Monthly Archives: January 2010


It now turns out that last week’s statement by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) that key climate conman, Professor Phil Jones, could not be prosecuted was wrong. Sterling journalism from the UK’s ‘Telegraph’ is now assisting our campaign to bust the climate crimes being hidden by implausible cock ups in the investigations into the Climategate scandal. Christopher Booker takes up the baton raised by my article that this farce is spiralling out of control and is not being intelligently reported. It appears the ICO ‘misread’ the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Now was that done accidentally or deliberately?

As I reported on Friday, as a consequence of the outrageous statement by the ICO that Jones was ‘guilty’ but the prosecutorial time limit had expired makes a mockery of the whole judicial process.
The ICO’s statement seriously prejudices the outcome of any criminal charges brought against Jones, chief climatologist at the UK’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), for offences as per the FOIA.

The ‘Telegraph’s’ Booker reports:

“The Commission is thus impaled on a hook of its own devising. By admitting that serious offences were committed, it is now legally obliged to bring charges. And if these were brought under the 1977 Criminal Law Act, alleging that the offences amounted to a conspiracy to defy the law, there is no time limit anyway.”

Furthermore, in a statement, Professor Edward Acton, vice-chancellor of UEA commented:

“The ICO’s opinion that we had breached the terms of Section 77 is a source of grave concern to the university as we would always seek to comply with the terms of the Act.”

But not so fast! In effect, the ICO have labelled Jones ‘guilty’ of the offence so that it is now highly improbable that any court may lawfully convict him on tainted FOIA charges anyway as Jones’s lawyers will argue that the authorities have abused their man’s human rights because every defendant is ‘guilty till proven innocent.’ But in the light of other facts, as outlined below, I fear that fudging this case was the intention all along. But either way, ICO Commissioner, Christopher Graham’s head must roll.

As we reported on, this bungle was no more than a technicality because a case for fraud against Jones may be brought using other sections of the criminal law. For example, under the Fraud Act (2006) ‘Section 3: Fraud by failing to disclose information’ it is an offence to commit fraud by:

“ failing to disclose information to another person where there is a legal duty to disclose the information.“

However, today I can reveal the plot thickens because I can reveal there is further evidence suggesting wilful nonfeasance or malfeasance by government officials. Graham Smith, Deputy Commissioner, said in an emailed press release:

“Norfolk Police are investigating how private emails have become public.”

No mention of climate data fraud there. In fact we may infer that there is no police investigations into the alleged climate date fraud of Professor Jones because such cases involving international fraud involving sums greater than £1 million Pounds (US $1.6m) are required to be investigated by Britain’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

The SFO was established in 1988 after the Roskill Report recommended that this specialist duty be taken away from normal police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service. The report came in the wake of several failed prosecutions, as we have now seen perpetrated by the ICO. The Attorney-General’s office has been in direct charge of the SFO since the enactment of the Criminal Justice Act (1987).

So if the SFO is not on climate professor, Phil Jones’s case then who is?

What is even more galling, in light of the above facts, is that the criminal investigation into the leaked CRU emails is not actually being carried out by Norfolk Police but by the National Domestic Extremism Team (NDET), a non-accountable secret police group under the sway of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), a private company run by British chief police officers who happen to have considerable pension fund investments in carbon credits!
Anyone else see a conflict of interest here?

Based on the facts as known, the British Government may thus be accused of either deliberately or negligently conducting the investigation into the Climategate Scandal. As regular followers of this story will know, the Climategate controversy first hit the headlines when 1,000+ emails were uploaded to a Russian Internet server on November 19, 2009 causing a sensation among scientific bloggers and climate skeptics. The mainstream media has persisted in claiming the emails were ‘hacked’ despite the proof that the emails had all personal contact details carefully redacted, were contained within a directory marked, ‘FOIA’ ( Freedom of Information) and were thus more plausibly leaked by a concerned whistleblower.

In the wake of the furore over Climategate the floodgates have opened with a succession of further climate calamities to embarrass advocates of pro-green global warming science. These latest news stories are slowly finding their way into a reticent mainstream media who are now grudingly starting to report climate data fraud in fresh scandals such as Glaciergate, Amazongate and Pachaurigate. Although, these too, are only fully exposed on the World Wide Web.

It is no coincidence that after ICO announced there would be no criminal charges against Jones, an exuberant Prince Charles paid a special visit to the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit to publicly praise Jones and his discredited ‘hockey team’ for all their good work in ‘hiding the decline’ in global temperatures.
His Royal Wretchedness said,

“Well done all of you. Many, many congratulations on your work. I wish you great success in the future. Don’t get downhearted by these little blips here and there!”
See him on video here:
Just think about that for one moment – the future king of England endorsing crime! This blatant show of eco-fascist hubris is to be condemned as another nail in the credibility coffin of the prince who talks to plants.

As a supplement to my legal analysis for the prosecution against disgraced Professor Phil Jones and based on the thorough scientific analysis of over 1,000+ leaked emails made by acclaimed Australian physicist, Dr. John Costella, I have made a further second analysis ably aided by my growing team of legal associates. We have been able to substantiate further the case against the prevaricating professor from the University of Unthruths.

Dr. Costella adds further commentary to one email that I consciously avoided including, for legal reasons, in my previous article on the prosecution evidence against Professor Jones. This is the now famous ‘trick’ that Jones used to ‘hide the decline’ and which John Costella addresses thus:

“Phil Jones to Ray Bradley, Mike Mann, Malcolm Hughes, Keith Briffa, and Tim Osborn, regarding a diagram for a World Meteorological Organization Statement:

Jones: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. “ [November 16, 1999: email 0942777075]

I defer to the expert commentary of acclaimed Australian physicist, Dr. J. Costella:

“Those thirty-three words summarize the hoax so magnificently succinctly that the Nobel Committee should consider retrieving their Peace Prize from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore, and re-issuing it as a Literature Prize to Phil Jones.

