Monday
May032010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill QUB say "data is published"
May 3, 2010 Climate: other FOI A report in the Belfast Telegraph has Queen's University Belfast as saying they have published their tree ring data, as required by the Information Commissioner in response to Doug Keenan's request.
QUB said it has abided by the Information Commissioner’s ruling.
“The university has now published electronic data relating to its tree ring research in line with the Decision Notice issued by the Information Commissioner,” a spokeswoman said.
Reader Comments (9)
All kudos to Doug Keenan. It's been a long weary road for him.
There, that was easy. Now why couldn't they have done it years ago.
It didn't take them long to publish this data when they had to, did it. Will the QUB now explain why they originally used as an excuse for not releasing this data, that it would take an unreasonably long time to extract it from floppies? The way they resorted to 'dog ate my homework' excuses, which changed over time and not even consistently, is the thing which stands out to me as particularly damaging for this institution.
The article in the Belfast Telegraph states, correctly, that QUB “has refused to release all its findings on tree rings” [bolding added]. In reality, QUB has released only some data. The data that has been released is online at
http://chrono.qub.ac.uk/Resources/dendro_data/dendro.html
It does not specify the years in which any of the tree rings grew. It contains ring widths for only about 9000 of about 11000 tree samples. It does not specify the locations of most of the trees. In short, it is of almost no value.
My letter to QUB about this is at
http://www.informath.org/apprise/a3900/b100429.htm
The article also correctly states that QUB has until Monday night to fully comply with the ICO Decision Notice.
Doug
Keep after them. There is no reason for them not to fully comply.
Well, lets think, why would they not release all the data they have, in response to such a serious situation?
Very puzzling isn't it? After all, they do have it, they have kept proper records, they do know what trees the samples belong to. They must, mustn't they? Otherwise, what could all those studies be based on?
Enquiring minds are completely baffled by this. We really cannot think of any possible explanation. It cannot be purely personal pique. There must be some compelling reason. But what could it possibly be?
Did the dog eat it?
Excellent questions, Michel, which only be answered by Douglas forcing them to come clean.
If they don't supply the metadata then they are simply stalling for more time and have no intention of complying with the intent of the law. Maybe they think they can drag it out for a few more years. I can just imaging the internal discussions and emails about this having the ring of the UEA Climategate ones: how they can supply the data so that it is absolutely useless but pretending to comply with the letter of the law.
That's not data, that's an insult!