UPDATE: After I wrote this Brandon published the letter in full and raised some provocative questions. (See below)
——————————
What bad news for The University of Queensland. Their entire legal staff were on holiday at the same time and this eminent university was protected only by a Law & Society 101 student who staffed the overnight service of FreeLegalAidOnline. A mockfest is ensuing across the Internet. It is so unfair.
A year ago John Cook published another 97% study (the magic number that all consensuses must find). It was published under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license (see Anthony Watts view). Cook’s work is obviously impeccable (except for the part about 97% being really 0.3%), but evidently it uses a special new kind of “open data”. The exact date and time each anonymized reviewer reviewed a sacred scientific abstract is commercial and must be kept secret. These volunteer reviewers allegedly stand to, er … lose a lot of money if that data is revealed (they won’t be employed again for no money?). Such is the importance of this that the University of Queensland left the data on secret-secret forum protected by no passwords and then put urls to it on secret forums that were publicly accessible. Brandon Shollenberger had the genius idea of changing the numbers in the url +1, +1, and +1, and voila! For the crime of finding unhidden non-secret data Brandon received a threatening legal letter, and expects the Feds to arrive any minute. You can’t just type any old numbers into a url.
…
Doing the right thing, Brandon contacted John Cook and UQ to give them a chance to tell him any good reason why he should not draw people’s attention to this unhidden, non-secret data (which may possibly save the world by convincing everyone that 97% of honest scientists are believers in a climate catastrophe). Unfortunately the lawyer writing the letter to Brandon was obviously a skeptic plant, cleverly seeded with big-oil funds. It’s the only way anyone can explain why a letter so abjectly clumsy, improbable and ridiculous could come from a university which prides itself on its reputation. Not only could Brandon not reveal the details of how the abstracts were reviewed because they would sue him, but he could not even reveal the letter threatening to sue him, or they would sue him for that too — he would be double-sued.
Apparently the threatening letter was copyright. On that point, Steve McIntyre,wonders about a strange contradiction: “the premise of copyright is the protection of commercial interests. Obviously, the letter from the University of Queensland has no commercial value. ”
I would counter that letter from The University of Queensland does have commercial value (just not the way you might think). They could sell threatening letters to other universities who are trying to hide data and can’t afford real lawyers. Perhaps it has value in comedic theatre? What this is not though (because I’d never suggest such a defamatory thing) is abject panic about potential losses from the grand cash cow that is the climate grants gravy train. UQ are honest, upstanding researchers, who always supply all the data necessary to replicate and analyze work, especially when the health of Planet Earth depends upon the results. Right?
Steve McIntyre points out that The UQ letter raises a variety of interesting issues:
- The original Consensus rating project was carried out by SKS volunteers. How did title migrate from SKS to the University of Queensland?
- If the ratings data has been owned by UQ all along and the UQ had confidentiality obligations, why did they leave it lying around the internet (apparently) without password protection?
- Are there any documents that actually demonstrate the existence of “contractual obligations to third parties”? This is eerily reminiscent of the U of East Anglia.
- On what conceivable basis can the University justify its refusal to provide anonymized rater information and datestamps?
John Robertson, May 15, 2014 at 5:03 pm, adds that The University of Queesnland appears to be partaking in OPEN DATA STRATEGY 2013 that states:
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.
At this point the only rational hypothesis for the UQ threatening letter is that malicious skeptics have gained control of the legal department, probably through force or subterfuge.
For UQ the only sensible action is to immediately release all the data on Monday morning (before Brandon does, and before any more blogs get in on the Mockfest). UQ could tell everyone that the letter was a spoof…
There is already a downfall spoof
H/t Steve McIntyre. Be aware though, the point of this satirical approach might not be to make you laugh:
More posts on the “0.3%” consensus paper:
- Dear John, you want “deniers” to help you do a fallacious survey eh?
- Cook’s fallacy “97% consensus” study is a marketing ploy some journalists will fall for
- Lewandowsky, Cook and the Barack Obama tweet that wasn’t
- That’s a 0.3% consensus, not 97%
- Richard Tol: half Cook’s data still hidden. Rest shows result is incorrect, invalid, unrepresentative.
- Cook’s 97% consensus is a case study of Agnotology – ignorance and misinformation
——————————————————————–
UPDATE:
There is so much to puzzle over. Stepping outside any satirical genre, Brandon Shollenberger says:
No indication was given the project was tied in any way to the University of Queensland. The data was stored on a third-party website. If the University of Queensland owns this data, there’s nothing to indicate it.
Naturally, if the data doesn’t belong to the University of Queensland, it cannot have the supposed contractual obligations regarding it. Let’s assume, however, it does own the data. Let’s also assume the University of Queensland had the obligations it claims to have had. If those things are true, why was the data stored on a publicly accessible, third-party website? Wouldn’t that failure to protect the data amount to a violation of the supposed contractual obligations?
Finally Brandon asks about the study data he holds related to a paper on key-words used in scientific abstracts and published as “creative commons”:
“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.“
I believe that this is the correct response:
http://www.snopes.com/business/consumer/browns.asp
260
Yes, 97% is the modern consensus value which determines how the planet works on a global scale. Could 97% of such people be wrong. Of course.
However the 97% may be based on the idea that if you instructed 100 people how to fill out a survey and vote yes and everyone did their best, at least 3 people would make a mess of it. Besides, no one would believe 100%.
To expect 100% of people to agree on anything is nuts. It makes you wonder why anyone calls such a survey a survey. It is impossible. That is except for the recent referendum in the Crimea which also achieved 97% but the Western world regarded this as utterly impossible and therefore fraudulent. For example, the entire 14% Tatar community must have been excluded for this result.
So 97% it is. There are two ways to achieve this. Either to select only those who agree and call it a survey or to narrow the criteria for valid votes until you have your 97%. Of course, there is a third way. Make it up. Then you would have to keep it all very secret.
531
A consensus, as somebody much smarter than me pointed out, is a method by which a lot of people can express an opinion which they would never dare to express on their own.
380
I’ve always considered the concensus to be the result of a bunch of people getting together to share their ignorances. The greater the concensus, the greater the ignorance being shared.
160
It’s more about the use of the word “consensus”. When there really is a consensus – like with gravity — no one needs to tell you there is a consensus.
They hammer the term consensus precisely because there is no consensus amongst the whole community of scientists.
273
Is it possible that some scientific advances take a while to filter down to the public conscious?
There isn’t a consensus on gravity. There’s a large number of approaches to how to unify it with quantum mechanics in the literature, but none of them have met with success, nor attracted a vast majority or even a plurality of researchers.
00
I hear your angst, if even gravity is not completely understood , how on Earth can a hugely complex atmospheric system which varies wildly from one planet to the next ,be wrapped up in a CO2,the most minor of potential solutions,simple theory?
I think it might take a great deal of time for the generally accepted pause in warming to filter down to SKS.The good news is that, the rats are leaving the sinking ship , the remaining rats are turning on each other and the sailors are standing by with their machetes.
I wait for the day when SKS shuts up shop,Cook is pilloried, Mann and Nutticcelli are a laughing stock and in the stocks and the crooks at the CRU imprisoned for fraud.
Q.-B. Lu
Department of Physics and Astronomy and Departments of Biology and Chemistry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Received: 4 October 2013
Revised: 15 November 2013
Accepted: 19 February 2014
Published: 9 April 2014
In the Comment by Nuccitelli et al., they make many false and invalid criticisms of the CFC-warming theory in my recent paper, and claim that their anthropogenic forcings including CO2 would provide a better explanation of the observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) data over the past 50 years. First, their arguments for no significant discrepancy between modeled and observed GMST changes and for no pause in recent global warming contradict the widely accepted fact and conclusion that were reported in the recent literature extensively. Second, their criticism that the key data used in my recent paper would be “outdated” and “flawed” is untrue as these data are still used in the recent or current literature including the newest (2013) IPCC Report and there is no considerable difference between the UK Met Office HadRCUT3 and HadRCUT4 GMST datasets. The use of even more recently computer-reconstructed total solar irradiance data (whatever have large uncertainties) for the period prior to 1976 would not change any of the conclusions in my paper, where quantitative analyses were emphasized on the influences of humans and the Sun on global surface temperature after 1970 when direct measurements became available. For the latter, the solar effect has been well shown to play only a negligible role in global surface temperature change since 1970, which is identical to the conclusion made in the 2013 IPCC Report. Third, their argument that the solar effect would not play a major role in the GMST rise of 0.2°C during 1850–1970 even contradicts the data and conclusion presented in a recent paper published in their Skeptical Science by Nuccitelli himself. Fourth, their comments also indicate their lack of understandings of the basic radiation physics of the Earth system as well as of the efficacies of different greenhouse gases in affecting global surface temperature. Their listed “methodological errors” are either trivial or non-existing. Fifth, their assertion that “the climate system takes centuries to millennia to fully equilibrate” is lack of scientific basis. Finally, their model calculations including an additional fitting parameter do not reduce the discrepancy with observed GMST data even after their adjustments. Instead, their modeled results give a sharp GMST rise over the past 16 years, which obviously disagrees with the observed data.
Read More: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979214820049
00
Among political scientists, there’s a consensus that there’s a need for a consensus.
11
TdeF: Didn’t the Soviet Union for some eighty odd years hold elections and didn’t the slate of CANDIDATES as indicated below for the big wig position was always:
Candidate No 1: Tovarish Stalin
in the great general election of 19xx, and not having any challengers was re-elected with 97% of the popular vote.
120
Mugabe has been re-elected lots of times by 97% of the voters! That doesnt make him a tyrant… Does it?
140
Yes, 97% is the magic number. My milk, cream cheese, etc. is 97% fat free …
80
Just like the survey….97% fact free
160
A consensus is a political construct no a scientific one.
“A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.” – Abba Eban, Israeli statesman, diplomat, and scholar.
150
Yep, like all good magicians, never reveal how the trick was performed.
So now we’re left with not being allowed to see some written material from some of the greatest comedy duos the world has ever seen. Cook and UQ
270
Just a little speeling thingy –
Under the Steve McIntyre section you have
“…why did they leave it lying around the internet (apparently) without password protestion?”
protection?
31
Oops Jo,
I mis-speeled my spelling and got all fudder-mucked-up, I’m a lousy spellerist anyway.
