements, but I’m a bit confused on how the measurements themselves can be copywritten.
Even an analysis of the measurements would have to be peer reviewed to be taken seriously, and isn’t the presentation of underlying data one of the requirements for a serious peer review? Would this then mean that no one in the peer review process could ask to see the data to ensure the validity of the analysis?
Oh, wait, I think I just explained the whole IPCC report issue thingy, didn’t I…
Years ago, in Canada, the broadcasting company I used to work for required digital terrain elevation data to calculate “coverage patterns” of TV/radio transmissions. This data for Canada was only available from the government, who suddenly wanted thousands of dollars for it. I maintained that Canadian taxpayers had already paid for it and that citizens shouldn’t have to pay for it twice. Naturally, we lost this argument.
It warms my heart to see the final result in the above Belfast tree ring case! There is no rest for the wicked.
From the Guardian article:
“Baillie says his data won’t help either way in this argument. Last year he and his Belfast colleague Ana Garcia-Suarez, published a study showing that Irish oaks record summer rainfall well, but not temperature. ‘Keenan is the only person in the world claiming that our oak-ring patterns are temperature records,’ Baillie told the Guardian.”
That statement by Baillie is very weasel-worded and misleading. In the paper he coauthored with Garcia-Suarez and Butlera, it is revealed that oak was only one of four tree species studied. They found the combination of all four to be useful as “continuous yearly paleoclimatic records.”
Abstract:
Climate signal in tree-ring chronologies in a temperate climate: A multi-species approach
A.M. García-Suáreza, b, c, , , C.J. Butlera and M.G.L. Baillieb
aArmagh Observatory, College Hill, Armagh BT61 9DG, Northern Ireland, UK
bPalaeoecology Centre, Queens University, Belfast BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland, UK
cSchool of Geographical Sciences, Bristol University, Bristol BS8 1SS, England, UK
Received 15 March 2007; accepted 19 May 2009. Available online 28 October 2009.
Abstract
Tree-rings can provide continuous yearly paleoclimatic records for regions or periods of time with no instrumental climate data. However, different species respond to different climate parameters with, for example, some sensitive to moisture and others to temperature. Here, we describe four common species growing in Northern Ireland and their suitability for climate reconstruction.
Our results suggest that beech and ash are the most sensitive to climate, with tree-ring widths more strongly influenced by precipitation and soil moisture in early summer than by temperature or sunshine. Oak is also sensitive to summer rainfall, whereas Scots pine is sensitive to maximum temperature and the soil temperature.
We find that the moisture-related parameters, rainfall and the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), and to a lesser extent, maximum and mean temperatures, can be reconstructed. Reconstructions of climate parameters with tree-rings as proxies may be relatively stable for some seasons such as May–July. We find that combinations of species are more successful in reconstructing climate than single species.
Keywords: Dendroclimatology; Climate proxies; Oak; Ash; Beech; Scots pine
If Professor Baillie wants sole ownership of tree ring data, he should stop taking government grant money. It’s that simple. Otherwise the data belongs to the people who paid for it… the public.
If memory serves me correctly, Baillie has had this data for many, many years and has done little with it. For Doug’s summary of the story: http://www.informath.org/apprise/a3900.htm
Where is my inhaler, Baillie didn’t use a chain saw on a tree, did he?
An arch-critic…is launching a new assault…Demanded! Notorious! VITRIOLIC DISPUTES!
Sniff. You know what he is, is just a part-timer, who expects everything to come his way “for the price of a stamp.”
“…Must hand over data obtained during 40 years of research into 7,000 years of Irish tree rings to a City banker and part-time climate analyst, Doug Keenan.”
Perhaps the European Union’s environmental information regulations will provide some protection from part-time climate analysts who notoriously launch assaults with their stamps.
A clear insight into the ivory tower mindset of those employed long term in public academia and government – all graciously funded by John & Jane Q. Taxpayer. Mostly the same in the U.S. as well.
“Each ring pattern therefore has strong claims to be our copyright.”
Strongly believe that the tree itself owns all the intellectual property and copyrights. If they killed the tree to get the ring patterns, this crime should not be rewarded.
Hu McCulloch: “Is the argument that this was tax-supported research, and that Baillie therefore has no private copyright claim to it? What is the U’s policy on say university-funded engineering research that has commercial value? (As contrasted with privately funded off-duty-time research.)”
During the climategate inquiry the information commissioner expressed the view that FOI should not thwart commercial use of research but that sooner or later all research in public bodies had to be made available to the public.
But what on earth is the “commercial value” of research that is at the very least highly suspect. If Prof Baillie really had any interest in gaining credibility for this research he would have sought the strongest critics because only the best data stands the strongest criticism. The fact that he hid it from any criticism just shows how little faith he had in the data!
The only “staggering injustice” is the fact that it took three years to prise the data from Baillie’s sweaty paws. If you’ve been paid to do the work the results are not your property, they belong to the paymaster unless there is agreement to the contrary. There doesn’t appear to be such an agreement…
Professor Mike Baillie, described the ruling as “a staggering injustice”
Sounds like a de facto confession to obstruction of the release of the information?
i.e That obstruction would be ‘justified’ to prevent the “staggering injustice”.
For background, see last year’s posting Another UK climate data withholding scandal is emerging
Real science at work.
No matter how the university tries to spin it, it makes them look bad.
It should.
Science was supposed to be “throw it at the wall and see if it sticks”.
More and more, the very climate scientists are making “climate science” out to be witchcraft.
For the price of a stamp…
The other morning I found my front door jammed shut. After some time, I wedged it open. Imagine my surprise when I found the postman there, having opened my mail and stuffing any valuables into his back pocket.
When I demanded to know what he was doing, he said that my complaint was a staggering injustice as he was the one who had trudged up my garden patth with a heavy bag full of mail …etc.
It’s too funny to let that one pass without due ridicule.
OT News: Climategate Figure Threatens Lawsuit Over Satirical YouTube Video ‘Hide the Decline’ – No Cap-and-Trade Coalition Says ‘Bring It On.’
“We understand why Michael Mann is eager to silence public discussion of the hockey stick scandal,” said Jeff Davis of No Cap-and-Trade, “but truth is an absolute defense.”
The original “Hide the Decline” video, which had more than 500,000 viewers, was removed today from YouTube by M4GW’s Elmer Beauregard.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/climategate-figure-threatens-lawsuit-over,1256901.shtml
Do what Jones did. Loose it! Claim disorganization. The Govt. already ruled you have to turn it over….via the FOI statute. What……so they can nit pick? Yep. All of it. We need to erect in Cambridge a modestly proportioned statue of a naked emporer with it’s pants down titled “AGW’s Statue of limitations!”
This fellow regards the data the same way the Coca Cola Company regards their secret recipe – as a proprietary trade secret they use to make money. That’s why they guard it so jealously.
