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
Whistleblowers are protected in Australia anyway, in this case it would be exposing the practise of intimidating detractors and suppression of free speech through the misuse of copyright and mischievous legal letters.
izen says:
May 16, 2014 at 3:28 am
@- 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.
_____________________
Your entire premise is ridiculous. “Gold Standard” finding? The original claim of 97% consensus has for years, been shown to be absurd and there has been enough information published about the methodologies used by Cook, et al, to completely discredit any of their findings.
I suspect that you already know this and are just anonymously trying to provide additional cover for Cook, et al, which makes you just another propagandist, i.e. an anonymous troll.
Copyright covers creative works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright Therefore the University of Queensland is asserting that Cook’s data is a creative work (ie. fabricated).
I love how Kurt Denke, owner of Blue Jeans Cable, fought back against Monster Cable for their claim of violation of IP. His letter is a long dry read but his fight against the ‘bully’ tactic is priceless. Maybe you should give him a call…he sounds like a super smart guy and this is his filed of expertise. http://www.bluejeanscable.com/legal/mcp/index.htm
In many states, threatening criminal action is the definition of extortion.
davidmhoffer says:
May 15, 2014 at 9:30 pm
. If it were me, trouble maker that I am, I’d come up with something as outlandish as possible from some cherry picked subset of the data and publish that conclusion. Then challenge them to prove me wrong, which they could only do…. by publishing the data.
===========
I love your mind………
You’re either off your rocker or you never read the original John Cook et al paper.
I suspect the latter. Here’s what was in the abstract:
Did you get that? 66.4% of the 11 944 climate abstracts matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’ expressed no position on AGW.
So where did the 97% come from?
32.6% pro [“endorsed AGW” in the abstract] + 0.7% against [“rejected AGW“] + 0.3% uncertain = 33.6%
32.6/33.6 = 0.970238095
That is how John Cook got 97%.
John Cook, et al just threw out the 66.4% of the 11,944 ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’ abstracts because they did not endorse human-caused global waming, or stated no position.
Brandon,
Since you are concerned about the threat of legal entanglements if you release the data, and some/many here are saying UQ has no legal basis while others are saying they do, your first course of action should be to seek legal counsel to only determine if those threats hold water. That normally is relatively inexpensive or many times at no cost for the first consultation.
Possibly Chris Horner at CEI would be a good source for advice. He may have already read this post.
In any case, should an initial consultation not be free, and the cost exceeds what you are willing or able to pay, then simply create a PayPal account and put the word out. I have little doubt you would receive enough to cover the costs. Anything above and beyond that amount donate to a charity you would announce beforehand; I would not feel like I’m getting “ripped off”. Should your attorney state UQ may sue even if you are not in legal jeopardy, then keep the excess donations until it blows over.
Should UQ sue, publicly announce your need for additional funds. Be transparent. If Anthony vouches for you that’s good enough for me. I think we are at the point of it being an all out war against corruption and political cronyism that has permeated “climate science” and therefore the gloves need to come off.
my 2c
Question:
Does this abstract linked at Hockeyschtick explicitly support or not support AGW?
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/05/new-paper-finds-clouds-have-net.html
How about this one?
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/10/new-paper-finds-pacific-ocean-has-been.html
An abstract cannot possibly be assumed to support either without understanding what the paper is about. The above IMO do not support human caused global warming, but they don’t say it in the abstract. Cook et al were just cherry picking.
“The worst that would happen is the FBI would talk to me then laugh when they hear what I did to “hack” the server.”
I wouldn’t get so complacent. You’re dealing with a Dept of Justice that impliments actions based on outcome, not on law. If people in high places want you silenced, be prepared to contact various legal representation… EFF etc.
What Mosher said. It would be a shame if all of this was left on an open FTP server in a directory called something like “censored data” or something.
policycritic says:
May 16, 2014 at 8:52 am
“You’re ( izen says: May 16, 2014 at 3:28 am) either off your rocker or you never read the original John Cook et al paper.
I suspect the latter…”
___________________________
I don’t think that Izen fits within either of those categories, of being crazy, or woefully ignorant.
Izen betrays himself by claiming familiarity with the long- running dispute. He also employed logical misdirection at several levels, thus he shows himself to be a liar. If he is indeed ignorant and telling untruths from that position while claiming knowledge, then he is a liar. If he is familiar with Cook, et al, then he is lying from a position of knowledge. He may even be one of the (several) paid propagandists which are shared by the AGW scientific community to run cover for their missteps, which colors his statements with a particularly meretricious mendacity. Either way, Izen is lying to protect the misbegotten findings of Cook, et al.
Show the courage and publish anyway or why
bother with this? If you are so easily stopped
you are not the man to fight these people!
Brandon,
Lots of bad advise in the comments.
Isn’t this a pretty simple situation to resolve given the obvious?
Cook’s research is essentially worthless.
The corresponding research data is worthless.
No one in their right mind will take the research seriously and if they do its simple to refute.
You’re beating a dead dog.
Dump the data. Its just taking up space on your hard drive.
Cook is bound to do something equally news worthy (comic) down the road.
“Bring back our balls”
http://www.steynonline.com/6326/bringbackourballs
Print the material, find some envelops and enough stamps, and send it to some people that might be interested in their activities like oh say Tony Abbott. This would not be publication would it.
If you can’t discuss the data, maybe you can discuss the clouds. As in, “the clouds in the sky have been subjected to abuse, and cloud cover actually falls far short of 97% after correcting for intentional errors.”
“We find that 66.4% of [“11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming'”] abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
So, 2/3rds of climate research papers do not support ‘global climate change’ nor ‘global warming’ and are actually focused on figuring out what the heck is going 😛
It would be interesting to see who funded the remaining 1/3?
I realize my last comment is equally as absurd as Cook’s 97% claim but you get the idea.
You could always try to get certain congressmen interested in it and subpoena it. At that point it’s part of the congressional record. Heheh.
John McClure says:
May 16, 2014 at 9:37 am
Brandon,
Lots of bad advise in the comments. Isn’t this a pretty simple situation to resolve given the obvious? Cook’s research is essentially worthless.The corresponding research data is worthless.
No one in their right mind will take the research seriously and if they do its simple to refute.
You’re beating a dead dog. Dump the data. Its just taking up space on your hard drive.
Cook is bound to do something equally news worthy (comic) down the road
===========================================
John I could not more strongly disagree The 97% studies are quoted endlessly by the choir, from political figures like the current POTUS, to trolls like Izen. Big Lies are the bread and butter of the centrist mind set. It is essential to publicly shame this sorry excuse for science.
Everyone now knows that the warmists all have been lying for a long time. The elites want it to control the population and conserve resources for them. The dimwit scientists think that they are lying so that poor people can get more money, how absurd. It is clear anyone involved is a fool while the weather changes to a mini ice age millions of poor will needlessly die. Looks like the elites will get what they want in the end, millions of dead and higher prices with lower natural resource use.
An awful lot of virtual ink over a classic Appeal To Authority fallacy. Why disprove what is on its face a fallacy?
Move on over, Franz Kafka…
To Brandon Shollenberger: The best course of action is to publish this threatening letter everyplace on the web that will accept it.
Then get a lawyer to write a threatening letter back at them. From some suggestions upthread, you should be able to get this level of legal help without busting your bank account.
Then contact as many elected officials in Queensland as you can get contact information for.
David A says:
May 16, 2014 at 10:05 am
========
There are far easier ways to expose the disinformation for the MSM.
IMO, playing slap and tickle with a University and Cook is a complete waste of time.