🙂
52
…but your gramma am good
50
OK you’ve fixed it now,
—-
Thanks. Actually it was a cut n paste from CA. fixed cheers – Jo
20
So if I were a kidnapper sending a ransom letter but had the letter copyrighted could I sue any prosecution that tried to use that letter against me in a court of law?
Strange times indeed.
470
Lets invent a new word for legal letters of this nature — sueage.
Eugene WR Gallun
980
Oh, that is very good. 🙂
110
Nice one Eugene.
80
🙂
30
Golf clap.
30
You’d think that by now the Thermageddonites ( H/T Lord Moncton) would have learnt that once the genie is out of the bottle it is impossible to get it back in, c/f Climategate et seq. Nevertheless, there is always one of the True Faith who will prove Einstein’s definition of insanity once more.
270
It is also worrying that the University of Queensland, where presumably all the costs, all the salaries are paid from the public purse reserves the right to own such things, to the exclusion even of the public who pay the accounts. They can own the benefits of the research, the right to sell the results, the fame and prestige should accrue to the university and the researchers and the copyright should accrue to the authors, who presumably have signed over such rights to the University as contractors or employees, but as they are not a self funding private commercial entity, but they do not own the data. We do.
340
The 2013 paper otoh could be a nice little earner: every time someone utters “97% of climate scientists agree with ‘climate change’ [aka fireball Earth]”, $1.00 must be tithed to ‘skeptical’ science.
130
Of course, now they’ll have to sue me!
903
Hi Brandon
You may have grounds to sue the University of Queensland for criminal slander for them alleging in their letter to you that you may have been party to a criminal act by unknown persons hacking into their website. That’s for starters. No wonder that they did not want the letter released.
300
Now that would be interesting …
70
All this suing people is nonsense. Since when did suing anyone work? It is all bluff, like 90% of legal letters. The issues are so convoluted, the claims so extreme, the logic so torturous that it is not clear who could sue who and over what with what right?
Basically they left the data on a bus. Negligence. It was read. Reasonable. Whose data was it? Questionable. Copyright, theft? Absurd. The only hope is from Yes Minister, “National Security”.
What is much more worrying is that it is much ado about nothing. Why is the University bothering? What exactly is the problem?
So what if the University says 97% of people believe something to be true. Why not examine the data from which this conclusion was reached? It is publicly owned data. Why would anyone go to such lengths to hide the source data from a University Study which we are all supposed to accept without question?
181
UQ or SkS study ?
00
An SKS is also a Russian assault rifle…..hmmmmm……
00
TdeF – you ask ” Since when did suing anyone work?”. Here’s one answer (actually, several):
http://www.maynereport.com/articles/2009/03/10-1024-2493.html
In the right hands, it’s a very lucrative business.
00
Richo, I couldn’t possibly sue the University of Queensland for any form of defamation because of the letter they sent me. Defamation covers the publication of false statements to third parties. I’m not a third party. Saying negative things about me, to me, in private cannot be defamation.
It might be possible to file a lawsuit for things said leading up to the letter. For example, John Cook might have made defamatory remarks when he alerted the university to the issue. That’s the best I could possibly do though, unless I could show the letter was sent to people other than me.
I can’t imagine wanting to file a defamation suit though.
120
Brandon,
As was suggested above, you don’t want to wade into the sueage.
40
“you don’t want to wade into the sueage”
but the likes of Mann, Cook(UQ) etc seem to relish the thought.
Home, sweet home, for them.
00
Letters from the like of Sue, Grabbit & Runne are obviously designed to intimidate, but I doubt if there was ever any intention to follow through on the threat.
The huge, and very bad, publicity this litigation would bring the University of Queensland, and the obvious bogusness of Cook’s 97% consensus claim, strongly suggest that this threat is an entirely empty one.
More to the point, shouldn’t someone now sue the University of Queensland for claiming ownership of such a bogus publication, which has the potential to cause such huge economic damage from the actions of gullible politicians who believe and quote the 97% consensus figure.
I have now reviewed 40 of the papers in Cook’s ‘research study’ and cannot find one instance of this supposed consensus, I can find references to global warming and “if it happens, then my model indicates this”, plus a lot of papers where the relationship to supposed global warming is so spurious that it beggars belief they were included.
The papers in Cook’s ‘study’ are freely available and no one, unless there was a deliberate intention to deceive, could possibly come to any other conclusion than that the 97% consensus figure is entirely bogus and therefore my conclusion is that it would be good to see this fully exposed in court.
350
I put this at Brendon’s site
cementafriend
May 20, 2014 at 3:45 am
Brendon, Qld has a Public Sector Ethics Act (1994) which applies to Universities in Qld. Here is the section called respect for persons Respect for persons
8.(1) A public official should treat members of the public and other
public officials—
(a) honestly and fairly; and
(b) with proper regard for their rights and obligations.
(2) A public official should act responsively in performing official duties.
and here is the following section on Integrity
Integrity
9.(1) In recognition that public office involves a public trust, a public
official should seek—
(a) to maintain and enhance public confidence in the integrity of
public administration; and
(b) to advance the common good of the community the official
serves.
(2) Having regard to the obligation mentioned in subsection (1), a public
official—
(a) should not improperly use his or her official powers or position,
or allow them to be improperly used; and
(b) should ensure that any conflict that may arise between the
official’s personal interests and official duties is resolved in
favour of the public interest; and
(c) should disclose fraud, corruption and maladministration of which
the official becomes aware.
I suggest you get back to them and ask for their code of conduct which the Act requires them to formulate and make all sections of the University, all employees and contractors aware of the Act and the code of conduct. (John Cook comes under the Act as a contractor or associate of the University if his is not directly employed) The Code of conduct must have the minimum provisions which are set out in the Act.
With John Cook and his posts on Climate, he could well have breached the Queensland Professional Engineers Act (which applies to all persons in Queensland (even visitors) including the “crown” (ie the Governor, members of parliament and the judiciary) because he is not a registered engineer (and of course knows nothing about engineering such as heat &mass transfer). If he has breached the PE Act he will also breach the Public Sector Act by committing a criminal offense (The PE Act comes under the criminal code)
Then say the officials who sent you the letter and those who authorised the letter are in breach of the Public Sector Ethics Act.
Hope this helps.
You can get back to me and I will send you a copy of the Acts mentioned above.
Best wishes
20
So, releasing the data to third parties will breach “contractual obligations to third parties” … but the data was freely available on the internet (which is how Brandon Shollenberger found it)…?
Will UQ be suing those who originally made the data freely available thus breaching their “contractual obligations to third parties”?
280
I’ve had a bit of a chat with BS on the post on his blog just before the one he mentioned above.
The general point is that I suspect that if the information exposed by UQ includes personal information they will find themselves on the wrong side of the Queensland Information Privacy Act 2009.
Under that they have obligations for the management of personal information so it doesn’t become publicly available. Schedule 3 of the cited Act sets out Information Privacy Principles, and IPP4 requirements related to storage and security. Note there are special provisions related to transferring personal information out of the country in respect of security, and other provisions relating to service contractors. Some of you Aussies will have a better idea about this and the impact of the Privacy Commissioner getting involved.
I suspect (looking from the other side of the Tasman) that this is where UQ’s sensitivities lie. On our side a university found exposed on an issue like this (not protecting confidentiality of personal information involved in research, no matter how trivial) would have them running for cover. But our lot seem pretty motivated by their international standing.
Like our hostess I think they’ve misjudged their response, but I wouldn’t blame the author of the letter. It’s the people running this and supporting Cook et al rather than kicking them in the pants. This seems to go up to the level of the acting pro-chancellor research and international who seems to be have been happy enough to sign off on some PR cover rather than instigate an inquiry into how data that apparently includes personal information got stored on insecure servers by an apparent subcontractor.
The question isn’t about academic freedom it is about the quality of research methodologies that UQ supports. If the pro-VC research and international isn’t worrying about that, one would have to say UQ is becoming a provincial backwater.
291
“UQ is becoming a provincial backwater”
Now that’s a comment likely to get a response from those in the ivory towers.
100
Just like UWA.
Oh, the ignominy!
50
So out of concern over not meeting their obligations with regard to the release of personal information, their best thought out response is to issue a threatening letter to Brandon?
I have to wonder if there are any successful alumni of UQ who will take note of the degree of incompentence and unflattering attention and contact the university about future funding.
00
Do Lewandowsky, or Cook have recognized qualification in statistics?
If no who oversaw that the methods that they employed were valid?
Who if anyone validated their methods?
Or did that just pay for time on the climate-super-dooper-computer-modeler, aka the Total Hypothetical Vortex Hub™, that runs the very secret software from Hansen-soft® incorporating ‘Green Maggot®’ modules written in Inflatable AR5E™© as supplied by Mann-soft© Litigation of America®©™.
340
Not only that.
In order to make an argument from expert opinion you must have experts qualified in the appropriate field(s) of expertise.
Cook et al, it would appear, made no attempt to parse the qualifications or fields of expertise of those they included in their 97%.
The 97% figure therefore includes as part of the ‘consensus’ that ‘man made global warming is real’ experts that are not qualified to comment on the physical mechanism of AGW.
(Moreover, arguments from expertise should not be treated, as they are in the MSM, passively, as statements of unassailable ‘fact’, they should be treated interrogatively as something to be questioned and something that needs to be justified. Merely saying ‘trust us, we are experts’ doesn’t cut it).
In any case the claim that ‘man made global warming is real’ really does nothing for the warmist case: most sceptics agree that AGW is real, but what they dispute is the significance of the warming effect. It is not a question of existence, it is a question of degree: but it is treated as a question of existence (hence ‘d****r’) because that is an easy way to control the debate.
110
the day of reckoning will soon be here:
18 May: UK Daily Mail: David Rose: Revealed: How green zealots gagged professor who dared to question global warming
According to Prof Bengtsson’s paper, it is more likely to be 1.2C to 2.7C. The implications of the difference are huge. If the planet is warming half as fast as previously thought in response to emissions, many assumptions behind targets for reducing emissions and green energy subsidies are wrong.
The subsidies in turn have led to a significant increase in consumers’ power bills…
Some climate scientists have long been warning that the planet is approaching a tipping point. Future historians may one day reflect that we reached it last week.
