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
A.D. Everard says:
They are trying to scare you, big time. What happens now, Brandon???
Good question. Maybe Mark Steyn has the right approach.
This looks like a completely empty threat. Only one way to find out, though.
Now, of course, we are all infinitely more interested to hear how it is that you got the information. You have said from the beginning that it was not stolen or hacked, which suggests that someone left it lying around. Your emails to Cook, however, suggest that you were somewhat concerned about the legitimacy of the way that you accessed the data. Please please tell us exactly how you got the data – your methods are your IP.
drop Edward and Julian an email, I’m sure they can help in regard of the freedom (or lack) of this data, and tell you what you are really up against.
I would leak it if I were you, all the rage you know!
Waiting for the Cartoon by Josh on this one.
They do seem pretty desperate to scare you into submission.
You must have something good 🙂
HGW xx/7 says:
May 15, 2014 at 12:11 pm
Okay, can some one please explain what is going on in Australia?
===================================
It’s not as black and white as all Aussies being hard left. There are (some parts) of each of the capital cities, then there’s everyone else. It’s much like the USA where the coasts are full of progs and flyover country less so. Go to rural Australia and you’ll find the people who subscribe to the “wide-open land full of dreams and earnest hard work” vision (with the exception of popular beaches, where a lot of welfare bums “struggle”).
Something about living in a high population-density area that rots the mind, I think.
Just send them a threatening copyrighted letter back threatening to sue if they disclose it.
Publish and be damned.
They are obviously trying to put the frighteners on you with what amounts to a blackmail letter itself a federal offence. They are making empty threats in the hope you will cave in, one short meeting with any legal council worth his salt will show this to be the case. And if you dont want to publish send it to me and others on this site and we will do it and let them sue us, I for one would look forward to it.
Perhaps in the future, when such hidden data are uncovered, they should be immediately sent anonymously by mail to hundreds of people in multiple countries who might be interested in it. The list would hopefully include some folks with the resources to defend against such SLAPP suits.
I would siggest contacting the Office of the Premier of Queensland, who is well known to be a sceptic of all things Global warming and may well be very interested in this unenforceable threat.
UQL is a recipient of plentiful State Funding and I am sure the Premier would love to find some legitimate cuts to make as he struggles to get the QLD economy back in shape after removing the Leftards in 2012. Well worth checking this route out: Campbell Newman, Premier thepremier@premiers.qld.gov.au
Eff ’em. They cannot do anything.
Publish it all.
Alan Robertson, that was the joke. I didn’t actually have a hundredth post written. I wasn’t even sure what I’d write about for it. I do have a post written, but it’s three or four posts down the road.
theorichel, they defined IP as intellectual property earlier in the letter. I didn’t show that part, but I made sure to define it in my post so people could understand what it meant.
Michael D, I’m not sure how you can say my e-mails to John Cook suggest I was concerned about the legitimacy of how I accessed the data. I’ve never shared the e-mails I sent to him. I assume Cook has shown them to some people (how could he not if he had a lawyer write a letter), but I don’t think you’d have seen them.
dbstealey, sadly, I don’t have the resources of Mark Steyn. I’m not afraid of the University of Queensland’s (baseless) threats, but I’m well aware of my limitations regarding them.
I’d report these actions to the Australian Research Council resp. the relevant goverment department.
It appears the ‘university’ of Queensland has taken the same sort of action to protect Cook as the ‘university’ of Western Australia took to protect Lewandowsky.
Given that Lewandowsky and Cook appear to be busy submitting papers to prove that anyone that does not agree with the 97% has a ‘mental derangement’ then I am not surprised.
Have you contacted Mr. Cook to see if he agrees with the request not to contact him?
The letter is bs. Ask them to provide evidence of the hack the are implying you made. Ask them under what US laws are they making the demands of non dislosure. Any non disclosure clauses are only usually applicable if both parties agree.
Anthony had a similar threat some time ago but the other party withdrew the threat after a single email so he may offer sone advice on the wording and the part of the organisation to send the email to. It seems this is a bluff and may not have the authority of legal department of the uni.
This is what I wrote on Brandon’s website:
I find it really interesting how many people on Cook’s “side” think that discussing the scientific ethics issues are a joke.
File header information may contain the urls necessary to show how available it was on their site. You don’t need to show anyone the data. You may also be able to recover the urls from browser cache files.
They’re probably simply covering up how foolish Cook was to make the files publicly available in the first place or he lied and they think someone needed to hack the site. Either way, they don’t want every kid hacking their site so no news is good news.
How is this different from where an adult molests a child and then threatens the child with punishment if he tells anybody?
Walt The Physicist says:
May 15, 2014 at 12:03 pm
Not really for students, either.
Academics preach cherishing diversity, but only if the opinions of the student body diverse in origin are united behind the high-held banner of Progressiveness.
Stephanie Clague beat me to it: Whatever happened to ‘Publish and be damned’? C’mon, what will it cost? You could always win…..
You HAVE to give whatever you have to someone within the sceptic community who isn’t afraid of some silly Australian university. I fully understand you may well be put off doing anything yourself, but there will be LOTS of people who won’t be at all afraid of publishing everything you have. Give it to the GWPF, for example. Get in touch with them ASAP.
Refer them to Arkell v. Pressdram
What about leaving the info in plain view and then throw a party? Many variations on that theme. I was robbed I tell ya’ robbed.
@Steven Hales
(in my best Don Adams voice) – The old Skeptical Science Nazi Uniform trick!
Ask the university about their whistleblower policies