University of Queensland doubles down on Shollenberger – with a straw man argument on 'confidentiality' for names already listed in the paper!

So is the university claiming to own SS?
I could twist their words that way, it seems very strange they mention an ethics approval for Cook and lay claim to content on SS.
Would Cookie Boys claims of SS’s financial independence also be suspect?

Chad Wozniak says:
May 20, 2014 at 10:58 am
As a former academic, I can assure everyone that the academic environment, far from being free, is so ideologically hidebound as to be as intolerant of dissent as Nazi Germany. UQ’s behavior is par for the course.
———————————
I’m a former academic as well. I disagree with you though, as I believe Nazi Germany was more tolerant of dissent than the academic environment.

Yeah but Nazi Germany dissenters didn’t last long when known!

Pethefin- The raters and members of the scientific team are listed either in the authors list or the acknowledgments if you actually bothered to read the paper. No wait, you just spout the same mindless conspiracy drivel as the rest of the tea baggers on this site. Has it ever entered your mind that scientists have important research to do and don’t want to waste their time engaging with a bunch of uneducated, brainwashed, delusional, foaming at the mouth crackpots?

“All data … that are of any scientific value were published …”
This is much like the marxist-revisionist soviet model of the “democracy of the committed”; only those who were selected by the local Komsomol would be permitted to nominate for election, on a ballot paper with just one candidate. Within this framework, elections were freely and fairly held.
You could of course vote for or against the unopposed candidate …

Siberian_Husky says:
May 20, 2014 at 9:33 pm
[…] I hope you get sued.

I think a law suit at this point is even less likely than a week ago when it first threatened.
If the blow-torch can be maintained against the belly of UQ, and heavens knows, Professor Alastair McEwan is certainly providing the fuel, then a number of outcomes are possible.
1. UQ release the data (or Brandon Shollenberger decides to release it for them given that UQ are proving themselves impotent).
2. Professor Alastair McEwan becomes obliged to decide between the integrity of UQ vs. backing the increasingly isolated position of John Cook, and resigns.
3. UQ throws John Cook under the bus because the only reasonable course of action for acting Pro-Vice-Chancellor, McEwan is to consider the larger picture for UQ.

Two points:
1) The data is not pertinent to “climate research.” It is putatively social or psychological research regarding people’s attitudes to climate research positions. The university argument is misframed at the beginning of its statment.
Brandon Shollenberger writes:
…. This one also identifies nearly a dozen individual participants. It’s true we only found out about these images because of a hack, but that hack happened nearly two years ago. Surely the authors of the paper shouldn’t leave confidential information in a publicly accessible location for two years, even if people have already seen it.
2) Contrary to Brandon Shollenberger’s view, the “data” were either initially publicly available, or they were initially copied from a “hacked” system They cannot be both. “Weak security” is not synonymous with “publicly available,” nor is publicly “accessible” necessarily intended to be publicly “available.” If the directory tree structure was not protected by permission settings that exclude casual viewers, then there might be a weakish argument for “public” accessibility, since an outsider can climb the tree structure without special permissions. However, that could be countered by arguing that a web site has a set of index.* files that lists what the page designer wants the public to see, what scripts they can initiate, etc., and the index file determines what should be publicly “available.” In such a case, good computer manners leaves non-indexed data be, even if you find it and read it. Sometimes what you are dealing with is p*&& poor computer and systems administration and security practices.
However, the short of it is that files may have been accessed that were not supposed to accessed by individuals with no permission to access them. If true, then the system was indeed “hacked” in the most simple minded of senses. Operator incompetence though will not excuse trespasser culpability. So the operator’s incompetence is moot in terms of whether it was “OK” to access the data simply because it was publicly accessible as opposed to available.
The operator could be sued by one of the participants if they could show that somehow their personal information and privacy were compromised due to incompetence on the part of the operator.

One trouble for 97% advocates is they are tied to the hip forever to an absurd claim. Everything must be retrofitted to this number or the face the public humiliation and associated political loss of a declining “consensus”. That’s what prompted the full-stupid Cook paper to begin with.
As long as they can keep the meaning of “97%” like a wine tasting contest it can survive. Once it gets to actual surveys with specific questions to people not easily screened for political conformity it falls apart fast. If the next sham came up with “91%” consensus the wheels come off as well. That would be declining consensus, so they are trapped by their own absurdity.

Duster, this comment of yours is misleading:

2) Contrary to Brandon Shollenberger’s view, the “data” were either initially publicly available, or they were initially copied from a “hacked” system They cannot be both.

The images were always publicly accessible. People simply didn’t notice them until after the server was hacked. In fact, they didn’t discover the images until months later. The hack uncovered information which led to the images, but that doesn’t mean “they were initially copied from a ‘hacked’ system.”

However, the short of it is that files may have been accessed that were not supposed to accessed by individuals with no permission to access them. If true, then the system was indeed “hacked” in the most simple minded of senses. Operator incompetence though will not excuse trespasser culpability.

Yes, it will. It was only “hacking” in the sense of, “I don’t like what you did so I’ll try to get you arrested.” It’s amazing you bring up “trespasser culpability” because the standards in this situation are no different than they’d be in an actual trespassing case.
Trespass requires one of two things: 1) The trespasser ignored a sign instructing them not to trespass; 2) The trespasser broke a “seal.” That is, they broke some sort of physical barrier intended to keep people out. That’s all that matters.
It doesn’t matter whether or not your presence in a location is desired. For your behavior to be wrong, you must have broken a barrier. The barrier can be created with words (a sign). The barrier can be created with a physical impediment (a fence.” It can be created with a password system (a gate.)
But if no barrier blocks access to something, nobody can trespass upon it.

Duster says:
May 21, 2014 at 9:49 am
Two points:
2) Contrary to Brandon Shollenberger’s view, the “data” were either initially publicly available, or they were initially copied from a “hacked” system They cannot be both. “Weak security” is not synonymous with “publicly available,” nor is publicly “accessible” necessarily intended to be publicly “available.” If the directory tree structure was not protected by permission settings that exclude casual viewers, then there might be a weakish argument for “public” accessibility, since an outsider can climb the tree structure without special permissions. However, that could be countered by arguing that a web site has a set of index.* files that lists what the page designer wants the public to see, what scripts they can initiate, etc., and the index file determines what should be publicly “available.” In such a case, good computer manners leaves non-indexed data be, even if you find it and read it. Sometimes what you are dealing with is p*&& poor computer and systems administration and security practices.

The directory was publicly available, just not publicly advertised. Therefore it is fair game. If you are an incompetent system admin and leave directories view-able to the public that is your fault and you cannot later claim any sort of privacy on this information simply because you were incompetent. I scanned all of their domains a while ago and Cook had managed to lock them down from public view. As for the hacked forum information, I’ll post anything I want from it and there is nothing Skeptical Science or their legions of idiots can do about it.