If they do, they won’t mean that this was when global warming became unstoppable. Instead, they’ll be pointing to the curious affair of Professor Lennart Bengtsson of Reading University as the moment that the rigid, authoritarian campaign to shut down debate on climate science and policy finally began to unravel.
For several years, this newspaper has been at the forefront of efforts to publicise the highly inconvenient truth that real world temperatures have not risen nearly as fast as computer models say they should have, thanks to the unexpected ‘pause’ in global warming which has so far lasted some 17 years.
As Prof Bengtsson has now discovered, anyone who draws attention to this will be vilified and accused of ‘denying’ supposedly ‘settled’ science.
The dogma – the insistence, as Bengtsson put it yesterday, that ‘greenhouse gas emissions are leading us towards the end of the world in the not-too-distant future’ – dominates many aspects of our lives, from lessons taught in primary schools to the vast and rising ‘green’ energy subsidies on household fuel bills.
To be sure, Bengtsson’s treatment is not encouraging. As a former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, he is one of the world’s most eminent experts.
Yet last week, he was accused of having joined the equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan and the Flat Earth Society, and of peddling ‘junk science’ – all because he accepted a place on the council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation…
Nevertheless, there are grounds for optimism. Perhaps it was simply that a man of Bengtsson’s stature who is still producing research at the age of 79 deserves respect, but the story was reported – not favourably, from the enforcers’ point of view – around the world. It even made the front page of The Times.
Some of those who deplored the ‘climate McCarthyism’ that Bengtsson experienced, such as Prof Judith Curry of Georgia Tech in Atlanta, have received similar treatment for saying global warming may not pose the imminent threat so many want us to fear.
Others, however, were from the very centre of the climate science mainstream, such as Prof Mike Hulme of King’s College, London.
He condemned scientists who ‘harassed’ those with whom they disagreed until they ‘fall into line’.
But if this really was a tipping point, it will be because the areas of uncertainty in climate science are simply too big to be ignored: claiming the debate is over does not make this true.
As former Nasa scientist Roy Spencer put it: ‘We might be seeing the death throes of alarmist climate science.
They know they are on the ropes, and are pulling out all the stops in a last-ditch effort to shore up their crumbling storyline.’
So here’s a question. Like Bengtsson, this newspaper believes global warming is real, and caused by CO2.
It’s also clear that, thus far, the computer models have exaggerated its speed.
So what exactly are we and others who hold such views denying?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2631477/Revealed-How-green-zealots-gagged-professor-dared-question-global-warming.html
a fair piece in the Independent:
18 May: UK Independent: Tom Payne: Climate change skeptic issues warning over political bias in global warming debate
But Nicola Gulley, editorial director at IOP publishing, insisted that the paper was rejected for solely editorial, rather than political, reasons.
She told The Times: “The referees selected to review this paper were of the highest calibre and are respected members of the international science community”.
Last night Mike Hulme, professor of climate and culture at King’s College London, defended Professor Bengtsson and criticised climate scientists for “harassing” him.
And he heaped criticism on climate researchers who “believe it’s their role to pass judgement on whether a scientific colleague should offer advice to political, public or campaigning organisations and to harass that scientist until they ‘fall into line’”.
In a statement issued last night via the University of Reading Professor Bengtsson said: “I am worried by a wider trend that science is gradually being influenced by political views. Policy decisions need to be based solely on facts”.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-skeptic-issues-warning-over-political-bias-in-global-warming-debate-9389549.html
310
Thanks Pat,
As usual you’ve dug the gold out of the dirt that is the modern print media.
150
I agree. Pat does great work, which most of us just take for granted. That is a shame. Thank you Pat.
180
Second that also, I read Pat’s posts more than any MSM junk.
Pat’s a god damned machine!…..err your not are you Pat? 😉
70
““The referees selected to review this paper were of the highest calibre and are respected members of the international science community”.
The dead wood still has a grip on the axe, but it’s slipping a little.
70
In other words: “Top Men”
20
What’s the problem?
The are a bunch of incompetent jokers who made up the data to peddle a religion and gain fame.
When potentially exposed as such, get the university to sue.
Nothing new or unusual here.
210
Except for their fingers in our wallets, at every turn of the con.
260
Yes, they truly are the “Artful Dodgers” of the 21st century.
60
Quote Mark Steyn:
“This was not a good week for the climate cultists.”
130
thanx tom0mason –
however, it needs to be recorded that, to date, NYT, WaPo, BBC & “our” ABC have NOT REPORTED on the Lennart Bengtsson matter. such media houses influence coverage elsewhere.
i did post a BBC link during the week for The Papers’ page, which had the Bengtsson front page graphic & a one-line caption.
in the US, the only MSM coverage has been by Fox News plus James Taranto’s 15 May Wall St Journal piece, “Scientific Authoritarians – The case for skepticism about climate scientists”.
15 May: BiasedBBC.org: Alan: Shameful Silence Of The BBC (re Lennart Bengtsson)
A scientist who joined the board of the GWPF has been intimidated and hounded out by the climate lobby…
But the BBC has remained resolutely silent about this.
This is the same BBC that is more than ready to claim scientists are silenced by climate sceptic’s ‘vitriolic attacks‘, as Evan Davis put it…
Is there a Green hush?
We looked at the BBC’s habit of attacking Sceptics whilst ignoring the violent rhetoric and intimidation from the climate lobby in Climate of Fear and Strangle The Climate Sceptics In Their Beds!!…
(Roger) Harrabin keeps saying he just can’t find any sceptical scientists…is there any wonder they are so relatively rare when it is career suicide to go against the orthodoxy?…
The BBC is utterly failing the ‘Science’, failing the scientists who want a real debate, failing the politicians who have to make decisions based upon the science and most of all failing the Public who has to pay through the nose for the resulting policies and for the BBC licence fee that funds all this failure and betrayal….and ultimately it is failing people like Lennart Bengtsson who fall victim to a witch hunt and mob rule in a febrile, extremist atmosphere generated to a great extent by the BBC itself….a trail that goes all the way back to Roger Harrabin and the CMEP.
http://biasedbbc.org/blog/2014/05/15/shameful-silence-of-the-bbc/
170
It doesn’t surprise me. Keep sweeping the bad news under the carpet until they can’t open the door.
Then, got ’em!
They will not get out of saying there’s no reporting bias.
They’ll will get a ‘get out of jail free card’, by order of HM Gov. but the public damage will have been done by then.
30
have just searched AP, Reuters, Press Association (UK), AAP (Australia) and have found NOTHING on the Lennart Bengtsson affair. shame on the news agencies & the MSM.
have GWPF & other sceptic groups sent press releases to the news agencies & MSM in general, on the Bengtsson matter, i wonder?
120
Pat,
Bishop’s Hill is running it, so is Paul Homewood, and WUWT.
GWPF are playing it cool last time I looked (about 3 hours ago), just reporting the facts.
Haven’t seen much else.
Are they keep the powder dry for later?
20
Continuing a fine Internet tradition, I would like to respond to this news about John Cook using only cat pictures and animated GIFs.
JC a year ago: http://i.imgur.com/5SKtdVX.gif
JC last week: http://i.imgur.com/XVkBkpC.gif
JC today: http://i.imgur.com/aKtNIYx.gif
JC next year: http://i.imgur.com/CL6yDvR.gif
Our reaction to the news: http://i.imgur.com/tlBZzIR.gif
Our reaction to Brandon: http://i.imgur.com/0hKE1.gif
60
That is one smooth but disturbing Segue Video. 🙂
20
I thought that the picture on this site was a bit closer to the sort of parties (political?) that he enjoyed –
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/the-sks-nazi-images-thoughts-on-fair-use/
10
Sorry that should (of course) be this site
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/skepticalscience-goes-godwin-nazi-or-something/
20
I’m quite bemused by the assertion of copyright over the letter of demand.
This letter is part of a legal process. It’s plain interpretation is that the recipient cannot instruct his solicitors using the letter.
It is a novel way of proceeding legally by saying you cannot respond legally to a legal proceeding against you.
Very Kafkaesque.
310
And the obvious reaction is to post it all over the internet !! 🙂
Basically saying “GO **** YOURSELVES” 🙂
403
Oh dear.. from the red thumbs, it seems I have upset a couple of weak-kneed trolls again..
Diddums, little children !!
210
I might add that I relish those red thumbs..
It means I have said something that got under your skin.
So, thanks for the confirmation. 🙂
And sleep well. 😉
200
Griss I thought it would be for Brandon to copyright his related web pages giving all but the University of Queensland and it’s lawyers permission to use, copy or display them.
80
nice idea 🙂
40
Failed cartoonist,
Never a scientist,
trying for a PhD is Philosophy or something… under Lewendowsy of all people. roflmao
Is there ANYTHING that Cook as not failed at miserably ???
Damn, I hope he has the guts to read this blog.
But a [SNIP] wouldn’t EVER have the guts to face the reality of himself.
253
I feel that you may have over-estimated the lads abilities.
🙂
131
I always try to look at the good side of people. 🙂
131
Don’t be too harsh. By most accounts I’ve read he seems an intelligent [BSc(Hons) in solar physics] and very decent person [devout Christian, community spirited and a devoted family man]. He just happens to be a misguided zealot with regards to the climate.
91
His mind must have taken a serious wrong turn somewhere then!
41
A young essentially unemployed bloke with a family and a worthless degree (nobody employs a physics undergrad) suddenly finds a lucrative niche and minor celebrity status. You can hardly blame him for making the best of it.
70
Sure we can.
20
Pusillanimous is a great word. I have always wondered about the etymology. Is it Puce, a flea in French, so flea bitten or puce a thumb in French, so mal adroit, all thumbs, clumsy, incompetent? Either way it is a very effective word for useless.
71
I think it may be derived from Latin.. meaning “small minded”
51
or ‘small spirit’ (spirit as in ‘soul’)…. implying cowardice.
51
The Online Etymology Dictionary has it thus:
pusillanimous (adj.) Look up pusillanimous at Dictionary.com
early 15c., from Late Latin pusillanimis “having little courage” (used in Church Latin to translate Greek oligopsychos “small-souled”), from Latin pusillis “very weak, little” (diminutive of pullus “young animal;” see foal (n.)) + animus “spirit, courage” (see animus). Related: Pusillanimously; pusillanimousness.