This is made perfectly plain in the Climategate e-mails. Ben Santer referred to requesters of data as competitors. http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=950&filename=1231257056.txt
Briffa would “never go behind [Hughes’] back to ask for the data” http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1033&filename=1254505571.txt
Appropriate for market participants, but not for publicly funded scientists whose work is the foundation of public policy.
It is called the Socratic Method. Healthy organizations accept questions from all comers and freely share data with others so as to get the best results.
Baillie needs to get used to it.
The latest news from ‘Earth Times’
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/climategate-figure-threatens-lawsuit-over,1256901.shtml
Yup, Baillie’s been using NERC (UK government) money for at least some projects. NERC grants to M Baillie
Unbelievable arrogance. Climategate just gets better and better. The house of cards is coming down and the warmists are running for their lives.
I downloaded the data from the closest known tree ring site to where I live (that I could find). It’s a 2,000 year long record. Is there a site that has a master list by lat/long coordinates?
Wait till mac gets his hands on this.. party over… lol
kadaka (10:05:29) :
“……over 40 years’ worth of data on 7,000 years of Irish tree rings…”
Where did they find trees in Ireland that were 7000 years old? Did they dredge them out of bogs?
Of course. Why else would you carry a chain saw over “miles of bogs”…?
While I agree that public funding gives the public rights to examine what their funding purchased, there’s another subject which makes Prof. Baillie’s point even weaker. In science, the golden reward isn’t data, it isn’t even publication per se. It’s citation of what you did. Dr Baillie isn’t going to lose citations if his data is released, quite the reverse. Anyone wanting to publish using his data will have to cite his work and that is to his benefit.
Hu McCulloch (10:00:17) :
A 6-month proprietary period is usually requested with HST proposals. That’s reasonable, and they’ll give extensions upon request. But to withhold forever is not acceptable.
“The nine rings for mortal manN were those divided amongst those evil-hearted men doomed to become the NazGore, the Climatewraiths.”
My view is that the researchers have right not to share the data until they publish (the Data Protection allows witholding data in preparation when there is a clear intent to publish). This also seems to be fair in that the people who collect the data should have the first go at analysing it. Although it does seem reasonable that originators should expect a citation if they publish aything based on the data. From a career perpective sharing such data and getting a high citation count can only be a good thing.
Jimmy Haigh 10:11:11:
Hi, Jimmy,
“…he’s worried that someone may find something wrong with his data”
Or worried that the data’s ok, but it doesn’t support the conclusions drawn from it, perhaps.
Keenan, Watts, McIntyre and many others are modern heroes. Sometimes it needs just few determined people to change the course of history. Until we have such people among us, I am careful optimist.
Is there any climate reconstruction available, based on those Irish trees?
…if Baillie would be interested in comparing his alleged copyright against my patent on oak trees, just let me know. I’ll be around.
You mean the data hasn’t been, um, lost or destroyed? Raw data has a funny way of doing that.
COPYRIGHT?
What RUBBISH. What an arrogant individual. Did he collect that data at his own expense? Does science operate on the principal of a CLOSED process?
Someone wake me up– I feel as though we are as copernicus, DARING to question the Catholic Church.
Outrageous.
“a staggering injustice … We are the ones who trudged miles over bogs and fields carrying chain saws. We prepared the samples and – using quite a lot of expertise and judgment – we measured the ring patterns. Each ring pattern therefore has strong claims to be our copyright. Now, for the price of a stamp, Keenan feels he is entitled to be given all this data.”
Maybe this guy picked the wrong job.
“Each ring pattern therefore has strong claims to be our copyright.”
Did they create the patterns or just find them? How do you copyright something that is discovered, not created? Perhaps the analysis can be copyrighted, but not the raw data.
This may make nice headlines. Remember no conflict no plot. No plot no interest. No interest no sales. The Guardian’s agenda is not and probably should not be the same as that of science. Their comments need to taken in the spirit given that is on a slow news day to make some if you need to. I do find it strange that any journalist would be other then completely supportive of the “freedom of information” since they are probably the most frequent users of such legislation. Then again journalism, advocacy and ethics more often then not seem mutually exclusive.
If I remember correctly Doug Keenan is not criticising the quality of the work done by the researchers – far from it – he held it in high regard, and strongly felt that the data series should be available to all for further analysis.
The relevant page on his site is here: http://www.informath.org/apprise/a3900.htm
Professor Mike Baillie’s page on the university website lists publications that seem to confirm a broad focus of the research including “environmental downturns”:
http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/gap/Staff/AcademicStaff/ProfEmeritusMikeBaillie/
Oh, yes.
My heart truly bleeds for poor old Prof Baillie who, no doubt, ‘trudged across bogs’ and ‘wielded a chainsaw’ all on the taxpayers’ monies contributed in good part by the likes of Mr Keenan, while he enjoyed his cosy little academic sinecure, remote from the cares of actually having to make a living by doing things others willingly value and to which they voluntarily contribute a part of their own, hard-earned incomes.
Price of a stamp, my posterior!
I think in the Guardian comments we can see the effect of Monbiot and cos. quick response emails – lots of repeat posters being shouty, nasty, lacking in knowledge of the subject, repeating each other’s “points” and looking for any excuse to ridicule anyone “off message”.
I wonder if the Guardian is happy with an employee encouraging a lurch downwards in the standards of its comments.
The issue of making data available has nothing to do with law, justice or the price of a stamp. It’s not to do with transparency as a marketing tactic. ‘Why should I make my data available to you when you are going to try to use it to prove me wrong?’ – because it’s the essence of the scientific method. Eddington’s trip to Principe in 1919 to photograph starlight bending as it went past the Sun was expensive, but he and Einstein didn’t prevent other people from having it for the price of a stamp. They didn’t use a trick to hide the difference between relativity’s predictions and the actual results. They published their data, and said ‘prove us wrong’. The challenge still stands. But then, Eddington and Einstein were scientists.
Unfortunately, Professor Mike Baillie has the last laugh.
While most of us will be freezing in dark poverty in a few years, he will be basking in the luxury of inflation proof medical, dental and pension benefits that the rest of us can only dream of, and yet oddly enough have to pay for.
The real criminals are the politicians who shape behavior by doling out laboratory food pellets, excuse me, – correction – “research grants” for alarmist reports only. Don’t forget the liberal left wing “main stream media” who form opinions for the general population based on their fear of science and numbers.
Long live Skinner and Pavlov, Down with Freud. From an engineering physicist who has to “make science work”.
I was very glad that The Guardian published about this. There are a couple inaccuracies in the story though.
The biggest inaccuracy is the claim that “[Keenan] admits he has no expertise in tree-ring analysis”. Although I have no experience with physical samples, I do have expertise in analyzing tree-ring data, which is what is relevant here. For example, in 2002, I published a critique of some of the work done by a world-leading dendrochronologist; the criticism concerned both the methods used and the results asserted. The criticism was initially strongly denied, and then later accepted as valid by the researcher’s own lab (e.g. Griggs & Manning [Radiocarbon, 2009]). I also have substantial experience with the statistical analysis of time series, which is what tree-ring analysis is based on.
