Wow, just wow. Not only have they just invoked the Streisand effect, they threw some gasoline on it to boot. It’s all part of the Climate McCarthyism on display this week.
UPDATE: Ironically, Cook’s “97% consensus paper” was published one year ago today, under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.
Data in the SI was added 16 days after publication, but not all the data, not sure if they have any legal basis to withhold the rest and still keep CCL license – Anthony
Brandon Shollenberger writes:
My Hundredth Post Can’t Be Shown
Dear readers, I wanted to do something special for my hundredth post at this site. I picked out a great topic for discussion. I wrote a post with clever prose, jokes that’d make your stomach ache from laughter and even some insightful commentary. Unfortunately, I can’t post it because I’d get sued.
You see, I wanted to talk about the Cook et al data I recently came into possession of. I wanted to talk about the reaction by Cook et al to me having this data. I can’t though. The University of Queensland has threatened to sue me if I do.
I understand that may be difficult to believe. I’d like to provide you proof of what I say. I’m afraid I can’t do that either though. If I do, the University of Queensland will sue me. As they explained in their letter threatening me:
That’s right. The University of Queensland sent me a threatening letter which threatens me further if I show anyone that letter.
Confusing, no? It gets stranger. Along with its threats, the University of Queensland included demands. The first of these is:
This demand is interesting. According to it, I’m not just prevented from disclosing any of the “intellectual property” (IP) I’ve gained access to. I’m prevented from even doing anything which involves using the data. That means I can’t discuss the data. I can’t perform analyses on it. I can’t share anything about it with you.
But that’s not all I can’t do. The University of Queensland also demanded I cease and desist from:
This fascinates me. I corresponded with John Cook to try to get him to assert any claims of confidentiality he might have regarding the data I now possess. I sent him multiple e-mails telling him if he felt the data was confidential, he should request I not disclose it. I said if people’s privacy needed to be protected, he should say so.
He refused. Repeatedly.
Apparently I badgered Cook too much. I tried too hard to get him to do his duty and try to protect his subjects’ privacy. The University of Queensland needs me to stop. If I don’t, they’ll sue me.
So yeah, sorry guys. I wanted my hundredth post to be interesting, but I guess it won’t be. Anything interesting I might have to say will get me sued. And maybe not just sued. The University of Queensland apparently wants me arrested too:
I don’t know what sort of hack they had investigate the supposed hacking, but this is silly. There was no hacking involved. The material was gathered in a perfectly legal way. I could easily prove that.
Only, proving it would require using the data I’ll be sued for using…
My Hundredth Post Can’t Be Shown
What is the higher purpose? I believe the public’s right to know supersedes the privacy or property rights of the author or the University. If it EVER got to that point, I believe at least 1 person in a jury of 12 would agree.
We are here, now.
“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because
everything would be what it isn’t. And contrarywise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t
be, it would. You see?” —Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you reverse evolution
It is not a crime to threaten to sue someone. It is however a crime to threaten to call the police unless someone meets your demands.
someone sends you a first class letter, the letter itself becomes your property the moment they post the letter. they have no claim. they cannot go to the post office and ask for the letter back. they cannot go to the police and ask for the letter back. it is no longer their letter.
The letter is no longer their property. period. the letter became the property of the recipient, not the sender, at the moment it was posted. any claim of copyright is transferred along with the ownership. otherwise, criminals could use the copyright laws to send threatening letters with impunity.
copyright is the property of the owner of the letter, not of the writer. The University no longer owns the letter. They could not go to any court and ask for its return. It would not be granted.
Thus, the only person that can legally say whether a letter may be published or not is the owner of the letter, who is the recipient. The sender has no say in this matter. They legally gave up this right when they posted the letter.
The UQ people might be hankering for a case so they can pile into a plane and come here for a break; maybe they all have Island Fever. The jurisdiction would be in the US, wouldn’t it? That’s where the server is, as I understand it, so that’s where the ‘crime’ was committed. There, and in Brandon’s unlocked house. Further, the Creative Commons license governing a good portion of the content is US-based. It’s the start of winter downunder. I think they’re hankering to get off the rock.
Science has settled itself in a closet now and locked and sealed the door tightly. And that is that else the stench of their faking and tampering will waft around the world. They are a band of cowards trying to hide their decline.