It is now my word of the day.
00
If that data was freely available on a website then it possibly still is. Goggle cache, The wayback machine etc. Who knows how many places it will turn up?
Works for music!
http://web.archive.org/web/20120322051809/http://www.connectingthecontinent.com/singingwire/lordslightning.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20110221162602/http://www.connectingthecontinent.com/singingwire/cryofwar.htm
20
That should be –
I feel that you may have over-estimated the lad’s abilities.
🙂
30
You won’t ever get me criticising someone’s grandma or typing..
I do wince somewhat at “your” as a shortener of “you are”, though.
60
Iwaz lizdexic but I’m KO noh
00
keep digging,brandon & co. fascinating to watch it all unfold.
just want to add that, of course, a search on Fairfax SMH & Age brought up NOTHING on the Lennart Bengtsson matter.
hope jo or anthony will do a thread one day soon, addressed to the News Agencies & MSM CAGW gatekeepers, who will report any nonsense that promotes the scam, but will completely ignore something as serious as the Bengtsson affair.
90
There is a very simple solution. Get the letter read into state or commonwealth Hansard by a sceptical MP. The MP cannot be sued or proecuted and the document becomes public information for eternity.
80
Brilliant! Can vital bits of data be read too?
20
Absolutely anything can be read in Hansard. The parliament can also call anyone to the bench and cross examine them under oath, fine them or even imprison them for contempt.
50
Jo’s protesting over the paper is nothing but revealing. the paper pertains to those that engage in conspiracy theories and denial of science. If that’s not you, why are you fighting as if it is?
Do some science, Jo. And, if you really are the “sceptic” you say you are, stop dog-whistling to the crowd that the paper identifies.
156
Seriously, WTF are you talking about..?????
Did you get a bad dose of cough medicine or something ?
koooooky !!
241
The paper in question had nothing to do with conspiracy theories.
At least if you are going to make inane moronic comments, try to figure out what the topic is first.. idiot !!
322
Chester,
You could avoid making yourself look like a total dick, if you a) Read what Jo wrote, in the context she wrote it, and b) looked at the tone of the other comments from people who did read what she wrote.
Coming here with pre-scripted (or totally misinformed) insults will not endear you to the real Scientists and Engineers who come here, and who have sufficient knowledge and experience to see bad science for what it is. Oh, and by the way, Jo has done science – probably more than you, at a guess.
We are currently taking pleasure at the ineptitude of the University’s Department of Legality and Propaganda (or whatever it is called) in managing to create and orchestrate a total cock-up. It is funny, and so we are all laughing.
And you, my dear Chester, have totally missed the point.
310
Chester, it seems you follow the Lewandowsky method of persuading the uninformed that all sceptics are weirdo conspiracy theorists. This theory also promotes the practice of data-hiding. Good luck with that here.
P.S. Do I remember you from ‘Gunsmoke’?
90
57 or 58 words of utterly fatuous meaningless condescending drivel with no relation whatsoever to Jo’s post. Actually, quite impressive, in a way.
100
That could have been written by a program.
20
Or someone of little intelligence “Programmed” to repeat drivel.
20
I found this on a blog today…fits Chester to a T.
Quote of the week goes to Dan Sarewitz:
Indeed, with climate change being blamed for almost everything these days, the one phenomenon that seems to have escaped the notice of scientists, environmentalists and the media alike is that, perhaps above all, climate change is making us stupid.
50
Eric, is that you and your cant-generating software?
00
It is nothing but a bluff. UQ cannot possibly sue anyone. If they did the defendent’s lawyer would be able to cross examine witnesses, including John Cook, in an open court. This could reveal very damaging information. I suspect UQ would simply throw John Cook (and Co) to the wolves if the university suffered any reputational damage.
100
Bananabender
An excellent point. If the truth is against them, what have UQ got to gain???
They can only hope their legal pockets are deeper than those of their opponents – which is, unfortunately, quite likely.
Cheers,
Speedy
40
UQ has bottomless pockets regarding litigation. They know they can outspend any individual and intimidate them into silence.
20
Well speedy you can help him out by putting your hand in your pocket and making a contribution to the cause here:
http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/legal-fund-tip-jar-or-whatever/
After all, it looks like being fun.
00
Universities grew out of religious tradition.
Cook et al indicate that they can grow back into it as well.
(I’m just waiting for an alarmist who will say that perhaps the missing heat is being ‘lost into space’. Here’s hoping)
90
I just cannot believe that UWA, UNSW and now UQ can even tolerate having such people as Lewandowsky, Turney and Cook respectively, in any way associated with them. It is utterly bizarre. Have the people in charge so utterly lost touch with reality? I fear the answer to that is yes for much the same reasons that the ALP cadres have degenerated from those of the Whitlam-Hawke-Keating years. I fear that when the doors were flung open in the late 70’s and 80’s, it was the intellectual insects that flew in most abundantly and they have nested, laid their eggs and multiplied in a benign environment.
That said, Cook’s 97% effort is not beyond parody but actual parody would take a great deal of imagination and a very skilful presentation.
91
Universities are run by bureaucrats disconnected with academia. Vice Chancellors are political animals paid million dollar salaries. They follow the money trail.
20
When so much is at stake and our lives and those of our children and grandchildren will be affected, I would hope that those information sources linked to global decision making do their job with integrity, honesty and transparency. This is not an area for corporates to play in.
20
What would one expect from a project with a title that is an outcome?
The mistake was made when they called a project by its’ political outcome (‘consensus project’) to begin with.
Cart before horse. Politics driving science. Lunatics in charge of asylum. Consensus when there isn’t one. Tail wagging dog. Cook et al 97% consensus, no rebuttal allowed. All the same thing.
50
What is it about Queensland University and stupidity. Pity the poor students .Professor Jeremy Williams from Griffith University claimed in Jan 2013 that there have been 333 consecutive months of rising average temperatures globally since February 1985 in an AAP Jan 2013 release The fact is the temperature would have increased from an average of 14 C to 17.3C .This is unsupported crap.Professor Hugh -Guldberg from Queensland University claims half of the Great Barrier Reef has disappeared in the last 27 years, but forgets to mention that it has grown back. It was fitting that his latest release was on April Fools day. Lets humour these people and pray for them.
102
The comments here just tell a tale of the mindless and nasty abusiveness (the defamatory and abusive comments against Cook are disgraceful) of the type of people that follow Jo’s blog. – see the Griss, bananabender and others.
And Jo of course tolerates it because she knows these are her paying customers.
Is this how you fight Group Think, Jo?
340
Your inability to actually read the article speaks volumes to why people make mindless comments in response to your comments. Perhaps if you actually read the article and then presented a cogent argument against the article, you might get something besides the responses you’ve gotten so far. When you can’t even stay on topic, what would be the point of responding in a kind, reasoned fashion? Are you representative of people who follow Cook—can’t or don’t read and can’t or don’t actually present a case when you are trying to make a point? If so, there’s much to be said for the treatment Cook gets—though I am not a fan of calling people stupid or mindless, sometimes that’s the only honest label out there. You’re proving my case.
230
I couldn’t care less how the likes of you or your mates respond to me. I have zero respect for you.
Cook is clearly on the money when he attracts such vitriolic abuse from people who claim that’s the domain of the “other side”.
Cook’s work stands and if the data contains something that refutes the work, let’s see it.
Better still, why doesn’t Jo do the academic work to prove Cook’s paper is incorrect.
Tthe reality is, it’s much easier to snipe away from the sanctuary of a Group
Think blog.
538
simple Chester – you can’t do the work to refute an academic work if you can’t access the data used in that work. That’s what this thread is about, or didn’t you read it?
320
Uhmmm, this particular article isn’t even really about Cook. It is about the laughable but threatening antics of a resumably educated legal department at UQ. Cook, as usual, is nothing but a side issue and almost utterly irrelevant. But then so is Chester. They used to say “don’t feed the trolls.” It’s still good advice.
40
Really, and then you complain about our behaviour? Cook’s work never stood—it was nothing more than politcal propaganda. If you understood science and math, you’d know that. His work does not need the extra data—it’s been refuted in many, many places already. The point was that this is all “secret” as in “not science”. Data has to be shared so the “experiment” can be replicated. In the absence of that replication, the study is simply garbage. No better than a proof that unicorns exists and the data can’t be shared. (I apologize if you believe in unicorns for spoiling your belief.)
The academic work has been done. Really, are you sure can actually read? Just type in “refuting the consensus Cook claimed” on Google and you’ll get tons of people who have refuted it. Of course, you will reject all of these explanations because you yourself are mired eyeball deep in group think. If you weren’t, you would have postulated the reasons why the study was valid or at least answered why the skeptics are wrong—instead, you insult and snipt. OH!!!! Group think! I remember!
Now, a test: State one reason why the skeptics are wrong, with specific reference to the study. Include relevent data and passages from the study. Address the methodology. Something that indicats you actually understand any of what you preach. Otherwise, please go back to your little group-think crowd over at SkS or wherever. Interesting that you land here and insult people, yet your little group-thing heroes don’t allow dissent. Maybe you need to check the meaning of “group think” again.
260
As you state you have zero respect for commenters here, why did you bother commenting here?
Secondly do you think you could get any more off topic?
Perhaps your next comment will be; “My uncle has a white-handled pocketknife”. Or some other such stunningly relevant wisdom.
Obviously you have evidence denied the rest of us mortals, as the complete data has never been released, that would allow the standing of Cooks work to be validated.
Yet you assert” Cook’s work stands..”
Do tell, or continue to be the empty poseur you appear to be..
161
Chester you are absolutely correct in saying the insults from both sides mean nothing, the real abuse stems towards people outside this discussion oblivious to the underhanded nasty misinformation that Cook and ilk are trying to supplement for a twisted personal agenda which will lead to the reduction of quality of life to the unknowing innocent.
I always ask when discovering your type, what kind of psychopath are you?
101
Oh dear,, Chester doesn’t respect me…… roflmao… 🙂
So WHAT !!!
Seriously?.. Why did you even bother making such a trite irrelevant statement….. bizarre !
71
So your measure of scientific rigor and accuracy of data is how much abuse it attracts?
Interesting hypothesis, do you have any other studies to back it up?
30
Are you Cook’s illegitimate kid ?