Also, I am not a City banker. I did used to work for City banks, but I left in 1995. While there, I worked as both a research mathematician and a bond/derivatives trader. This is relevant, because financial data are also time series.
Additionally, I agree that researchers who gather data should get exclusive access to the data—but only for a limited time. Baillie gathered the data decades ago (and he is now emeritus); yet he still refuses to allow access.
I left a couple comments at The Guardian, but other commenters do not seem to be noticing them.
Found it! I remember seeing on Doug Keenan’s site an explanation of why he considered the Irish data important.
“Ireland is immediately downwind from the North Atlantic Drift. Changes in the strength and temperature of the Drift—which correlate with changes in the formation of deep water—will strongly affect the climate in Ireland: temperature, precipitation, etc. Such climatic effects will naturally influence trees growing in Ireland. As discussed elsewhere, each ring of a tree indicates what the climate was like during the year in which the ring grew. Thus Irish tree rings would seem to contain annual data on the global climate system.
There are currently tree-ring measurements from Ireland covering the past 7000 years or so. Those measurements are thus valuable for the study of Earth’s climate.”
from http://www.informath.org/apprise/a3900/b910.htm
It looks as if the retired Mike Baillie is no longer particularly research active, at least from publications, nor that there is significant work by others in the department currently. Given the interest today it would be a shame not to have access to such a long record.
Congratulations Mr. Keenan!
Too bad about your lack of expertise in tree-ring analysis. Maybe you should send it over to an expert like Mann to check it out for you.
artwest (11:18:33) wrote:
I think in the Guardian comments we can see the effect of Monbiot and cos. quick response emails – lots of repeat posters being shouty, nasty, lacking in knowledge of the subject, repeating each other’s “points” and looking for any excuse to ridicule anyone “off message”.
I wonder if the Guardian is happy with an employee encouraging a lurch downwards in the standards of its comments.
—-
Well, now we know why its called the “Guardian” and what they are guarding. I am surprised that they actually publish as much inconvenient material as they do. That they are forced to by reality is a good sign.
I suggest reverse cherry picking the tree ring data.
On the assumption that some of the time, some of the trees respond to temperature, we can look through the data and find those trees that suggest a large MWP. Then, selecting those trees ( a proceedure unique to dendro studies) we can see how well those trees correlate with current temps.
These special trees will be uber treemometers, in that they will be the special trees that.
1. show a high MWP
2. Correlate well with the present.
Given enough tree ring data I am sure we could find such patterns.
Then, you take those special trees and you write a paper. Then, when somebody asks you WHICH TREES you used, then you can:
1 rename the series so its hard for people to figure out.
2. Point to the million records and say ” the trees are in there”
( this is the CRU trick with ghcn)
3. Tell people it would take too much time to share your data.
4. Accuse the other party of having bad motives and wanting to prove you wrong
Professionally speaking, in academia, does this professor actually have the job title “ecologist”? He’s working with tree ring data. Isn’t he a dendrochronologist, or dendroclimatologist, or a paleoclimatologist or something like that? Perhaps a biologist, one of the more specialized kinds with an adjective like a “marine biologist” would be? Could he be a dendritic biologist? “Ecologist” just sounds too wide-open and… flaky, for a university professor.
=========
Bill Tuttle (10:56:09) :
Of course. Why else would you carry a chain saw over “miles of bogs”…?
Well, if they’re carrying the type of equipment needed to dredge up and haul out old logs from the depths of bogs so they can cut slices from them, I’d think they’d be using transportation that could haul those chainsaws for them.
“The nine rings for mortal manN were those divided amongst those evil-hearted men doomed to become the NazGore, the Climatewraiths.”
“Forged by the Dark Lord Darth Maurice Strong himself the “One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness [of the IPCC] bind them.”
[:)]
Great work Frodo, er, Douglas Keenan, you stamped your way to freedom through Mordor from their tyranny to destroy the One Ring of Secrecy.
Smashing the Cult of Climate Secrecy is proving to be quite effective.
Keep up the excellent work. I look forward to your analysis.
A question, are there any limitations on your use or replication of the data? When do you get it? I’d love to play with it myself.
Mandatory link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordor.
V jones said
“Ireland is immediately downwind from the North Atlantic Drift. Changes in the strength and temperature of the Drift—which correlate with changes in the formation of deep water—will strongly affect the climate in Ireland: temperature, precipitation, etc. ”
I think the down wind element is probably the most relevant. The climate of the British Isles is irrevocably wedded to wind direction. The past winter had mainly easterlies and brought cold weather as opposed to the usual mild westerlies. The same thing happended to a lesser extent in the winter of 2008/9
HH Lamb wrote some interesting stuff on winds and it is on my ‘to do’ list to write an article on the relationship between wind direction and climate. Certainly Lamb believed (as I do) that the LIA and MWP were primarily caused by greater than usual persistence of one wind direction over another. The reasons for that persistence is something that appears rather uncertain, but probably has something to do with blocking highs.
Tonyb
Having known earth science researchers who literally risked their lives on volcanoes and glaciers and landslides to liberate knowledge for all of humanity, I find this story mid-boggling.
So now you little Mickey are learning bad habits from your teacher J.H.(aka:Death coal trains). So you say now ‘Hide den Verfall’ video nicht! …wollen sie es verbotten?
http://www.spunk.org/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html
FYI: Climategate email 0897669409.txt (Fri Jun 12 12:36:49 1998) from Mike Baillie to Keith Briffa contains a brief description of Baillie’s work.
Mike Haseler (10:43:42) :
“The original “Hide the Decline” video, which had more than 500,000 viewers, was removed today from YouTube by M4GW’s Elmer Beauregard.”
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/climategate-figure-threatens-lawsuit-over,1256901.shtml
OH NO! I play it every day!!!!
Sorry I forgot made the reference to Mike Haseler (10:43:42) :
The Dutch parliament opened an investigation into the correctness of the IPCC data and related theories . Some prominent scientists declared the whole AGW – CO2 theory a lot of baloney wherefor the empirical proof was missing and which was contradicted by laws governing thermodynamics . Do you happen to know who came with outright hostile reactions ? Journalists ! Seeing their beliefs shaken and a possible victory of the denialists , their words , they started to smash the dirtiest vitriol against scientists that were trying to make their point .
Readers we are dealing here , like you in england , with strong believers in a cause , which overvalues the importance of mankind , the big temptation of any human to be the boss of his destiny in his own mind and most likely capable to do anything to suppress any denial of their fairy world . What did we learn our children ? No matter how ugly the bastards are , the smart , the good and the humbles will succeed . Thank you Mr Doug KEENAN for doing this service to mankind.
