He mentions that he doesn’t “have” the core measurement data in order to underline the fact that he doesn’t have any “to give out”. But even if he had it, it wouldn’t be his to give out.

.
I agree that that is probably the correct interpretation of Osborn’s words. And yes, I am serious. But in contrast to Norbert, I think Osborn is being intentionally ambiguous, not at all clear. This coy pattern of engagement is one we have seen numerous times in past cases where data ownership & access are murky issues.

Steve: For coauthored papers, the corresponding author is, in effect, the operator of a joint venture (sort of like general partner of a partnership). He is jointly and severally responsible to the journal. It is misleading for a corresponding author to purport to answer in an “individual” capacity rather than on behalf of the joint venture.

The big problem here is your phrase “they” : Osborn made it clear that there is no “they”. Here a quote from the very email we are discussing:

And in my first reply I explained 
why I didn’t think that this was appropriate anyway, since I consider 
that our obligation is limited to providing data to allow the 
replication of the steps reported in our paper, none of which 
involved any processing of core measurement data.

Osborn states explicitly his understanding of an appropriate handling of this matter, and it is more than obvious that any statement about himself not “having data” doesn’t imply that Briffa[2000]-underlying data wouldn’t be available. On the contrary, he went at lengths to clearly separate those matters explicitly. Furthermore, the sources are more than just Briffa[2000].

I decidedly agree with Osborn’s assessment of a correct handling of this situation, but even if I didn’t, Osborn made his understanding more than explicit enough. And on the basis of his understanding of how the situation is to be handled appropriately, he did a surprisingly good job of communicating the whole matter.

I don’t see anything that would have changed in my view, other than gaining an additional clarity about why Osborn has changed from using “we”, to using “I”, in his email.

Regarding (1.): You are construing a difference that doesn’t exist. If I had any “bad faith”, then I would still have the same “bad faith”, because nothing in that regard has changed:

He mentions that he doesn’t “have” the core measurement data in order to underline the fact that he doesn’t have any “to give out”. But even if he had it, it wouldn’t be his to give out. It would be Briffa’s job and privilege to give out any such data from Briffa[2000], along with relevant instructions and meta-data, in case the editor were still interested in it, despite learning that it is not used in the Osborn [SM: and Briffa] article.

Regarding (2.): Since there is no “preposterous contention” in (1.), your argument about (2.) falls apart.

While Briffa was a coauthor on the Osborn [SM: and Briffa] article, Osborn was not a coauthor on Briffa[2000]. Whether Osborn works at CRU or not should not really enter this discussion, since Briffa[2000] is a separate article from the one we discuss here. It is irrelevant, and should only be mentioned, if at all, to point out that it is irrelevant. Certainly that is my own consistent position.

Regarding (3.): My relevant opinion about right and wrong, is that it would be wrong for Osborn to side-step Briffa about matters related do Briffa[2000]. He should not even consider doing that.

The right thing for Osborn to do was, and is, to refer the editor to the sources, including, but not only, Briffa[2000].

I have said this all the time and that is still what I say.

You wrote: “In the end, Science asked for measurement data which Osborn either actually had in his posession or had easy access to for the reasons discussed above.”

I don’t know where you get the idea that Osborn might have had the data in his possession, although I could imagine that he might have had access to the data. But that doesn’t mean that would know which data exactly was used in Briffa[2000] (and which part of it in which way), and even if he did know that, he would still not be the right person to give it to the editor. He should still have to refer the editor to Briffa[2000], and the data would still not be his to give out.

But we should not even discuss that, since Osborn referred the editor to Briffa[2000] and others, and that is the one and only thing he should have done in this regard, and which he has actually done very clearly.

You are constructing some alternate reality in which Osborn[SM: and Briffa] ‘s article would have a direct relationship to the data in Briffa[2000]. Osborn made it clear that this is not the case, and that is the major point of his email.

Excuse me for using bold for emphasis, I feel that the important points needed to be highlighted here.

Steve: You can’t be serious.

