Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
I am by no means a copyright expert, but I believe this is not true. In Canada, government works are covered by Crown Copyright. They are not public domain. In the US, works created by government officials as part of their normal duties are in the public domain. Works created by contractors are not automatically so. So even if the American government is funding any part of this, it is not necessarily public domain.
How FOIA and equivalents are affected is beyond my knowledge.
FWIW, the Daily Telegraph in the UK discusses the lack of mainstream media coverage of this: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...odern-science/ |
Alright, I can admit when I've made an incorrect statement, and you appear to be right. It's complicated given the international nature of this situation.
It doesn't really change how I feel about it, though. Even though they may not have been legally bound to release the data, if they want to convince me that it was thoroughly peer reviewed, they would have done so. It seems to me that when the AGW side says something was peer reviewed, they mean that it was reviewed by people who already agree. I realize this is opinion, and not fact.