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
Max, I love the way you think. I also am too old to care. Plus Oregon is a Stand Your Ground State ;>). Any Aussies wanting to come after me, they would have to get by a very big burley ex-cop and then they would have to get near enough to me to wrestle my defense out of my cold, dead, hands.
Brandon,
This is nothing but a giant head fake. They are bluffing, hoping to scare you into submitting to them.
You write:
This is a real threat.
But before that, you wrote that it is a “baseless threat”.
I think it is baseless. And until/unless a lawyer corrects me, I believe that letter belongs to you. If I send you a box of chocolates, who do they belong to? The term for someone who wants property taken back once it has been given away is “Indian giver”.
Don’t let them bluff you. Good advice has been offered here. Take it. You control the situation, they do not.
I have a good layman’s knowledge of IP law in the US (I have 7 patents and 5 registered trademarks) so I can say that in my opinion the UQ’s claims of Copyright are probably bogus under US law, but in any event, a claim of copyright does not prevent you from public comment.
A copyright does not prevent extended comment on copyrighted material. If you are writing a review of a novel or movie, you are free to describe the contents of that novel or movie in as much detail as you wish. That would also apply to any letter or collection of data where there is a claim of copyright. Copyright just means that you are prohibited from reproducing the work verbatim without permission.
Like Eliza I am a MSc-PhD from UQ, many decades ago. These days when I get their propaganda sheet I just bin it. Sad.
I have some similar experience here!!!
I suggest you give Cook’s email address to the readers here so they can write nice letters to him and to his lawyer. All of us. Simultaneously.
Have some fun.
RoHa says:
May 15, 2014 at 4:22 pm
…
3. Tony Abbot is not a good man. He is a Prime Minister. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.
————————————————————————————————————————
Tony Abbott is a good man. That is the problem. He needs to be a bit of a bastard to actually fix the mess that has been left him.
May 15, 2014 at 4:22 pm | RoHa says:
Rubbish, Tony Abbott is an excellent, moral, and high credentialed man … attributes that have been lacking in past 2 Australian prime ministers.
So much for the open discussion of scientific data. They may as well put on medieval robes and start telling fortunes with chicken bones…
“…John Cook set up a site where work on his project could be done. That site’s home page required users log in to be directed to any material. However, it did not require users log in to access (some) material. Anyone could access that material if they knew the URL for it. I discovered URLs for several pages on the site. A couple required I provide credentials. A couple did not. When looking at those which did not, I saved what I saw. Given the totality of action necessary to access this data was inputting a URL, it is absurd to call what I did hacking. It is not hacking to type in web address.”
Brandon,
You could put them in a Catch-22 situation by doing exactly what Cook did.
You’ve already set up a website. I presume that just like Cook’s website, some pages require credentials and others do not. If you, just like Cook, left “the IP” on a webpage that did not require credentials, and left the URL to that webpage on another webpage, and “the IP” was accessed and saved by an outside party simply by inputting a URL… well, you see where this is going.
If they claim that you disclosed “the IP” by placing it where it could be accessed by an outside party, then they’re arguing that Cook disclosed “the IP” first on his own website. And if they claim that inputting a URL is hacking, then they’re arguing that you didn’t disclose “the IP” because your site was obviously hacked.
Why didn’t you use an anonymous IP address, release the “data” to the pubic anonymously, and become FOIA #2?
Also, I’ll throw in a donation to get legal counsel just to find out if UQ is just blowing smoke. Anyone else?
Rud Istvan, thanks for your kind offer. I’ve already contacted two lawyers who were recommended to me though. That already seems like overkill for such baseless threats. I’m always happy to receive advice, but it takes time to write to each person. I’d rather not spend too much time on it if it’d serve no purpose. I’ll likely change my mind if anything actually comes of this threat.
Max™, the only sort of agreement I ever entered into was one where I’d temporary delay releasing the material. And that was with John Cook.
RobertInAz, in copyright law, publishing refers to any communication of material to a third party. That includes privately sending a copy to a single individual. I am curious how Mark Steyn would react to this though. I may need to see if I can find his e-mail address.
