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
It used to be that universities were in the business of disseminating knowledge. Now, it’s the opposite.
Brandon, two thoughts:
1. The best advice by far is Tarran’s on 5/15 at 2:48PM:
What Brandon needs to do is to
a) Shut up!
b) Get legal counsel (I recommend asking Ken at Popehat who has a stable of lawyers willing to take on case pro-bono)
c) Shut up!
d) Not give anyone any more ammunition to file hacking charges against him
e) Shut up!
It is foolish not to get the best legal advice available. Between pro bono and the money your readers at WUWT are willing to commit, that should be possible.
2. You come across as somewhat ingenuous. Why even raise the issue in a post if you are not going see it through? I can understand your not wanting a fight, but WUWT has a lot of visibility; did you not expect any pushback?
– – – – – – – – – –
Brandon Shollenberger,
I augment the “‘widening gyre, center cannot hold’ strategy I mentioned in the blockquoted comment above.
Please consider to not publically reveal the data you have on “Consensus’, instead like I suggested you treat the UQ letter, do a somewhat the same kind of thing with the ‘Consensus’ data you have.
Namely, over a period of several years have weekly posts about your views and hypotheses of the data without actually publicizing the data. In frequent posts on aspects of the data (but not revealing the data) over the next few years also keep some of your focus on ” [. . .] their [UQ’s] unscientifically tenuous position opposed to the fundamental scientific principle of open data for falsifiability purposes.”
With a ‘widening gyre, center cannot hold’ strategy, time is against HQ.
You have no time constraints, be patient. Don’t actually publicize the data, instead publicize about your views and hypotheses about the data.
I think you should consider this => Do not initiate anything to cause legal direct challenges.
What I am suggesting is that all legal challenging things should be initiated only as an absolute must (I don’t see any) and then only after thinking about legally actionable items for a couple years; that is after cooling down and thinking about it for years. N’est ce pas?
John
American universities and colleges are not haven of free speech for anybody. Try giving a speech disagreeing with Affirmative Action, hold a rally supporting one man, one woman for marriage, invite a speaker abuse by radical Islam and you’ll see how free the speech is. “Free speech” is only allowed when it follows the secular-progressive agenda.
If this was me. I’d be singing this from the rooftops. Ensuring it becomes international news.
The shame will be so intense, all they can do is use damage limitation.
.
Ensure the Uni-diversity knows that in protecting this paper; which was released under the creative commons licence. The educational value of this establishment will be regarded in due time on the basis of protecting papers that have zero scientific interest or value and produce unproven papers with falsifiable data using unknown people to garner slander and libel. Over that of a sound education. (‘Lew’ paper).
.
The letter(s) you wrote to the recipient cannot be construed as copyright under any law and threats to keep quiet clearly amount to blackmail in all laws.
Also, making false accusations of illegality to foreign citizens can only damage your establishment further.
@more soylent green! says:
May 16, 2014 at 12:01 pm
Yes, this is well known that academia is open minded and tolerant only toward certain political and social views and very aggressive toward opposite or different views. But we are talking here about scientific discourse… This is less know: academia in intolerant of and adverse to progress in science and education. That’s bummer!
Discovery would be a hoot.
David A says:
May 16, 2014 at 10:05 am
Not just pols but the media ballyhoo the 97% lie at every opportunity. People of my acquaintance who should know better have bought this whopper hook, line & sinker, although it should be seen false on its face.
Walt The Physicist says:
May 16, 2014 at 12:51 pm
@more soylent green! says:
May 16, 2014 at 12:01 pm
Yes, this is well known that academia is open minded and tolerant only toward certain political and social views and very aggressive toward opposite or different views. But we are talking here about scientific discourse… This is less know: academia in intolerant of and adverse to progress in science and education. That’s bummer!
========
Fascinating statement Walt,
To coin Mies van der Rohe’s statement, from the point where someone dropped an iron rod into concrete it took 30 years to deliver reinforced concrete in the building industry.