00
“If the data contains something that refutes the work, let’s see it.”
Well, that’s the thing, you see: with its reputation rapidly heading south, the University of Queensland is struggling to prevent anyone’s analysis or publication of the data, such as it may be, and plainly is desperate not to have to publish it itself. If the data were in the public domain, I suspect people would be queuing up to pick holes in it.
I think that may just, belatedly, have dawned on you, when you petulantly challenged Jo to “do the academic work” (i.e. re-create the data from scratch). Well, Cook trousered the grant, so it’s a bit rich to ask Jo to produce the report, but you are being commendably honest: Cook’s plainly not up to it.
30
Chester:
Cooks work is a fallacy. Who cares if it is correct? Most probably 97% of Western government funded attendees of IPCC events who were involved in Working Group I do agree with the herd. So what?
Cooks survey is misused in media all over the world to imply that it means something about the climate and Cook does nothing to stop that.
181
Umm … me?
The correctness **is** the important thing.
02
Hey world!…….
Seth likes correct fallacies!
30
Joanne “… is clearly on the money when [s]he attracts such vitriolic abuse from people who claim that’s the domain of the “other side”.”
Is the power of someone’s argument based on the level of vitriol they receive, Chester? I understand that Lord Monckton receives quite a lot, he must be absolutely BANG-ON with his claims then! That’s good to know!
The reality is, of course, different. In the words of one of the world’s most renowned and respected scientists, “The words of the powerful may prevail in other spheres of human experience, but in science, the only thing that counts is the evidence, and the logic of the argument itself.”
If they refuse to release their evidence, they have no right to prevail in any argument, it’s as simple as that. Just like 17+ years with no warming is NOT evidence to uphold the theory of AGW as it currently stands. The theory that you, Chester, are a fool… well I think the evidence there speaks for itself. I like people like you, I really do. You keep reminding me why it’s important to fight against this sort of collective insanity.
10
I think Chester is the duty attack troll over at SkS this weekend.
Their standards are slipping. He/she/it was armed to the teeth with ad hominem remarks, and … more ad hominem remarks, and … one sentence paragraphs. Dangerous stuff. Not.
I have been waiting for the full-frontal assault from a division of heavy evidence, supported by the corp of reasoned argument. But it hasn’t happened. Perhaps they are holding them in reserve for the final offensive, as winter sets in.
220
–
Chester has made some wild unsubstantiated claims without revealing his data.
Could Chester be John Cook?
80
Thought the same thing, so I’d say that would be a bingo, bullocky.
Chester seems a little too emotionally invested and defensive over some straight talk about his data and those absolutely miraculous results pulled out of a hat just in time for a socialist government to proudly proclaim the science is in and slap us with a carbon tax.
There is a lot more to this than meets the eye.
30
Given the number of times Cook’s “97% Consensus” paper has been demolished at various sites around the blogosphere, has anyone seen him (Cook) post in person to defend it.
Umm . . . nope.
Actually, has anyone seen John Cook post anywhere outside of SkS on anything?
10
Hey, I wasn’t abusive.. just truthful. And followed the initial tone of your post.
You were the one with the first abusive post.
And obviously can’t take the return without sulking.
92
Oh poor dear.. did I upset you…
diddums ! 🙂
72
Chester:
‘The comments here just tell a tale of the mindless and nasty abusiveness …….’
–
If you are mindless and unfairly suffering abuse, contact skepticalscience.
Here is their website;.. …http//www.skepticalscience.con.u
–
It helps to be among friends!
41
Chester, do you understand how science works? Whether comments here are mean spirited or benign is irrelevant. The only thing relevant is the availability of the data. Cook’s data should be freely available for others to verify or refute. The data then either confirms Cook’s theory/approach/thesis or it does not.
Regrettably I have zero respect for your ability to understand the scientific method.
50
[SNIP]
00
Chester, it’s not defamatory when it is the truth.
00
In reply to:
Not only could Brandon not reveal the details of how the abstracts were reviewed because they would sue him, but he could not even reveal the letter threatening to sue him, or they would sue him for that too — he would be double-sued.
William:
Astonishing! The warmist ‘scientific’ papers are so dodgy that have must have a legal team to block requests for their paper’s data (they appeal to the commercial value of the secrete data that was gathered using public funds, the true issue is of course not the commercial value of the secrete data but rather the dodgy nature of the papers) which would enable an independent analysis to validate or invalidate their analysis and conclusion.
Clever warmist’s strategy ‘the double threat’, a threat upon a threat. The first threat is to stop analysis which would validate or invalidate the dodgy papers.
The second threat is try to hide the fact that the warmist’s scientists and the warmist’s support groups are using threats and intimidation (Climategate tactics) to attempt to stop analysis and publishing of papers that show their papers’ conclusions are dodgy.
30
Two burning questions, in my mind: “Does Cook own, or know somebody who owns, a dog?”; and, “Will the dog eat the data?”.
60
I thought it was interesting that the UQ said, paraphrasing, “if you reveal the contents of this letter or if you post anything disparaging on a public website about us we’ll feel free to sue you.” Notice how they seem to be equating the contents of the letter with something disparaging about them. They’re shooting themselves in their own foot. Even they see that the letter makes them look terrible.
90
Since the UQ letter threatens to sue anyone else who publishes the UQ letter I decided to drop the UQ lawyer a line myself:
Dear Ms Jane Malloch,
I have read your letter to Mr Shollenberger on behalf of the University of Queensland and am disappointed to find that you are wasting the funds of a largely Government funded institution carrying out threats you have no hope or right to carry out. If you did have any obscure right to carry the threats out, given that UQ must act in the interests of the University, it would be difficult to find any interest in doing so.
It is also incredibly naive of you to claim copyright of your letter dated 15th May 2014 and to threaten legal action for breach of copyright if Mr Shollenberger or anyone else chose to publish some or all of this the letter. The letter has no commercial and therefore copywriteable value, and therefore no damages could be claimed for it’s publishing elsewhere. I will put you on notice that I have sent it to a member of the press.
I suggest that the University of Queensland focus more attention on ensuring research published from your institution doesn’t make a mockery of basic research techniques and ethical peer review and publication methods which include opening up the research data base so that others can see if the findings are accurate and can be replicated. If UQ is not prepared to do that then it is reasonable to assume that those withholding the data have something to hide. If there are matters of confidentiality which need to be ensured, then that can be sorted out, one researcher to another, without any public disclosures being made.
So enough of protecting the research and the researchers. If it will stand up to scrutiny then it will need to do so by itself, without the UQ’s legal threats.
Mr Brandon Shollenberger should be informed specifically of any precise privacy issues the UQ may have with the data he has obtained, so he can ensure he doesn’t accidentally breach them. As the UQ have claimed you have already released all of the scientific data in relation to the research, then I can’t imagine another argument you floated about obligations to third parties holds any water? But if you do have an obligation to a third part, then you should alert My Shollenberger to what that is in regards to, because it cant be in relation to the scientific data as you say all of that is already in the public domain.
Yours Sincerely
272
Jaymez: Be sure to post her reply if indeed she does reply.
10
Not unexpectedly I have received no reply, nor any legal action for breaching copyright!
00
Nicely done.
I don’t think that Ms Jane Malloch is going to have a particularly enjoyable week at the office.
90
she should be having a fun time in the unemployment line
81
UQ not the place to study law…..unless you want to be a comedian.
71
I also sent her a short email enquiring after her recent lawyering activities. I closed with the following line (everyone who writes to her should include something similar):
P.S. I, of course, reserve the right to sue you for any publication of this email since I claim copyright. See how silly that sounds!
121
Jo,
OT but you should make the latest post by “Blackswan” at Pointman’s blog the next Jo Nova post …
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/an-island-adrift-in-a-sea-of-good-intentions/
40
The Australian has a story on this topic.
20
Jonova previous post:
17/05/2014, Big-Green have more money than Big-Oil but the media are blind to it.
UPDATE
Trillions of dollars aimed at boosting the global green economy will be at stake when the UN’s Climate Fund (Green Climate Fund – GCF) board gather in Songdo, South Korea on Sunday. (RTCC 18-05-14)
“The GCF is seen as a critical element of a proposed UN climate change deal, set to be signed off in 2015, with the potential to radically shift the green investment landscape.
Avoiding warming of beyond 2C will require investments of $5 trillion annually by 2020, according to a 2013 study by the World Economic Forum.”
30
As I have pointed out before, the GCF is not the same as the GFC, though there is the appearance of a strong correlation between the two.
40
The University of Queensland is hereby defamed!!
01
jim2;
……”The University of Queensland is hereby defamed!!”
–
They didn’t deserve their fame anyway!!!!!!
00
–
Infamy, on the other hand, is much more difficult to dislodge!
00
Red Alert – TonyfromOz –
19 May: Australian: Ean Higgins: Fire risk as solar firm goes belly up
A QUEENSLAND company that sold allegedly faulty circuit breakers that caused at least 70 burnouts in rooftop solar panel arrays has gone bust, leaving tens of thousands of homeowners at risk of electrical fires.
Advancetech, based on the Sunshine Coast, went into receivership on Friday, only four days after Queensland Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie ordered the immediate recall of 2
Installation of rooftop isolators are compulsory in some states, and hundreds of thousands of solar rooftop arrays were installed under state and federal schemes. Most of the Avanco isolators, designed to automatically break the circuit and shut down solar panels if they become overloaded, were sold in Queensland, but some were also sold in other states. The NSW government is expected to issue a press release today advising of the Queensland recall and receivership.
A spokeswoman for NSW Fair Trading said “there have been approximately 57 incidents of varying degrees of severity in Queensland and up to 13 failures in NSW”, and it is understood some of the fires caused wall and ceiling damage.7,600 Avanco-branded DC solar power isolators imported and sold by the company…
“Though the recall is a mandatory recall imposed by Queensland it … is considered to have national effect,” she said. “The Queensland Electrical Safety Office … is understood to be investigating options for action against company directors.”
NSW Fair Trading assistant commissioner John Tansey said: “Advancetech has done some corporate tap-dancing on Thursday and Friday.”
Mr Bleijie said the Avanco branded isolator “was found to have an internal fault that can lead to overheating and fire’’…
The ESO also issued a recall notice for PvPower-branded DC isolators, sold by DKSH.