“1. When Osborn said he had no data to give out, I believe he meant exactly that.” 
I admit to being gratified to learn that my inference regarding your initial contention (i.e., your claim that when Osborn said he had “none to give out” it was just “his way” of saying the request was “inappropriate”) was correct.  Sadly, however, this also means your arguments have been presented in bad faith from the very beginning. 
“2. I believe Osborn was neither misleading not ambiguous, but answering the editor as correctly and appropriately as he could.”
No, you don’t believe any such thing.  Among other things, if you actually believed this, it would not have been necessary for you to fabricate and attempt to defend the preposterous contention discussed above.  If you had taken your present position from the beginning our discussion would have centered on whether Osborn’s contention was plausible given that he works at CRU which financed the data collection and that Briffa was his co-author on the very paper at issue and that his 2003 e-mail had expressed a familiarity with the Yamal measurement data.  Your views on those subjects might have been interesting or insightful but you decided not to do that.  As a result, you have made a fool of yourself and we have both wasted our time. 

“3. There is no reasonable basis to consider a possible deception.”
I disagree but, as you know, my question does not seek information concerning that issue.  My question attempted to elicit your own opinions on what is right and wrong.  Ultimately, I was attempting to find out whether you were likely being deceptive in your other assertions and, at this point, I guess I have my answer.
In the end, Science asked for measurement data which Osborn either actually had in his posession or had easy access to for the reasons discussed above.  Although his paper relied on chronologies rather than measurement data, the validity of its conclusions depended on the measurement data just as much as if he had published the Yamal chronology himself.  We now know the Yamal chronology he was using was seriously flawed and, at a minimum, he knew at the time that different versions of the data were different in way which were “not insignificant!”  (You can’t quote Osborn without the exclaimation marks.)   

So, no, Osborn was not answering the editor “as correctly and appropriately as he could.”  The most reasonable interpretation of the evidence is that he was attempting to avoid the disclosure of data which he knew would tend to undermine the conclusions of his paper. 
“Why would it be in any way misleading that Osborn refers the editor to Briffa and others? This is leading him in the correct direction. To simplify it, he effectively says ‘You need to go to the sources (including Briffa), I don’t have anything to give you other than what I already gave you.’”

Assuming he did not actually have access to the data, it would not have been misleading had Osborn actually directed the editor to Briffa. It would have been passing strange under the circumstances, but not misleading in itself. However, you have not “simplified” what Osborn said, you have changed it. Of course, the foregoing assumes that Osborn did not actually have access to the data; this would be a problematic assumption for the reasons discussed above.

On the contrary, I believe it to be inappropriate to ask Osborn for that data in the first place.

There was the question (asked by others) why he switched from “we” to “I” when he said he doesn’t have core measurement data: that is very simple: The fact that Briffa is a coauthor on the Osborn article, doesn’t mean that Osborn is a coauthor on Briffa[2000]. So he can’t say that “we” don’t have that specific data, since Briffa, as the author of Briffa[2000], might have that data (and know which data and which version was used, etc.).

I think this should resolve any remaining doubts that he was answering the questions as correctly as he could.

What I can say to your latest round of “questions”:
1. When Osborn said he had no data to give out, I believe he meant exactly that.
2. I believe Osborn was neither misleading not ambiguous, but answering the editor as correctly and appropriately as he could.
3. There is no reasonable basis to consider a possible deception.

If you wish to continue this discussion, please also read my previous response (I wrote two in sequence), and try to clarify your understanding of the situation by answering the “counter-question” which I asked there.

Steve: As John McEnroe says “You can’t be serious!” Osborn’s answer was not as “correct and appropriate” as “he could”. A correct and appropriate answer would have been that they had the measurement data, but did not believe that Science had the jurisdiction to require them to disclose it.

Steve, there is the phrase, “The methods of this widely accepted approach” in your “Collated Against March 17, 2006 Request.” There is ‘cheque kiting’ by multiple parties (not just one individual using multiple ‘banks’) but also the claim “widely accepted”, or similar (in other emails) meaning, in my opinion, ‘those same parties use the same approach’. Cooperative, “community”, ‘self-justication’ could trick a diligent editor if one did not know how close the team is.

BTW, I fouled up some threading in my comments on this topic. They may appear nonsensical because of the lack of context.

It certainly was not unreasonable for an ‘outsider’ to ask for clarification given that fact that the ‘inside’ team members needed clarification from each other. One more example of an attitude like ‘We’re great and we were crystal clear in our reports. We are too busy to repeat the obvious’ while also emailing each other (on the back-channel) saying, in my opinion, the opposite.