This lay person’s general cynicism regarding the warmists and their protectionist methodology asks “Is it possible over a 3 year period (and more since we haven’t seen any data) that someone could manipulate the raw data?
I mean, we’re not getting tree slices plopped down in front of us, right?
Having read some of Mr Keenan’s investigations and his postulations on aspects of climate science, I would suggest he is an astute detective who has exposed fraudulent scientific practices by a few climate scientists. Unsurprisingly, official enquiries in to the fraudulent practices he has exposed have exonerated the scientists with the usual whitewash.
Baillie’s attitude suggests to me that there may be something to hide in the techniques of ‘reading’ tree rings.
Montana trees also exhibit evidence of precipitation. Pederson et al in 2006 studied the variability of droughts in the Glacier National Park and other Rocky Mountain locations, which helps explain why glaciers were rapidly declining in the 1800s and early 1900s before carbon dioxide became a “problem.”
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/cirmount/wkgrps/ecosys_resp/postings/pdf/pederson_etal2006.pdf
The release of the Irish tree data will advance knowledge and science. Why would academics and researchers possibly object?
I thought that data couldnt be copyrighted. along with documents created by govt agencies. or is that just US copyright law?
If any form of copyright applies to raw data or interim processing
information, it would be under the “Crown copyright” .
The British Geological Survey is a whiz at making their “Crown Copyright” geographic, geologic, and cartographic materials
available to the public.
Unless the “Queen” referred to in “Queens University of Belfast”
is some guy in a dress, Professor Mike Baillie wouldn’t control
the copyright, it would be property of the “Crown”.
“We are the ones who trudged miles over bogs and fields carrying chain saws. We prepared the samples and – using quite a lot of expertise and judgment – we measured the ring patterns. Each ring pattern therefore has strong claims to be our copyright.”
Most of the crimatologists are more subtle, more attuned to the nuances of propaganda. Baillie is different: he’s given us a perfectly pithy 🙂 and concise statement of total corruption.
They used FOSSIL FUEL POWERED CHAIN SAWS?
Did they PLANT the same number of trees they cut down?
These are ECO-CRIMINALS.
Hopefully Mr. Keenan will have them tried at the Hauge for “crimes against the enviroment.”
I do recommend reading the Information Commissioner’s judgement at http://www.informath.org/apprise/a3900/b163282.pdf.
five will get you ten that this is the last we ever hear of Keenan and this tree-ring record. He won’t bother to do any analysis with it; he’ll just go off to slay some other dragon.
Whether it’s tree rings, temp stations, or code, most of the “skeptics” are like a dog chasing a car- once they get it, they don’t know what to do with it!
copyright protects original works of the imagination. Let’s hope the tree rings are not that. besides, the work I do belongs to the company which pays me. Baillie’s work belongs to the British people, as it was done in a Northern Irish University.
Chris V (12:49:21),
I’ll take that bet. Does five thousand USD sound OK?
Why couldn’t the chain saw serial murderer argue that “I’m the one who trudged miles over bogs and fields carrying chain saws. I tied up the victims – using quite a lot of expertise and judgment – I measured the neck and limb lengths. Each cut therefore has strong claims to be my copyright. Now, for the price of an indictment, the DA feels he is entitled to be given all the videos.”
Chris V
Flights (when the volcano lets up) to Belfast from my nearest airport at Exeter £49. 1 Night at a travel lodge £49. So for less than £100 I can ensure Doug does some meaningful work. Hey Smokey, best increase your bet as it looks like we have just found an even more generous funder of climate research than the UK govt 🙂
Tonyb
The topic title should be “Doug Keenan may finally get
the tree data”.
Here’s how the BBC is pitching the story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8623417.stm
Why don’t we try to be more ecofriendly guys? and apply exactly what ecology science teaches: All species must be in equilibrium in the environment, thus, if the global warmers’ species is growing too much in numbers we should put a relative increased number of predators in the environment to level their numbers according to law, otherwise, they could become a menace for the rest of the ecological system.
Note:This is pure science not PNS here whatsoever.
I for one am looking forward to seeing what Keenan does with the data!
Smokey (12:55:46) :
“Chris V (12:49:21),
I’ll take that bet. Does five thousand USD sound OK?”
Me too. Count me in.
Chris V (12:49:21) :they don’t know what to do with it!
Do you?…I bet you don’t
There needs to a movement in the world of science generally, and science publishing especially, to scorn and shame any who would publish scientific articles without making available their raw data. All of the major scientific associations should agree on this principle: No data, no publication.
Universities should require this standard of their science faculty. Organizations should ban from leadership positions any scientist who withholds his data (after initial publication).
KW
Chris V
What, don’t you read Watts!
Another cover-up pursued by Dr Keenan: click
Reported here also: click
My thanks to Mr Keenan for his clarifications above.
I would like to underline the point he made that the data is decades old and that Baillie is an emeritus professor, thus no longer actively engaged in research. This means that he presumably was not intending to use the data any further. Thus he was intending to deprive the world of its use. If there are any staggering injustices in this sorry tale, it is that this man would deliberately withhold data that has potential value to mankind. He should be ashamed.
Keith Briffa is a climate scientist who is also a dendrochronologist. As far as I know Baillie is a dendrochronologist from before the discipline of climate science was invented. Hence, the Belfast chronology is concerned with why tree rings were first used by science – a dating methodology. Baillie has been retired for a number of years but he is also a bit of a maverick, the author of several books that most definitely are not about climate change. He is not an establishment figure. Why Keenan was refused I don’t know but it may have something to do with him being forced to come out of retirement in order to pass over the information required. Nevertheless, it is also true that the Belfast dendrochronology has never been published, as it is, for independent people to analyse (tree rings are useful for people interested in dating events) and in that respect Keenan has done everyone a service – but only if other people with other interests are also able to view the data. It is also true that Baillie was assisted by others in the compilation of the dendrochronology – possibly in the kind of mathematics that Keenan is interested in. His closest associate, and the one with the maths skill, left Belfast years ago and went to the US to work. I always found Baillie replied to emails and letters (unlike most academics) and freely passed over information or sent photo copies of articles on the queries I posed. He is definitely not your average climate scientist – and that tag is probably quite improper. However, I admit I do not understand why he was opposed to handing the information over to Keenan as he has no axe to grind as far as temperature is concerned or global warming (which is something that came very late in his career and was probably of little interest to him). Keenan may therefore find out things other than climate in his trawl through the trees – which might be very interesting
carol smith (13:32:59):
“Keenan has done everyone a service – but only if other people with other interests are also able to view the data.”
Dr Keenan has been published regarding carbon dating, so his request is connected to his specialty: click
I assume the information requested will be available to anyone who asks, based on this decision. My only concern is that there will be a lot of pressure to support Baillie’s appeal.
