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
Off topic item: New research shows that pollution from trees, mainly sulphuric acid, is what seeds the formation of clouds. I imagine this is the same sulphuric acid that coal power plants emit.
See: http://phys.org/news/2014-05-cloud-emissions-forests-stage-formation.html
Have you checked with Snowden to see if he needs a roommate?
Just put a link on my Fartbook page to warn everyone not to study at University of Queensland. I suggest everyone else does the same – sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Ah the smell of Lysenkoism in the morning!
Aside from National Security research, everything else created from public funding is completely in the open. (IIRC)
Either publish at least their demand letter or just slink away and know that you could have been a contender.
What is their relationship to even have standing to claim to represent Cook?
Is this just another one of Cook’s fabrications, a la his dress up Nazi fantasy photo shoot?
What relevant juridiction are they claiming?
After the successful suppression of CG III, I am starting to lose faith in you guys.
The climate kooks do not hesitate to steal, cheat, lie and decieve. now we are being intimidated from simply telling the truth?
We won’t win with that attitude.
Start a legal fund. I’m in, and enough others as well to let you tell UQ to stfu with their slime ball bullying.
Queensland “open university” is now a closed and closeted university.
Seriously, anything you can think of, senarios for clandestine distribution, the Cook team will have brainstormed ways to accuse you of it already, complete with faked evidence.
They are ankle biting, amoral, hitmen for the climate mafia.
So my thinking is you might as well go ahead and get the ugly over with.
That or retire from the field.
/ I am Foia. You are Foia. We all are Foia.
I would be very surprised if that letter was actually sent by the UQ. It is too ridiculous.
I do not pretend to offer advice on what to do in this case. But I will point out that a famous man once said that all evil needs to prevail is for good men to do nothing. I think you need to find a way to get this data made public.
Brandon, firstly, marvellous work.
They are making abject fools of themselves. My, their egos must be sooo large, or maybe it’s just the information you now have at your disposal could crucify what has clearly been a pre-determined ‘consensus’.
In this internet age any legal suit would be very fair game for the sceptic community to defend on your behalf. To paraphrase the old adage, cash for your defence fund would be half way round the world before their writ had its boots on.
Publish fella, and be damned.
“Michael D says:
May 15, 2014 at 12:21 pm
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.”
This nonsense. If want something , you could try to see if someone will sell it to you, otherwise shut up.
If Brandon were writing a paper then it’s expected the publisher would have the necessary material which is needed to support what ever evidence was needed to support the scientific asserts/conclusions.*
Otherwise the publisher is a moron. And likewise the publisher should also make these sources available to anyone who wishes to confirm that the paper was scientific.
So if you have publisher who audience is not idiots, but comprised scientist who are going to be interested in such sources, such a publisher should have a reasonable policy to deal with their customer’s predictable needs. Otherwise there is no sense to being a publisher of scientific papers. It’s not like you are some gossip newspaper or something. Of course even newspaper will provide evidence to other new paper reporters who also want to cover a story.
*which of course wasn’t case with Cook and Mann and other non scientists.
So obviously Brandon doesn’t need to prove anything- he is threaten by lawsuit.
Only proof needed for this story is the fact about whether or not this stupid university is actually threatening Brandon with a law suit, and is such a threat related to his desire to publish what should have be available regarding the pseudo science which Cook like to others to think is scientific.
Irony from down under: Lewandowsky’s paper is pulled because of (spurious) litigation threats and then this article is stalled due to (spurious) litigation threats. It must be something in the water.
Joseph Murphy, my wife is a senior academic at UQ, nothing is too ridiculous for them.
Unlike any of you here commenting on this post by Schollenberger, I have read the almost book length account of the hack of the SkepticalScience site. They did a click by click forensic account and any fair mind would agree it was a serious malicious attack. They haven’t uncovered the hacker identity just yet, but they know exactly what he did. Mr. Watts should be the first to come to the defence of SkepticalScience as I am sure he would not think it was ok to have the same thing done to this web site. This was a criminal act.
Brandon Schollenberger may not be the hacker but he is not telling the truth by implying he came across this information innocently. Skeptical Science could be a publisher of uncontroversial art books and still demand their legal right to own their information. This hack was a serious criminal offence. Containing the hack is not simply about protecting some bit of information, but respecting the rule of law.
I would send them a letter asking them if you received a genuine letter from them, or if it is a prank sent by Peter Gleick.
Brandon Schollenberger,
Question: In writing that letter to you the UQ act like they have seen all the info you have, but exactly how does UQ know that unless you showed it to them?
John
I believe you owe UQ an apology, here is an excellent template for that apology.
wow – someone is definitely over target.
Are you sure they own copyright to the letter?
I believe you own it and have all rights to it, unless courts state otherwise. In UK the only legal letters that must remain confidential are some forms of injuction, and these are frequently tied to a libel claim. They are known as “super-injunctions”, as publishing the injunction would be the same as publishing the libel.
@AndyL – Interestingly, not in the US. They sent the letter to Mr. Schollenberger unsolicited. Ergo, he is free to return it or keep it without any contractual obligation. For UQ to retain any control over the letter, they would have first had to get Mr. Schollenberger’s agreement that the contents would remain th IP of UQ before he opened it (a pre-letter letter). Since they did not, and since Mr. Schollenberger did not solicit the letter in any way, shape or form, it belongs to him, free and clear.
http://answers.uslegal.com/copyrights/4341/
It seems that there is a copyright claim, provided there is an agreement,. You could send the letter back and say that you do not agree to the terms of the letter and have returned it accordingly.
Where are the usual suspects who come in here to imply that the realist crowd (and not the alarmists) are the ones half a bubble off plumb?
These UoQ folks are around the bend.
matayaya says:
May 15, 2014 at 2:13 pm
Unlike any of you here commenting on this post by Schollenberger, I have read the almost book length account of the hack of the SkepticalScience site. They did a click by click forensic account and any fair mind would agree it was a serious malicious attack.
—-
Nonsense, the material was in the public domain and even indexed by google. No hack was needed to get to the photos. BTW what is that photo of Cook in a nazi uniform all about ?
BTW you need to learn how to spell Shollenberger correctly.
@Man Bearpig
Mea culpa as well! It is all those German lessons I had coming home to roost! My sincere apologies for misspelling Mr. Shollenberger’s name in my previous post. And many thanks to Man Bearpig for pointing it out (even though his comment was for another poster).
Ditto what Hunter says! [Start a legal fund. I’m in, and enough others as well to let you tell UQ to stfu with their slime ball bullying.] I’m in as well