This doesn’t strike me an academic inhibitor.
Perhaps which scientific discourse is key to your statement?
Note to Mr. Schollenberger:
I empathize with your plight: You have done the right thing by giving a glimpse of Cook’s data and UQ’s legal push-back — but now you face UQ’s legal threats and associated potential uncertain outcomes. Many WUWT commenters are providing encouragement to move boldly forward and call UQ’s bluff by releasing the UQ letter and analyses of Cook’s data.
Yet, none of us really know your personal circumstances. . . where you work, your available financial resources, or how sustained litigation might effect you personally and your family. It’s nice that WUWT commenters have pledged financial support; but will this support be forthcoming over the (2-3 yr) timescale of possible litigation?
You clearly have a decision to make: fight UQ or leave the fight to a later date or to another group. I, for one, will respect your decision, either way, given that your decision must be made based on your personal perspectives. My only subsequent advice is that if you should decide to proceed to challenge this matter, you should base your decision on expert legal advice and consideration of your personal risks — both legal and financial.
All the advice given previously by WUWT blog commenters is well meaning. But, none of us commenters are sitting in your hot seat!
Best Regards
Dan
Brandon,
Have you looked at the message header (source) for the email? Most email clients enable that? Might just be worth checking – it could be as spoof, I guess.
jeremyp99 says:
May 16, 2014 at 2:04 pm
“Have you looked at the message header (source) for the email? Most email clients enable that? Might just be worth checking – it could be as spoof, I guess.”
I suppose it’s possible. . . but I doubt they are really that stupid!
Dan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics
…whoever came up with that phrase was 97% sure it was perfect.
I’m all for science, but science is not the source of all truth. There are truths outside of science. Science is great – but Scientists are human beings, and all human beings are broken. Science can produce all sorts of data, but scientists (human beings) must then interpret it. People must then decide what to DO about the data/interpretations, and that is NOT science. When some scientist says “the facts are so and so” what is really meant is “my interpretation of the data is so and so”. And in the case of CAGW – there isn’t even any real hard data, just wishful models.
Heck, I’ve done statistical models/simulations myself (though the climate science here is typically way, WAY above my head). If the model maps nicely to what actually happens –i.e., comparing model output to subsequent precisely collected, real-world data , you MIGHT then be on to something – maybe. At least, you are encouraged to go further. These CAGW models have been total garbage. Only people who have a pre-conceived agenda would keep up with the same garbage initial assumptions – over and over again- no matter how bad the correlation with real-world data turned out to be. The CAGW movement has become like Krusty the Klown betting on the Washington Generals over the Globetrotters ‘cause he figured – they were due!
Krusty’s Accountant: Let me get this straight. You took all the money you made franchising your name and bet it *against* the Harlem Globetrotters?
Krusty the Clown: [miserable] Oh, I thought the Generals were due!
[watches the game on TV]
Krusty the Clown: He’s spinning the ball on his finger! Just take it! Take it!
[the Globetrotters score]
Krusty the Clown: That game was fixed! They were using a freakin’ ladder, for God’s sake!
Also, please remember, I am a hobbit. So, I am very close to perfect myself , and do not have any of the many failings that you humans have.
Put up or shut up Schollenberger. Your story sounds more and more like a fake. Go away.
@Rob H – he did put up. What do you think this article is?
Trolls are so stupid.
Rob H says:
May 16, 2014 at 2:15 pm
“Put up or shut up Schollenberger. . .”
Please tell us what portion of Schollenberger’s “story” is fake and how you’ve derived your conclusion!
Dan
==============================================================
“Go away.”?
They wish like they wished Climategate would just “Go away”.
They considered him one of them, now it seems he is one of “them”.
They want everyone who is not one of them to just “go away”. Some have even proposed they be put away.