It is pretty clear that there were a lot of shenanigans going on with more than a few researchers, when they thought they were safe from scrutiny. CRU isn’t an isolated example. Where there is a lot of grant money flowing, the facts tend to get hammered into the shape the funding entities want.
What if the trouble is there are not any logs left because they were used to make professor Mike Baillie’s new furniture? ☺
@ JIm (11:08:04) :
“Someone wake me up– I feel as though we are as copernicus, DARING to question the Catholic Church.
Outrageous.”
In 1533, Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter delivered a series of lectures in Rome outlining Copernicus’ theory. Pope Clement VII and several Catholic cardinals heard the lectures and were interested in the theory. On 1 November 1536, Cardinal Nikolaus von Schönberg, Archbishop of Capua, wrote to Copernicus from Rome:
“Some years ago word reached me concerning your proficiency, of which everybody constantly spoke. At that time I began to have a very high regard for you… For I had learned that you had not merely mastered the discoveries of the ancient astronomers uncommonly well but had also formulated a new cosmology. In it you maintain that the earth moves; that the sun occupies the lowest, and thus the central, place in the universe… Therefore with the utmost earnestness I entreat you, most learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of yours to scholars, and at the earliest possible moment to send me your writings on the sphere of the universe together with the tables and whatever else you have that is relevant to this subject …”
While I agree that AGWers’ rewriting of history is outrageous, it is equally outrageous to also perpetuate this “scientific” mythology. Copernicus wasn’t afraid of the Catholic church, he was afraid of the reaction of his fellow academics.
I’m not a scientist, but for over two years I have been following Dr. Keenan’s crusade for data that may uncover the truth behind climate change. I just wanted to say, congratulations! Here’s hoping they actually comply with the ruling and release it now.
Apparently Baillie agrees that most of the tree rings he studied are not very reflective of temperature.
Now I need some help here. Do trees not basically grow in the same way wherever they are situated, albeit with reflection of the local conditions? So how come a few BCPs, appropiated by Mann, were supposedly indicative of worldwide temperature conditions?
Ballie believes he has a copyright on his interpretation of the tree rings?
“Each ring pattern therefore has strong claims to be our copyright.”
The rings are natural, not someones intelluctual property. His own words infer his interpretation is novel. I imply from this that it is not simply the data he is concerned with. The data is the data. He is being evasive on the way he “picked and chose” the data. Can anyone say strip bark?
I guess “recognized dendrochronologists” already have the information and probably have been corrupted. Probably we will have to have new scientists trained in the craft. Surely measuring thicknesses of rings can’t be the only thing one would do with the trees. What about measuring variations in nutrients, oxygen isotopes… hey, mass spec each ring – maybe we can determine if the plant has been engulfed in volcanic smoke, forest fire smoke, been bombarded variably by cosmic rays, ultraviolet, cosmic microwave background… lets get this 19th Century botanists pursuit up to speed!
frederik wisse: “The Dutch parliament opened an investigation into the correctness of the IPCC data and related theories . Some prominent scientists declared the whole AGW – CO2 theory a lot of baloney wherefor the empirical proof was missing and which was contradicted by laws governing thermodynamics.”
Frederik, governments are primarily responsible for creating this global warming monster out of their own greed to appear to be green without the cost of doing the basic scientific measurement like accurate temperature recording or even decently manned research institutes who understand things like basic statistics.
And the media and colluded with the politicians to feed this global warming monster and grow it to a massive massive size where it now demands exponentially increasing sacrifices to feed its insatiable hunger.
It now exists irrespective of the science because the “standards” have been so bastardised in this “science” that global warming is “true” irrespective of whether there is the slightest evidence to support it.
It is like the proverbial foreign invasive species (rabbits in Australia, giant hogweed, etc.) — it seemed a good idea when it was nice to look at and was helping politicians get elected, but now it has gained a life of its own “in the wild”, it is a species with no natural opposition to its rapid unopposed growth.
We have allowed the climate “scientists” to be their own judge, jury, funding committee, standards committee, data review, etc. etc. They have actively sought to destroy all possible checks on their control of the “science” so that none of the normal checks on academics have any effect on this monster.
Hobby sites like “WattsUpWithThat” are a start to effective opposition, but to be honest it really is time that the fossil fuel industry who so many believers think are funding the sceptics, got off their backsides, put their hands in their pockets and did the decent thing to fund the professional science “opposition” which is needed to force the climategate forecasters to stop feeding this monster with their PR and start to try to justify the existence of their monster based on real science in the face of real decently financed opposition and not part-time unpaid people like us here.
The Guardian article links to the commissioner’s report. If anything, the Guardian sugar coated QUB dealings. After asserting it would take them 1 full man year to comply, the commission went on a field trip to see the data for himself and found:
“43. QUB had stated that there were approximately 150 disks of
data, but at the inspection of 26 February 2009 the
Commissioner noted that there were in fact only 67 disks,
which contained 150 folders of relevant data. The
Commissioner examined a sample of the disks, and
established that the raw data, approximately 11,000 tree
measurement samples, was held electronically in an average
of 20-60 folders per floppy disk.
44. Although QUB had argued that copying this information would
be extremely time consuming, the Commissioner established
during the inspection that on average it would take
approximately 5 minutes to transfer the data folder to folder
using Notepad. Accordingly, the Commissioner estimated that
it would take approximately 12.5 hours to complete the
transfer of all disks and make a copy. The Commissioner is of
the view that this would not constitute a significant burden on
QUB.”
Found Hide the decline again!
Puh. Evening saved.
In practice Baillee will not be bothered. He is retired. And the university has the data. But Baillie may be the only one who understands how it is stored and cataloged.
If he does not want to participate in the process sending a copy to Keenan then I doubt anyone will force him to do so.
How can someone at such a high position at a university not even have a basic understanding of IP law?
” Professor Mike Baillie, described the ruling as “a staggering injustice … We are the ones who trudged miles over bogs and fields carrying chain saws. We prepared the samples and – using quite a lot of expertise and judgment – we measured the ring patterns. Each ring pattern therefore has strong claims to be our copyright. Now, for the price of a stamp, Keenan feels he is entitled to be given all this data.”
Prof. Baillie- the UK taxpayer paid you to do this work in the first place. ITS OUR DATA- NOT YOURS
And come to that, who do think paid for your university education, grants etc which got you to the position you now hold.
Yeah thats right. The UK taxpayer.
Who the hell do you boffins think you are? You work for us.
And dont you ever, ever forget it.
My taxes paid for this guy to trudge through the bogs – more likely it was his assistants – and as his benefactor I want all his data made public, so that it can be independently examined to see if any interpretations made using it are correct.
If Baillie has nothing to hide, why would he have gone through this charade? If he does, then………………….
I have a passionate hatred for snotty, arrogant bureaucrats and academics who believe the world should respect them, when they clearly have done little or nothing to earn that respect.
Keenan is just a name to us. If it were not Keenan then it would be someone else. What has he done improperly?
Instead, we can and should look at this matter w/o considering fairness or intellectual property, copyright, etc. Or whether Baillie trudged across bogs.
Look at it only as a legal ruling. The consequence of a law.
Baillie doesn’t like the consequences of a law. Has anyone else ever felt that way?
And he didn’t expect this outcome as he did his work and lived his life. Thus a law had unexpected consequences.
Have I ever heard that before? Some laws have unexpected consequences?
Baillie’s complaint is about a ruling. And if it has been applied in error then he and the university should seek remedy. And the university does seem to be appealing.
Dave Dardinger (10:56:16) :
Re Citation indices
Usually a high index indicates a good paper.
I have a feeling that a higher index could be achieved by writing the worst paper that one could get published.
Not only would that be cited by other researchers in the field, it would pick up a heap from others who didn’t need to cite it directly but did to show that they knew it was bad.
From the Guardian article:
Fairness, intellectual property, and copyright dont enter into it.
The law is quite clear.
Data held by publically funded bodies can be requested by anyone and cannot be refused simply because the data controller doesnt want to comply.
Fairness? intellectual property? copywrite ?
Dear God.
UK universitys are funded by the taxpayer. If the boss wants to see the books, you show them.
Dammit its just tree rings!
Just to clear up about the “miles of bog”; the trees would have been mechanically dredged up a part of the peat extraction process. The valuable peat either being used as a base for peat compost or fuel, the small amount of trees were usually left to the side in a pile. Sawing through “bog oak” is very very tough on a saw, and for this reason they were traditionally left alone.
What kind of scientist hides his data?
The Phil Jones-Mike Mann-Doug Keenan kind.
These guys deserve jail time.
Well-l-l… Somehow I conceive of Doug Keenan as more of a “one-off”.
Think the heretical, litigious Giles “More weight!” Corey in the Crucible.
This reminds me of a guy (I can think of other ways to describe him but [self-snip]) I knew – he was let go by his employer and decided he would take (steal) all the software he had written when he left. By doing so, he broke all sorts of things and wound up losing his severance package over it – he’s lucky that’s all that happened to him.
The moral of the story… when it’s on your employer’s time and dime, there is no such thing as copyright.
@Scientistfortruth
I went out to the Guardian website and read the first couple hundred comments. There are some snarky ones, but any that I would consider abusive have been removed. On the plus side the comments seem to be fairly evenly split between for the data release and against.
I think people are starting to realize the damage that has been done to so called climate science by climategate, they are realizing that the data needs to be open and available to prevent even the slightest taint.
I thought Baillie was one of the polite, well-mannered ones from the Queens-team. I sent to his colleague, David Brown, in 1975 for some tree ring data, thinking to spin a tale set in a Medieval city. My request was elaborately formal, explaining in considerable detail why I wanted authentic climate data. His response:
I managed, after several e-mail exchanges, to pry some information out of him about sub-fossil oaks, which was useful – but no graphs or real data, and his answers were always curt and dismissive. I got the same treatment from big shots at Lamont Observatory and the Laboratory of Tree Ring Research at University of Arizona, who seem to have a vested interest in protecting “their property”. Others, like Jeff Dean, a dendroarchaeologist there, were extraordinary.
I respect Doug Keenan, as well as Eschenbach, McIntyre and Watts – and anybody else who have persisted with their attempts, despite the brush-offs.
Parsons 15:43:09
I miss your point. What is a one-off?
Giles Corey was a suspicious man. But so what? When accused he defies the witchcraft tribunal and refuses to plead guilty or not guilty despite torture. How was that bad?
And again. What did Keenan do improperly? I intended to indicate that Keenan was not important in the matter. It could have been anyone who asked for the data.
To me the law and the acts of Baillie and the university are the only concern. And until they exhaust all appeals they should stick to their beliefs even if others think they are wrong.
Of course, as the Tree rings are Irish….they might be inside out!
Facts cannot be copyrighted, only creative works can.
Is Prof. Baillie claiming he made all this up?
just curious, is anyone here familiar with Mike Baillie’s publications ?
or with the oft-rumored quirky humor of the Irish ?
kiss the blarney, I’d be saying,
nothing draws a crowd like a good tussle
and the sh*te’s yet to hit the proverbial.
Thanks for posting Doug and if the Guardian “Dogs of War” are out in the commenting section, then it only goes to show how rattled they are! It seems a shame that Monbiot’s original disgust at the CRU, when the emails were first released, seems to have evaporated in the wind!
Congratulations on the result of your endeavours and I am sure we all look forward to reading your research into the ring data.
Fine. Let it be their damn copyright.
But, of course that means that no review is possible and therefore absolutely NO public policy can in any way be based on studies that use this data.
I was astounded at the number of folks in the Guardian comments section who brought up the straw man argument regarding going into a university and taking a desk – because they, the tax payers, own it. It is obvious that these commentators are stating this is wrong, so Keenan cannot have the raw data anymore than he can have a desk. But in so making this argument, they prove Keenan right. No one person or group of persons, can “own” a publicly funded thing to the exclusion of others. No one person can claim the public desk, it belongs to all of us. We have a right to its dimensions, a picture of it, a diagram, and maybe even a list of its contents. But no one can own the desk all by themselves and walk out with it. A taxpayer cannot claim to own the desk anymore than they can claim to own raw data if they got it through public funds and published on the public’s dime. The researchers at the university cannot claim to own the desk anymore than they can claim to own raw data if they got it through public funds. Therefore the main argument being used in the comments section is seriously flawed and even proves the other side.
Unless we chop up the desk and give each citizen of the UK a itsy-witsy-bit of it can’t be shared… and it wouldn’t be a desk anymore… so the desk will have to remain shared property held in trust by the university… although they could sell it and give the citizens a tax refund… nah they’d never consider that.
Data on the other hand is DIGITAL or is on paper and as such IT CAN EASILY BE COPIED. Haven’t they heard of file copying or a photo-copier? I guess not.
The public paid the professor for the work to collect and analyze the data. Cough up the data forthwith. At worst they’d be a marginal fee for photo-copying or a digital media DVD with the data on it.
The power of stamping your foot down and demanding your rights!
Excellent work Doug Keenan!
Now when can we get a copy from yours?
KTWO (16:50:39) :
If I knew what you were talking about I could answer you better. Keenan has done nothing “wrong”. You might debate whether he has a right to the data which apparently is being released to him.
(At least some of) the ring data that Baillie has collected while working on the public dime (using grants, graduate student labor, or even his own on university time) is public property. All of the physical samples – the cores and cross-sections – are like forensic evidence collected in a trial. They don’t belong to the detective who collected them. That doesn’t mean that the public has a right to go into the warehouse, load up the boxes of cross-sections, grab handfulls of cores, etc, and take them home. But (if I see the situation clearly) a private citizen like Keenan does have a right to request the lab analysis of those cores – and probably Baillie’s (or the lab tech’s) graphs of those results.
