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.
I have reposted the threatening letter here:
http://peacelegacy.org/articles/university-queensland-uses-legal-threat-stop-expose-bad-research
This is a time to stand up and be counted. I implore everyone else to repost it on their own blog. Bullies work by fear. Stand up to them, shine a searchlight on their misbehaviour, and they scurry back into their holes.
HI Brandon
A little way down this link is a photo of the person who sent you the letter. Obviously a keen cyclist
http://www.fusioncycles.com.au/newsletters/0410/index.php
She seems a nice ordinary person so I hope that will be remembered by all concerned as this plays out. She is tasked with defending the indefensible. I wonder how much she knows about the background to this whole matter as opposed to what she has been told?
The UOQ are more closely associated with this project than I had previously believed, having thought it was just another mad venture by the Skeptical Science team.
If I were Jane Malloch-the legal person involved- I would be embarrassed at the seeming lack of control by the University over what increasingly looks like is (at least in part) their project. Their Funding? Computer time? Research facilities? Advice? Analysis? Promotion? Who knows.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but lets keep it civil and professional. The last thing we need is for anyone to send silly messages to any of the players.
tonyb
Just a reminder that the 97% consensus paper was widely reported and even publicised by the Twitter feed of the President of the USA.
Therefore, if the supporting data is obviously flimsy, the authors of the paper would have some interesting conversations to come.
For example, why did they not correct any misapprehension before ensnaring foreign politicians?
If…
as a queenslander, with popcorn at the ready, i say good for u, Brandon.
just for fun, here’s an amusing excerpt from the letter writer’s LinkedIn:
LinkedIn: Jane Malloch
Head, Research Legal at University of Queensland
Jane Malloch’s Experience
Commercial Officer
Rio Tinto Alcan …
1996 – 1999 (3 years) …
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/jane-malloch/18/551/826
M Courtney says:
May 19, 2014 at 12:28 am
Just a reminder that the 97% consensus paper was widely reported and even publicised by the Twitter feed of the President of the USA.
Therefore, if the supporting data is obviously flimsy, the authors of the paper would have some interesting conversations to come.
For example, why did they not correct any misapprehension before ensnaring foreign politicians?
________________________
Won’t matter to him. Just listen to some of the other stuff that comes out of his mouth.
I had a letter from the VC of UWA – they insisted it was private and confidential.
As I had never been contacted by the sender in the past I published it.. (they didn’t try the copyright trick)
Now that the Recursive Fury paper has been forcibly retracted by the journal.. doesn’t this look silly
03/05/2013
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
Dear Mr Woods,
I write with reference to the complaint you lodged in relation to published works of Professor Stephen Lewandowsky. The issues have been considered in accordance with the University’s policy on Managing Alleged Breaches of the Code of Conduct for Research Misconduct. The University has determined that there has been no breach of the code, and as a result, there is no case of research misconduct.
As you may be aware, the University received a number of complaints regarding the paper entitled Recursive Fury: Conspiracist Ideation in the Blogosphere in Response to Research on Conspiracist Ideation. Some complaint matters also referred to an earlier publication entitled NASA Faked the Moon Landing – Therefore, (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science. The University was also advised of other complaint matters by the editors of the two journals and by Prof Lewandowsky. The University was therefore in a position to consider a wide range of concerns raised in regards to the two publications,
The preliminary investigation undertaken by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) considered all the issues identified and determined that there has been no breach of the code, and therefore no case of research misconduct has been identified. However, one issue raised was of a perceived conflict of interest in relation to the identity of proprietors and significant contributors to blogs. A recommendation has been made to Prof Lewandowsky to identify these individuals with a footnote at the start of each research publication. Several other criticisms have been made in relation to the methodology used in the study and these have been referred back to the journals for peer assessment and are not part of the University investigation into responsible research practice.
The policy and procedure required to consider the issues has been appropriately followed and there are no further internal processes available. The University will not engage further with you in regards to these matters and this correspondence is now closed.
Yours sincerely,
Prof Bill Louden
————————-
Now that the Recursive Fury paper has been retracted by the journal.. doesn’t this look silly
especially as the co-founder of Frontiers has publicly said (he said a lot more privately)
http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Rights_of_Human_Subjects_in_Scientific_Papers/830
Henry Markram
My own personal opinion: The authors of the retracted paper and their followers are doing the climate change crisis a tragic disservice by attacking people personally and saying that it is ethically ok to identify them in a scientific study.
They made a monumental mistake, refused to fix it and that rightfully disqualified the study.
The planet is headed for a cliff and the scientific evidence for climate change is way past a debate, in my opinion. Why even debate this with contrarians? If scientists think there is a debate, then why not debate this scientifically? Why help the ostriches of society (always are) keep their heads in the sand? Why not focus even more on the science of climate change? Why not develop potential scenarios so that society can get prepared? Is that not what scientists do? Does anyone really believe that a public lynching will help advance anything? Who comes off as the biggest nutter?
