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:
So, if the University of Queensland scores [an] “own goal” by use of their own letter as being defamatory to themselves when published, do they sue themselves? Just wondering.
Mr. Shollenberger, thank you. Can’t wait to see all the tweets this will generate from the left, #ThatBrandonIsSuchAStinker, no doubt.
What exactly is it that 97% of “climate scientists” is supposed to “believe”. If it’s that 1) humans are definitely responsible for most of whatever warming has actually been observed since 1850 & 2) future man-made warming will definitely have major catastrophic effects, then IMO this number is totally bogus. Not that it would matter scientifically even if true.
With all due respect to Ms. Malloch, I have to ask how many others thought of the old Saturday Night Live point/counterpoint skits when reading this… “Jane, you ignorant slut.”
Anyone?
IP rights are the legally recognised exclusive rights to ‘creations of the mind/intellect’
Does ‘data’ satisfy this definition – or did they really create something -that they don’t want published. Is there a discernable ‘creation’ in this data set. You don’t create data, you collect it. As such it might come under some other article (of law or moral code) The UQ, along with other U’s have a duty and mission statment to diseminate (at least, this type of ) knowledge for the good of society
Publishing the IP…will expose UQ to civil actions from third parties. But same paragraph states that the UQ owns the IP. This and the rest just don’t add up.
So lets run with this a little…they are holding some form of creative work that is or is not the ‘data’, for someone else. If they have been found to have ‘lost’ it, those to whom it belongs will be angry and sue them. They are a University – the top rank of intellectual brains (some would challenge) in society. How embarassing?
They are claiming they were hacked and perhaps suggesting that is the reason why a third party got hold of it – i.e. you have received proceeds from a crime, and should sort of just keep quiet and hand it back.
In regard of the letter Mallock sent, claiming copyright, etc – I have no doubt that any judge worth his/her salt would avail of a chance to bring good order and conduct to his/her court room with a ‘public’ admonishment, with the express purpose of promoting professionalism among those who may appear before him/her. Any solicitor so bold or otherwise would be seen to get what they deserve. It would be a humiliation. Mallock would run a terrible risk, bringing a case against Shollenberger re the letter she sent being published.
Not only that but if it is later quite clear that the ‘IP’ was falsified, adjusted inappropriately, intellectually/deliberately biased or whathaveyou, so seen in respect of the common good, political influence, academic funding issue related, etc, etc, then I would suspect that Mallock will not only NOT sue, but be looking for a new job, career even, perhaps even under a new name.
That she advises (foc obviously) against defamatory comment suggests she knows ahead of time that there is cause for same. I would politely tell her ‘thanks for the advice, but it was not needed, and not to trouble herself in this regard, others of higher calibre are providing wonderful councel. Forthcoming comments will be appropriate and accurate, she can be assured of that!
That letter was a real gamble, if it works it was worth it, but if it doesn’t, heads will roll. Lots of strutting with big words and worrying ‘threat’ references typical of a desperate bully effort. Rather a silly gamble I would think, but then the info to be revealed might be so damning as to warrant such stakes at the table. I’m sure it won’t work, it was academic suicide from the beginning. Not disimilar to the banking crisis, once they started on the slippery slope, they all went down it, had to – and they knew the ending was not going to be pretty.
‘Those that can do, those that can’t teach’ I sense someone who can’t, in a teaching institution, trying.
RobertInAz says:
May 19, 2014 at 12:24 pm
Thanks. Good to have a US legal opinion.
You know, it might be a hoot for someone to e-mail the link to the u-Tube Hitler satire that was shown on Jo Nova’s site to both the University chancellor (with a snark along the lines of “Thanks for the entertainment”) and to Tony Abbot, the Prime Minister of Australia. Let the powers that be know what kind of fools they’re looking like on the world stage.
There is another dimension to consider.
Inquiry and encouragement should be given to ERL (Environmental Research Letters) who published the John Cook et al 2013 paper entitled ‘Consensus’ (‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature’).