Max Hugoson, at least your comment made sense despite the typo!
ATheoK, no, but I did nearly throw up from laughing so much. Could I have sued for damages if I had?
John Whitman, no problem.
Steven Mosher, on the other hand, pretty much everyone around here has a gun. It might not be so wise for a stranger to just show up and barge into a house.
dbstealey, all I meant by “real threat” is it is a threat issued by the University of Queensland. It’s baseless, but it’s not a hoax or anything like that.
emsnews, no thanks. I find tactics like that are usually counter-productive.
Russ R., I like that idea!
Brandon:
One question: Did John Cook share your communication with others, hence publishing it, and hence violating your copyright of communications with him?
Just asking. 🙂
DR, the material is nowhere near as interesting or useful as the Climategate e-mails. I don’t think most people would care about this topic, save for the absurd its triggered.
On the issue of a legal fund, what would I do with any money in it if no legal problems ever arise? I don’t expect any to, so wouldn’t I just be ripping people off?
I work with IP. I write and review contracts, design R&D programs — negotiate supplier contracts for “secret stuff” so I have some passing familiarity with copyright and IP law.
I often get emails with these types of notices. If you are dealing with a party that could or might get some advantage from privileged communication — you may want to use something like the following: (Choose one)
****************************************
Confidentiality Notices
A) This message is from CYZ Company (or Person) and may contain confidential business information. It is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this message and any attachment from your system. Unauthorized publication, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail and its attachments is strictly prohibited.
B) The information contained and/or attached in this message is privileged and confidential. This message and the information attached is intended to be reviewed only by the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized representative or agent of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination or copy of this message, its attachments and/or of any information contained herein is prohibited. If you have received this message by error, please immediately notify the sender by returning this message to the original sender and delete this message from your system
C) The contents of this email and any file transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. The content may also contain legal, professional or other privileged information. If you received this e-mail in error, please destroy it immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose nor disclose its contents to any other person. The views stated herein do not necessarily represent the view of the Company.
Please ensure you have adequate virus protection before you open or detach any documents from this transmission. The company does not accept any liability for viruses contained within.
D) The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information. It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
E) This message is solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, use, or distribution of the information included in this message is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify and immediately and permanently delete this message and any attachments. Thank you.
F) Warning: This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended for the use of the addressee only. Any unauthorised dissemination of its contents is prohibited and may be illegal. Please let us know immediately by telephone if you have received this e-mail in error.
***************************************
There are times when we have successfully enforced the provisions of our notice — which is inserted in the group as well.
Brandon Shollenberger says:
May 15, 2014 at 9:08 pm
On the issue of a legal fund, what would I do with any money in it if no legal problems ever arise?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
I don’t think you need a legal fund at this point, but the answer to your question is that it is a common practice to name a charity to which any unused funds go. That way you can collect money if it is needed, and if it isn’t, nobody who gave is going to get excited if the unused funds wind up going to (for example) cancer research.
One amusing thought did occur to me btw. You’ve seen the data, you cannot erase it from your mind, and of course you can draw any conclusions you see fit from it. If it were me, trouble maker that I am, I’d come up with something as outlandish as possible from some cherry picked subset of the data and publish that conclusion. Then challenge them to prove me wrong, which they could only do…. by publishing the data.
JimS says:
May 15, 2014 at 1:18 pm
Well, remember what happened to Galileo – imprisoned for daring to advocate the heliocentric theory and not recanting of such heresy. Proceed with caution… please.
—————————————————
Unlike Brandon, Galileo was biting the hand that fed him, which, after all, only earned him house arrest. The new Inquisitors seek harsher punishment, via the state, for climate heretics.
Brandon,
Here is how it seems to be, bottom line:
They sent you an unsolicited letter. You have no legal or ethical obligation to do anything they tell you to do with that letter. Period.
As to the data. You seem to have run across from that idiot having yet *another* procedural bit of idiocy that left still more of his super secret decoder ring clubhouse open to the world. So not only does Cook fib about climate, and fib about science studies, and create creepy photos of himself and his pals dressed up as nazis. He is also a nincompoop in managing websites. And he promotes himself as a website professional.
