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
Eliza says:
May 16, 2014 at 3:49 pm
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.
____________________
Hey ‘liza,
While you make good points about troll intent, they still must be relentlessly hunted down and turned to stone
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.”
Well that depends what you actually did.
Let’s try an analogy. Suppose you were in a restaurant, and you went off to the toilet leaving your wallet on the table in plain view. Coming back you find your wallet gone. The person who took it argues that because you left it “publicly accessible” with no precautions then taking it was not theft. I doubt if you would buy that as an excuse.
Now I do not know what you did to get the files, but on many web sites it is easy to guess, from the names of the files, where there may be other files, and it is possible modify the URL to see what turns up. If the site owner was careless and failed to protect the files, then they could be read, but that does not mean one is entitled to read them. If on the other hand the site owner had put in links leading to the files, then obviously no-one could be blamed for reading them. Likewise if they had a site map feature which lists all the files on the system.
Andrew Bolt is already on to it (scroll down to bottom of page):
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/C933
Brandon, if you cave to their threats and intimidation, I think you will regret it much more in the long term than if you call their silly bluff here and now.
As you are resident in the US, being realistic, there isn’t much they can do to you if you say I’ll publish and to hell with them.
You also have to factor in the damage to their reputation that pursuing you would involve.
Interesting response from QU quoted in the Australian and posted at GWPF:
“UQ’s acting pro-vice-chancellor (Research and International) Alastair McEwan said all data substantiating the paper, Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature, had been published on Skepticalscience.com.
“UQ has therefore published all data relating to the paper that is of any scientific value to the wider community,” he said.
“UQ withheld only data that could identify research participants who took part in the research on condition of anonymity. Such conditions are not uncommon in academic research, and any breach of confidentiality could deter people from participating in valuable research in the future.”
http://www.thegwpf.org/queensland-university-tries-to-block-climate-research/
Two points: first, it is quite clear that “all the data” was not published, Second, since when is publication at SkS the appropriate archiving of the data?
Will there soon be a Las Vegas line on the odds for ‘Consensus’ going on ‘temporarily withdrawn’ status?
Tick Tock . . .
John
Brandon Shollenberger says:
May 16, 2014 at 4:05 pm
————————————————
Good responses, like your posts, balanced , reflective straightforward. Looking forward to your 101st post!
John McClure:
“You’re beating a dead dog.”
As noted above, Cook et al is a gold standard of the 97% meme, and all its faults have not dented it.
However Nixon did not resign because of an illegal break-in – it was the cover up.
The warmists love to talk about a tipping point; this occurring (and with maximum publicity) at the same time as the Bengtsson scandal may start swaying public opinion (from agnostic to global warming to antagonistic.)
“Our side” has not yet been effective in slowing the CAGW bandwagon, but their demise may yet come from within.
Unsympathetic headline in The Australian
… but perhaps a somewhat ambiguous message which maligns U of Q more so than the alarmists in general. (…and requres subscription for full message)
“Queensland University tries to block climate research”
GRAHAM LLOYD The Australian May 17, 2014 12:00AM
THE University of Queensland has threatened legal action to stop the release of data used in a paper that establishes a 97 per cent scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.
The paper, lead authored by John Cook, has been the subject of debate over its methodology since it was published last year.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/queensland-university-tries-to-block-climate-research/story-e6frgcjx-1226920713818
Headline at The Australian is NOT sympathetic to the U of Q
Queensland University tries to block climate research
GRAHAM LLOYD The Australian May 17, 2014 12:00AM
THE University of Queensland has threatened legal action to stop the release of data used in a paper that establishes a 97 per cent scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.
The paper, lead authored by John Cook, has been the subject of debate over its methodology since it was published last year.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/queensland-university-tries-to-block-climate-research/story-e6frgcjx-1226920713818
Is there perhaps, a confusion on the UQ’s part, between ”copy rights” and ”privacy rights.” ? Their concern seems more the protection of the content not being disclosed rather than protecting any right of originality of their work.
“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.”
