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:
I suspect a bluff, and this threat could be cause for a counter suit due to the fear and anguish they caused you….if of course you could fake that part.
Windsong, I’m glad to. I’m also glad for your offer of assistance, though I don’t expect to need it.
davidmhoffer, there is nothing inherently remarkable about withholding data. Sometimes it makes sense to. Sometimes it’s necessary to. The problem in this case is they’re not just withholding data, but refusing to explain why it needs to be withheld.
TRM, that line is actually what made me write the post. I typed it, then I had to write a post so I could use it.
John Whitman, I’m flattered you think I’m that clever.
Greg, copyrighting a digital letter amuses me because the letter, as a digital media, will be copied over and over again in transit.
Of course the UQ will be harmed if you publish their data: they’ll be exposed as biased and incompetent, among other things…
Reading through all of this, it is clear that the University of Queensland has now officially been defamed. But wait…they have defamed themselves.
Apropo, m’thinks!
http://youtu.be/o2bksmlKa2U
I think we need an FOIA on any communication related to Brandon and UWA …
Hey UWA … your actions show you to be a ground without morals, scruples and with a significant lack of professional ethics.
PLEASE sue me.
You may serve papers at: ascott7268@gmail.com
– – – – – – –
Jane Malloch,
It is hard for me to imagine anything more defamatory to UQ than your letter to Shollenberger on UQ letterhead, unless it is the defamation of UQ’s scientific reputation by the secretive data management of the lead author (John Cook) of the ‘97% Consensus’ paper.
John
Lee@ur momisugly 8.09 pm 05/ 18 , boy that’s hard on a key board and a screen LOL
Sent Joanne a full pound of Newhuas finest…
Kick butt and publish their names!!!
… and to think Obama read this sh!te from a teleprompter with a straight face. Add that to the legacy.
Brandon-
Thank-you.
Just a thought. who has an account from the university that would appear official? wouldn’t that be fraud to use it on behalf of the university?
Brilliant graphic. For some reason I keep seeing Akmed the Dead Terrorist, instead of pretty boy Cook.
However the message is the same from either.
“Silence! I Kill you”
Funny how as the mask slips off of the Consensus Seekers, they become ever more difficult to parody.
I thought Creighton in his last book was stretching it a bit, as his eco-nasties seemed a bit over the top. Well here several years later on, I have to concede he was understating their mendacity.
In myopinionCook’spapercarries no weight at all. This is because Cook’s paper appears to have been produced in co-operation with Skeptical Science.
I have previously commented on the Skeptical Science at some length. However when I asked them difficult questions, they first of all tried to swamp me with irrelevanciesand when I persisted they quite quickly spammed me. My questions were quite reasonable, the only catch was that if answered truthfully, they would have exposed the “reasoning” exhibited on their websitef or the nonsense that it is. Unfortunately for them I always keep a copy of these conversations and many of them are published at http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com The Skepitical Science one is at http://globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/what-does-past-climate-change-tell-us-about-global-warming/ I moved the conversation to my blog for obvious reasons.
Needless to say, any opinions or “facts”, published in any way by these people and their cronies are completely unreliable andtherefore Cook, in my opinion, is tainted by the same brush.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.wordpress.com
Brandon;
davidmhoffer, there is nothing inherently remarkable about withholding data. Sometimes it makes sense to. Sometimes it’s necessary to. The problem in this case is they’re not just withholding data, but refusing to explain why it needs to be withheld.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well you have seen the data, so you are a better judge of that than I.
That said, if they hold data that shows that the world is on the cusp of disaster, it would be criminal to withhold it, would it not? On the other hand, if their data doesn’t support the disaster meme, it would be equally criminal to say otherwise.