Suggest some inquiry to ERL and also some encouragement to ERL regarding:
a) Why did ERL publish the John Cook et al 2013 paper ‘Consensus’ with the names of raters identified in it when the University of Queensland has an issue with Brandon Shollenberger potentially publishing data with the names of those same raters previously identified by ERL’s journal publication? Note: ERL published paper has the names of raters who participated but not the timestamps of each rating nor the identity of the raters for each paper that was rated; whereas Shollenberger may be considering revealing that info withheld from the ERL paper; or Shollenberger may be considering at least using a pseudonym for each rater’s name in order to effectively anonymize rater information and timestamps.
b) Did ERL receive full disclosure from UQ regarding third party contracts? If so how did ERL reconcile conflicts between SKS possessing the data that UQ claims ownership of? Or is UQ conveniently just making this third party contract story up now in the past week after the paper has been published in ERL for a year?
c) Full data has been requested several times of all parties (ERL, John Cook and UQ) over the past year since the paper was published one year ago. To date no data has been provided due to various reasons: non-response to requests; ongoing / pending evaluation of requests; refusal of requests. Interested parties should perhaps write to ERL asking them to consider, it having been a year and no data has been provided, to put ‘Consensus’ on a new status of ‘about to be temporarity withdrawn unless full data is made available to the public forthwith’.
d) What publishing license does ERL have on file for the John Cook et al 2013 paper ‘Consensus’? Is ERL aware that the paper’s authors are not in compliance with their license terms and conditions?
e) Request ERL to disclose, , in the spirit of open science that should be subject to transparency, the ‘Consensus’ reviews by ERL peer reviewers, reviewer communications, author communications during review and editorial communications with reviewers and authors. Likewise, there should be requests to ERL to encourage them, in the spirit of open science that should be subject to transparency, to consider getting voluntary public self-identification of all the reviewers of ‘Consensus’.
Just my thoughts.
John
Shouldn’t they be aiming for 99.7% ?
That was the Anschluss plebiscite figure.
mpaul,
Good point about the possible “con man” aspect, pretending to own and sell what one has no right to claim as property.
If that does prove to be the case here for UQ’s claim about IP, then their fraudulent audacity could be compared to the original great con man who is responsible for the meme, “I’ve got a bridge to sell you!”
George C. Parker, “selling” the Brooklyn Bridge:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Parker
Cease and desist letters have found to be copyrighted under US law.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/DozierInternetLaw/InternetLawyer/prweb650951.htm
Patrick B says:
May 18, 2014 at 6:47 pm
So, where does Queensland University get its funding and who can influence it?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let me take a stab at this:
1) “…where does Queensland University get its funding…”: – money from taxpayers is funneled through a mind-numbing number of political bodies;
2) “…who can influence it…” – well, actually, nobody.
To many those it may concern,
Likely young grad students of climate studies and or legal studies are reading here for the big boys who have their collective tails in the ringer.
Of some note for all of the young and the older ones who have this unintended consequences raging about.
Today this poster who knows both U.S. Senator Ted Cruz and U.S. Congressman Ralph Hall contacted said gentlemen. They and their staff know me and they know I bring facts and truth.
They have now reviewed the post herein on the 97% study.
Congressman Hall put his Energy Committee staff on these new facts and will keep up via this site and other means to get a better understanding of the entire operation.
Each of you need to know yourselves better and not tilt towards windmills with the wind in the wrong direction. You can see that even the fine American Bald Eagle can come into a bad deal regarding miss placed windmills and misused data and such.
A time comes for a culling of the truth from the lies. Seek shelter is what I recommend.
Ben Adler/Grist host the White House Google+ Hangout on climate – it’s a tech comedy in the first five minutes i’ve watched so far:
VIDEO: 46 MINS: Join EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, and Grist for a #WHClimateChat on the steps we’re taking to reduce carbon pollution, prepare for the impacts of climate change, and build a clean energy economy
https://plus.google.com/+whitehouse/posts#+whitehouse/posts
drifter says:
May 19, 2014 at 2:53 pm
“Cease and desist letters have found to be copyrighted under US law……”
The link you provide is to the Press Release by the lawyer involved in the case. Looking at other references to the case seem to indicate the judge did not rule on the merits of whether one could enforce a copyright on such a letter, but only acknowledged the lawyer had registered the copyright and for the purposes of the case would not rule on the merits of said copyright. It sounds like this was one small part of the hearing that was going on.
