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,
Excerpted from Mike’s link for your consideration…
Mike Tremblay says:
May 15, 2014 at 2:58 pm
’14. A few interesting cases, such as Avins v. Moll, suggest that the recipient of a letter may publish a whole letter, if publication is necessary to defend the recipient’s reputation against charges made by the sender. In any event, fair use ordinarily would give the recipient the leeway she needs to deal with this rare circumstance.’
As accusation, threats and intimidation were employed by UQ this may provide a viable path to safety. Still, not sure about the international aspect of it and if the above would still hold true.
Brandon, old co-author over at Climate Etc, clever post. Well done.
You need more serious legal advice, email. Plus my daughter is also a licensed attorney who specializes in IPR, even interned in Geneva. Maybe time we helped you open a second front v. Cook comparable to Steyn v. Mann. In the US, fair use doctrine goes a long way. And claiming that a threatening letter is copyrighted by the threatener so cannot be used is probably by itself a criminally threatening act under both federal and whatever state law you chose. Let’s see, ” this letter threatening to black mail you is copyrighted, so providing a copy to the police in order to go after the blackmailer is prohibited by copyright.” I think not.
U. Queensland stupidly just stepped into big dodo. Classic Streisand effect, and shows they are definitely hiding something. Maybe the WUWT team globally would be willing as a crowd sourced project to now take them on. You seem to have sufficient ammunition already from what has been said. And is more relevant to CAGW than saving a satellite. And there are undoubtedly experts who could volunteer time to help.
John Whitman, the original reason for not explaining how I obtained the material was threefold. First, as a general rule, I try not to burn sources of information. I debated for a while about whether or not I should even talk about what I found because I knew it’d probably mean losing access to a source of information.
Additionally, I was concerned telling people how to find the data would make it impossible to address any privacy concerns people might raise. It would do no good for me to offer to anonymize data (or whatever) if I told people where to find that data. Finally, I figured if he didn’t realize how I got the data before I was comfortable releasing it, other people would be able to access it the same way.
By the time those concerns had passed, I had been accused of criminal offenses multiple times. I decided if people were going to make baseless accusations, I’d let them. Why get in the way of people making fools out of themselves?
I answered the question (in general terms) when asked by several people via e-mail. After a few days, when I knew there was no secret left to protect, I’d have explained to Cook or anyone else who asked in reasonable manner. Very few people did.
In any event, I recently said this in a comment at my site:
UQ are punks and know it. It is long past time to use legal tactics to push back on the climate hypesters. The more I consider the idea that a an entity other than a government in extreme and well defined situations could possibly demand in a civil matter that their target not even discuss the letter of demand/complaint in public, the more obvious it is that they are whistling in the dark.
Eff ’em. Take up Rud’s offer. UQ is is holding busted low numbers.
Cook is a tool and a kook and the sooner him and his gang of like minded twits get outed the better.
I think we can safely say that Cook and Lew’s research designs “caused the effects”. We don’t need to press further. Their write ups can’t even be used to line a bird cage. Why? Already too full of sh*t.
When this plays out a bit more I think the following institutions might be interested in what has been going on at the University of Queensland:
http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2013-14/world-ranking
http://www.australianuniversities.com.au/rankings/
http://www.shanghairanking.com
etc., etc.
This is definitely something to do.
As was said before though, non-disclosure agreements are generally something which both parties enter into, did you knowingly do this?
Michael D, no problem.
Louis Hooffstetter, I’m not sure what Anthony is referring to in his response to you, but I’d be sad if I collected enough money to hire a high-profile legal team. It would feel like a waste if I actually spent it on legal advice, and I’d feel like a fraud if I just kept it.
JEM, thanks for your willingness to support me. I really can’t see any reason I’d wind up needing a legal fund though. Unless (or until) I do, I can’t see collecting money from people. What would I do if it turned out I didn’t need the money?
SteveT, unfortunately, John Cook has taken steps to ensure nobody else can access the data the same way I did. Someone else could have obtained the data the same way I did, but not after my e-mail to Cook alerted him and led to him finding the lapse in his security.
Ian Scott, it is on official letterhead, it is signed, and it is from an official University of Queensland account. Whether or not it was encrypted is irrelevant. This is a real threat.
Steven Mosher, that’s funny to me because that could actually happen. I live in a rural area, and the people here are all very friendly (save one house of crazy people). There are neighbors who can walk into my house without knocking. I doubt anyone would think twice if someone drove up to my house, walked inside and took files/CDs out.
ATheoK, I’m not sure why you think I need to calm down. The fits of laughter have mostly passed. I still giggle from time to time, but I’m mostly pretty calm.
let me guess, ftp site accessible through browser and right out in the open.
only they didn’t know it so think it was hacked.
I have sent an email message to my Federal Member for Parliament regarding this appalling behavior of UQ.
Brandon,
As I read it, U of Q threatens legal action against anyone who “publishes” the letter. I believe that means you may privately share the letter with carefully selected individuals with experience dealing with such things such as Mark Steyn. I’m sure Mr. Steyn would undertake to advise you, possible in print. Whether he publishes the letter in its entirety would be up to him. In any case, since you did not publish the letter, your would not be guilty of a copyright violation.
Have fun with this.
I’d publish it in a HEARTBEAT…Because I’m too old to care.
Plus, being near the “end of life”…it wouldn’t matter to me. FiretrUCK’em.