This email was sent less than two months after the one analyzed above [not cited]. Clearly, Mike Mann’s problems with Keith Briffa’s data—that it didn’t agree with the real temperature measurements from 1961 onwards—had by this time spread to the data for the other “temperature proxies”, albeit only from 1981 onwards. Jones reveals that Mann did not address this problem by making honest note of it in the paper that he and his co-authors published in Nature, but rather by fraudulently substituting the real temperature data into the graphs, for the past twenty or forty years as required.

That Mann did so would, in and of itself, disqualify him and all of his research from any future consideration in the annals of science; but here we have the other leader of the field, Phil Jones, bragging that he admired the “trick” so much that he adopted it himself. Moreover, his email was sent to the major players who dominated this field. It is the silence of these conspirators over the intervening decade that has forever damned the field of “climate science” to a state of irreversible ignominy.”

Costella speaks authoritatively as a scientist. He is not an attorney nor does he have legal training, but we get the drift of his meaning in the context of scientific ethics.

As you will note the email of the ‘trick’ about ‘hiding the decline’ is dated November 16, 1999. This is ordinarily outside the time limit for a prosecution. But a nimble-minded prosecutor would argue that, as Jones sought to conceal such evidence by lies and deceit such pernicious conscious intent keeps such evidence ‘alive’ so that, despite being over a decade old, it is still admissible under the rules of ‘compounded offences.’

In addition, I have been reliably informed that on the basis of the above email Jones may, supplementary to other Fraud Act offences, be liable here for conspiracy to corrupt, contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join the plot later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted or cannot be traced.

The gives us some extra latitude by permitting that if the victim (taxpayer) has suffered of any financial or other prejudice there of, there is no need to establish that the defendant deceived him or her. Moreover, we may treat Professor Jones’s emails as full confessions under the law. UK’s eminent Lord of Appeal, Lord Steyn, in R v Hayter [2005] UKHL 6 (3 February 2005) at paragraph 25 stated,

“ a confession may be admitted not only as evidence against its maker but also as evidence against a co-accused implicated thereby.”

So that Jones’s admission about Michael Mann’s ‘trick’ to ‘hide the decline’ implicates those other climatologists who received the aforementioned email i.e. Ray Bradley, Mike Mann, Malcolm Hughes, Keith Briffa, and Tim Osborn.

As an illustration, the case against Phil Jones and others under the Fraud Act (2006) is evinced by “ Fraud by false representation (Section 2)” that summarises what a prosecutor would be seeking to prove. To attain a guilty verdict against the Defendant the following five elements must be fulfilled so that Professor Jones:

(1.) made
(2.) a false representation
(3.) dishonestly
(4.) knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading
(5.) with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.

Here is our graph to show an example of the ‘gain’ made by Jones and his university chums by their dishonest practice –

Note the cool £6.6 million in 2002 followed by a lush £2.7million in 2006. So science crime DOES pay – and all with a special thank you from chuckling Charlie!

Since we broke this story last we my legal colleagues and I have yet to hear or read of ANY defence, let alone a plausible one, to my proposed prosecution argument. We believe it is now essential that the SFO now takes over this investigation. It is contrary to the principles of Labour’s much-hyped ‘transparency’ in freedom of information that a select police group is inappropriately operating outside its remit whilst the best of British fraud specialists are stood idly by.

If the authorities continue to bungle and blather then I fear the only conclusion that may reasonably be drawn is that the British Government is engaged in a cover up; a shabby grand conspiracy to evade political embarassment rather than to honourably uphold their elected duty – namely, to best serve the interests of taxpayers.

Until recently I was enjoying correspondence (via my MP) with the Climate Minister, Joan Ruddock in which I urged her to apply due diligence.
Strangely the Minister hasn’t replied to me lately. But my global warming skeptic friends and I are undeterred by such subterfuge, dithering and blind panic. We are steadfastly resolved to bust the greatest science scam of all time.

Gordon Brown’s largesse with our taxes has brought this country to near bankruptcy . For example, he has wastefully donated at least £1.5 billion to a foreign fund to combat the effects of an arguable disaster caused by arguable climate change.

More bad news for eco-fascism is coming, methinks.Watch this space!

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized


Yesterday the London Times broke the news that disgraced British climatologist Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia (UEA) breached the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) according to the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). But despite the ICO deciding that the UEA failed in its duties under the Act, they said that Jones could not be prosecuted because the complaint was made too late.

However, I’ve done my own digging with the able expert assistance of my British legal eagles and over at I exclusively reveal that Jones is still liable as lead conspirator in the UK’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and may face prosecution under the United Kingdom Fraud Act (2006). If convicted he stands liable to a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment.

In this article I shall show that the fuss over the FOIA infringement, although in itself succeeding in achieving no conviction, does demonstrate that the ICO have acted improperly and may have prejudiced the outcome of any prosecution Jones may face for far more serious offences for false representation (section 2) and failing to disclose information (section 3) under the Fraud Act (2006).

I strongly urge interested readers to study the article shown here and written by Norman Baird, for a fuller explanation of the scope of the Fraud Act (2006) and the implications in the Professor Jones scandal.