=====
11944 X 66.4% = 7930.816 papers No position on AGW
11944 X 32.6% = 3893.744 papers Endorsed AGW
11944 X .07% = 8.3608 papers Rejected AGW
11944 X .3% = 35.832 papers Uncertain
———-
total papers 3937.9368 out of 11944
97.1% X 3937.9368 = 3823.7366 out of 11944
Just wanted to see the math on that……….
Define person, ask them that. It seems like such a stupid question, but the lawyers know what it means. Trust me!! Ask for their definition of person.
Chuck L says:
May 15, 2014 at 1:46 pm
Brandon, are bloggers considered “The Press?” If so this becomes a freedom of the press issue which is a whole ‘nuther can of beans.” Not a lawyer, just an outraged US citizen.
Well, if precedence is needed in a court…
[FL] Court Declares That, Yes, Bloggers Are Media
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140416/06001926929/court-declares-that-yes-bloggers-are-media.shtml
Hey Brandon – no advice to offer, except don’t let those coelenterates at U of Q buffalo you. We skeptics need your continuing valuable commentary to assist us in the good fight. Hang in there.
Australia, over the last few years has been changing state by state and last, nationally, from left (mostly mild) to right (mostly mild) political control. The former – left – governments, all endorsed the full AGW nonsense. They also over the years allowed – encouraged – the filling of positions, in the publicly owned universities (nearly all). Thus most of the universities’ Vice Chancellors (CEOs) and their ruling bodies are still leftist. However, the elected – rightist – governments are gradually (sometimes very quickly) turning back the AGW nonsense, with denying of funding and abolition – of the many AGW fronts. However, the universities, though largely publicly funded, are still relatively independent of the particular government which may own them. So the contacting of the QLD Premier and the Australian Prime Minister, is a political connection – not a legal one – the desired outcome being, that both these men will be informed of a bizarre manifestation of AGW and that they will then bring “persuasion” to bear on these out of control, bodies. The relevant Premier and the PM are both closet sceptics with respect to AGW and apart from this would both view the leftist control and thrust of the universities with disgust. There are so many lunacies (and a leftist, self inflicted, deficit) to reverse in Australia at the moment, that the returning or the universities to sanity is lower on the list.
So, please contact both men – but not via their public address – but through their party political ones. They both belong to the Liberal Party (conservative – right in Australian terms).
When blogger Achbishop Cranmer received a demand to show cause along with a request to keep the communication confidential, his response on his blog was as follows:
Michael Lewis (May 16, 2014 at 7:50 pm), another Liberal Party Member of Parliament, Dr. Dennis Jensen, who happens to have a science based PhD, made a formal parliamentary request for an audit of the BOM and CSIRO data handling processes. Read all at Jo Nova’s blog:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/03/dennis-jensen-mp-calls-for-audit-on-the-bom-and-csiro-data/
Brandon you need to make your own decision based on the legal framework in the US.
You do not need to get into a fight – at least not on your own.
I am not a lawyer but some of the suggestions seem sound:
1. Describing the content in your own words is not a breach of copyright.
2. It is unlikely that the US would pay any attention to Qld. I doubt if there can be any agreements between Qld and the US. Any agreements would be at our Federal level (our Fed is actually called the Commonwealth Govt of Aus).
3. Neither the Qld Govt nor our Federal Govt would give much support to UQ. Look at the advice given by Eliza says: May 16, 2014 at 4:39 am
4. If you have not broken any laws in gaining the information put the case to the Attorney General and ask for advice. I think you will make their day as both the Qld and Federal Govts are liberal (conservative) and not enamoured by the CO2 religion.
Advice given was to write to the Attorney General, Senator George Brandis who is on record as being disgusted by the stifling of skeptics (even though he believes in anthropogenic influences).
Leigh says: May 15, 2014 at 3:58 pm
5. http://www.aph.gov.au/house/
provides details of members of Parliament and how to contact them.
6. Continue writing as you have without breaching copyright (i.e. limited quotation).
7. Don’t lose any sleep over all this. I feel you are stressed which is what UQ want. It is not worth it.
I read this article on the web but cannot refute or confirm its analysis as no one has access to the original data, so I will republish the article in the hope that at some stage in the future when the data becomes available someone may be able to assist. This refers to the origins of the so called 97% consensus and cites two different studies:
.”1. Global Warming consensus? Not so fast…
Every time one of these AGW cultist posts some frothy mouthed, bug eyed reply to a reasonable doubt about the validity of AGW, they almost always cite the “97% of scientists agree” statement. Let’s just examine that claim shall we?