As badly as Michael Baillie feels about this, these items are a matter of public record, and he has an obligation to hand them over.
A couple of his works from the 1980’s:
http://www.treeringsociety.org/TRBTRR/TRBTRR.htm
Do a word search for “Baillie”.
One final comment on the Keenan case. Taking cores for tree ring analysis can require government permission. I’m guessing that most of the ancient subfossil stuff that Baillie and Co. have harvested comes from parks and preserves, not private land, and that requires a permit.
Here in Colorado, I had a written request turned down to take a few Bristlecone Pine cores because of potential ecological damage that it might do. The State Parks official “dissuaded” me, claiming that I’d need an “EPA damage assessment” that would run into the tens of thousands – and even then he wouldn’t let me do it. University-related researchers harvested there routinely.
If Michaele Baillie carried a chainsaw as he says, it was in order to take cross-sections. In other words he was carting off sizeable chunks of the Emerald Isle subfossil history for study at the University of Belfast. Irreplaceable history. Lost to the public.
I thought the ranger’s case prohibiting me was silly. But by the same Medieval logic… Baillie’s pollardings and gleanings are, in fact, property of the Republic. And if that hadn’t been interpreted as the people of Ireland, maybe they should be queuing up with pitchforks and torches.
“kadaka (10:05:29) :
…over 40 years’ worth of data on 7,000 years of Irish tree rings…
Where did they find trees in Ireland that were 7000 years old? Did they dredge them out of bogs?”
Peat bogs, which Ireland is pretty well famous for, is a great natural preservative.
There are similar instances of trees, Kauri trees, found in swamps in New Zealand that are some 4.5 million years old apparently.
Re: Patrick Davis (23:19:43) :
I think Huon Pine in Tasmania would also be a great paleoclimate resource as it is so resistant to rot. Sought after by the British Navy in the 1800’s for ship building.
Cheers
Michael
Bill Parsons (21:35:20) :
well thank you, but I was actually asking if others were familiar with Baillie’s publications, not just ‘tree ring’ specifically, but more like this
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Exodus-Arthur-Catastrophic-Encounters-Comets/dp/0713483520
and this
http://www.amazon.com/Light-Black-Death-Mike-Baillie/dp/0752435981
Everyone should email Baillie with their outrage of his hoarding of data.
This is what I sent him:
Prof. Baillie.
It doesn’t matter how much work you put into gathering that data on tree rings, as it is just as much work to gather data for other disciplines of science. What matters is that science is open to EVERYONE. Science serves society. In publicly funded science there is no copyright. The data is not yours to horde.
You are wrong. Makes one wonder what you are hiding.
HotRod (12:48:43) :
I do recommend reading the Information Commissioner’s judgement at http://www.informath.org/apprise/a3900/b163282.pdf.
A ‘landmark’ read.
As our lives become greater intertwined with legalities – especially in the internet age – the Guardian comments demonstrate a profound ignorance.
The university demonstrated this ignorance – as if they were somehow ‘above the law’. The number of procedural errors was astounding when responding to the requests for information. Indeed, changing the reason [to refuse release of information] at every step demonstrates an unwillingness to comply with the law.
While it may seem ‘unfair’ that the individuals trudged through hell and high-water to get this data, but that is not a reason to withhold the information.
Now, weather the data ultimately released will be spitefully formatted or corrupted remains to be seen (it’s noted that the commission has access to partial data to evaluate the ‘burden’ on the university). I’m sure this data is readily available, electronically, on a archive server since they are – or have – already used the data for their own research.
“”This week, the Belfast ecologist who collected most of the data, Professor Mike Baillie, described the ruling as “a staggering injustice… we measured the ring patterns. Each ring pattern therefore has strong claims to be our copyright.”””
——————–
Sorry Profe$$or! Statement does not compute! Sounds like garbage in your head and garbage out of your mouth. Nothing in life is free; whenever you take a penny out of the Public’s Pocket you’ll end up paying back a pound of flesh. That’s the first rule of $cience. I’m sure you were asleep in that class; everyone else heard. (Well almost everyone, you weren’t the only one sleeping.)
It also sounds like you’re claiming credit for someone elses work. Ta, ta, ta, the copyright goes to the “creator” of the work, you did not “create” each ring pattern did you? You only measured and copied someone elses work didn’t you? Now I’m sure any rings you created would be of great interest to the academic community and the folks at Scotland Yard; so please, identify all the rings you created.
Remember, nothing’s free, and for every penny a pound of flesh.
kate. r. (05:40:06) :
Hmm. Interesting. Baillie apparently believes that the A.D. 540 decades-long narrowing of tree rings was due to comet bombardment. Steven Goddard’s recent thread here on WUWT (Volcanoes Cause Climate Change) discusses what I guess is the more conventional view, which blames a volcanic eruption – Krakatoa (535).
From Patrick Davis (23:19:43) :
Peat bogs, which Ireland is pretty well famous for, is a great natural preservative.
Yup, that’s why the first thing I thought of was those trees must be from bogs. Although I’m more familiar with the preservative qualities of bogs from reports over the years of long-dead bodies recovered from them. Offhand it looks like the bogs do a better job than the best Egyptian mummification techniques did.
Academics have different ideas about what is “theirs.” I work as a statistician at a research hospital and get a good number of publications (usually 3rd to 9th authorship). For the better part of last year, I spent time working with a professor performing a bunch of different analyses for different papers. I never got my name on any of the work. Not even an acknowledgement! I was slightly butt hurt, but you know what… I got paid for the work, so I got over it.
Bill Parsons (14:55:22) :
From the Guardian article:
Baillie says his data won’t help (as evidence of Medieval Warming). Last year he and his Belfast colleague Ana Garcia-Suarez, published a study showing that Irish oaks record summer rainfall well, but not temperature. “Keenan is the only person in the world claiming that our oak-ring patterns are temperature records,” Baillie told the Guardian.
My interpretation (for what it’s worth) of physiological data, which I’ve documented with peer-reviewed papers on this blog numerous times, is precisely what Baillie stated firstly, that less than ~25% of the variation in tree ring data “may” be temperature related, and mostly cold spells at that. Tree ring growth estimates precipitation.
Mike Baillie does not get the choose which researchers get access to his data. If he is sharing the data for free with other researchers, he should be required to share it with all researchers.
It’s only fair.
Bill Parsons (07:21:38) :
Hmm. Interesting. Baillie apparently believes that the A.D. 540 decades-long narrowing of tree rings was due to comet bombardment. Steven Goddard’s recent thread here on WUWT (Volcanoes Cause Climate Change) discusses what I guess is the more conventional view, which blames a volcanic eruption – Krakatoa (535).