DKSH advises of the recall of its isolator on its website and includes a form for electrical contractors to claim the costs of replacing them with another brand.
When The Australian repeatedly rang and emailed Advancetech, starting during business hours on Friday, calls immediately went to voicemail. No response has been received and the company’s lawyer, Michael Green, declined to comment…
A homeowner in Wagga Wagga, NSW, Martin Loy, had a fire on his roof in early March caused by an Avanco isolator, which was detected almost immediately and put out by the fire brigade. “A number of other residents have the same problem and they could have fires which could lead to their houses burning down,” he said.
Mr Loy couldn’t understand why Advancetech or the NSW government had not contacted every affected installer and homeowner to warn of the danger
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/fire-risk-as-solar-firm-goes-belly-up/story-e6frgczx-1226922007890#
after the Rome tennis final last nite, i heard a man phone a 4BC talk show, saying he’s been warning the Liberals/Labor/Greens for years that it will cost many billions down the line to fix the mess that will be created by the rapid, unprofessional installation of solar panels in Australia. will post a couple of links in a second comment, but would appreciate if TonyfromOz, & others with expertise, would elaborate.
10
what shocked me was the lack of MSM coverage regarding any problems with solar panels. however, here are a couple, the first being the most thorough in the US. it is from media company, Gannett:
2 pages: Sept 2013: Gannett Media: Daily Journal: Rooftop solar panels challenge firefighters
Efforts to combat the blaze were hampered in part by some 7,000 solar panels on the roof of a 266,000-square-foot warehouse…
“The panels obstructed us from doing any roof operations,” Delanco Fire Deputy Chief Robert Hubler said. Officials said they feared the panels, which remain charged even after being disconnected, posed electrocution dangers.
And they do, says Ken Willette, division manager for public fire protection at the National Fire Protection Association. They also present several other challenges, such as preventing roof access and hindering the ability to provide roof ventilation.
The panels also can add weight to the roof and contribute to a potential collapse, said Paul Sandrock, chief fire marshal for Camden County and director of the county’s fire academy.
The center of the roof at the Delanco meat-and-cheese distribution center caved in during the blaze, fire officials said. If proper codes and procedures are followed, Willette added, “then there’s a minimal risk of collapse due to the weight of the solar panels on the roof — (but) still a potential.”
Solar panels have been a concern in the fire community for about five years, according to Willette. In June, the Solar Energy Industries Association ranked New Jersey No. 2 for solar energy installations during the first quarter of 2013, behind California…
The Division of Codes and Standards, Kramer said, has issued a directive telling local construction offices to notify fire services of permits for solar installations.
Willette said no national standard guides state and local methods of approaching solar panels during fires…
As the economics surrounding solar energy improves and its presence grows, he added, there should be a discussion about developing standards…
“People put them on roofs because of space restrictions,” Sandrock added. “And that’s what we’re up against.”
http://www.thedailyjournal.com/article/20130907/NEWS01/309070016/Rooftop-solar-panels-challenge-firefighters?nclick_check=1
Feb 2013: Business Standard: Dutch roof fire warning for 650,000 solar panels
Press Trust of India
The Hague, Feb 19 (AFP) Hundreds of thousands of solar panels are at risk of setting roofs on fire because of an electrical fault, Dutch authorities and media warned today, with 15 roof fires already reported in Europe. Now-bankrupt Scheuten Solar Systems has reportedly sold at least 650,000 of its “Multisol” panels in Europe and 15,000 in the Netherlands. “These solar panels have a faulty electrical connection which constitutes a fire hazard,” the Dutch Food and Goods Authority (NVWA) said in a statement. “People who have these dangerous solar panels on their roofs are advised to disconnect them in a safe manner,” it added. The problem is with the connection between the panel and a junction box at the back which could cause an electrical spark, damaging the box and causing it to smoulder. “The sparks could jump onto the roof and cause a fire,” the NVWA said…
Based in the southeastern city of Venlo, Scheuten Solar Systems went bankrupt last year and since then at least 1,000 damage claims have been lodged with the company’s receiver, the paper said. The fire hazard can be neutralised by repairing or replacing the junction box, the paper said. However, the NVWA warned that “at this moment there’s no good way of fixing it,” and urged users to have the panel disconnected by professionals…
http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/dutch-roof-fire-warning-for-650-000-solar-panels-113021900410_1.html
00
final one for TonyfromOz & others to explain, please!
LetItGo: Grid Connect Solar Troubleshooting
Q: Is the problem with the main power lines?
A: What I am talking about is main grid voltages. All inverters in Australia are programmed to shutdown if they detect the main grid voltage rise a little over 260V. What happens in some places is the main grid voltage is very high (255+V) to start with, then when your solar system starts to put power back into the system it pushes the voltage even higher, causing it to go higher than the inverters upper threshold, so the invert will disconnect. Once the inverter disconnects it will wait a little while, during this time the voltage drops back again, the inverter connects back onto the mains and starts producing power, it raises the voltage again and disconnects.
So why havent you noticed this? well chances are it is happening around midday when you are at work, early in the morning and in the evening lots of people are using electricity so the voltages are lower than normal, and during this time the suns power is not as strong as it is at lunch time so you are not putting much power into the grid anyway. Many intelligent inverters will detect the pending voltage problem and start to reduce the amount of power it puts into the Grid, just so that it can stay connected, sometimes the only warning you get is a small message on screen.. very easy to miss…
How do you test for Grid Problem? I would start by checking the Grid voltage reading on your inverter at lunchtime one day, if it is in the 255V or higher then you need to investigate further. By investigate further I mean pick a bright sunny day during the working week and try and catch it in action.
If you do catch the mains voltage rising above the 260V and the inverter disconnects then its time to call the energy company… good luck…
http://www.letitgo.com.au/grid-connect/17–grid-connect-solar-troubleshooting.html
10
Not sure of where I got the link to this on the web yesterday but somehow it seems to fit in with the UQ letter’s legal standing.
Quoted from Scopes
____________________
in late 2010 another piece of crude sports-related correspondence surfaced on the Internet, prompting questions about whether scanned images of letters purportedly exchanged between an attorney and the Cleveland Browns football team were genuine.
The first missive, dated 18 November 1974 and addressed to the Cleveland Browns, was signed by Dale O. Cox of the Akron law firm Roetzel & Andress, a season ticket holder who complained about the potential for injury among spectators due to the practice of Browns fans’ throwing paper airplanes during games at Cleveland Stadium:
I am one of your season ticket holders who attends or tries to attend every game. It appears that one of the pastimes of several fans has become the sailing of paper airplanes generally made out of the game program. As you know, there is the risk of serious eye injury and perhaps an ear injury as a result of such airplanes. I am sure that this has been called to your attention and that several of your ushers and policemen witnessed the same.
Please be advised that since you are in a position to control or terminate such action on the part of fans, I will hold you responsible for any injury sustained by any person in my party attending one of your sporting events. It is hoped that this disrespectful and possibly dangerous activity will be terminated.
Three days later, Browns general counsel James N. Bailey responded with a terse, dismissive (and vulgar) reply:
Attached is a letter that we received on November 19, 1974. I feel that you should be aware that some asshole is signing your name to stupid letters.
This correspondence is in fact real, as Michael Heaton of the Cleveland Plain Dealer determined by tracking down both of the principals in late 2010, who vouched for its authenticity.
[ more]
21
Uh, the very first comment at the top of this page, perhaps?
BTW, is ‘ROM’ intended to mean “Read-Only Memory” ?
00
i don’t know if there’s any truth to the rumor that the threatening letter to B. Shollenberger was actually penned at the University’s Bundanyabba campus.
30
Oh, I thought it came from the Buggermedoo campus? Just goes to show how little I know about Oztrailean geography.
00
… the way I heard it, it came from the Grafton Campus, formerly known as the Southern Hinterland Institute of Technology. They had some trouble with the acronym on the degrees.
20
If the science is settled, does that not beg the question “who by?” Media aren’t asking, so the circular logic of only reporting the “settled” side continues. Cracks are appearing though, so keep up the good work!
20
A couple of items from commentator overa at Bishop Hill on this subject –
1. How to treat unwanted legal action http://www.bishop-hill.net/contributor/24285483
2. Commenter Barry Wood observes –
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 ?
00
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.
60
97 is climate’s 42.
30
Jo, I just want you to know, that when I saw that lead graphic, I laughed so hard Kenji was startled out of sleep in his doggy bed next to me and the kids came in to see what was so funny.
I usually give a +10 for exception work, but I’m going to give you a +25 and send some chocolates your way because I could not resist borrowing that graphic. Full credit and link back to you of course.
That was the best laugh I’ve had since Climategate and I saw the M4GW “hide the decline” video for the very first time.
Respect.
110
I’m delighted you enjoyed it Anthony. My apologies to Kenji. I just can’t take any of these people seriously anymore.
Thanks for the chocolates! You are most generous, and it is just what I need… :- )
20
I was a little surprised you didn’t use the John Himmler image instead. I think this turned out better though.
50
It has been some time now since we discussed at great length the credibility of Cook’s 97% study on this blog. I happened to be one of the many who thought Cook was full of it, but there were those who were defending the study with all the words they could muster.
Where are those geniuses now?
40
The most annoying thing about this 97% consensus is that it’s out there in the world and so many know of it and so many believe in it as being factual. It’s so oft quoted now – and Chinese whispers have set it, it now not climate scientists it’s 97% of ALL scientists. There is no way is this ever going to vanish from the world of AGW Science without the original publishers withdrawing it and publicly acknowledging that it’s in error. How do you get people to believe its wrong without it coming straight from the horse’s mouth?
30
–
The Climate Establishment will be desperate to insulate the general public from the truth about the ninety-seven-per-cent meme. The behaviour of U.Q. is consistent with this mission.
–
It is fast becoming an Achilles heal of their own making.
20
97% of horse’s mouths can not do chinese whispers –
.
pass it on…
🙂
00
The University of Queensland didn’t get the memo about slinging poo. One is not supposed to stand in front of the fan. Elementary.
10
Given that Australian government commitment to cut funding for all government programs related to climate change, going from $5.75 billion this year to a scant $500 million in the next four years.
