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.
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.