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
Classifying Cook’s research as Intellectual Property is a bit like classifying dust bunnies as a new super computer?
Perhaps the scene from Ghost Busters where shock treatment is used to test for psychic ability would be a better analogy?
I am a MSc and PhD graduate graduate from this University I am totally ashamed of that institution these days.The rot started with Higher education schemes instituted by Keating and Hawkins in the 80’s (me being a labor voter at the time!!). Since then its being a down road hill for nearly all Australian Universities re Quality of Education. I personally would not send any of my children to an Australian University these days. I strongly recommend complainant write to BOTH Premier of Queensland and Prime Minister Abbot. to see if something can be done to start the revival of Australian Higher education. Very ironically Gillard was one to IMPROVE secondary schooling. LOL
Unfortunately all the handwaving re AGW will not work short term.What is working for skeptics is the weather/climate…no change now 17 years. This WILL work and is starting to. LOL
Published science is no longer science if we don’t have the data and the methodology.
It’s nothing but assertion.
Well, remember what happened to Galileo – imprisoned for daring to advocate the heliocentric theory and not recanting of such heresy. Proceed with caution… please.
Eliza says:
May 15, 2014 at 1:11 pm
I am a MSc and PhD graduate graduate from this University I am totally ashamed of that institution these days.The rot started with Higher education schemes instituted by Keating and Hawkins
============================
And, of course, Bob Hawke.
sinewave, that’s actually a good point. The letter gave no indication the University of Queensland is serving as John Cook’s legal representative. As such, not only did they have no right to demand I not contact Cook, they could be working against his interests. One could argue I am obligated to contact Cook.
This is especially true as Cook told me I would be contacted by a specific person:
The University of Queensland lists that individual as Anton Middelberg, but the letter I received was from Jane Malloch. She is listed by the University of Queensland as the Principal Research Lawyer.
It is likely Cook’s e-mail was simply mistaken and this letter is exactly what it appears to be. However, from a legal standpoint, I have no guarantee of that, and as such, I need not assume that request represents Cook’s interests. The University of Queensland and/or John Cook could rightly claim this letter only represents one party.
I’d probably be forgiven by any court for believing the request was at Cook’s behest as it’s a reasonable assumption, but reasonable assumptions need not be assumed.
Pretty certain that a lawyer can’t send you a letter and then tell you that you can’t publish said letter. That seems like a violation of ethics.
Publish the letter, they have NO case whatsoever ever on that point. When they sue you for it, courtesy use their asses off, because you will win!!!
Just for fun:
Reply to the U of Q and request permission to show their letter to your attorney so he can advise you. The response to that would likely be amusing.
Who signed the letter?
Forward it to Mark Steryn, he’ll provide it as an exhibit in a US Federal Court – thus the public domain. The University is encouraged to sue Mr. Sterryn.
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley, at least in copyright and defamation laws, the act of publishing includes any communication of material to a third party. E-mailing someone the data is as risky as posting it online. The only difference is damages. Even there, there’d be no difference in damages if I e-mailed it to someone who published the material online.
Eliza, as a citizen of the United States, I’m not sure there’d be any value in me writing a complaint to Australian officials.
JimS, actually, that wasn’t what happened. Galileo was imprisoned not because of his scientific views, but because of his insistence those views disproved certain theological views. Had he only published his work as a scientific theory, he would have been fine.
Which isn’t to say the analogy doesn’t work. It kind of does if you think the global warming movement has become a religion.
I’m not sure if anyone suggested this already, but have you considered that maybe the letter is not actually officially from the University?
Think about it.
Definition of blackmail below. If they don’t have a legitimate case for suing I think they might be in the wrong side of the law:
‘blackmail (ˈblækˌmeɪl)
n
1. (Law) the act of attempting to obtain money by intimidation, as by threats to disclose discreditable information
2. the exertion of pressure or threats, esp unfairly, in an attempt to influence someone’s actions
vb (tr)
3. (Law) to exact or attempt to exact (money or anything of value) from (a person) by threats or intimidation; extort
4. to attempt to influence the actions of (a person), esp by unfair pressure or threats’
source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/blackmail
Publish and be damned.
Are you sure the lawyer was named Malloch and not Moloch?
Grow a set. And if that fails, send me the data. I’ll leak it. I’ll leak it in such a way that you can that you can comment, absolved of any even trumped up, imaginary, wrong doing.
Let the Queensland Academy of Brain Dead Socialsm come and sue me.
“you don’t frighten us you English pig-dog. go and boil your bottoms.. sons of a silly person. i blow my nose at you… you so-called Afri-King… you and your silly English K-niggets. I don’t want to talk to you no more you empty-headed animal food trough wiper. i fart in your general direction.
your mother was a hampster and your father smelled of eldeberries. now go away before i taunt you a d second time….” a french taunt currently used by Australia’s University of Queensland
Can someone send an FOI request to UQ? Ask for copy of the letter, the count of the total number of letters of demand sent by the university this year, and the portion of these which reserved copyright.
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.
Publish the letter as asking others for legal advice. The letter is addressed to you and is about you. They cannot get a copyright on that. The only thing to prevent your disclosing it would be if you signed an NDA with them. I’m guessing that did not happen.
One wonders if the uni of queensland has a published statement on openess of data and data sharing, which might therefore invalidate any legal efforts to muzzle anyone in possesion of cooks (ex) data.
Another mechanism to clear any claim of copyright is to send it to a Congressman. Who can express righteous outrage at the behavior of this foreign University. trampling on the rights of Americans – and read the documents into the Congressional Record.
This is a classic problem of an institution with access to public money to pay its legal bills and/or an in-house counsel knowing that it can threaten legal action to stop an action it could not legally stop if prosecuted in court. Happens all the time. People have to cease and desist from things they legally have no obligation to avoid simply because it is expensive to defend against any claim where there is a dispute on the facts.
In the US currently the Offices of Civil Rights keep ignoring the case law and threatening to sue anyway just to force action they have no legal ability to command. They do it purely because the people who get to make a decision to sue do not personally bear the costs of litigation and they threaten people or entities who will have to pick up that defense tab.
A false accusation of hacking would be defamatory. Were such a false accusation to be made to the authorities it could ultimately amount to perverting the course of justice, perjury and perhaps conspiring with another to make a false accusation.
Usually U.S. universities involve their intellectual property attorneys primarily to safeguard work of the university that may have financial value. I thought that was in fact the only rationale for a university’s asserting intellectual property rights, to assure that the university involved retained its rights to future revenue derived from the property. Is there evidence that this paper has generated a revenue stream for the university or its authors? Otherwise, what exactly is the damage to university would suffer due to the open release of the information? Are they asserting economic value?