From a full examination of excerpts from leaked CRU emails cited below, it is readily demonstrable that the police and Crown Prosecution Service currently possess sufficient evidence to charge Phil Jones under both sections 2 & 3 of the Fraud Act (2006). I shall cite liberally from Jones’s own emails admissions in conjunction with the much-acclaimed analysis of all the leaked UEA emails by Australian physicist, John Costella. Dr. Costella’s excellent study is no available from the non-profit Science & Public Policy Institute (

Although the new offence of fraud may be committed in three ways, we shall only need to apply two in finding reasonable grounds to bring a prosecution in this case. All three forms of the offence require proof of dishonesty and an intention (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. ‘Gain’ and ‘loss’ are limited to gains or losses in terms of money or other property.

The forms of fraud directly relating to Phil Jones are:

Fraud by false representation (section 2)

A fraudulent representation is an assertion which is untrue or misleading and which the person making it knows is, or might be, untrue or misleading. ( s2(2) ).Subsection (4) provides that a representation may be express or implied. There are no restrictions or limitations in the way in which a representation is communicated. It may be written or spoken and may be transmitted by email or by way of website.

Fraud by failing to disclose information (section 3)

This form of the offence applies where a person dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information that he is under a legal duty to disclose. The ICO admit Jones is guilty of failing to disclose climate data. The question whether a legal duty exists is a matter of the general law. A legal duty may arise by virtue of a fiduciary relationship between the parties (fiduciary duty is a legal or ethical relationship of confidence or trust between two or more parties).

I have used my own judgement to asses which of Jones’s emails are the most damning. Bear in mind that a defendant incriminates himself by any admission he may make.

On January 16, 2004 in leaked CRU email 1074277559 Jones frantically urges Penn State. University climatologist, Michael Mann, to delete data:

“Subject: Climatic Change needs your advice—YOUR EYES ONLY !!!!!
This is for YOUR EYES ONLY. Delete after reading—please! I’m trying to redress the balance. One reply from Christian Pfister said you should make all available!! Pot calling the kettle black—Christian doesn’t make his methods available. … I told Steve separately, and told him to get more advice from a few others, as well as Kluwer (publishers), and the legal department.
PLEASE DELETE—just for you, not even for Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes.”

Dr. John Costella’s commentary on the above is, “Jones’s blind panic—in private to Mann—speaks volumes. He is so scared of the ramifications that he even asks that Mann destroy the email immediately. Are these the actions of scientists with nothing to hide?”

In the leaked emails of February 4, 2004: email 1076083097 we read that a large number of climate con collaborators are discussing ways to avoid providing independent Canadian climate analyst, Steve McIntyre, with enough of the computer programs to actually check their results. Linda Mearns, Senior Scientist at the Institute for the Study of Society and Environment at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, writes:

“My point about the computer programs is still that “providing the programs” can be interpreted a lot of ways. I have thought about this, and imagined if in one of my larger and more complex projects, I was asked to provide all the programs. I could do that just by sending the pieces with a summary file explaining what each piece was used for. It still theoretically allows someone to see how the programming was done. And I do think that is a far sight easier than providing stuff that can be run, etc. I am suggesting that one could do the minimum. Then the point is, one isn’t faced with garish headlines about “refusal to provide programs”. I think it is harder to come up with a garish headline about “refusal to provide completely documented programs with appropriate instructions files and hand-holding for running it”.

According to Dr. John Costella’s expert analysis of the above statement Mearns’ argument is effectively this – if we are forced to provide the computer programs, then let’s break them up into the smallest possible pieces, so that McIntyre can see roughly what we have done, but would have an almost impossible task putting the pieces back together again so that it could be used—sort of a “Humpty Dumpty.

Phil Jones realizes that this won’t fool many: if they had done the science properly, then the computer programs and supporting documentation would be readily available for anyone to use, without any further work: version of transparency and full disclosure.

Jones then replies:

“So now it seems that we’re separating “providing the programs” from “running the programs”. I can’t see the purpose of one without the other. Even if Mike Mann complies, I suspect there will need to be several sessions of interaction to explain how to run the programs, which neither side will be very keen on.

Jones is savvy enough to understand that providing un-runnable programs will lead to an immediate request or demand for assistance in actually getting them to run.

Jones then admits that, even with possession of the programs and the data, a lot of “fiddling” is needed to get to their claimed results:

“As I said before, I know that running the programs will involve lots of combinations (for different time periods with different temperature proxies).“

Jones further realizes that validating their programs would require validating their mathematical “number-crunching” programs—often shared between different programs, and hence called “library routines”:

“Also I would expect, knowing the nature of the mathematical approach that we use, that there will be library routines. We don’t want McIntyre (and McKitrick) to come out and say that he can’t get it to work after a few days.”

Jones continues:

“So, it is far from simple. I’m still against the computer programs being given out. Mike has made the data available. That is all they should need. The method of calculations is detailed in the original paper … and also in several other papers Mike has written. In other words, the skeptics have a description of what was done which should be enough.“

Then this bombshell:

“As an aside, Mike Mann is now using a different method from the paper of Mann, Bradley, and Hughes of 1998.”

So even if McIntyre and colleagues follow the method described in the 1998 paper, they still won’t obtain agreement with what Mann is now doing! Could there be any clearer argument for providing the exact computer programs and methodology used for each and every published paper? Jones apparently can’t fathom the ridiculousness of his own words.

He continues:
“It might appear that they want the programs to check whether their version works properly. If this is the case, then there are issues of Intellectual Property Rights. So, if they get the programs, how do we stop them using it for anything other than this review?”

