“Doug Keenan finally gets the tree data“. Anthony Watts declares “victory!” because Guardian writer Fred Pearce reports that “part-time climate analyst, Doug Keenan” who “admits he has no expertise in tree-ring analysis” has used a Freedom of Information request to force Queen’s University to give him proprietary Irish tree-ring study data that covers a 7000 year time span.
Keenan hopes to somehow prove that the Irish tree-rings are evidence of a widespread medieval warm period. Dr. Baillie has published a study with his colleagues showing that Irish oaks record temperature changes poorly, so good luck with that.
Anthony says “It will be interesting to see what independent analysis shows.” Wouldn’t that presumptive eventual Global Warming disproof be the actual “victory”? I think Anthony knows that this quick celebration will be all that he can extract from it other than the start of a new round of misrepresentation.
“Keenan has become notorious for pursuing a series of vitriolic disputes with British academics over climate data.” How unusual.
Wott's Up With That? 
Watch Heenan set the tree-ring data collection aside, do nothing with it, and then demand full access to something else.
The scientists involved should start pushing back — perhaps with some very public invitations for Heenan to present the results of his tree-ring analysis work to the Royal Society or whatever (with plenty of time for an extended Q&A session afterward).
[Excellent idea! – Ben]
Will the University charge him one hundred and fifty pounds to two hundred pounds to the hour or part there of as they are legally entitled to levy a charge. Scan all documents and photos into a computer file mark them with large prominent watermarks and smaller ones in yellow dots “Copy Only and Property of ……….. Issued under FOI Request dated as duly ordered by ….. not to be redistributed without the express authorization of ………. dated ……….”. Thus reprint them all with the two watermarks, one prominent one hidden. Further they should instruct him to call and personally collect said items stating bring cash only advise him of the cost and request him to sign a special release non public disclosure form document duly witnessed by the staff and witness of his choice, stipulating he has no authority to allow any unauthorized persons to view said documents not already listed on this form. The penalty of one million pounds for each offense should he illegally release them to other persons? Now that is full compliance of the orders with a slight twist in the tail for the judge did say release them to the plaintiff and no one else and nor did he stipulate the fees.
[But, but, but… He’s a taxpayer, he already OWNS it! :-) – Ben]