Phil Jones’ plan to hide from FOIA
Eric Worrall writes:
Anyone shocked by Mann’s broad claims of academic exemption from freedom of information, due to the “proprietary nature” of his work, should consider the following Climategate email.
Climategate Email 1106338806.txt says:
“I wouldn’t worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them. I’ll be passing any requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to deal with them. … I got a brochure on the FOI Act from UEA. Does this mean that, if someone asks for a computer program we have to give it out?? Can you check this for me (and Sarah)”
Full email here: http://eric.worrall.name/Climategate/FOIA/1106338806.txt
But, there’s hope from Mark Steyn, who writes: Don’t Start Deleting Those Emails Just Yet, Mikey!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I would expect Intellectual Property to apply better in a patent or manufacturing lawsuit than a lawsuit which covers data and analysis for a research project. After all, the first two result in a consumable product which can be sold. The later just results in hubris and cannon fodder.
If FOIA doesn’t apply to publicly funded research at universities, what does it apply to? Even government officials (like Lois Lerner and Eric Holder) are refusing to turn over non-personal emails sent as part of their official duties. What good is FOIA if it doesn’t apply to public officials who have something to hide?
nice. co2 is black box science. except black box isn’t science is it?
Well if intellectual property rights are more important than proving the validity of CAGW then it can’t be that bad after all.
Okay then, we need to start ratings, classifications, and pre-qualifications of university health science research centers according to which ones hide methodology and which ones maintain ethical standards of conduct. Start with UVA and Penn State for demotions.
I just don’t get it. We are being told that we need to enact public policy based on publicly funded research which is the intellectual property of the publicly-funded institute which conducted it and we cannot get independent verification of this research. Is that about it? Or am I missing something?
Under discovery, Mark Steyn’s lawyers have requested all Mann’s climate related info.
Someone should remind them that they are being paid by the public!
Why should they have any IPR!
We need changes in how taxpayer monies are handed out to scientists and universities. There should be an independent and objective process to determine if certain research is important enough to receive public funding. Whether something gets funded should not depend upon which party is in the majority. It certainly should not depend upon whether or not a scientist is a “progressive.”
Receiving public monies should be contingent upon full disclosure of data and methodology with only certain clearly defined exceptions.. If a researcher or university wants to hide data and methodology, they should use other than public funding. And they should know that such research cannot be used to further certain political agendas. Congress should not consider research, where data and methodology have not been fully released and verified, when formulating public policy.
So, to be clear: the general public can submit and receive information from the federal government on UFO’s, Marilyn Monroe, the JFK assassination, organized crime, etc., etc., from the FBI and CIA no less (which the courts uphold)…BUT… are not allowed information from tax supported VA University research of a problem that doesn’t exist but drains millions from the public coffers.
Who’da thunk that research into the irrelevant affects of a trace gas in the atmosphere, and the Mann who thought they could, would / could be elevated to a level above UFO’s and Marilyn Monroe!? Egad…it’s worse than we thought! Oh what a happy Mann he must be. sarc/off
Can you imagine a disaster movie in which the hero barges into the Mayor’s office insisting that the entire city be evacuated immediately, or everyone is going to die due to some impending calamity? Imagine the Mayor’s first question and the response from the hero (played by Michael Mann of course).
Mayor: How do you know?
“Hero”: …uhm, well, uhm, that’s proprietary.
Mayor; So you want me to evacuate 1 million people on your say so? What’s the difference between you and the guy with the sandwich board on the sidewalk claiming we have to repent or the end of the world will commence today?
“Hero”: Yeah, but I’m a scientist and my proprietary data is more important to me than the lives of 1 million people, so you’ll just have to trust me.
Here is what the shoe looks like on the other foot.
In this case, environmental groups seek the proprietary information of private companies and some state legislatures appear to be backing that up. http://blogs.orrick.com/trade-secrets-watch/2013/10/24/fracking-trade-secret-rules-a-tug-of-war-without-winners/
Norwegian here. Do I understand this right? Michael Mann, the scientist who warns us that global warming is real and dangerous based on a computer model, refuses to give out the computer code they used to raise the alarm worldwide? Wouldn’t a real scientist want other scientists to verify his findings?
Good thing they did not release the vote. I suspect that would have caused a bigger howl of outrage.
What does the research contract language say? Aren’t the people who pay for it entitled to take a look at the work product? And if we get to see the results of the research, then why would the work that went into it not also be available for review? How can you “vet” the results as valid if you cannot have access to the underlying data? If I am paying for it, I most certainly want to make sure that I am getting what I pay for. Does Intellectual property protect fraud? We desperately need a whistle blower.
And who “owns” the rights to the climate anyway, much less climate research. It’s like getting a patent on a natural process. Gaia owns it.
I say we stop letting the government take our money in taxes. We, who actually work, gained our money via intellectual processes. Ergo, our money is intellectual property and cannot be released.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/04/16/the-eastern-united-states-a-lonely-cold-pocket-on-a-feverish-planet/?tid=pm_pop
The Washington Post has gone full liar mode today to prove this last winter affected only a tiny corner of the NE US. While Montana and much of the upper Midwest states were ‘normal’ and NO COLD RECORDS at all, anywhere.
And that the entire planet warmed significantly this year!
Of course, if you erase all the cold, this happens. I was stunned to see my own home farm which froze this winter badly, listed as ‘slightly colder than usual’ which is an outright fabrication. Upstate NY looked like Antarctica and even yesterday, we had more snow and this week it is going below freezing every night which is totally abnormal.
If I ever thought I had an idea that might save humanity (haha), I would spread it far and wide.
What’s with all the secrecy ?
There is a very simple way to deal with this, although it flies in the face of the current establishment.
If a study is done but none of the raw data is provided, then the study (or whatever it purports to be) needs to be automatically discarded as meaningless garbage, nothing more than hearsay.
Mann on Twitter…
Michael E. Mann @MichaelEMann 1h
“VA Supreme Court Unanimously Supports Academic Freedom at the Univ. of Virginia” @MichaelUCS @UCSUSA: http://blog.ucsusa.org/virginia-supreme-court-unanimously-supports-academic-freedom-at-the-university-of-virginia-488 … #HSCW
Collapse
I think it would appropriate for the sources of the money spent on the research to have full access to that research, including the data and code used. If they prefer to call it proprietary and thus not required to give to those that paid forthe research, then I would suggest that those sources request a full refund of the moneysince, in effect, they received no value in exchange. I am willing to allow all of the alarmists their right to their proprietary information, just return the funds that were given them to create it. So who has the rights to sue them for breach of contract?
It’s almost like we are watching a really pathological person run a scam.
Funny, the left/progressive/Occupy types go off on incredibly oblique tangents about private companies patenting things they believe should belong to the people.
Here we have something that belongs to the people, yet now they’re saying that it belongs to a person/corporation, and they’re ok with that.
Michael@10;41.
Excellent point.