God forbid that any other scientists should be given assistance in researching this issue of critical importance to humanity! Jones’s treatment of their data and research as “private property”, for them to exploit and profit from—to the exclusion of all other scientists—is obnoxious and unlawful, particularly as it is paid for by taxpayers and subject to full FOI disclosure!

Phil Jones replies to an email from another climatologist, Van Ommen, on February 9, 2004: email 1076336623 copying in Mike Mann:

“Thanks for the email. Steve McIntyre hasn’t contacted me directly about the Antarctic data (yet), nor about any of the data used in the 1998 Holocene paper or the 2003 Geophysical Research Letters one with Mike. I suspect (hope) that he won’t. I had some emails with him a few years ago when he wanted to get all the station temperature data we use here in Climatic Research Unit. At that time, I hid behind the fact that some of the data had been received from individuals and not directly from Met(eorological) Services through the Global Tele-communications Service (GTS) or through the Global Climate Observing System.“

We here start to learn about the tricks that Jones and colleagues have used to thwart attempts to get access to the dodgy data that their published claims are based on. In this case, Jones is trying to argue that data provided by individuals does not need to be provided for independent scrutiny—another intent to conceal fraud.

Jones continues:

“Emails have also been sent to some other paleoclimatology people asking for data sets used in 1998 or 2003. Keith Briffa here got a request, for example. Here, they have also been in contact with some of Keith’s Russian contacts. All seem to relate to trying to get data that we’ve used. In the Russian case, issues relate to the Russian (Rashit Hantemirov) having a paper out with the same data that Keith used ….The data are different for two reasons. One reason is that Keith used (a mathematical method on the data); and, secondly, Rashit has added some data since Keith got the data a couple of years ago. “

Jones is here giving yet more reasons why the original data should be made available. So what will he do?

“I’ll just sit tight here and do nothing. Mike will likely do the same, but we’ll expect another publication in the nearish future.“

This is clearly the guilty mind legal component, or ‘mens rea’ – intent to cover the fraud by ‘sitting tight’ – refusing to comply with FOI disclosure – and implies Jones conspired to do so with Michael Mann.

So not only will they ignore all requests for the data—and hide behind dubious loopholes to do so—but they are moreover planning to continue publishing papers based on all this “private” [fraudulent] data, adjusted by their own private mathematical methods!

On January 21, 2005 Jones corresponds again in email 1106338806

Phil Jones is confident that it won’t be a problem in continuing to decline FOI requests:

“On the Freedom Of Information Act, there is a little leaflet we have all been sent. It doesn’t really clarify what we might have to do regarding programs or data. Like all things in Britain, we will only find out when the first person or organization asks. I wouldn’t tell anybody about the Freedom Of Information Act in Britain. I don’t think the University of East Anglia really knows what’s involved.”

However, he also starts the process of finding loopholes in the legislation with fellow climate scientist conspirator, Tom Wigley:

“As you’re no longer an employee, I would use this argument if anything comes along.”

Tom Wigley replies:

“Thanks for the quick reply. The leaflet appeared so general, but it was prepared by the University of East Anglia so they may have simplified things. From their wording, computer programs would be covered by the Freedom Of Information Act. My concern was if Sarah is/was still employed by the University of East Anglia. I guess she could claim that she had only written one tenth of the programs, and therefore only release every tenth line of the programs. “

Another interesting attempt to conspire to fraudulently wrangle a loophole, albeit unlikely to succeed. Phil Jones replies, refining the loophole even further:

“As for the Freedom Of Information Act, Sarah isn’t technically employed by the University of East Anglia and she will likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University.
Not that she wouldn’t be covered by the Act: merely that she would be paid by a different University! “

Jones continues:

“I wouldn’t worry about the computer programs. If the Freedom Of Information Act does ever get used by anyone, there is also Intellectual Property Rights 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 the University of East Anglia who has been given a post to deal with them.”

On February 2, 2005 in email 1107454306 Phil Jones writes to Mike Mann:

“Just sent loads of … data to Scott Rutherford. Make sure he documents everything better this time!
So it isn’t until 2005 that they decide it is time to document what they are doing? And don’t leave stuff lying around on anonymous download sites—you never know who is trawling them. McIntyre and McKitrick have been after the Climatic Research Unit … data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the United Kingdom, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.”

Bingo! Proof of intention (mens rea)

to commit a criminal destruction of evidence- all we need now is proof of the destruction/loss of data the (actus reus)

to have the two requisite components of a crime ( the guilty state of mind and the actual commission of the crime).

Jones then discusses ( conspires) to find other way to unlawfully subvert the FOI law.

“We also have a Data Protection Act, which I will hide behind.”

Again, ‘hide behind’ reveals intent to conceal the original fraud of falsification of climate data.

“Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it—he thought people could ask him for his computer programs. He has retired officially from the University of East Anglia so he can hide behind that….Intellectual Property Rights should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at the University of East Anglia who’ll say we must adhere to the Freedom of Information Act! “

Again, proof Jones will ‘argue’ against compliance betraying his guilty frame of mind, in seeking to pervert the law – further deepening his admissions to commit a crime.

On February 21, 2005 in email 1109021312 Phil Jones writes to colleagues, Mike Mann, Ray Badley, and Malcolm Hughes, regarding news reports that Mann will be forced to release his data:

“The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! …
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! ….PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the Climatic Research Unit … temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the United Kingdom has a Freedom of Information Act!”

Again, we have Jones admitting to coercion of others to join him in and conspire to conceal the legal duty he has as CRU leader and hide his climate data fraud.