What they are referring to is the University of Illinois survey in 2009 that found that 97.4% of agree that mankind is responsible for global warming. This is easily debunked when one considers its selection methodology. The University of Illinois study originally included 10,257 respondents. Of that group, the researchers (Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman) concluded 10,180 “weren’t qualified to comment on the issue because they were merely solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists, astronomers and the like”. Of the remaining 77 scientists whose votes were counted, 75 agreed with the proposition that mankind was causing catastrophic changes in the climate. And, since 75 is 97.4% of 77, ‘overwhelming consensus’ was demonstrated. In reality, the 75 respondents that agreed with AGW is actually only 0.73% of the original sample group.
Furthermore, in 2013 John Cook et al examined 11,944 articles from peer reviewed literature dated 1991-2011. They found that 66.4% (or 7931 of them) expressed no view whatsoever on AGW/ACC. Of the remaining 4013 articles, 97% (or 3893 of them) agreed with AGW/ACC. This again “demonstrates” a 97% consensus in their eyes. However, fundamental math would tell you the actual percentage of peer reviewed literature from this time frame endorsing AGW/ACC is actually only 32.6%. The actual numbers in both these surveys have been ignored by AGW/ACC proponents in favor of being able to cite the “97% Consensus” argument. I doubt that most AGW/ACC believers are even aware of these facts. The next time one of them uses this bogus statistic, please feel free to educate them”
Hey Brandon, Big Oil should be able to fund your legal fees (sarc). After all, they are funding all skeptic blogs (more sarc).
arkx says:
May 16, 2014 at 5:57 pm
Unsympathetic headline in The Australian
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/queensland-university-tries-to-block-climate-research/story-e6frgcjx-1226920713818
____________________________
Good, thanks for the link.
Here in Oz, The university claims the only information it is seeking to protect is the identity of the respondents to the study which they say is confidential. Is this true or just spin? If it is spin can someone explain (in simple terms) what relevant the university is supposedly attempting to suppress? Thnx. ..
Jay Currie says:
May 16, 2014 at 4:52 pm
‘Interesting response from QU quoted in the Australian and posted at GWPF:
“UQ’s acting pro-vice-chancellor (Research and International) Alastair McEwan said all data substantiating the paper, Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature, had been published on Skepticalscience.com.
“UQ has therefore published all data relating to the paper that is of any scientific value to the wider community,” he said.’
I was wondering whether U of Q independently verified all the data was published on SKS, or simply took the word of John Cook?
I must have missed something? Brandon are you Australian and an academic? The Minister for education is Chris Pine. A few days ago our Foreign Minister, a small well dressed lady, was shoved and harassed at a University, and Chris replied those students are guilty of assault.
My letter regarding the WA university not revealing data, was forwarded to him.
If this data has been published in a magazine, the copyright still remains that of U 0f Q. But with all academic essays, if you reference the quote or argue the essence of another paper, provide you use a reference system in Text, they can’t do anything about it.
E.G John Bloke wrote in his article ‘The Earth has stopped Spinning’ (italics of course) (John Bloke,The Earth Has Stopped Spinning (italics again), Roster press, Cambridge, 1997, pp.230 -245), stated that the planet Earth is flat, and doesn’t revolve round the sun’ – reference before a full stop.
Then you add a different page with bibliography,making sure you have the author’s name and year of publication first and then where and who published it.
BLOKE, J., 1997.
This is the Harvard system of referencing. It can be placed in text or at the end of paragraph. In brackets usually at the end of paragraph, as you may mention two or more authors. If you don’t do this, you can be charged with plaguerism. (can’t spell today folks).
I would NOTwrite down the full text of this jokers article. Just a passage, or just paraphrase. but attack the whole essence of his argument with a rebuttal.
I know one Australian academic, complained about Mike Morwoods et al data on the The Hobbit research. He was strongly disciplined by his university.
I have never heard of any university suing a pupil or student.