Many speculate that ‘climate scientists’ will probably leave the country in order to find work elsewhere. http://guardianlv.com/2014/05/climate-change-research-axed-in-australia/
I wonder where UQ will get the funds to fight a protracted court case.
20
Gee! I might be sued. How awful!
You know, it’s not often that someone continues time after time to out himself as a fool. But John Cook and UQ seem to excel at it. They’re almost as good as Flannery.
And who cares about their data? We know it’s bound to be doctored up.
20
And if they’re so sure it shows something worthwhile then by all means, why not show it to the world?
Fear of flying hockey sticks I bet.
20
I’ll publish anything to expose the bastards. They can sue me till the lights turn blue.
20
There are two posters now who seem to be using SkS to calculate slopes with an error supposedly equal to 2 times the standard deviation.
KR used the example on May 17 of a fit to the RSS data between 1979 and 1997. The result as quoted was 0.071 ±0.170 °C/decade (or 0.07 ±0.17 °C/decade). This is a plot of the data and the slopes from this calculation.
Now if you have Analysis ToolPak in Excel, you can do the calculations yourself, or use a free function fitting service on line, or you can type it into Excel yourself.
You should get an error a quarter of what you get using SkS, 0.07 ±0.04 °C/decade.
Is there any chance of a post highlighting how bad Cook is at statistics?
30
You may run into copyright trouble from Statistics for Dummies. Particularly the bits about mistakes to be avoided.
10
Help me understand – this University of Queensland is an actual institution of higher learning and not a QE2 theme park. Bonnie princes won’t be popping about like Disney characters, there’s actual tenured people drawing a paycheck there. Izzat correct so far? And if so, why? Who would hire anyone with a shingle pressed by the UQ industrial ed shop classes and signed by the chancellor of this joke? It would be cheaper to get that shingle on Ebay and it would probably carry more value forward.
Bumper Sticker: Work Available – UQ Grads Need Not Apply
40
I had a letter from the Deputy 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)
Now that the Recursive Fury paper has been forcibly retracted by the journal.. doesn’t this look silly
03/05/2013
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
[Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor at the University of Western Australia from 2009-2013]
————————-
Now that the Recursive Fury paper has been retracted by the journal.. doesn’t this look silly
especially as the co-founder of Frontiers has publicly said (he said a lot more privately)
http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Rights_of_Human_Subjects_in_Scientific_Papers/830
Henry Markram
My own personal opinion: The authors of the retracted paper and their followers are doing the climate change crisis a tragic disservice by attacking people personally and saying that it is ethically ok to identify them in a scientific study.
They made a monumental mistake, refused to fix it and that rightfully disqualified the study.
The planet is headed for a cliff and the scientific evidence for climate change is way past a debate, in my opinion. Why even debate this with contrarians? If scientists think there is a debate, then why not debate this scientifically? Why help the ostriches of society (always are) keep their heads in the sand? Why not focus even more on the science of climate change? Why not develop potential scenarios so that society can get prepared? Is that not what scientists do? Does anyone really believe that a public lynching will help advance anything? Who comes off as the biggest nutter?
Activism that abuses science as a weapon is just not helpful at a time of crisis.” – Markram
20
Dear Mr. Woods,
The University has been made aware that some spineless journal editor(s) proved to be a weak spot in the Great Wall of CAGW worship.
Rest assured, this setback will not tempt UWA to re-open the case.
We now regard this paper under the noble rubric of “fake but accurate.”
We will entertain no further correspondence on this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Blah Blah Blah
[successor to Prof Bill Louden, Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor at the University of Western Australia from 2009-2013]
00
It is not discussing this paper that UQ is concerned about. All the relevant data to reach the conclusions are available on SkS.
The unpublished data is that which identifies research participants who took part in the research on condition of anonymity. A valid concern in today environment of harassment of scientists by organised counter-scientific movements.
14
Read what was claimed. Brandon Shollenberger told the authors that he downloaded the data because he was concerned about the privacy of reviewers. What the extra data is claimed to show is bias and that is all that he wanted it for. You just showed how low you are prepared to stoop in regards to propaganda.
30
And expecting that all data be available is SCIENCE, not harassment.
Do try to learn the difference.
(That would mean that you need to learn something about science first.)
20
Seth:
“The unpublished data is that which identifies research participants who took part in the research on condition of anonymity”
–
Were you one of them?
00
–
Seth: “….harassment of scientists…”
–
William Connelley: ‘You people don’t know what words mean anymore.’
00
“A valid concern in today environment of harassment of scientists by organised counter-scientific movements.”
YES, I agree… Lennart Bengtsson has been treated extremely badly by the AGW cultists.
As have Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, John Christy, Bob Carter, and Patrick Micheals.
Absolutely disgusting behaviour towards them.
The non-science AGW cult have a lot to answer for.. and eventually they will.
60
And I’m sure a missed couple of equally eminent real scientists.
And of course, Salby.. treated like rubbish.. totally disgusting behaviour.
31
And lets name some more who have been VILLIFIED and bullied by the AGW cultists.
Plimer, Happer, Easterbrook, Ball, Dyson (seriously, Morner, idso
So yes you are totally correct, the behaviour towards highly respected scientists by the AGW cultists has been absolutely disgusting..
Thanks for bring this up, Seth.
30
Darn.. the more I think the more REAL scientists I could name that have been on the receiving end of amateur abuse from AGW non-scientists. It truly is pathetic.
Many of the abusers are in the field of social science (lol) or philosophy, or are hard left agenda driven totalitarian greenites with a total ignorance of science or scientific procedures.
30
And of course, Salby.. treated like rubbish.. totally disgusting behaviour.
I agree.
Getting rid of someone who is refusing to do their job, is disgusting and unaustralian. If Salby wanted to refuse to teach classes, and wanted to expense flights to Europe to speak at conferences that had not been approved, the university should simply put on extra teaching staff, and shell out for the flights at their own expense!
27
But to cancel his ticket and leave him stranded so he could not get back to defend himself. seriously…
Anyone capable of that is capable of lying through their teeth.
There is only one scumbag in that.. and it isn’t Salby.
21
I’m agreeing with you. When someone expenses tickets to Europe from Australia, against explicit written instructions from their employer, the employer in fully responsible for the cost of flying them to Europe, and back again.
How dare the university not pay this cost for which they are clearly responsible for?Making him buy his own ticket back is simply unaustralian. If you get away with fraud one way, it is your god-given-right to get away with it return.
34
Please provide proof , other than statements from the University that any of this is true.
I read that Salby’s initial contract did not have ANY teaching written into it. The University deliberately broke ITS contract and STOLE all his research.
22
If you think the university is lying about that, why do you think Salby didn’t sue?
Where did you read that, other than statements by the parties invovled?
Stole his research eh?
My, my.
23
Also refused to supply any decent computing equipment that was provided for in the contract.
They DELIBERATELY curtailed his research.
21
–
Seth;
“And of course, Salby.. treated like rubbish.. totally disgusting behaviour”
–
Were you involved?
–
(Show proof)
00
YES, I agree… Lennart Bengtsson has been treated extremely badly by the AGW cultists.
Has he now?
Do you have some specific examples? Because Lennart didn’t.
Bengtsson was appointed to the Global Warming Policy Foundation academic advisory council on 30 April this year, and resigned barely two weeks later on 14 May. His resignation was covered by the Times the next day, with Bengtsson claiming to have been subjected to “McCarthy”-like persecution by his academic peers.
No specific examples of the persecution that took place during those two weeks were cited, and when contacted by the Guardian Bengtsson did not provide any.
26
So, you are now calling him a liar.
You continue with the disgusting behaviour.
The AGW meme.
Irksome nurk !!
31
I’m pointing out that he didn’t have any specific examples of this persecution, and I’m asking if you do.
Do you?
25
Why should he even provide one..
just to satisfy the bullying scum ?
21
There’s no reason why he should.
But if your claim that he was treated badly I thought you might have some evidence.
Do you?
22
His letter is enough for me. He has no reason to lie.
If you choose to think he is lying, then that reflects more on you.
21
And certainly why would he ever bother responding to the Guardian of all places.
The UK paper most responsible for perpetration all the lies and misinformation of the GAW cultists.
You could BET that anything he said would be misinterpreted to slime him.
That’s what the Guardian and its writers do if you are a non-believer.
31
What letter is this?
22
“What letter is this?”
So, you just admitted you have no idea what you are talking about. 🙂
But we knew that.
21
You’re saying you don’t have any specific instances, and you base your claim on a letter that you can’t link to?
And the upshot is you think I don’t know what I’m talking about?
What I’m reading is that you haven’t got a basis for that claim.
13
What I’m reading is that you haven’t bothered doing even a bit of your own research or followed anything apart from what you masters at SkS tell you to read.
The letter is out there.
Go and find it for yourself.
I am not paid to be your tutor.
22
Yeah, I’m not your mother.
The thing about supporting your position is that its up to you to do it.
If you won’t I’m more than happy to assume that it’s because you can’t.
23
As supposed..
You are totally incapable of doing any work of your own.
An errand boy.
21
I have the link right here. Took 2 minutes to find while watching a movie.
Now go find it yourself, dopey errand boy.
22
–
Seth; “There’s no reason why he should”
–
BINGO!
00
I assume from your reluctance to supply it that it doesn’t support your position.
So we have he didn’t have any specific examples when asked by the Guardian, you don’t either.
Pretty clear aren’t we?
12
You seem too incompetent to even find a simple letter.
DOH !!
11
Bishop Hill has a nice piece on that error by Bengtsson that stopped it being published. It shows clearly where the real harassment is. Its not the name calling or blatant anger. It’s the pretense of being impartial and academic when delivering criticism but when looked at closely, comes out to be just a bit of bitchiness.
10
And they even have a tool for rating the abstracts yourself, which allows you to check their ratings against yours and the authors.
It looks pretty much above board to me.
05
Nothing on SkS is above board. !
Wake up !!
51
If its on SkS, you can almost bet that it is riddled with propaganda BS !!
61
WTF! Why not just have a downloadable file with the abstracts, ratings and relevant data on how such a subject assessment is made?
This just makes it look like there is something to hide.
10
It’s nice they have a tool for rating the abstracts yourself. So what? If I publish the calculus for solving a physics equation, am I actually asking people to check the math or just saying this is what I found and too bad if you don’t agree? If someone complained that the abstracts are incorrectly rated (by the way, rating by “judges” is NOT science—more like one of those TV shows where the judges pick the next great American dancer) do you think SkS would care? They won’t even publish comments that disagree with AGW. This is just BS and you know that. Above board in not involved in any way, Seth. None.
30
–
Seth;
‘It looks pretty much above board to me.’
–
The extra data shouldn’t worry you then!
10
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
That consensus is pretty tricky dicky stuff if you ask me.
00
My Thoughts to Ms Malloch :-
Dear Ms Malloch
I am extremely interested in climate science and would appreciate hearing from you with regards as to how I may receive information regarding the Cook & Al paper which purports to achieve a 97% consensus on Scientific agreement with regard to the effects of Catastrophic Global Warming.
As you are no doubt aware , this particular paper has caused huge repercussions throughout the Scientific and Political arena and it is vital that it can stand up to rigorous examination,since the effect of it, along with the entire debate and tortured science, has already cost hundreds of billions of dollars world wide.
Would you please be so kind as to advise me of the methodology used for this paper along with full details as to how peer review was obtained.
I understand that you are in the process of threatening an individual who has obtained some information from an open web site,with being sued should he publish any of the documentation , so just between us , can you give me a link to the site so I can see for myself?
Yours
Andy Hurley
PS The copyright to this email is mine and mine alone, I hereby instruct you not to disseminate any of the contents by either speech or copying onwards.You may not show this email or publish any part of it upon pain of being labelled a naughty little cry baby.
I on the other hand can do as I please with it.
10
Thanks Andy,
If I can save Ms Malloch some time, the abstracts, their ratings and the ratings by the authors are available at the links here. You may need to create an account for full access.
Thank you for your interest in climate change.
Yours,
Seth.
03
Again the moronic link to SkS.. get real and wake up !!!!!
Are you one of their tribe ?
30
That is where the data that Andy is asking for is publicly available.
It’s available there whether I’m real and awake or not.
03
Then why are UQ bothering with their stupidity with Brandon.
Why threaten him with legal action if ALL the data is already available.
The link between them and SkS must be really starting to sting them pretty badly. 🙂
40
QU’s position is quite clear about this in the Australian article
“UQ has therefore published all data relating to the paper that is of any scientific value to the wider community,” he said.
“UQ withheld only data that could identify research participants who took part in the research on condition of anonymity. Such conditions are not uncommon in academic research, and any breach of confidentiality could deter people from participating in valuable research in the future.”
They are trying to protect the anonymity of research participants that took part on the condition of anonymity.
03
Please show that confidentiality contracts were signed between UQ and people employed to do research via SkS.
Tell you what Seth, why not go here and discuss it.. IF you have the guts to.
20
Oh, looks like Seth’s two hours is up.
Tell me Seth, if the ratings data was owned by UQ, and UQ had confidentiality obligations,
WHY was it lying on the SkS server , of all places, where anyone could just stumble on it.
Seems that Cook is just as slack with data handling as he is with statistics and science.
30
What the statement really says is: UQ has therefore published all data it determines to be relating to the paper that is of any scientific value to the wider community,” Therein lies the problem—it’s called possible creative editing and removal of all data the researcher did not like. It’s called “fudging the data”.
You are perhaps correct, however, that the additional data is not needed. The “study” was so incredibly poorly done and obviously designed to be propaganda, not research (and for that it did work for a while with the really stupid people in politics and the media who couldn’t tell you the molecular structure of water, let alone proper research methods), that there is really nothing out there that to those who understand science will make the study look any worse. Perhaps the hope in the finding of the additional data was that those who can’t recognize H2O might actually recognize some of the data and methods as very, very poor. That’s the fear, I suspect.
And Griss is right—SkS is in serious need of someone who understands blogs and computers. You’d think with all those science people available. If the research is a good as the blog security, I can see why they don’t want it released. What a bunch of idiots—and that’s the word that applies in this case. This is the second time at least that their “secret” sections have been wondered into easily—giant open door with arrows pointing in and then they scream because someone walked in. Idiots.
30
–
““UQ has therefore published all data relating to the paper that is of any scientific value to the wider community,” he said.”
–
relating
–
scientific value
–
wider community
–
politics
00
thank you Seth , but you will see from my email above that I mentioned “Tortured Science” and I do believe that nowhere does it get tortured more than at that SKS web site. I have visited the site on many occasions when I need a good laugh or need to get advised of the current misinformation, I think Sou at Hotwhopper is a lot funnier and more reasonable with visitors but
Personally I prefer Stefan The Denier ,pure ,basic, science. You should take a look there, who knows , you may learn something :-
https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/
My regards to the warmista ballerinas doing the dying swan.
20
You’re welcome, Andy.
Nevertheless, that is where you can find all the papers and all the data used in the Cook et al paper that you are requesting of QUT.
While I appreciate that you might not want to check it out because of your aversion to the URL, the point is that the data is published and available. With some quite handy tools for comparing your own opinion to that of the authors of the Cook paper, and also the authors of the papers being classified, where that has been established.
04
Seth, individual volunteer ids and time-stamps for the ratings are not available. They can be de-identified and the data can be released.
20
The one research project I participated in the researcher gave individuals designations other than their names so the research could be looked at and anonymity maintained. There’s no reason why Cook could not do the same. There was also an agreement to sign before participating. Did Cook have any such item? It really doesn’t look like a “professional” or even “semi-pro” paper, rather a grade school attempt at research.
10
–
Seth:
‘ …the point is that the data is published and available…..’
–
Good. That’s more time that you’ve saved Ms Malloch!
00
I don’t know or see how it matters.
The two pronged approach is pretty compelling, but certainly it is investigating a consensus that everyone in the field knows is there.
But in terms of demonstrating the consensus, approaching the authors for their rating of the papers is the step that showed that the abstracts were being interpreted well. Something that was not there in the Oreskes and Doran/Zimmerman literature reviews.
Environmental Research Letters is low to mid impact. Respectable enough for this kind of paper, not really targeting the research community, but perhaps history or philosophy of science.
02
Has Seth gone the overly-verbose route to counter a sensible (and easy to follow) comment from Sherri with gibberish?
10
Seth: It matters because it’s proper research behaviour.
If everyone in the field “knows” there is a consensus, then you have just admitted a huge bias in the study. People doing the rating should have NO opinion on the subject or they will just verify their own bias. So Cook’s study was definitely biased.
Environmental Research Letters submission page says: Environmental Research Letters (ERL) is a high-impact, open-access research journal intended to be the meeting place of the research and policy communities concerned with environmental change and management.
It seems once again Seth does not read before typing……or just does not care what a journal calls itself.
20
Seth:
‘It’s available there whether I’m real and awake or not’
–
Yes, the sleeping (unavailable) data is a concern – good point!
00
Seth;
‘If I can save Ms Malloch some time….’
–
Prescient.
00
I have two degrees from UQ, in Engineering and Business Administration.
Oh, the shame!
30
LOL.. It looks like Seth is the SkS troll -on-duty tonight. 🙂
20
After Chester.. a real case of Dumb and Dumber !!
20
All we need is BA4, and we hit the trifecta.
10
I guess SkS have to try to get their visitor numbers up into double figures for the month somehow.
10
The Griss , I have read that article at WUWT. The problem is that any Gov,t agency is not going to even look at the refutation, since even though the Scientists who have penned it are more qualified than the Agency that did the original piece,they will be dismissed as nutcases with an agenda. The only hope is that the general public will start to laugh at these nutcases at which time politicians being dedicated followers of fashion, will start to laugh as well .
At that point in time, the sceptics win. A long way off yet I guess , but we are getting there slowly.
00
Looks like a few folk are way ahead of me on the laughter response agenda. I think this site takes the biscuit (if you are Australian, that means sucks the sav big time)
http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/shortage-of-frightening-new-euphemisms-latest-climate-crisis-t13985.html
10
love this one
http://polisat.com/Images/Hashtag-GlobalWarmingClimateChangeStrangeWeatherWhatever–Al-Gore-600×600.jpg
00
OOOOOOOOOOOOOPS, I think I just tortured my pros , but not in a jack the ripper kind of way!
00
Could the 97% results have been Cooked up?
Or have they been burnt by [il]legal practice?
10
Rating of this story is 9.6 out of10. Can you make it up to 9.7 pleasek
10
The average is only shown to one decimal place, so it could currently be anywhere from 9.55 to 9.649.
At 190 votes cast so far, this would need somewhere between 1 and 54 more people to rate it a 10/10 to get the average to round up to 9.7.
Getting the crowd to stop rating when it gets to 9.7 is a much more challenging proposition.
00
http://tpc.pc2.netdna-cdn.com/peoples_resource/image/thumb/30402-Nav_Lipstick_2.JPG
00
[…] why would a major university try to prohibit Brandon Shollenberger from publishing a letter? The university got into a kerfuffle with Shollenberger over claims that 97 […]
00
I have 2 degrees from said trash university. Co0mpared to a minor degree I got in South Africa Im afraid the UQ ones were peanuts. I would never recommend anyone to send their progeny to any Australian University currently. They used to be pretty good in the 60 and 70’s. Now they are 4th world level. Fortunstely I dont live there any more. Its a police state run by politically correct minorities.
20
Don’t forget that the climate kooks have been able to write the Univerity’s conclusions on reviews not undertaken. Perhaps this letter was ‘ghosted’ by Cook and signed by this bureaucrat as a matter of courtesy?
10
….by the way, that photo of Mr. Cook should be replaced with his homemade nazi-fied self portrait. It would be for more entertaining, not to mention more appropriate.
10
This issues seem very clear to me. Cook’s 97% consensus is bunk and The Univerity of Queensland knows it. Public release of this data would underline that fact even more than it already has been, possibly even exposing unethical conduct by the “researchers”.
30
Did you guys see this?
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/19/aussies-to-slash-90-of-global-warming-funding-from-budget/
10
These files must be hidden for your protection.
http://tpc.pc2.netdna-cdn.com/peoples_resource/image/22407-secrets1.jpg
10
Don’t publish the data/letter, just leave on a server unprotected – like they did.
10
[…] informative (and amusing) reports and analysis of the Shollenberger/Cook story have been posted by JoNova, Steve McIntyre at ClimateAudit, and Steven Hayward at […]
10