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.
@ur momisugly 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.