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
>> Brandon Shollenberger says:
May 16, 2014 at 12:01 am
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.<<
Get a PayPal accout and publish the Email address it is linked to
here and on your HP and wherever you think appropriate. Give a short explanation and that’s it.
Doing it this way (only this way) will save a lot of trouble with cheques and cash management.
May 15, 2014 at 9:50 pm | Faustino aka Genghis Cunn says:
—–
Holler if you need any help, I’m not far from the citadel of academic corruption in Queensland.
I suggest Mr Schollenburger refer the University of Queensland to the precedent of Arkell vs Pressdram.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/about/arkell-v-pressdram/
This is one of many links which explains what this means.
I happen to be in the Sunshine State and as a concerned QUEENSLANDER, I rang the UQ media department twice today. I asked only that they confirm if they have indeed threatened to sue Brandon Schollenberger. I was given no comment except that a release will be forthcoming.
I can not except that UQ would issue such a threat. In my opinion the letter is not official. If it is, I’ll be very surprised and shocked! If it isn’t official but did originate from UQ, it is a smoking gun for certain nefarious affairs taking place there!
I tried to go to sleep a little while ago, but I found I couldn’t because I was wrestling with the idea of a legal fund. I’m exhausted, and I’m tired of thinking about this. As such, I ask anyone who is interested in contributing to such a fund read the post I just uploaded. I’d like it if it could be my last word on this matter.
UQ is that Un stable Queens?
[University of Queensland. The Queen is said to be stable, but is not stabled therein. 8<) Mod]
Simple fact – copyright protects form not content. You are perfectly at liberty to paraphrase the content of their letter, just not quote their exact words. However there are also legitimate purposes for which you can quote their exact words which I believe include critique, research and public debate.
This lot deserve all the ridicule that can be mustered.
You cant just “copyright” an intimidating letter like that. Copyright is reserved for trademarks, patents or works above “threshold of originality”. Their “copyright” of the letter claim is an empty bogus threat. As for the data I have no idea.
Your name [isn’t] Yossarian by any chance is it?
🙂
Oh, you may want to report the person sending the letter for misconduct.
Anyone trained i law knows this is really bad.
http://www.lsc.qld.gov.au/complaints
Think about it, if it was as easy as attaching “this is copyrighted, do not show to anyone or…” to an email, heck, every email from major organisations woud have the text by default on all letters.
Now its your turn, show you are not a push-over.
Good Luck.
In a just world the Australian Government would dispatch an army regiment to this university to expel staff and students,and then burn it to the ground
I wonder if the U of Q has a public charter that it would violate by sending threats to those who ask questions about the work done with taxpayer funding and published under a Creative Commons license. I wonder if an enterprising politician or journalist in Queensland would like to take a closer look at who decided to send this letter, who approved it, whether other letters have ever been sent and to whom and why.
These people fear sunlight. Name them.
If you obtained the IP legally, and can prove it, then publish. The actions of UQ are simply all bluster.
The fact that the University of Queensland has moved beyond resisting providing access to data which would enable a person to validate or invalidate Cook’s paper’s analysis and conclusion, to threatening those attempting to validate or invalidate a scientific paper, provides proof to support the assertion that Cook’s paper is flawed and an embarrassment to the University which appears to the true issue, not ‘intellectual’ property.
It is pathetic that a University would use threats to attempt to stop discussion of a flawed ‘scientific’ paper.
Australian organisations are required to protect personal information under various state and federal laws. Hopefully Queensland based organisation are meeting their obligations under the IP Act including transfer of personal information outside of Australia. http://www.oic.qld.gov.au/guidelines/for-government/guidelines-privacy-principles/transferring-personal-information-out-of-australia/personal-information-disclosure,-the-world-wide-web-and-section-33
If the University of Queensland owns the copyright to the letter then can you FORWARD it to others teaching or studying at the University of Queensland (using the university’s email servers) without breaching copyright?
Did they ask you not to FORWARD the letter? Is forwarding the letter a breach of copyright? Maybe you can forward the letter with a note stating that the recipient should NOT publish the letter. 😉
In say 10 days time ask them whether they have referred the matter as required?