On July 5, 2005 Jones makes further damning admissions in email 1120593115
Phil Jones sends an article and a blog entry to climate scientist John Christy:

“This quote is from an Australian at the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre, Melbourne (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK, it has, but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant. “

Again, Jones’s ability to concisely summarize the key facets of this climate temperature fraud is remarkable. While Jones is admitting to the truth in private, he has CRU making public statements that are knowingly fraudulent under the terms of the Fraud Act. Could you imagine how intimidated the more junior scientists would be?

On August 4, 2005 (email 1123163394 ) Jones now makes a remarkable comment, about something that is elementary to even high-school science experiments:

“There is an issue coming up in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Every graph needs uncertainty bars, and having them is all that matters. It seems irrelevant whether they are right or how they are used.“

In other words, he is only concerned that they give the appearance of estimating the uncertainties in their predictions, rather than actually getting those (subtle and difficult) vital calculations right – an obvious deceitful act and thus a further offence under the UK Fraud Act – fraud by false representation (Section 2)

January 5, 2007: email 1168022320
Phil Jones to many:
“I’ve added a few extra names in the cc of this email list to see if we can definitively determine where Figure 7.1c from the 1990 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report comes from. The background is that the skeptics keep referring back to it and I’d like to prove that it is a schematic and it isn’t based on real data, but on presumed knowledge at some point around the late 1980s.”

Wonderful! Fake graphs presented in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report—but only disclose that once the skeptics take note of it? More fraud by false representation (see: Fraud Act, Section 2)

The UK Crown Prosecution Service may fairly construe in their case that Professor Jones et al. continued in their concealment ( the act of the offence) throughout the course of those FOI applications. Thus, this constitutes an offence of continuous unlawful conduct that would, in turn constitute what is known in English criminal law as a “compound allegation.”

The continuing act will continue for as long as the defendant sets about the business of committing or covering up the crime. Jones was covering up his criminal acts right up to November 19, 2009. His concealing of his crimes until that date keeps all such offences ‘live’ because the act of covering up the crime is, itself, a crime.

The Fraud Act (2006) tells us we must ask the following questions to ascertain the measure of the defendant’s guilt:

“whether a defendant’s behaviour would be regarded as dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. If answered positively, the second question is whether the defendant was aware that his conduct was dishonest and would be regarded as dishonest by reasonable and honest people.”

Subsection (1)(b) requires that the person must make the representation with the intention of making a gain or causing loss or risk of loss to another. The gain or loss does not actually have to take place. The same requirement applies to conduct criminalised by sections 3 and 4.

Subsection (2) defines the meaning of “false” in this context and subsection (3) defines the meaning of “representation”. A representation is defined as false if it is untrue or misleading and the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

Subsection (4) provides that a representation may be express or implied. It can be stated in words or communicated by conduct. There is no limitation on the way in which the representation must be expressed. So it could be written or spoken or posted on a website.

Under Section 3: Fraud by failing to disclose information

Section 3 makes it an offence to commit fraud by failing to disclose information to another person where there is a legal duty to disclose the information. A legal duty to disclose information may include duties under oral contracts as well as written contracts. The concept of “legal duty” is explained in the Law Commission’s Report on Fraud, which said at paragraphs 7.28 and 7.29:

“7.28 ..Such a duty may derive from statute [ e.g. obligation to release data as per a Freedom of Information (FOI) request]”

Section 7: Making or supplying articles for use in frauds

Section 7 makes it an offence to make, adapt, supply or offer to supply any article knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud, or intending it to be used to commit or facilitate fraud. [e.g. a computer model designed to falsely represent warming global temperatures]. Subsection (2) provides that the maximum custodial sentence for this offence is 10 years.

Section 8: “Article”

Section 8 extends the meaning of “article” for the purposes of sections 6 and 7 and certain other connected provisions so as to include any program or data held in electronic form.

For a full and detailed explanation of every facet of the Fraud Act( 2006) visit the Crown Prosecution website

In conclusion we may determine that Professor Jones’s conduct may be found, by a Crown prosecutor to be sufficient to obtain a conviction against him for obtaining services dishonestly (government climate research grant funds) and of possessing, making and supplying articles for use in frauds (climate data, graphs, computer models).

The Public Interest
The Fraud Act creates serious offences of dishonesty and the statute of limitations is six years. Unless the factors against prosecution outweigh those in favour a prosecution will normally take place. The offence is triable either way and carries maximum 10-year sentence or a fine (or both) on indictment.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized


Respected skeptic climate blogger, Donna Laframboise points a very critical finger at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for dispensing with the peer-reviewed science and relying heavily on information it gets from the the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). The WWF is an international non-governmental organization working on issues regarding the conservation, research and restoration of the environment, formerly named the World Wildlife Fund.

Donna Laframboise, while acknowledging the important work this charity does to raise awareness of environmental issues, attacks the IPCC, a supposedly scientific gathering body of facts, for taking a large chunk of its ‘evidence’ for global warming from this charity pressure group. Laframboise lambastes the fast-crumbling IPCC for knowing better than to dispense with the peer-reviewed literature and relying instead on political spin from a pressure group.

Laframboise has uncovered something quite startling by digging around on the IPCC’s official website. In the ‘search’ section on their page Laframboise decided to investigate how much influence the WWF has with the world’s leading group of climate investigators. She reveals, “When one types “WWF” into an AR4 search box dozens of references are returned.”

Yes, that’s right, a campaigning environmentalist group has contributed dozens of references to what most people assume to be a scientific body that supposedly bases their conclusions on the world’s best peer-reviewed climate science.