Write to their PM. I’d like to know what the mad monk has to say!
This should clear up any misunderstandings: http://www.rightsofwriters.com/2011/02/sixteen-things-writers-should-know.html
Copyright only protects the expression of an idea or fact; that is, the writer’s expression of said idea or fact.
Copyright does not prevent the same facts and ideas from being discussed.
QLD experiences a very mild winter compared to the southern states but there is a false sense of superiority, isolation and complacency summed up in their tourist slogan “Beautiful one day, perfect the next”.
The more light that shines on this issue, the better.
davidmhoffer says: May 15, 2014 at 9:30 pm
David, I’ve always (mostly silently) admired your approach to so many issues in the almost 4.5 years since I inadvertently stepped onto this virtual “battlefield”. But your suggestion above is definitely one of my all-time faves!
It just made my day 😉 Thanks!
“Cry ‘Havoc!’, and let slip the dogs of war”
If you do not want to relese the data, then consider releasing the way how to obtain them so that everybody with the the help of a step-by-step guidance can figure it out for himself? Maybe there is even some sort of wikileak to store the data? If, by mishap, it then leaks out…
And your conclusions are, of course, your own intellectual property.
Take tarran’s advice
@ur momisugly tarran says:
May 15, 2014 at 2:48 pm
Especially A). B). and D).
And start a fund. Like Hunter, I’m in too.
How is the science supposed to be tested if the data is kept secret(so that nobody test it?)?
Cook isn’t doing science, just disgusting propaganda!
This all reminds me of this http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/07/epic-fraud-how-to-succeed-in-science-without-doing-any/
Has there ever be a case like this before , where ‘settled science’ has needed to use so many legals threats, obstruction and outright lies ?
Brandon, if you start a fund, then I’m in too, mate.
Given how many people have commented on the idea of me starting a fund, I have to ask, how do you start one? Are they just accounts people can donate money to, or are they some sort of legal entities you have to register somewhere?
I tried searching online, but there are so many results about specific legal funds I couldn’t find any information about setting one up.
I sent an email to UofQ before reading all the posts.
‘I understand you are threatening to sue any disclosure or use of Cook et al.
I didn’t think there was any IP in a puff piece of no merit.’
Brandon, lots of advice here, but one thought is to ‘not’ publish the letter if you’re concerned, but get a sympathetic reporter/columnist in Australia, such as Andrew Bolt, to ‘describe’ with GREAT nuance the entire story. A copyright (I’m not an attorney) only covers the specific wording as put into a ‘form’ such as publication. There aren’t copyrights for concepts/ideas/verbal storytelling,etc.
So you could tell this story and have Andrew cover it in GREAT detail, simply not using lengthy quotes, and you should be fine. (Would be a very funny radio interview, also.) The audience will all ‘get it,’ which is what you want. (You could likely be fine with any short quotes under fair use law.) The goal is to create awareness down under and hold them up to mockery.
Brandon Shollenberger:
On the issue of a legal fund, what would I do with any money in it if no legal problems ever arise? I don’t expect any to, so wouldn’t I just be ripping people off?
———————–
Donate it to a charity or a group like GWPF if you make that clear on the tip jar, then you are not ripping anyone off 🙂
Brandon, by reading this analysis of the legal strategies behind cease and desist-letters you will understand that their letter is mainly BS:
http://www.smithhopen.com/litigation_cease_and_desist_letter_strategies.aspx
They do protest to much and have clearly decided to destroy science in order to save “climate science”.
Lewis P Buckingham Says ….
The Commonwealth is looking at University funding at the moment.
——————–
Ahh! Now we are getting close to the knuckle. The University do not want any bad publicity in case their funding is reduced or completely withdrawn.
I say, that we should make those that need to know about this be aware and let those with real power at the university be made fully aware of what their charges are doing with the University’s credibillity.
TBear – Sydney, Australia says:
——
Good letter, but I would leave the kisses out.
when anything to do with the scientific method ends up in law courts you know its no longer science. if using the method someone has proved something then people are usually delighted to share the info so it can be repeated?
What is the jurisdiction?
A little out of their reach are you not?
Is their some treaty at play?