Bishop Hill The IQs at UQ
May 18, 2014 Climate: Sceptics It's sometimes hard to avoid the impression that universities worldwide are run by extraordinary incompetents, people who would, in any sane world, be sweeping streets for a living. That the people who run the University of Queensland are among the least competent university administrators around has now been widely advertised by their decision to threaten Brandon Schollenberger with a lawsuit if he so much breathes a word of the details of the data behind John Cook's infamous 97% consensus paper, or of the fact of the threat itself.
After due consideration Brandon has decided to test the waters, publishing the threatening letter and issuing a challenge of his own:
Nobody has told me what I need to keep confidential. Nobody has explained why I need to keep things like datestamps secret. Nobody has explained how knowing people performed 65 ratings two years ago (to the day) could affect anyone’s contractual obligations. Nobody has explained how disclosing material like that could possibly harm anyone.
So here’s the challenge I want to propose to the Skeptical Science team, to the University of Queensland, and to anyone else who thinks I shouldn’t release the data I possess:
Tell me what material I possess could cause harm if disseminated. Tell me what agreements or contractual obligations would be impinged upon if that material were released to the public.
If you are unable or unwilling to meet such a simple challenge, I’ll release the data and you can bite me. I mean, sue me.
Popcorn required, I would say.
Reader Comments (21)
David Appell (not a sceptic!!) has published it as well.. good on him
http://davidappell.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-university-of-queensland-letter.html
will UQ sue him ?
Released to members of the public like me who -- it's worth repeating -- paid for this whole farrago of nonsense to be put together in the first place.
Get Denny Crane on the job....................
I was interested in the Universities claim that they will hold Brandon liable for any damage or loss if the data is released. Could that be because the research and data gathered was so poor and substandard that showing everyone how crap they are would damage their credibility?
So in essence the university is telling Brandon that exposing their poor research and exposing the truth will mean he will be held liable for their own poor work???
Mailman
Love this, apparently contains the entire text of the UQ letter to Brandon Shollenberger.... So if the UQ wants to proceed they will have to show or link this video as evidence!!?? Ingenious and diabolical, heh heh....
University of Queensland gets its very own "Hitler's downfall" parody video
Arkell v. Pressdram (1971) [unreported]
Solicitor (Goodman Derrick & Co.):
We act for Mr Arkell who is Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd. His attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of Private Eye dated 9th April 1971 on page 4. The statements made about Mr Arkell are entirely untrue and clearly highly defamatory. We are therefore instructed to require from you immediately your proposals for dealing with the matter. Mr Arkell's first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid. His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.
Private Eye:
We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.
[No further reply]
Unfortunately ASCII art gets mangled by Squarespace formatting.
I believe Brandon is holding up his middle finger and suggesting UofQ spin on it?
Good for him - if it goes further maybe he could crowdfund a legal action :-) - T-Shirt reward for $25 and I'm in
As a graduate of the U of Q (admittedly over 50 years ago), in engineering, the Cook thing was an embarrassment; this merely compounds the felony.
Would it not be deliciously ironic if Cook's ridiculous paper withstands the slings and arrows of rational argument for two years, but gets its credibility destroyed as a result of the ludicrous actions of his own University?
I have a vague feeling this episode is directly related to the government's decision to drastically cut "Climate" funding. Was this an inept attempt by the "gang who couldn't shoot straight" to forestall a potential embarrassing retraction of Cook's famous paper; where such retraction could drive the University to the head of the chopping block line?
BTW, remind me - what was "innovative" in Cook's paper?
Maybe a cartoonist has more credibility than Europe's most decorated meteorologist in the eyes of the reviewers (speaking of whom, several references have already been made to Steven Sondhiem's "Send in the Clowns - never mind, they are here").
Brandon's episde draws attention - again - to a display of desperation by senior university people who seem not to have thought much about public accountability.
This is really a serious situation for Science as we thought we knew it.
The most plausible interpretation is that the university has wedded itself to a belief that Establishment climate science is overwhelmingly correct. It is defending Establishment science - which is understandable if comprehension of it is limited as seems to be the case. If Establishment science was essentially unchallenged, their acceptance would not raise comment.
Unfortunately, in Brandon's case, the University has not just accepted Establishment; they have been active to block dissent. Not just dissent, but what could be helpful information to advance Science.
In true Science, that is an absolute no-no.
There can be no place at a public university for people active in blocking the proper prodvancement of Science.
(My B.Sc. from the 1960s is from UQ, when this type of social nonsense was not visible. I thank the university of old for teaching me the values of the Scientific Method they are now trashing with unstated motivation).
Logic has no place in the modern university.
In the USA, universities are trumpeting the Obama administration's bizarre claim that 1 in 5 women college students will be victims of sexual assault while in school. Apparently this is for the purpose of demonstrating that there is a rape culture on college campuses due to patriachical privilege or some such. Of course, the same administrators are recruiting women students in record numbers to come to their colleges for the wonderful experiences they offer.
At the same time, many of these universities also have a rule for student behavior -- if a male student and female student should get drunk and have sex, the male is guilty of rape. This is because a women who drinks is decreed to be incapable of granting consent to have sex. A drunk male, of course, is responsible for whatever he does. This rule is the result of feminist demands that students be taught that women are just as competent as men. You can't make this stuff up.
Universities are the most stupid places on the planet. Probably because those in charge work tirelessly to promote and protect the most illogical thought they can find.
Barry Wood you may be interested to know that over at Jo Nova's blog -
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/05/john-cooks-consensus-data-is-so-good-hell-sue-you-if-you-discuss-it/#comment-1463646
"Brandon Shollenberger
May 19, 2014 at 1:14 pm · Reply
I should point out David Appell offered to host the letter for me before I published it. This wasn’t him jumping on a bandwagon or anything like that.
I respect that."
>It's sometimes hard to avoid the impression that universities worldwide are run by extraordinary incompetents
It's very hard to avoid that impression when you work at a University.
I had a letter from the VC of UWA - they insisted it was private and confidential.
As I had never been contacted by the sender in the past I published it.. (they didn't try the copyright trick)
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
Dear Mr Woods,
I write with reference to the complaint you lodged in relation to published works of Professor Stephen Lewandowsky. The issues have been considered in accordance with the University’s policy on Managing Alleged Breaches of the Code of Conduct for Research Misconduct. The University has determined that there has been no breach of the code, and as a result, there is no case of research misconduct.
As you may be aware, the University received a number of complaints regarding the paper entitled Recursive Fury: Conspiracist Ideation in the Blogosphere in Response to Research on Conspiracist Ideation. Some complaint matters also referred to an earlier publication entitled NASA Faked the Moon Landing - Therefore, (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science. The University was also advised of other complaint matters by the editors of the two journals and by Prof Lewandowsky. The University was therefore in a position to consider a wide range of concerns raised in regards to the two publications,
The preliminary investigation undertaken by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) considered all the issues identified and determined that there has been no breach of the code, and therefore no case of research misconduct has been identified. However, one issue raised was of a perceived conflict of interest in relation to the identity of proprietors and significant contributors to blogs. A recommendation has been made to Prof Lewandowsky to identify these individuals with a footnote at the start of each research publication. Several other criticisms have been made in relation to the methodology used in the study and these have been referred back to the journals for peer assessment and are not part of the University investigation into responsible research practice.
The policy and procedure required to consider the issues has been appropriately followed and there are no further internal processes available. The University will not engage further with you in regards to these matters and this correspondence is now closed.
Yours sincerely,
Prof Bill Louden
Curious letter alright. I imagine this ms Malloch is regretting her rash letter.
I do have a question for any suitably qualified BH readers. Ms Malloch threatens to sue if anybody defames the Universit of Queensland.
Is it possible to "defame" an institution? My natural intuution would be that only an individual can be defamed and hence seek legal redress. Can someone set me straight?
Barry Woods - what was the date of that letter to you? I have been looking for copies of the UWA response to complaints about the Fury paper and would like to place the context of that reply in relation to the timeline. Thanks.
Barry - I see you also posted at WUWT with a date 03/05/2013 which is very interesting for me. Question answered.
Got a big tub of popcorn and a Diet Coke in a plastic bucket with a lid on and a straw through it...
Just getting comfy...
Ok - roll intro...
Barry - probably a bit of topic for this thread but it has gone quiet regarding Brandunit stuff.
Both the UWA letter and the Frontiers correspondence at around the same time do mention Conflict Of Interest as in play. What neither explicitly mention is the Privacy/Respect for participants issue that eventually killed the Fury paper. I would speculate that this was raised later perhaps either as a result of the Frontiers investigation or even later during review of the revised paper. This may put into context how events transpired between 2013 and this year when the paper was finally retracted.
Gekko - you are quite right, in Australia at least it is legally impossible to "defame" an organisation. Only people are capable of being defamed.
It is embarrassing to see someone who has a law degree making such a ludicrous and false statement.
There is probably lots of good advice for U QLD, just along the river at Griffiths University, where Jean Palutikoff, formerly of the Met Office and former Director of CRU with Phil Jones, is esconced, although she is likely at Nathan Campus, just outside Brisbane, http://www.griffith.edu.au/about-griffith/campuses/nathan-campus
http://www.griffith.edu.au/business-government/asia-pacific-centre-for-sustainable-enterprise/staff/professor-jean-palutikof
"Jean is Director of the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF), based at Griffith University. Prior to joing NCCARF, she was based at the Met Office, UK, where she managed the production of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report for Working Group II (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability). She is former Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences, and Director of the Climatic Research Unit, at the University of East Anglia, UK, where she worked from 1979 to 2004, and a Lecturer at the Department of Geography, University of Nairobi, Kenya, from 1974 to 1979."
I think they call it "Outreach". Nice place though!