The 97% Thunderdome is revving up! Brandon Shollenberger has issued a direct challenge to Cook and UQ, and has published the threatening letter about that “secret” data for Cook’s “97% consensus” study that was published under an “open” Creative Commons License. From that “openness” Jo Nova made the hilarious graphic at left for her essay on the fiasco. Send her chocolate.
Shollenberger writes:
As most of you know, I recently received a threatening letter from the University of Queensland. This letter made a variety of threats and demands. The the strangest one was it suggested I’d be sued if I showed anyone the letter. Today, I intend to challenge that claim.
Some people suggested I should have immediately published the letter. I understand that view. It was my immediate reaction upon receiving the letter. The idea of a university from another country suing me because I published a letter in which they threatened to sue me was laughable. It was as empty a threat as I could imagine.
Still, I’ve been told I let myself get baited too easily. It seemed unwise to act hastily rashly when the issue of a lawsuit was at hand. I thought taking a few days to think about matters was sensible.
I have now, and I’ve talked to a number of people about this. Everything I’ve seen and heard agrees: The threat against me publishing the letter was bogus and pathetic. It might have even been unethical.
…
Until I do, I want to challenge the University of Queensland to stand by what it has said. I’m calling their bluff. I’ve published their letter, and I await the legal proceedings we all know will never come.
…So here’s the challenge I want to propose to the Skeptical Science team, to the University of Queensland, and to anyone else who thinks I shouldn’t release the data I possess:
Tell me what material I possess could cause harm if disseminated. Tell me what agreements or contractual obligations would be impinged upon if that material were released to the public.
If you are unable or unwilling to meet such a simple challenge, I’ll release the data and you can bite me. I mean, sue me.
================================================================
Read it all here as well as see the letter: http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/05/18/a-direct-challenge/
In other news: Popcorn futures are expected to open at record highs tomorrow at the Chicago Board of Trade. Here’s last week’s closing numbers:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Excellent decision. I believe you will be safe and your position will be vindicated. If the data were sound the University and the authors would not give a hoot about you exposing it, in fact they would have done it themselves.
Doh. That should have been woman, not women. She may have been drunk enough to be seeing double, but I wasn’t.
The much better picture of Cook is the one where he shows his inner nazi. Just saying.
They’re going to need a Cook for all that popcorn….maybe 97% of the kernels will pop…
Sell popcorn. It will now go very quiet…
Rdcii says:
I am getting really tired of popcorn
Try beer nuts.
Word
Bravo!!!!!
[trimmed]
Brandon: First, thanks for everything you have done, and will soon do regarding this. Second, if an attorney or two is diverted from their work for the state penn, please let us know. I have provided support for others facing legal threats, and am prepared to do it again.
Data on a publicly accessible server is considered published. Published data is open for analysis, analysis is open for critique, issuing threating letters or electronic mail with malicious intent is a crime.
clipe says: May 18, 2014 at 7:33 pm
Rdcii says:
I am getting really tired of popcorn
Try beer nuts.
You may be on to somthing, Beer nuts futures are way down!
Perhaps more popcorn must be converted to ethanol!
for whom does Jane Malloch solicit?
Will Janoschka says: May 18, 2014 at 7:59 pm
clipe says: May 18, 2014 at 7:33 pm
Rdcii says:
I am getting really tired of popcorn
Try beer nuts.
You may be on to somthing, Beer nuts futures are way down!
Perhaps more popcorn must be converted to ethanol!
Please understand the unusable discards, of the popcorn hydrocarbon to ethanol process are called “beer nuts”! “Eat them and die”
The letter doesn’t say “we will” do anything, it says they “reserve the right” to do something. This is called “posturing” and is a sign of an empty threat.
I’m most curious though about their demand not to contact Mr Cook. Since the information was obtained from a SillyKidsSite, and Mr Cook could most certainly be contacted through that site, the university is in effect not only speaking for Mr Cook (without stating that he has given them authority to speak on his behalf on the matter) but also demanding that they be allowed to control communication between two parties when they have no authority to speak for either. Perhaps next they will tell Obama if he can speak to Putin about the Ukraine?