Wait a moment. I said “care”, I meant SCARE.. sorry.
HGW xx/7 says:
May 15, 2014 at 12:11 pm
“Okay, can some one please explain what is going on in Australia? I mean, on one hand, the country’s geography seems akin to the US’s wild West, a wide-open land full of dreams and earnest hard work.
Yet, the politics of the Land Down Under are so hard left. I know there are skeptics from there and a government rarely is a true reflection of the governed. For crying out loud, though, the Aussies make most Europeans look like right-wingers, at least with regards to environmentalism.
All you Aussies who have held strong, this is not criticism of you. I feel for you. I just want to understand. I am consistently baffled.”
From an Australian’s point of view, much of US politics is “hard right”, and amusing too that socialists and lefties generally are called “liberal” in the US when we have a rightish “Liberal” party in power. Climate scepticism is alive and well in this country, it’s just that we have media that are slaves to the “Global Warming” scam. Not all that much different to the US, I’d imagine. Personally, most people here would think I drift to the right, Americans might think I’m a raving liberal, the moniker I use to describe my politics is “centrist”.
As a current university student (for fun, interest and exercise of brain cells) it’s very disappointing to see rubbish papers emanating from our universities. However, just as the Guardian doesn’t reflect all newspapers from the UK, UWA and UQ are not representative of all universities in this country, although it has to be said that those I have experience of do lean towards the AGW camp, BUT it’s important to note that this will vary WITHIN universities too. I did some Geology a while back, and any mention of CAGW/AGW was enough to have the professor frothing at the mouth. Geologists know better than climatologists, it seems, that climate has always changed. The geography faculty has several “climate change” based units of study, but I’d be annoyed and alarmed if the lecturers turned out to be died-in-the-wool warmistas. I did some climatology in that faculty, years ago, before the warmistas had gained much traction.
Break any ribs? Stress any chest muscles from laughing? Have a hard time taking a deep breath? Take it easy…
Back to the section I quoted; if the correspondence did not arrive in hard copy via registered mail it is not legal. Yes, it is a real threat; a threat meant to frighten. Can it be followed by a legal threat? Yes; but that will be hard copy through legal methods (served, registered mail).
If it’s an email, send a copy via hardcopy requiring signature seeking authentication; valid accounts do not mean that all emails from that account is valid. The old secretary is out to the powder room and left their computer still logged on suffices.
Rud Istvan has offered valuable help, even if you haven’t stopped giggling which is likely. Others have framed the ‘copyright’ law quite well as it would apply in your case. You are part owner of that ‘letter’ and perhaps absolute owner if it’s an email, just so long as you include the ‘copyright’ statement and attribute correctly. Between laughs that is.
Good Luck and keep us informed. Your articles and posts have always been interesting and now quite entertaining also.
Between Bengtsson getting climate ganged and your getting threatened by UofQ, trolls and trollites we haven’t seen in a long time are sleazing the science blogs again (here, Bishop Hill, JoNova, Judith Curry’s). It sure appears that someone has funded hooligan trolligan efforts again. Shame they didn’t invest their incomes in logic courses.
We are with you; whichever way(s) you choose.
Just ignore it and publish the embarrasing letter on every climate website and all of the data. This is ridiculous bluster from a bunch of idiots. My suspicion is that when their real Lawyers read what they have written, somebody is going to get a good old fashioned firing.
Images of the Kooka hiding in the Cowards castle bunker, a real 99 percenter if ever there was one, and that has a mannian orifice about it!
Send your report to The Guardian and change your name to Edward Snowden.
😉
Brandon Shollenberger on May 15, 2014 at 6:04 pm
@John Whitman
– – – – – – – – – – –
Brandon Shollenberger,
Thanks for your extended reply to my question.
John
Your response to this is more ridiculous than theirs. Consult a lawyer or continue to play the part of a fool. Your choice.
Mark
Brandon,
OK. You have somethings ‘up your sleeve’ yet, so it’s ‘wait and see’ for now. A, our host, seems to be working on something ‘not quite ready for prime time’ yet either. Several folks here have advocated a crowd source defense fund and getting expert legal advice. Sounds like good advice.
Mac
“Steven Mosher, that’s funny to me because that could actually happen. I live in a rural area, and the people here are all very friendly (save one house of crazy people). There are neighbors who can walk into my house without knocking. I doubt anyone would think twice if someone drove up to my house, walked inside and took files/CDs out.”
ya, Im aware that you live in rural area, and that leaving the door open is rather common.
It would be funny if you published every 3rd word.
it would be funny if you put it to music and sang it in a pirate voice.
Its seems clear under the fair dealing exceptions that you can publish portions of it for review
and for news.
In the end I suppose Monckton should come along and assist.
man are they stupid
Unbelievable. Keep fighting the good fight, keep us posted.
I can’t help but wonder if U.Q. has blundered given it’s involvement
with Queensland universities to develop `an Open Data Strategy.’
Your letter sort of flies in the face of that. It’s trumpeted from this
this page, which is readily and publicly downloadable from U-Queensland’s
web site:
https://www.library.uq.edu.au/blogs/sp/2014/01/09/release-arc-funding-rules-open-access
It may expose further avenues for you to pursue, such as engaging
the Australian Research Council with a complaint or complaints …
Mosher, you are too funny.
Brandon, the laws are different in other parts of the globe. It’s not the front door that data could escape through.
We live in amazing times folks!
Regards Ed