Rob H says:
May 16, 2014 at 2:15 pm
Put up or shut up Schollenberger. Your story sounds more and more like a fake. Go away.
Kinda has a SkS ring to it and typical of their responses to skeptics. Why don’t you go to Timbuk2?
That kind of exasperation shown by ‘Rob H’ is why the ‘widening gyre, center cannot hold’ strategy is perhaps the most effective strategy toward dealing with QU while actively trying to avoid legal risks.
John
Editorial correction as follows:
Sorry for the error.
John
Its a troll you don’t reply to warmist trolls (ie its a distraction ploy to divert effort on main subject) My advice don’t reply.
test
Send it to Mike Mann, tell him he will get a new government grant if he publishes it.
Dirty deeds done dirt cheap.
David A, contacting a government official does have its appeals. I just have to give consideration to who I’d contact and what I’d say. It’s not the sort of thing you want to rush.
Ken B, I’m not intimidated. At all. I just feel it’s best not to take any hasty actions right now. I don’t think anyone is going to be harmed if I release everything in two weeks instead of in two minutes.
Charles Nelson, Climategate didn’t expose much of anything regarding Michael Mann’s behavior. Pretty much everything it showed about him had already been known. Climategate mostly just made his misdeeds things easier to explain/prove.
Jeff, I suspect the point you make is why the University of Queensland wants to claim I got the data via hacking. If they truly have contractual obligations to keep this data confidential, they could get in trouble if the data was publicly accessible.
John Whitman, being patient is good advice. I think a number of people commenting here could benefit from it. It seems a number of people think I need to take immediate action, or else I’ve surrendered.
jeo, this isn’t the first time people have tried to use copyright laws to prevent recipients from talking in public. In previous cases, some lawyers have suggested it might be illegal.
DR, I’ve already written about the idea of a legal fund, even creating the option for money to donate money here. I don’t encourage people to use it though. I am not concerned about any legal entanglements. My impression is the University of Queensland is just going to try to quietly back down. Also, I have contacted two lawyers who were recommended to me.
kcrucible, I’m pretty sure if the FBI went after me for what I did, I’d have an easy time finding legal representation. I think a lot of people would be outraged at calling what I did “hacking.”
DavidG, Jack Okie, please try to have some patience. There’s no benefit to me releasing anything now rather than in a little bit.
DanMet’al, thanks. I’m not worried about a lawsuit (or arrest warrant). I cannot foresee any circumstances which would lead me to not releasing the letter and data. I’m just trying to avoid rash decisions.
Is Rob H Rob Honeycutt, by any chance? They seem to have similar unpleasant personality traits.
There isn’t a lot of risk, assuming the data was on an Internet facing Web site, and was unprotected he couldn’t even be charged with misuse of computer systems since the computer was there for the express purpose of allowing the public to download information. Publishing the data on a public Webserver unprotected is a lot like accidentally publishing your data as an insert in the new York Times.
If you have a website that has say http://name/page1 and http://name/page3, is typing http://page2 hacking your site? Nope, if that is all that was done then the data was published by UQ already. Otherwise direct links to subpages on websites, that is just about every hyperlink on the web, cause people to hack websites every moment of every day.
This is not hacking, and it’s not even misuse… Assuming the webserver itself was public… If you had to sneak into a vault to do the same thing then maybe it’d be different.
For the people that say shut up and batten the hatches, this is exactly what the aggressors want, and what the litigator wants is very rarely in the interests of the defendants, for a Senior Australian University that trades on its reputation the embarrassment of publication and the interest that can generate from the public and minister can be rather a headache. My strategy would be to stir the ants nest. Speak to your representative and get him to approach the Queensland and Australian commonwealth education ministers about mischevious legal threats being improperly made to his constituents. Me i’d probably also email Andrew Bolt and Steyn with a story tip! At that point the interest would make it untennable to sue, especially given by this time an international incident is brewing.
Oh, and if you do take them on, please send popcorn