But I expect this plays nicely into Abbott’s hand. Committed to slashing funding for climate hysteria, he now has a perfect reason why. U major university withholding data, storing it on a 3rd party site they don’t control, then making hysterical threats about it being theirs and taking legal action if anyone sees it. That prompts the obvious question from the Australian tax payers, what is there to hide? If the university will not disclose the data, there must be a reason why they don’t want it to come to light, and that is sufficient reason to slash their funding.
The warmer-mystic-gangsters seem to be a sue-happy bunch.
I expect the next threat of legal action will be to threaten to sue any researcher/organization that publishes research that contradicts the warmer-mystic meme.
AGW SLAPP in action.
“You are advised that publication of defamatory comments about the University of Queensland or its employees on a publically accessible website such as a blog is a matter which University of Queensland takes seriously. ”
Well they don’t take it that seriously, otherwise they would not take actions that appear to be intimidation, coercion and blackmail.
Neither do they take it seriously enough to ensure that their employees do not leave confidential material whose disclosure would allegedly leave them open to attack on a publicly accessible server.
Brandon: “Cook kept a ton of access logs for Skeptical Science. I imagine he did the same for his other sites as well. If so, it could be possible to make a strong case I’m the only “unauthorized” person who accessed the data.”
It seems pretty obvious that the “forensic investigation” is nothing more than reading the server access log. If Cook has write access to those logs they will have no more legal standing than his word that he has not changed them. Indeed, since there seems to be considerable subterfuge in setting up the site and who owns it, establishing just who does or does not have write access may be unclear.
If “The University” wishes to take action penalising the public diffusion of the alleged IP, then they need to start at the source of the problem, with those who made the files publicly available on an unprotected server. That act has already taken place, trying to close the stable door after the horse had bolted will not restore confidentiality or put the genie back into the bottle.
Any action taken against a third party without suing the those who caused the problem would be perverse.
Now, I’m sorry if this is going to sound “defamatory” but the HYPOCRISY of “The University” on this STINKS.
hunter says: “The much better picture of Cook is the one where he shows his inner nazi. Just saying.”
For those who imagine themselves in the service of planetary purity, the inner Nazi runs deep. There is no deed too evil to be rationalized by these ecoterrorists. The 10-10 video is a window into their minds.
I was about to call this day done when I had a second thought on this topic.
Which has a more secretive culture? The CAGW culture or the North Korea government?
davidmhoffer says: “The letter doesn’t say “we will” do anything, it says they “reserve the right” to do something. This is called “posturing” and is a sign of an empty threat.”
Not quite:
“Furthermore, you are advised that any publication of this letter and/or any publication of defamatory about the University of Queensland by you will be the subject of action by The University. ”
So they do say “will be” the subject of “action”. WOW. What action? They did not say legal action, so maybe they meant they will have a coffee and bitch about it. Any way we can rest assured that there will be some ACTION.
What a bunch of jerks. (Oops, there I go being all defamatory again).
“I’ll release the data and you can bite me. I mean, sue me.”
Classic! Absolute CLASSIC line man. LMAO.
Brandon Shollenberger,
In publishing the UQ letter today you are being subtler that just appears on the surface. : )
Your strategy now appears to be to publish the UQ letter before UQ has a chance to issue a backdown / correction letter (or a public statement) in which they could say they had inappropriately threatened you to not publish the original UQ letter.
You are maximizing UQ loss of credibility / face due to Cook’s secretive tendencies and robust ineptness in his ‘Consensus’.
John
Do the UOQ actually have any Lawyers advising them or is there just some jumped up commie writing angry letters using the logo?
crosspatch says:
It is my understanding that when someone send you a letter, it is yours to do with as you please. The sender can not control who you choose to share it with unless there is an agreement made before they sent it.
===
You can send someone a letter in a sealed envelop marked “Private and Confidential”.
if you have something private and confidential to send you do not send it written on the back of a post card or send it in plain text via an open network.
Nothing which is contained in an email is either private or confidential.
“The University of Queensland has contractual obligations to third parties regarding the IP.”
What kind of “contract” could that be? The survey _may_ have had some assurance that identifiable information would not be published, but since there is no signed agreement, this is nothing more than an assurance on a web site, it is not “contractual”.
The publisher of a paper usually gets copyright to the text of the article but this paper and the part of the data given in the SI was published under creative commons licence and is thus freely copyable.
There may be a legal obligation under privacy laws but that is not “contractual” either.
So exactly what are these “contractual obligations”?
IMHO, they are lies and BS.