Activism that abuses science as a weapon is just not helpful at a time of crisis.” – Markram
Shollenberger simply engaged in a what’s known as ‘URL hacking’ and, as he himself has pointed out, Google does exactly the same thing:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/13/google-hacked-the-skeptical-science-website/
Reuters also does exactly the same, and indeed, when a US prosecuter declined to take any action on a (serious) complaint, is quoted as being ‘happy with the outcome and that any different approach would seriously have limited Reuters ability to search for news items online.’
http://grep.law.harvard.edu/articles/03/01/26/1145220.shtml
Should the “university” of Queensland be foolish enough to throw Australian taxpayers’ money at lawyers, I suspect Google and Reuters would not wish to see the current understanding of the law change in any way.
The charitable interpretation is that the initials of their website suggested this dress-up, as a bit of silliness.
Although it could be great fun , in the end sadly I expect a ‘Clarification letter ‘ in a back down with a little throwing of someone under the bus, along the lines of ‘make they aware of university policy ‘ Unless they are really dum or ‘Mannish ‘
It’s the harm in public that has the long-term impact, and of course should any politician be looking to score points they may find this action useful.
The University might just sue. The amount of money in the “climate” industry is sufficient to attempt to “chill” speech via lawsuits. At worst, a “climate” plaintiff is looking at civil penalities if the case is really, really frivolous. It’s even possible a lawyer or two might be sanctioned. What’s a few thousand, even a few hundred thousand, compared to billions?
It’s the suit that’s filed that will make the initial headlines and be repeated for a few days so everyone understands the risk of being sued by the “climate” cadre. All the Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) notewithstanding, since, in many countries, the judiciary is part of the cadre as well. See the Steyn case, for example.
Hey Anthony! Want a really big conspiracy theory? P-)
What if this was not just about Brandon Shollenberger and the UQ – and they were after bigger fish like Jo Nova or yourself? Had either of you published the letter (particularly Jo) quite possibly the big legal guns would have been wheeled out!!
Just a whimsical thought after reading the letter and the bit that said “or persons acting in concert with you” :-).
BTW – I like the new blog format.
REPLY: That’s just as nuts as Cook’s 97% belief – A
There is a famous ‘case’ in the UK, ‘Arkell vs. Pressdram’ that has long been used as shorthand for an appropriate response to complaints of this nature. It’s worth a read…
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2013/08/arkell-v-pressdram.html
Good work, Brandon. There’s a 97% chance this could get VERY interesting.
To all of you that are bored with just pop corn….. the unsettled scientific thought has now said that butter is ok. Enjoy!
Can we retire the “popcorn futures” trope? It has jumped the shark. (So has “jumped the shark” for that matter.)
I think we just found the dumbest lawyer in Australia. Plumbing new depths of stupidity.
What I want to know: When will we get to see the data?
Brandon,
You have my respect for your fortitude.
[” The problem in this case is they’re not just withholding data, but refusing to explain why it needs to be withheld.”]
Rather than worry about their intimidation (and I see you are not), I would be inclined to send Malloch’s letter and a covering letter of your explanation to every university/faculty newspaper in the world just to show them how free and courageous people deal with bullying.
All the best,
Arfur
The text in the letter from UQ should read:
Note that only those properly trained in computer “forensics” could embark on such a task and if UQ were to forensically “investigate” themselves then it wouldn’t hold up in court because they could say anything, which they have.
Brandon, such a matter requires independent forensic examination.
I’d demand all relevant copies of said “investigation”, because they “say”:
Something that “appears” to be may not be the case at all. You’re innocent until proven guilty – the burden of proof is on them.
I fully expect any response from the University of Queensland to read something like:
“The first rule of Fight Club is: You do not talk about FIGHT CLUB”
Oh, great, as far as I know, coercion is a criminal offense. Publish or perish …
I think the legalities on this matter are a little more murky than you might think. I was involved in litigation with Fox regarding original copies of some Simpsons episodes that I obtained from them as part of a liquidation. My attempt to sell them raised flags and the net effect of their threats was that I could own them, use them for my own private purposes but could not charge for their viewing or produce any copies for anyone other than myself. The “data” at issue may be viewed likewise. Brandon may be able to view it, play with it and come up with a report on it, but be unable to share those results with anyone else much less publish them.
James Pickett (@fjpickett) says:
May 19, 2014 at 4:33 am
James, in my 30 plus years in the business I had never come across that case (Arkell). Thank you so very much, you have made my day!
You can smell the panic on the far-left. Publish it all.
Brandon,
As I am sure you have concluded by now, nobody can write you an unsolicited letter and demand that you not show it to anyone. That makes no sense whatsoever, and illustrates the thorough and profound bogosity of the rest of their claims.
It’s like those marketing gimmicks where they send you something you didn’t order, then threaten to refer you to a collection agency and/or sue you if you don’t pay. Or the “parking tickets” issued by a privately-owned parking lot business.
In no case is any such shyster deserving of even the most perfunctory of responses.