Global warming alarmists in full state of fascism

Spread the love

Loading

University of Queensland threatens lawsuit over use of Cook’s ’97% consensus’ data for a scientific rebuttal

My Hundredth Post Can’t Be Shown

Dear readers, I wanted to do something special for my hundredth post at this site. I picked out a great topic for discussion. I wrote a post with clever prose, jokes that’d make your stomach ache from laughter and even some insightful commentary. Unfortunately, I can’t post it because I’d get sued.

You see, I wanted to talk about the Cook et al data I recently came into possession of. I wanted to talk about the reaction by Cook et al to me having this data. I can’t though. The University of Queensland has threatened to sue me if I do.

I understand that may be difficult to believe. I’d like to provide you proof of what I say. I’m afraid I can’t do that either though. If I do, the University of Queensland will sue me. As they explained in their letter threatening me:

That’s right. The University of Queensland sent me a threatening letter which threatens me further if I show anyone that letter.

Confusing, no? It gets stranger. Along with its threats, the University of Queensland included demands. The first of these is:

Absolutely read it all

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

8 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The situation you are in, Dr John, is painfully familiar. I am reminded of Solzhenitsyn, and The Gulag Archipelago.
As I remember, one got sent to the Gulag for violating the Russian Constitution. Unfortunately the Constitution was classified, so one could not know what it required, nor could one find out what one had done wrong.
Solzhenitsyn had remarked in a letter that Stalin had a big nose. This fact (easily verified by observing a photograph) was deemed a State Secret, and so off Alex went to the Gulag.
Your crime, John, is relying on facts. Facts have no role to play in the Anthropogenic Global Warming debate. The debate is restricted to feelings, and feelings have to be as specified by PC to be acceptable. The full force of law will descend upon you if you challenge the false dominant paradigm with facts. Houses built with cards are notoriously unstable!
You might as well write whatever you want, because you will be sued anyway. See Mark Steyn for details.

The average person who says they care about climate change actually has a substantially worse than average footprint. Generally that’s because they tend to have a bit more money, and they tend to be people who like to think of themselves as multicultural and like to get out and see the world. Which means that they’re flying around a lot, and all that flying generally outweighs any other green lifestyle choices that they’ve made. You have a lot of people who are using reusable bags and water bottles, driving a Prius, maybe eating a bit more of a veggie friendly diet. But then they’re flying to Bali or South Africa or something once a year. They end up having a larger carbon footprint than a conservative guy who drives an SUV in the suburbs of Atlanta but doesn’t fly anywhere.

http://grist.org/people/the-new-app-that-tracks-your-carbon-footprint-and-lords-it-over-your-friends/

Hilarious!

Although the researcher at the heart of this threat is Brandon Schollenberger his comment as well as other comment appears at WattsUpWithThat blog.
The main blogger at WUWT had a similar problem a few years ago before the hacking of all the data happened.
He wanted as much raw data as possible from various national weather stations.
He was refused.
So he appealed to his readers from all these countries.
They individually asked their own countries for raw data and most of those requests were honored.
He got much raw data this way.
It was a ”lateral thinking” way around the problem.
It looks like DISCOVERY is the lateral thinking way around THIS problem.
IF QueenslandU sues, as they are threatening to do, the discovery phase will KILL the University and back up their intended target.*
There may be other ways.
I bet this info comes out.

*See the CAIR vs anti-CAIR lawsuit that died after CAIR realized their threat led to discovery.

Since when can someone claim copyright on a letter sent to an individual? Maybe I should claim copyright on my fingerprints and likeness then forbid police and security cameras from reproducing them without my permission. 😉

@Jim S:

Since when can someone claim copyright on a letter sent to an individual?

So long as you have the named recipient’s permission, I don’t see how they can sue. It’s probably a desperate bluff.

Additionally, there is an update that Cook’s “97% consensus paper” was published one year ago under a Creative Commons License which states that so long as proper attribution of the author and publication is provided, the someone referencing the publication may:

You are free to:

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
for any purpose, even commercially.

The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

Under the following terms:

Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Notices:

You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation.

No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.

3. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below:

(a) to Reproduce the Work, to incorporate the Work into one or more Collections, and to Reproduce the Work as incorporated in the Collections;
(b) to create and Reproduce Adaptations provided that any such Adaptation, including any translation in any medium, takes reasonable steps to clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original Work. For example, a translation could be marked “The original work was translated from English to Spanish,” or a modification could indicate “The original work has been modified.”;
(c) to Distribute and Publicly Perform the Work including as incorporated in Collections; and,
(d) to Distribute and Publicly Perform Adaptations.

(e) For the avoidance of doubt:
Non-waivable Compulsory License Schemes. In those jurisdictions in which the right to collect royalties through any statutory or compulsory licensing scheme cannot be waived, the Licensor reserves the exclusive right to collect such royalties for any exercise by You of the rights granted under this License;
Waivable Compulsory License Schemes. In those jurisdictions in which the right to collect royalties through any statutory or compulsory licensing scheme can be waived, the Licensor waives the exclusive right to collect such royalties for any exercise by You of the rights granted under this License; and,
Voluntary License Schemes. The Licensor waives the right to collect royalties, whether individually or, in the event that the Licensor is a member of a collecting society that administers voluntary licensing schemes, via that society, from any exercise by You of the rights granted under this License.

The above rights may be exercised in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter devised. The above rights include the right to make such modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the rights in other media and formats. Subject to Section 8(f), all rights not expressly granted by Licensor are hereby reserved.

It seems to me from reading the copyright, that Cook doesn’t have a valid lawsuit for the use of data from his work, so long as he and the publisher are given proper credit. Oddly, this Public Use copyright is for an “artistic work” rather than the scientific report Cook published it to be considered as. He can still sue of course as anyone can file a frivolous lawsuit, but IMO the court would not find in his favor as his work was published and released into the public as a scientific paper (not as a “work of art”). It is generally accepted in scientific published reports under fair use that they may be examined, referenced and reported on by other without violating copyright, so long as the author and publication is properly referenced. At any rate, since the work is based on a collections of public domain data, said data and it’s referencing can not be considered copyright protected by the author. If the author wishes to insist that the document is a “work of art” than it that would invalidate it’s consideration as a scientific report.

@Kraken: Take a look at any of the climate summits; these idiots aren’t bicycling to the big fear-fest.

@Ditto: “If the author wishes to insist that the document is a “work of art” than it that would invalidate it’s consideration as a scientific report.” How else can works of fiction be classified?

I see that Bengston is being attacked as a warming traitor.
An Islamofacist leader in Nigeria has blamed the school girl kidnappings on global worming. (Steynonline)
The Bamster Administration( always on the wrong side of an issue ) threatened sanctions on Nigeria, when their government was going to place a police action on the Boco locos.
The latest from Moochelle- # Where’s the real Birth Certificate? Butt, that can’t be!

@Bill Burris:

Precisely, and it’s laughable to attempt to argue science using fictional works of art.