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
Wait a minute. Ain’t Queensland University in Australia, not the US?
The following article may explain UQ’s over-protective approach to their academic reputation:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-07/uq-investigates-fresh-claims-of-research-misconduct/5077276
“Publish or perish” has now become “Publish and perish”. These people are insane.
I guess this mean we should now write “97% climate science consensus (c) 2013 John Cook et al”
Two ideas which so far haven’t been mentioned –
1 – Could someone reading this blog please notify the university’s student newspaper, Semper Floreat.
2 – Permission to use the Creative Commons licence should be suspended for all departments of the University of Queensland.
Amr marzouk says:
May 15, 2014 at 3:09 pm
Be careful, The next step would be to have your racehorses head dumped on your bed as in Godfather 1.
——————————————————————————————————–
We are talking about the University of Queensland here. There is no way those lefty eco loons would actually harm a real animal. The most frightening thing they could do would be to dump the top of a pineapple or mango on the bed. Messy nonetheless.
A few points.
1. UQ is not a foreign university. It is Australian.
2. As others have pointed out, a lawsuit would involve considerations of both Australian law and US law. Would UQ have a ghost of a chance if they tried using you in the US? If they sued you in absentia in Australia, could the penalty be enforced in the US? You really need the advice of our learned friends on this.
3. Tony Abbot is not a good man. He is a Prime Minister. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.
Check with a lawyer. I do not believe that the US and Australia have agreements on copyright law.
I think Brandon has answered that already. He’s concerned that the information may be confidential, hence not only his emails to John Cook asking for confirmation as to whether the information could be disclosed, but also why he’s not revealing how he got the information as (presumably) the information is still available by the method he used. If it’s supposed to be confidential, he doesn’t want to assist others in making the information public.
“The material was gathered in a perfectly legal way. I could easily prove that.”
Then you say:
“when they hear what I did to “hack” the server.”
Doesn’t sound perfectly legal. You don’t have to crack passwords or bypass security. It’s enough for them to prove you took information you knew you shouldn’t have access to. The quality, or lack, of security doesn’t matter. For example Andrew Auernheimer initially got over 3 years for taking data from a public server. It was over turned but on a seperate technicality.
You have obviously stumbled upon a snake pit, and stirred them up. Find out what your legal rights are, and take it from there. This is a story that BEGS to be told, or they would not be fighting so desperately, to cover it up!
A letter of demand as a prelude to legal action is not confidential; full stop; this letter has no confidentiality to enforce; the threat is empty. In any event the letter of demand is based on the Cook data which is subject to a creative commons open distribution which in turn is subject only to attribution. So publish the letter with attribution.
And just to add when I said
“If this in some way needlessly embarrasses people, then don’t publish.”
If one of the two “independent, anonymous” persons who sorted out the abstracts in Cook’s study turns out to be a relation of Cook, then this falls under the “needlessly embarrass” department.
There is a difference between legit scientific questions and a witch hunt….
I’ll publish it for you
All I can say is I guess its lucky for cook the data didn’t show up at my door. They could sue me if they wanted, I would release it anyway.
Brandon:
Take a deep breath, take several and calm down.
There are several issues at work here.
The first and foremost is that this is just a scare tactic. Quite likely it is a false scare tactic hoping you’d never check sources.
There really isn’t an international certified letter, so any truly official legal notice would’ve had to be sent international registered mail with personal signature required.
That is the only way to have you be the only person to read it. Otherwise anyone might’ve opened the letter.
Send a copy of the letter registered international mail signature required (not necessary to restrict it to the individual addressed) and request verification of authenticity.
You could ask what laws they are invoking if you are so inclined. As some others have pointed out, actual impact to you for taking care of your needs are difficult if not impossible to enforce.
Yes, no, maybe…
This letter directly addresses and accuses you! You own any inherent copyrights of this letter equally so long as your use of the letter is to your needs in addressing this letter. What do they expect you to do? Never fax it to a lawyer nor have that lawyer discuss it over their internal networks? Get real!
I agree with your view on the sks supposed hack analysis; nor has all of the sks trollites screaming how wonderful the sks supposed analysis is ever appeared convincing. Baffling with b—–t for the ignorant, yes. Legally valid? Not likely. UofQ convincing Holder to nab you for wire fraud? Also not likely as that’d probably have to be confirmed with the FBI pros for validity which then leaves UofQ again being forced to try and extradite you…
After all the above and much to the dismay of genuine UofQ students and alumni I am beginning to pronounce UofQ in my mind as… never mind.
But it does bring up a thought, check with JoNova on this.
Way too funny.
Good work Brandon.
Look forward to next move.
The university of Queesnland appears to be partaking in OPEN DATA STRATEGY 2013 that states (bold added):
OPEN DATA STRATEGY
2014-2017
In response to the Queensland Government’s request, Queensland’s universities have developed an Open Data Strategy to guide the availability of data for other individuals and organisations.
…
Four Year Reporting Model
Queensland universities will approach the maturing of an Open Data culture within an initial four year reporting term.
• Year 1 (2014) – Strategy initiation and awareness
There is already a wealth of data in the public domain that may benefit from suitable promotion through the Queensland Government Open Data Initiative. Existing data sets in the public domain will be promoted through development of open data format tables that include links to relevant data sources.
and so on. Read the PDF. Interesting.
Ahh, UQ….the land of blunder, the land downunder (no offense to the rest of OZ)….
All data are equal, but some data are more equal than others. That is, not open at all.
Academic free speech has been replaced by NewSpeak.
1984 = 2014 in NewMath.
– – – – – – – – – – –
Graeme W,
If Brandon Schollenberger has said what you said on this thread, then I missed it on this thread.
To me that explanation raises more questions than answers. Like, if the subject info that he has was found in a file on their main webpage and that file was titled ‘”Confidential and Proprietary ‘Consensus’ Paper data” then telling other people on a thread like this that a file with that name is there is not unethical or illegal. So why not tell us the file location if the situation is even remotely like that?
There are many more questions arising from the answer you attributed to Brandon Schollenberger that I may address in comments later on this thread.
But, I must be frank with Brandon Schollenberger since I do respect him in this dialog. There is a nagging doubt in my mind that he may not have just found the file and data, instead that he may have got the subject info from another person. If that is the case then we have a whole new set of questions about the circumstances and who that person is and how that person got the info. N’est ce pas? We are skeptics after all even when (especially when) discussing the info provided by other skeptics.
John
Based on that letter, I believe it would be appropriate to henceforth refer to it as the “University” of Queensland.
My understanding is under US copyright law, facts can not be copyrighted, only works of fiction; claiming copyright over scientific data is like admitting scientific fraud!
So, you are trying to expose a fraud, and they threaten to sue you if you do. Maybe I’ve completely misunderstood. Can’t wait for you to do the right thing.
Best regards Brandon.
Eamon.
Couldn’t help thinking of an Aussie song (You Better Get a Lawyer Son) by the Cruel Sea, a great Aussie band. Clip from YouTube