Now I doubt that either extreme is applicable in this case. But for a group of scientists insistent that the world is in dire straights unless we take drastic action that will send billions into darkness and death, they are remarkably reluctant to release the very data they insists proves their case. Jones and Mann and Cook are cut of the same cloth, insistent as to the conclusions of their data, but when asked to produce it, insist that it is their intellectual property. One can only assume that they are either the most selfish people on the planet on an (dare I say it?) unprecedented scale, or somewhat disingenuous in regard to their claims.
So all of us must ask… what is it about their data are they so strenuously trying to keep confidential? It was after all, just a study about other studies. Hardly original science and hardly something that rises to the level of intellectual property by most people’s definition (though a legal definition might certainly be more nuanced.) In the meantime, the common man increasingly smell’s a rat, and the ability of the politicians to cut their funding is fueled by this behaviour, even if it turns out that there was nothing damaging to release in the first place.
I’m enjoying the spectre of them twisting in the wind. They are clearly in full panic mode, and the longer this plays out the worse it gets for them.
Congrats on all of you’ve done, I would not have had the patience to drag this out for maximum impact.
I tried popping this batch in coconut oil- mmm, just like at the movies.
Likely Brandon will be sued. Last years total resources for this universtity was close 1.7 Billion Australian Dollars.
http://www.uq.edu.au/about/docs/annualreport/annual-report13/UQ-Annual-Report-2013.pdf
It’s also a very old “sandstone” university, so is part of the group of 8 coalition in Australia who have enormous influence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_Eight_%28Australian_universities%29
Do you really think a highly regarded university would make hollow threats? It’s possible I guess.
If a university expects only the highest integrity from its researchers then you can bet they expect the same in return….Maybe they’ll use the exercise of sueing Brandon as a study topic?
My advice is this: If popcorn is the only benefit from publishing the IP data then don’t publish. Looks like WUWT has your back whatever road you take.
munch, munch, munch…
Scumbagerous wallyflops!
Brandon Shollenberger
bravo.
i was really hoping that you were just toying with their afflictions – because any 3 yr old child of 2 knows the difference between ‘may’ and ‘can’t’.
as mr whitman says, you are maximizing the damage – as borat would say: very niiiiice.
Brandon, as said elsewhere some days ago, if push comes to shove (which I doubt, as you clearly also do) there are a lot of lawyers willing to do pro bono on your behalf. Two already volunteered. Plus, as Steyn has showed, crowd sourcing the right kind of lawsuit is actually constructive ‘fun’.
Give it a few days. Then if you do not hear specifics (very specifics) to your questions from Cook or UQ, put the data out there for all to see. You have already hinted at several clever mechanisms. My recommendation is accompanied by an email to UQ saying done given their non-responsiveness to gravely substantive matters concerning academic integrity and University adherence to own policies and Aus law. Maybe JoNova can suggest extra special OZ tweaks.
Bravo to you going for it.
A. Scott, it’s funny you say that. I received an e-mail from an individual who has filed an FOI request for any correspondence with or regarding me.
sonic, you’re welcome.
davidmhoffer, I think a better question would be how can they argue against releasing the IDs associated with ratings when authors of the paper said things like:
In private. Authors of the paper called for certain tests to be done, yet they now resist releasing the data which would allow people to perform those tests!
Brandon, all the best with your decision. I am not sure you will receive a response, there is much political trouble here with the budget cuts proposed by the current federal Govn’t inparticular to institutions like universities. There is no mention of it in MSM that I have seen and may just get swept aside with all the cage rattling going on at the moment.
Re-pro-duc-i-bil-i-ty is not some ancient city mere intellectuals might debate about. If you enter science without offering it, on the public dime, you have committed a crime.
The take home message I got from this is that the University of Queensland were and are directly involved (Paid for?) this worthless project.
Can they seriously defend a paper such as this, either for the way it was planned or compiled or analysed? If so it does not say a lot for their academic rigour and says even less for their transparency.
Hopefully, if the report is true that climate funding in Australia is to be drastically reduced-that the UOQ will find their funding also severely cut which might help to prevent a repeat of this worthless and misleading project.
tonyb