As if.
Publish it all. The sooner the better. He and UQ can do nothing on either legal or ethical grounds. They are fools.
I live near UQ, and my children variously have degrees in arts, science, engineering and medicine from it, but I can not deny that it is prone to parochialism and paranoia. Maybe I should saunter over and sort them out.
Here is my email to the Vice Chancellor of the University of Queensland, today.
I have not redacted the VC’s email address as it is publicly listed, by UQ.
So I suppose all should feel free to send a message, if you are so minded
If I receive a reply, I will update everyone.
________________________
To vc@uq.edu.au
Today at 2:48 PM
Dear Vice Chancellor,
Although the full contents of the UQ legal letter to Brandon Schollenberger re his criticisms of the Cook et al paper on the supposed `scientific consensus re global warming are not know to me (apparently UQ threatens to sue Schollenberger, if he so must as releases the UQ letter) sufficient of its content have been published as will cause me, a concerned citizen and taxpayer, to write to the Education Minister and register formal complaint.
My take on what has occurred is this: UQ is attempting to shut down legitimate debate in this important area by intimidating interlocutors (through inappropriately asserting I.P. rights) with which the UQ, or its researchers, disagree. Such tactics are antithetical to the traditions of open research that a respected university, such as UQ, should uphold.
I urge UQ to resist further such efforts to close public debate through legal intimidation and immediately withdraw the legal letter, to Brandon Schollenberger. If I see no evidence of that happening in a timely manner, I will proceed with a formal complaint to the Education Minister and will write to the UQ Council, in the same vein.
Best Regards,
XXXXXXXX
Mike Tremblay says:
May 15, 2014 at 2:58 pm
Interesting item I found related to this – free legal advice (for US Citizens)
“Sixteen Things Writers Should Know About Quoting From Letters”
http://www.rightsofwriters.com/2011/02/sixteen-things-writers-should-know.html
Writers Rights
More people should be reading that blog. It’s quite helpful!
I can’t see what is wrong in being critical of a scientific article. If it has been published and in the public arena already. If you reproduce it in its entirety, then of course they can object. Usually there is a 10% only on any books in our University library can be photocopied. But few don’t abide by it, because of the cost of photocopying a whole book for goodness sake is very expensive. But you can reference his article, using the Harvard system. I can’t see what is wrong with that. You are giving him credit anyway. (Well?) Send it to someone in authority, like Chris Pine, minister for education.
Cheers must go, be back later.
Patricia from Oz.
I can’t seem to find the last comment I typed up. I’m not sure if it is stuck in moderation, or if perhaps I failed to send it. In case it’s the latter, I apologize to anyone who commented recently but didn’t get a response.
I hope Brandon consults a lawyer soon. I agree with much of the analysis that the TRUE risk of being found guilty of something is very slim, but obviously who needs a legal headache?
I would also add that sometimes a legal claim (for example a Confidentiality Agreement) will be declared null and void or unenforceable if the enforcement would be “contrary to public policy.” The classic example is attempting to protect the secrecy of illegal acts with a confidentiality clause. That is how this letter strikes me. Intellectual Property claims being used as protection against disclosing academic incompetence? Copyright protections of an extortion letter? Please. Would any prosecutor in the US bother with this? In the civil courts anyone can sue anyone at any time, but the case probably would not survive a Motion to Dismiss.
Sometimes you just have to have the courage of your convictions. If you are honest and blameless, trust that you will be vindicated.
“Scientific skepticism”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism
http://vorige.nrc.nl/international/article2527930.ece
So to be a Skeptical Scientist forms one of the basic pillars of good science. It just shows how far from good science Nuccitelli and Cook’s 97% (loo) paper is. they don’t release all the data, publish under a licence which they do not adhere too and you cannot question their results.
Surely the paper should be retracted for being released under the terms of the licence in question.
The more they have to hide, the more vitriol they use. They are a bunch of first class quacks.