These embarrassing revelations once again will deeply wound an already embattled organisation that is staggering from crisis to crisis almost on a weekly basis. All this comes hot on the heels of the admission by a scientist on the 2007 IPCC Panel that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”
Lies, deceit and exaggeration are fast becoming the bywords to describe how the IPCC does its business. By our count there appears to be at least 16 documents created or co-authored by the WWF and used in the Nobel-winning IPCC Fourth Report of 2007. As is becoming the norm in this climate calamity, such revelations may be just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

The 16 WWF sources cited by the IPCC as ‘evidence’ to prove the now discredited theory of man made global warming are as follows:

Allianz and World Wildlife Fund, 2006: Climate change and the financial sector: an agenda for action, 59 pp. [Accessed 03.05.07: filelibrary/pdf/allianz_rep_0605.pdf]
Austin, G., A. Williams, G. Morris, R. Spalding-Feche, and R. Worthington, 2003: Employment potential of renewable energy in South Africa. Earthlife Africa, Johannesburg and World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Denmark, November, 104 pp.
Baker, T., 2005: Vulnerability Assessment of the North-East Atlantic Shelf Marine Ecoregion to Climate Change, Workshop Project Report, WWF, Godalming, Surrey, 79 pp.
Coleman, T., O. Hoegh-Guldberg, D. Karoly, I. Lowe, T. McMichael, C.D. Mitchell, G.I. Pearman, P. Scaife and J. Reynolds, 2004: Climate Change: Solutions for Australia. Australian Climate Group, 35 pp. publications/acg_solutions.pdf
Dlugolecki, A. and S. Lafeld, 2005: Climate change – agenda for action: the financial sector’s perspective. Allianz Group and WWF, Munich [may be the same document as “Allianz” above, except that one is dated 2006 and the other 2005]
Fritsche, U.R., K. Hünecke, A. Hermann, F. Schulze, and K. Wiegmann, 2006: Sustainability standards for bioenergy. Öko-Institut e.V., Darmstadt, WWF Germany, Frankfurt am Main, November
Giannakopoulos, C., M. Bindi, M. Moriondo, P. LeSager and T. Tin, 2005: Climate Change Impacts in the Mediterranean Resulting from a 2oC Global Temperature Rise. WWF report, Gland Switzerland. Accessed 01.10.2006 at
Hansen, L.J., J.L. Biringer and J.R. Hoffmann, 2003: Buying Time: A User’s Manual for Building Resistance and Resilience to Climate Change in Natural Systems. WWF Climate Change Program, Berlin, 246 pp. index.cfm
Lechtenbohmer, S., V. Grimm, D. Mitze, S. Thomas, M. Wissner, 2005: Target 2020: Policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. WWF European Policy Office, Wuppertal
Malcolm, J.R., C. Liu, L. Miller, T. Allnut and L. Hansen, Eds., 2002a: Habitats at Risk: Global Warming and Species Loss in Globally Significant Terrestrial Ecosystems. WWF World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, 40 pp.
Rowell, A. and P.F. Moore, 2000: Global Review of Forest Fires. WWF/IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 66 pp. /files/global_review_forest_fires.pdf
WWF, 2004: Deforestation threatens the cradle of reef diversity. World Wide Fund for Nature, 2 December 2004.
WWF, 2004: Living Planet Report 2004. WWF- World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland, 44 pp.
WWF (World Wildlife Fund), 2005: An overview of glaciers, glacier retreat, and subsequent impacts in Nepal, India and China. World Wildlife Fund, Nepal Programme, 79 pp.
Zarsky, L. and K. Gallagher, 2003: Searching for the Holy Grail? Making FDI Work for Sustainable Development. Analytical Paper, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Switzerland


Filed under Uncategorized


We are heartened to learn of a promising development reported recently by Pajamasmedia in their story ‘Move Afoot in the Senate to Can EPA CO2 Regs’

(Hat tip to reader, gb)

Last Thursday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, introduced a resolution of disapproval, under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), to overturn EPA’s endangerment finding (the agency’s official determination that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare). Murkowski’s floor statement and a press release are available here.

My associates at and I wholly endorse Murkowski’s resolution of disapproval. As pajamasmedia says this is, “ a gutsy action intended to safeguard the U.S. economy, government’s accountability to the American people, and the separation of powers under the Constitution.”

The story is drawn from that of Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow in environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), who reports that,

“The Murkowski resolution addresses a basic conflict of interest that Sen. Boxer prefers to sweep under the rug. Under the Clean Air Act, the agency that makes the findings that trigger regulatory action is the same agency that does the regulating. Since regulatory agencies exist to regulate, they have a vested interest in reaching “scientific” conclusions that expand the scope and scale of their power.”

The CEI correctly concludes that the regulatory fallout to come from EPA’s endangerment finding has no clear congressional authorization. Indeed, regulations emanating from the endangerment finding are likely to be more costly and intrusive than any climate bill Congress has considered and either rejected or failed to pass.

As expected, pro-warmist Marxist lover, Sen. Barbara Boxer and other apostles of Gorethodoxy denounced Murkowski’s move as “an assault on the Clean Air Act, public health, science, and ‘the children.’” Boxer then irrationally sought compare Murkowski to the old tobacco lobby of the 1980’s. Boxer used that old rhetorical trick — when you can’t criticize your opponent’s proposal on the merits, liken it to something else that is plainly odious and indefensible. Shabby politicking, Ms Boxer, shame on you!

