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
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.
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:
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:
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.