One of those pesky “cold” spells.
I understand Baillie’s position completely. I’m just not certain how he gets to the second floor of a building without using stairs or an elevator that other people, also paid with tax dollars, built without any help from him. Perhaps he never goes to the second floor.
I have read Baillie’s work and paid for it. I don’t mind if he he hangs on to his work for a couple of years before publishing but at some stage , he has to publish the original data. This work was paid for by the taxpayer and must be put into the public domain. Science works by challenge. Put up your theory, have it tested, replicated and maybe disproved or at least questioned. If Baillie doesn’t want to release his data, we have to ask if there is something he wants to hide.
@Patrick Guinness Frank
“So, Prof. Baillie does have some rights. However, if he has acceded the use of his data for public policy, he has given up all right of priority.”
I think this is the heart of the matter. It may even be dangerous if all data collected are immediately made public, since they often are totally meaningless.
But once they are used officially in any way, they should, by definition, be considered as public – especially since the public paid for it to begin with.
Doesn’t his attitude remind you of a medieval guild? If you are not a master member of our guild, tough luck, we have nothing to say to you. Where is the modern science outlook: open theories openly arrived at? Also note the lab has been shut down for years because no one would fund it. Not only didn’t they publish their data, they didn’t even publish their conclusions. Their outlook apparently came down to: “Just send us the money,”
Parsons@20:56:04: I misunderstood what you meant re: Giles Corey. And this comment may meet the same fate.
“Think the heretical, litigious Giles “More weight!” Corey in the Crucible.”
There you seemed to equate Keenan to Corey. And say Keenan was inclined to sue and pester Baillie unfairly and for little or no reason. “litigious” has that connotation.
But Corey was not the troublemaker so I was still puzzled.
I didn’t know what “one-off” meant and I wanted to be sure. So I asked. You probably meant “unique” or “remarkable”.
Putting it all together, I think you paired Keenan and Giles as being completely determined. (If I correctly read the last paragraph of your 16:09:34.)
I think Baillie and the university are wrong in law and will lose any appeal.
And I wonder what condition the material is in at the university. It may be hard to organize and catalog if Baillie will not help. (Just as Jones was finally no longer was sure of which data he had used.)
I wonder if this will work in the U.S. ?
I’ve always wanted to see all the data of Dr. Spencer, Dr. Christy, Dr. Lindzen, Dr. Baliunas and Dr. Soon, for openers. For decades and decades and decades. And their programs. And their notes. And their emails.
My tax dollars at work.
I had thought I had to pay for the cost of their many hours of gathering and putting all that information onto DVD’s – but for the price of a stamp, how can you go wrong ?
I guess after Climategate, everybody gets to see everybody’s work.
This should be fun…
Anu (15:23:12) :
You will have to find an inside whistleblower to get the emails.
But for the rest… have you ever requested specific information from any of them? If so, provide verifiable documents showing that is the case, and their answer.
Otherwise, fill this out, you’ll feel better: click
Quoting:
“They contain upwards of 1m measurements”
Commenting:
Christ on a Crutch! Never use “m” as units, dammit! Use “meters” or “miles” or “million” or “thousands” or “minus” (see article about sign errors on temp data on this site) ’cause it could mean any of those. (maybe more)
Thanks for your cooperation 😉
W.H.
I don’t have your certainty. Baillie’s comments in the suit are probably disingenuous, since they are intended to pre-emptively discredit any “non-expert’s” findings about his rings. Still, in other comments online (I don’t seem to be able to locate a source offhand) he suggest that some of his oak tree chronologies are useful for temps, while some are good for precipitation. Since I’m not an expert, I can’t really disagree with this.
My take on it is that rings can be found to indicate either precipitation fluctuations or variations in TSI. I conceive of it this way: if a tree has its roots sunk in the watertable along the bottomland of a fairly steady river, a few years of rainfall aren’t going to change the pattern of its growth rings. However, that tree might put on several thick rings during a couple of years of sunshine. The theory of cosmic ray / cloud generation would seem to lend itself to this. I doubt that it’s an exact correlation, but I don’t need for it to be.
A much better sceptic than I, Steve McIntyre, puts it this way on CA today:
KTWO (12:39:50) :
A “one-off” is unique. Didn’t mean to offend anybody. I like Keenan’s spirit.
Anu – {I guess after Climategate, everybody gets to see everybody’s work.
This should be fun…}
I thought that was what science was based on…..
DeNihilist (08:05:24) :
No, it used to be based on publishing scientific papers, conferences, and correspondence. People used to work hard, and spend a lot of money to get the data that they needed to do their work. Things like raise money for expeditions to Mongolia to collect dinosaur fossils, or to build giant telescopes. Once you finally had your data, you could scoop other scientists and make a name for yourself. Not surprisingly, most Nobel Prizes went to scientists with the best equipment, data and money.
But now, apparently, as soon as someone’s 10 year quest to get funding to create the data they need is done,
you just need to request all their data. For free. Which is especially nice, since you used to have to pay to even see their end results – the scientific paper in some expensive Journal.
And while they’re recovering from typhoid fever from their field expedition, you can sit in your air conditioned office, sipping margaritas, using their data to “advance science”. And your own career.
Sweet.
Those grant proposals are so time consuming and stressful, anyway. Not to mention getting a PhD and putting in years of career building work.
I hope I can use the tax-payer funded Space Shuttle soon, also. I’m going to buy a new camera just for my free ride.
Anu still doesn’t get it:
“People used to work hard, and spend a lot of money to get the data that they needed to do their work.”
Yes, they are spending “a lot of money.” The relevant question is, whose money are they spending?
If it is a corporation’s money, or their personal funds, then they have the absolute right to do whatever they want with the information. They can keep it locked away forever if that is their desire.
But if it is tax money paid from the public treasury, then the most they can hope for is to withhold information until they publish.
When the public pays for weather information, the public is entitled to request a copy of the work product. Nothing is being taken away from the people who compiled and analyzed the data, because they have already been paid for their work.
Anu doesn’t understand this. But the rest of us do.
Baillie shows a very poor understanding of both public information law AND intellectual property law. But that isn’t going to stop him from whining.
Bottom line is, any scientific experiment must make its raw data available for scrutiny. If its not given its not a valid experiment and therefore it is not true scientific practice. Anybody carrying out good scientific practice will welcome scrutiny of this kind because if they have followed a truly scientific methodology it will validate further their conlusions and their experiment/research. That’s the bottom line and I smell scientific fraud.
Yeah!!! Good job for the British Chap!!! Last time I checked most Universities received federal funding in the USA…I am sure the U.K. is no different. Did this university receive federal funding from the U.K.? If so I think all studies should be made publicly available as long as they are not for the Militarty!!! The people are really nothing more than book burners if you think about it. Whats the difference in burning the book or locking it away?