Here was a link with more info:
http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/CopyrightLaw/Copyrightability/FederalCourtRecognizesCopyrightRightsInCeaseAndDesist2.shtml
it’s worth posting the Grist page on the Ben er-um Adler Q&A, if only for the comments, by about 20 commenters only:
19 May: Grist: Watch our live chat with Ernest Moniz and Gina McCarthy
http://grist.org/climate-energy/join-our-live-chat-with-ernest-moniz-and-gina-mccarthy/
Good call, Brandon. Right about now I’d say they are beginning to understand there’s not going to be any suing. Yes you could be in serious trouble. They might just send you to your room.
Regards, Eamon.
Are we up to 3 or 4 “97%” papers now? When one is destroyed, they just release another one with the exact same premise and conclusion and different random junk between them.
I’d bet that if this one is withdrawn because the data is never shown, another will be released within a few months, and its raw data will also be withheld.
May 19, 2014 at 3:51 pm | apachewhoknows says:
—
Love your work 😉
get ready to get screwed! or not…
19 May: WaPo: Gail Sullivan: Climate change: Get ready or get sued
“This is a new kind of storm associated with climate change,” Tom LaPorte, spokesman for the Chicago Department of Water Management, told Medill Reports on day two of the April flood. Extreme flooding is part of a pattern that has emerged in the last two decades, according to Illinois State climatologist Jim Angel.
Now a major insurance company is suing Chicago-area municipal governments saying they knew of the risks posed by climate change and should have been better prepared. The class-action lawsuits raise the question of who is liable for the costs of global warming.
Filed by Farmers Insurance Co. on behalf of itself, other insurance companies and customers whose property was damaged by the surge of storm water and sewage overflow, the lawsuits allege the governments of Chicago-area municipalities knew their drainage systems were inadequate and failed to take reasonable action to prevent flooding of insured properties…
These lawsuits are the first of their kind, Michael Gerrard, director of the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School in New York, told Reuters. Gerrard said he expects to see more like them.
“I think what the insurers are saying is: ‘We’re in the business of covering unforeseen risks. Things that are basically accidents,’” Ceres insurance industry analyst Andrew Logan told NPR. “‘But we’re now at a point with the science where climate change is now a foreseeable risk.’”…
The insurance companies are in for an uphill battle. Daniel Jasica of the State’s Attorney’s Office in Lake County, which is named in the Illinois state court suit, told Reuters that the localities will claim government immunity protects them from prosecution.
“Even if a city is likely to win a lawsuit, it still is going to have to spend quite a bit in defending itself,” Robert Verchick, who teaches environmental law at Loyola University in New Orleans, told NPR. “And it might just be better for everybody involved for cities to take climate change seriously.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/05/19/climate-change-get-ready-or-get-sued/
19 May: CBS Moneywatch: Aimee Picchi: Not ready for climate change? Your town may get sued
Farmers Insurance is suing the city of Chicago and about 200 local municipalities for allegedly failing to adequately prepare for the impact of climate change, in what’s described as the first-of-its-kind legal argument…
The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago said it had no comment since it hasn’t been served with the lawsuit…
If the lawsuit is successful, it’s likely that local residents will end up footing the bill, Daniel Jasica of the State’s Attorney’s Office in Lake County, told Reuters. Lake County was named in the lawsuit.
“If these types of suits are successful — where is the money going to come from to pay the lawsuits? The taxpayers,” Jasica said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/not-ready-for-climate-change-your-town-may-get-sued/
Legal puffery. The letter has no value being protected.
Has anyone ever compiled a list of all the times someone has had issues getting data and all the related issues on various papers on this general topic? I know steve m has had issues as well and remember hearing of a few others.
Perhaps someone could relate this to known cases of people having issues getting data in other fields?? Kinda seems like it is more common within the AGW theory then others… but perhaps I just hear about it more.
I don’t have the words to comment on the latest development. I’ve written myself dry. You’ll have to read for yourself. I assure you, it’s at least mildly interesting:
http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/university-of-queensland-doubles-down-on-hiding-data/
Well Done Mr. Shollenberger!
Brandon
I know you discounted it when I suggested it upthread but surely the UOQ are more closely involved with this survey than has previously been implied?
They seem to me to be covering their backs, as at the least they surely had an input ranging from tacit to overt. Tacit could be merely verbally agreeing something, overt could include actual assistance with compiling or analysing the data. Something is being hidden, but how big that ‘something’ might be is difficult to gauge from here.
tonyb