We sceptics stand for the facts, but you carry on slurring your opponents with lies and fraudulent science. Show some integrity, Senator Boxer, do your job and compel all those junk climatologists to stop fudging freedom of information requests or be accused of being complicit in the great Climate Lie!

CEI’s Lewis concludes, “We are on the brink of an era of runaway regulation without representation. Sen. Boxer complains that the Murkowski resolution is “unprecedented.” But that is only fitting, because the resolution addresses an unprecedented threat to our system of self-government.”

My associates and I condemn the shrill hypocrisy of Senator Boxer and we urge her to stop ignoring the recent Climategate scandal. Politicians need to act with integrity and insist that there is a full and transparent investigation into Climategate’s leaked dodgy data. The admissions by core climatologists in the emails prove widespread falsification of the science thus rendering all these new regulations from the EPA wholly dubious and unnecessarily harmful to the US economy.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Royal Society capitulates on climate debate in worst week for global warmers since Climategate

Good news for climate skeptics is coming in a rush. At the end of a most successful week for so-called “deniers” of the global warming theory (no, not a fact, Al), the alarmist environmental lobby has been shifted seismically backwards on all fronts. In light of this week, and events since “Climategate” began in East Anglia, what does the Royal Society have to say?
The Royal Society is the prime scientific advisor to Her Majesty’s Government. Through its Science Policy Centre, the Society acts as an advisor to the European Commission and the United Nations on matters of science. But when we search the esteemed Society’s website for their latest pronouncements on the great global warming debate, they do no more than regurgitate the same old tired lies and shameful propaganda in its publication, Facts and fictions about climate change.
Shockingly the prime consultants to the British government draw on superseded and outdated science almost a decade old. Where are the references you’d expect to see from the IPCC’s last Report of 2007? Is the Royal Society in a time warp, blind to where the scientific debate now is, or are they tacitly surrendering to the inevitable skeptic victory?
We have to report that the Royal Society, that once great pillar of Britain’s scientific pre-eminence in the world has abandoned all pretense of furthering the intellectual argument for their once-beloved theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The fact that the Royal Society can find not a single nugget from the more recent 2007 IPCC Fourth Report that won the UN a Nobel Prize, betrays the entire alarmist cause as being weak and backward looking.
In a meager and tepid publication, this once strident alarmist scientific body wastes 9,155 words, 657 paragraphs and 19 pages performing little more than a copy and paste job of the outdated and superceded Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report of 2001.
The first paragraph starts feebly and then is followed by capitulating dross,
“It has become fashionable in some parts of the UK media to portray the scientific evidence that has been collected about climate change and the impact of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities as an exaggeration.”
Just when the global warmers of the green lobby desperately need some heavyweight science for back up, this once revered institution is found seriously wanting. The Royal Society can muster not one single rebuttal. There are just no new bullets to fire; nothing is left in their armory. By not even waving as much as a paltry popgun from the most recent IPCC Report, the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, and relying almost exclusively on the 2001 IPCC Third Report, we are left in no doubt that the intellectually bankrupt, battered, and bedraggled best of British warmest brains are beaten.
All in a rush we’ve seen victory upon victory for challengers to AGW. Since the East Anglia CRU emails broke free and introduced climategate to the world, we’ve had win after win over the warmers. But, this last week we’ve seen the momentum take on an acceleration I don’t think anyone expected.
We had the Glaciergate u-turn whereby the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to make a humiliating admission that its “evidence” for Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 was an off the cuff speculation rather than posited in genuine scientific research.
We then saw the truly shocking U.S. Senate election victory for Republican candidate, AGW skeptic Senator-elect Scott Brown (R-MA) who became the 41st and blocking vote against any U.S. climate cap and trade bill.
The UN then conceded it had dropped the January 31, 2010 deadline by which time all countries were expected to officially state their emission reduction targets accompanied.
But as we reported on yesterday, the clincher for the Royal Society’s abject surrender was the announcement from the UK’s Parliament’s Science and Technology Committee (STC) that it intends to ask very tough questions of British climatologists in its upcoming investigation into Climategate and what’s been discovered in over 1,000 embarrassing emails, plus other files, extracted from the UK’s Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
Now seeing the writing on the wall, we can be forgiven for thinking that those scientific generals at the headquarters of British global warming science have capitulated just in the nick of time leaving the politicians alone to defend their own crazy cause.
The STC’s probe will begin with an oral evidence session in March 2010. That very fine writer, James Delingpole has, in his customary fashion, been quick to note:
“This is very heartening news for taxpayers, rationalists, and everyone who believes in the integrity of the scientific process. More encouraging still is Bishop Hill’s suggestion that it might be used by climate realists in the US government to launch a pincer movement against the eco fascists in the Obama administration.”
There is no conceivable wriggle room out of those three highly probative questions that will be asked of climate science (1.) what are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research? (2.) Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate? And, (3.) How independent are the other two international data sets? That must surely have been the final straw to signal the Royal Society’s surrender.
Frank answers will no doubt heap huge disgrace on those who run the world’s oldest and proudest scientific society. For they have shamelessly thrown their hats into the warmist ring for so long and left them there even when the junk science was exposed as flim-flam. We can only hope there will soon be a clear out from that crumbling edifice and new blood will take their cue in earnest from the STC and endeavor to rebuild Britain’s scientific integrity. The Royal Society must explicitly come out and urge all climate scientists to speak up and show transparency, integrity and commitment to the scientific method and ensure hard lessons are learned from Climategate.
We ask the Royal Society to co-operate fully with the UK Parliament’s Science and Technology Committee and expose the snake oil salesmen of the IPCC who shamelessly and fraudulently promoted the theory of man made global warming. This should be taken as the first step towards developing a new and more transparent methodology in the way climate science is directed and funded by governments.
The Science and Technology invites written submissions from interested parties on any of the issues by noon on Wednesday 27 January.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized


Glaciergate, that lying little sister to Climategate, finally walked into the light of truth and fessed up this week, unlike her more sinister and petulant big brother, as reported in Wednesday’s UK ‘Guardian’

The bad parent of this farce, the United Nations, should be congratulated on its first step to admitting it has failed to properly supervise the infant science of climate change. As I’ve repeatedly stated, no scientist has yet studied for a university degree in climatology. The UN stubbornly refuses to admit to the worst of its failings: recklessly putting all its trust in this immature field of scientific discovery. Pointedly, careless parents often pick bad babysitters and that’s what the UN did when it put its trust in Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and this is where top-level investigations must focus next:

Under Pachuari’s guidance climate scientists were given free reign to lie, cheat and cut corners and get away with such misbehaviour for years. The Australian, in it’s latest article,’Heeding the political lessons of Glaciergate’ rightly suggests that the IPCC, like any responsible governmental body, should have constantly questioned and monitored more diligently this young field of science.

So it comes as no surprise that the IPCC, to maintain the faintest shred of credibility, backed down over one of the most absurd of it’s claim that some Himalayan glaciers would probably disappear by 2035.

As The Australian reports:
“The IPCC’s statement yesterday that the “clear and well-established standards of evidence” had not been properly applied to the claim, is an attempt to put the best possible spin on a blunder that has reverberated around the world since it was revealed last weekend. In fact Glaciergate, in large part, is about an extraordinary reliance on a third-hand source – a news story published in New Scientist almost a decade before it was included in the IPCC’s fourth assessment report of 2007. It doesn’t get much more humiliating than that for a body that has positioned itself as the global scientific authority on climate change.”

Although the Glaciergate admission is welcome it does not go far enough. The UN is fudging just like its miscreant scientists, in not fully admitting that the sloppiness and handling of climate change data in Climategate is far more egregious. Like any poor parent it sees it’s children through rose coloured spectacles and has yet to address the misdeeds of such crooked researchers as Penn State’s Michael Mann and the University of East Anglia’s Phil Jones.

But as the family of nations turns away from signing up to needless cap and trade laws ever more of the global neighborhood are looking forward to the day when the UN finally distances itself from every bad sheep. Not least on that list is the small clique of corrupt climatologists encouraged by Dr. Pachauri and ‘kissing cousin,’ Al Gore to be so cavalier with the truth.

Former U.S vice president, Gore once famously said: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it [anthropogenic global warming] is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are.”

In other words, Al says lie! It’s no wonder petulance and deceit grows when fed by such sinister role models. The UN encouraged its brats by over-indulging and spoiling them with lavish government grants so that the delinquency spread to corrupt the most impressionable and idealistic in society with hype and propaganda.

So I say to all those proponents of a new world order; if you raise your family on lies then don’t be surprised when they finally disappoint you.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized


Insurance premiums may be about to feel the aftershock of Climategate, the science scandal played down by the mainstream media at the tail end of 2009. The powerful and influential National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) has concluded that leaked emails from the premier Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, prove an elite core of climatologists had secretly expressed grave doubts over the science of global warming.Skeptics were quick to link the failure of the Copenhagen Climate Summit to Climategate.

NAMIC have issued a stinging rebuke against climate alarmist supporters and politicians for seeking to cover up the implications of a science scandal that first broke on November 19, 2009. This will come as a further headache to Washington hot on the heels of bad tidings from Massachussets where Senator-elect Scott Brown (R-MA), became the 41st vote against the Democratic administration’s massive healthcare bill.

Evan Lehmann of ClimateWire reveals that insurers are stuck in a quandary over future policy considerations for their business and are making a plea for candor from the scientific community. In a frank letter to his members, Robert Detlefsen, Ph.D., Vice President of Public Policy at NAMIC has rebuked alarmists for, “facilely dismissing the email scandal as a plot hatched by malevolent “contrarians.” NAMIC members underwrite more than 40 percent of the property/casualty insurance premium in the United States.

In his letter Detlefsen says the
“emails show that a close-knit group of the world’s most influential climate scientists actively colluded to subvert the peer-review process … manufactured pre-determined conclusions through the use of contrived analytic techniques; and discussed destroying data to avoid government freedom-of-information requests.”
He added,
“Viewed collectively, the CRU e-mails reveal a scientific community in which a group of scientists promoting what has become, through their efforts, the dominant climate-change paradigm are at war with other scientists derisively labeled as ‘skeptics,’ ‘deniers,’ and ‘contrarians,’”

Dr. Detlefson goes on to criticise alarmists who, “personified the doctrinaire partisanship and intolerance toward dissent that is so clearly displayed in the CRU e-mails.”

Detlefsen then refers to the 2006 report to Congress prepared by a committee of statisticians led by Dr. Eugene Wegman of George Mason University. The Wegman Report examined the body of research behind the widely publicized “hockey stick” graph, which purported to show a dramatic and unprecedented increase in average global temperature during the twentieth century.

After thoroughly discrediting the hockey stick graph, the report observed that “authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.” The report further noted “the isolation of the paleoclimate community,” concluding “even though they rely heavily on statistical methods, they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community.”

For more than a century, NAMIC has been respected for making a significant and lasting impact on the property/casualty insurance industry. In the real world of finance, hard headed NAMIC have had no other choice than to find that the science of climate change is far from “settled.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized