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
Brandon says:
…sadly, I don’t have the resources of Mark Steyn. I’m not afraid of the University of Queensland’s (baseless) threats…
I agree, they are completely baseless threats. Be a hero. Call their bluff.
A U.S. law was recently passed stating that foreign entities prevailing in a lawsuit against a U.S. citizen residing in the U.S. cannot collect. Period.
You don’t need the resources of Mark Steyn. That letter is not theirs, they gave it to you without conditions. It is now your letter, and you may do whatever you want with it. It is your property now, not theirs.
Post it. Show the world how impotent they really are.
Peter says:
May 15, 2014 at 2:48 pm
Not too many universities not in on the scam. I quit donating to my undergrad college Stanford & to my parents’ alma mater Oregon State. But my pittance is as nothing compared to federal CACA largesse.
Brandon,
You are of course the final authority in making a decision on this. The rest of us are in the peanut gallery.
I appreciate your position and respect your analysis of it. I would counsel to look closely at what UQ could actually do about you publishing something that you found. especially if you simply told the truth about how you found it.
The climate kooks are in full shrill sissy fight mode.I see it sort of like this:
I sense a consensus that what was done to this poor man is bad. It could be as much as a 97% consensus.
This /may/ be relevant, especially 5.7:
https://ppl.app.uq.edu.au/content/4.10.13-intellectual-property-staff-students-and-visitors#Policy
What do you suppose would be their reaction if you were to publish a made up set of data from a hypothetical university (say the University of Cheftown) in a hypothetical state of Kingsland.
Brandon Schollenberger,
Thank you for answering my first question.
2nd Question: Because I see no risk or downside to you to provide to us on a thread at WUWT full details and context of how you obtained the info*** if it was obtained as you have said in a non-criminal way, then why haven’t you told us how you got it?
***the info you have being that which is the subject of the UQ letter you just received
John
Posted earlier by me on Bishop Hill:
‘The ineptocratic wagon-train rolls on without regard to the increasingly hostile gaze of those who pay their salaries.
They actually believe that they are impregnable.
In the US they may still, fleetingly, be but not in the land down under!
Doctor Bruce and Professor Sheila, your ineptitude with PR is only surpassed by your inability to sniff the wind’
Brandon, it’s your ingenuity against their punitive pot of public cash.
You can’t win, mate.
Not yet!
(But you will)
Brandon,
I based my comment solely on your statement 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. which suggested that the data had been released to you unintentionally. That’s all that I meant, and thus I apologize for using the inappropriate word “legitimacy.” I have no concerns that your actions were illegitimate.
Michael
One does not know if to burst into laugher or fall in despair. Amazing things happen.
Do I correctly understand that they try seriously to hide data from a so call “scientific” paper threatening with a lawsuit over trying to reproduce and verify the results? Do they try to forbit to comment on the results?
How about when a serious scientific research would do this? Should physic papers from now work based on this new rule? What about a pharmacy study, medicine or genetic? ROFL I want to see their faces if a gen modified crop is spread based on such new methodology?
What kind of university is that? Do they really stand on their heads on the other side of the Earth?
How far are these so called “scholars” away from the scientific method? Is anything that could go further? Have they never heard of reproducibility?
That fancy sentence comes to my mind: “why should I give you my data if all you want is showing me being wrong?”
I see a pattern here… on one side is science with scientific method, on the other side this parody. These 2 do not mix.
as ConfusedPhoton says above (May 15, 2014 at 2:04 pm) :
“Ah the smell of Lysenkoism in the morning!”
…sadly, I don’t have the resources of Mark Steyn.
Oh, but you can! Call their bluff!
Anthony:
1. Set up the ‘Tip Jar’.
2. Collect enough to hire Mark Steyn’s lawer.
3. Post the data.
4. Let’s dance!!
REPLY: I’m already working on something. Gotta love Google cache – Anthony
From the University of Queensland document, Responsible Conduct of Research:-
https://ppl.app.uq.edu.au/content/4.20.02-responsible-conduct-research
7.3 Repeatability of an experiment in laboratories at diverse locations is generally regarded as one of the main criteria for its veracity. Similarly, the ability to verify, test or replicate facts and other data from documentary, archival, statistical, fieldwork, survey or observational sources is crucial and depends upon appropriate referencing of sources, methods and locations. When a researcher finds a major discrepancy in results reported in the literature, they should be encouraged to notify the scientific community of the findings without fear of censure or disadvantage. Timely publication may also prevent needless repetition of research.
Brandon, Hopefully your in Shimkus’ district.
Obviously Brian’s been intimidated into silence.
I attended the University of Queensland once. They keep sending me letters suggesting that I send them money.
@David Archibald
So do Nigerian scammers. The similarity is amusing.
If you decide to raise a finger to the UoQ and they get tetchy I’m in for $100 on the defense fund.
Brandon, you claim to have not infringed any laws obtaining this data. If this is the case could someone else have obtained said data in the same way? If so, could this data be released into the wild by someone else’s actions? Just a thought……
As long as you haven’t emailed it to anyone, they would not be able to sue you or any other anonymous leaker.
SteveT
They’ll fight tooth & nail, to prevent Cook’s paper from being retracted. They see it as being absolutely critical to their credibility. For all sceptics, it’s very clear what needs to be done.
You received an email? Was it digitally signed with the published PGP/GPG key of the sender?
If not, I’d ignore it. It’s not on official letterhead and is unsigned. It’s as worthless as the paper it’s written on 🙂
If the data shows a major flaw in Cook research paper, then publish in redacted form (no names or ways to identify). If the identity of individuals is central to major flaw, then better make sure the research is scientifically unsound because of involvement of redacted people.
It is in the public interest to expose deliberate scientific malpractice.
If there is no major flaw, don’t publish. If it is not obviously deliberate, then don’t publish. If the method can be replicated scientifically to achieve similar results without Cook’s IP, then don’t publish.
If this in some way needlessly embarrasses people, then don’t publish.
funny they complain about the legal threats to the journal.
“9. Access to Research Data and Records
9.1 Subject to clause 5.1, Research Data and Primary Materials should be made available by Researchers for use by other researchers and interested persons for further research, after reasonable periods following the completion of the research. Preclusions on the basis of confidentiality include formal confidentiality agreements and situations where research/development is focused on achieving a defined piece of protectable intellectual property.”
https://ppl.app.uq.edu.au/content/4.20.06-research-data-management
One thing Brandon.
I hope you dont leave a copy of the letter and all the data on CD laying on your desk and forget to lock your front door.
http://theconversation.com/billions-axed-in-clean-energy-renewable-target-is-next-26578
“This from a university (haven of free speech!) in a country whose PM is allegedly a CACA skeptic.”
Yes, the prime minister is a skeptic.
Those in America who are doing their best to expose this fraud would do well to research just how much of a skeptic he is.
And what his government is trying to do to defend free speech.
He is public enemy no.1 to the global warmists down under.
A good starting point would be a look at Prime minister Abbotts governments first budget handed down this week.
The link at the top is just a start.
And if you choose write to the government.
Address your correspondence to the attorney general, Senator George Brandis.
Brandon,
I believe the considered response of Pressdram Ltd.’s legal representatives in the Arkell vs. Pressdram dispute would be appropriate here –
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2013/08/arkell-v-pressdram.html