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.
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.