As DP has said earlier in this thread, the UQ have had reason to worry about the spotlight in recent times –
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-07/uq-investigates-fresh-claims-of-research-misconduct/5077276
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/cmc-aided-uq-while-investigating-nepotism-scandal/story-fnihsrf2-1226662805286
the Queensland CMC (crime and misconduct commission) will investigate the waste of public funding if it could be proven that the research grants afforded by the Cook et al papers were gained by deceit, and i dont think that would be a problem. Cook et al have failed to meet the standards required by the Australian Research Council and the university is defending them without concern for the consequences, just as it took more than 2 years to actually check whether a medical paper actually existed before gaining $300K in grants from the Australian tax payers.
The question UQ and the CMC will be faced with in the future is – did the university actually have full knowledge of the lack of evidence in these papers to achieve the grant, or were they just incompetent.
Hi Brandon,
Eugene Volokh said in response to my question can a letter be copyrighted and not publishable:
“A letter generally? Yes. A demand letter from a university? There’d probably be a very strong fair use claim under American law. If you can get me a copy of the letter, I’d be glad to have a look at it in more detail.”
Eugene Volokh is the lead author of http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/
a lawyer oriented blog that went mainstream some years ago. He weighs in on first amendment issues. VOLOKH@law.ucla.edu.
Have fun
@- Brandon
The key finding of the Cook Et al study was the Gold Standard finding that 97% of the scientists publishing in the climate field support the claim that AGW is the dominant factor in recent climate change and future warming.
The extended dispute about how the raters derived that level of support from just reading abstracts begins to look like a reluctance to accept the core finding of 97% of scientists self-declaring their support for the IPCC position. Quibbling about how the raters rated the abstracts is a storm in a teaspoon. Stolen data that might risk the privacy of the participants is not going to overturn the ineluctable reality that the vast majority of scientists self-declare their support the role of AGW.
There is no such ‘consensual science’ and hence there is no gold standard. Cook et al cannot tell me why they claim that those 97% are right and, more important, they don’t tell why the alleged 3% of dissenters are wrong. Remember: they have nothing at hand but the abstracts. They are just juggling with numbers of highly questionable compilation. And they do not disclose their methods and weightings fully. To me, they are just pseudo-scientific cowards hiding behind an alleged wall of a 97% consensus.
Looking at the notes from my phone calls to UQ, I never mentioned John Cook by name but the media contact directed me to, and I quote: “look up the Global Change Web Institute”. Googling that exact term, lead me directly to the smiling face of one J. Cook himself, on the UQ bannered GCI web site. I was also advised to contact him directly! Make of it what you will, it seemed a little odd to me.
I think you should *definitely* take the legal advice of all the denialists on this blog. After all, they’ve been right time and again regarding the Michael Mann case.
This gives a good description of how to deal with the legal letter….
http://www.rightsofwriters.com/2011/02/sixteen-things-writers-should-know.html
Dear Mr. Shollenberger please do not dismiss the advice to contact a political person, like Chris Pine, minister for education, or whomever else is appropriate. The entire CAGW battle is in many senses a political battle, post normal;” or otherwise. If there are political figures on the side of open science and against the manifest corruptions of the CAGW movement, (like the many climate gates etc) then the pressure they may be able to apply can short circuit such childish bulling tactics as are being deployed against your attempts at open science.
( I consider that a political figure, struggling against the international political movement of CAGW, which is backed by billions of dollars in funding and international powerful politicians, would find your situation politically advantageous to pursue and support. In short, your situation could be a godsend to help them wield more power against the forces of suppression,
Besides, if that fails, the suggestion by Russ R regarding a catch 22 was not only clever and amusing, but may have real legs. B.T.W, I am quite impressed by your “hacking” skills!
Most useful post here so far from… T Bear:!! Has actually done something about it. (letter to vice chancellor). It may be in fact that the letter is NOT officially from the University. Would not be surprised to see Cook resign soon….
Siberian_Husky says:
May 16, 2014 at 3:49 am
I think you should *definitely* take the legal advice of all the denialists on this blog. After all, they’ve been right time and again regarding the Michael Mann case.
=============================================
What a typical alarmist comment, where your displayed ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance.
As this is an open blog, unlike most alarmist blogs, the range of comments by skeptics is bound to be wide and contain both good and bad advice.