Monthly Archives: February 2010

Legal Elephant Now In the Climate Room But Mainstream Media Absent

In this article we turn the focus on the UK’sGuardian  as this stridently leftist national newspaper sets itself the pointless task of a diversionary, “unique experiment” into allegedly unravelling the truth behind the Climategate emails. Guardian readers are now being asked to read the paper’s analysis of the Climategate emails and then

 “send in your own annotations.”

 In other words, they’ve been found out as being incapable of doing real journalism – something skeptics have been telling them for years. Now they need readers to do their job for them. Perhaps our readers might oblige?

 But please be under no illusions that the Guardian has had some epiphany and is abandoning being just a mouthpiece of the UN’s IPCC. Oh, no, not a bit of it. Look no further than the top skeptic science blog, WUWT to see their latest take on how conniving and complicit the Guardian truly is in this doomsaying scam.

This parsimonous labelling of us internet skeptics with the meme that we are nasty well-funded shills in the pay of the tobacco and big oil lobby is fast back-firing. I’ve never been paid for my blogging and neither have the tens of millions of other skeptic grass-roots supporters. It’s the Guardian that profits from muck spreading not us.

 So with so much misinformation and propaganda in the leftist mainstream media, savvy bloggers have come to rely on their own resources to advance the cause of truth and justice. The internet is where we are exposing the greatest of all Ponzi schemes. We, the public still want the scoops, we want to see what the legal eagles are doing now this circus enters the courtroom stage. For example, we all know that the British government has confirmed climate crimes were perpetrated by British scientists. 

 Jones confessed he did wrong while the leaked CRU emails proves he encouraged other scientists to break the law.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) stated that Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests were unlawfully refused. This finding thus indicates that one or more climate scientists committed their crimes to cover up data fraud that enabled them to fraudulently procure tens of millions in government grants. But more insidiously, the implication is also that such scientists falsified global warming data upon which international governments may have unecessarily premised public policies on needless mitigation of non-existent ‘global warming’ costing world taxpayers trillions of dollar. I can think of no more pertinent public interest requirement for a rigorous police investigation than this at the very highest level.

 However, neither the ICO nor Norfolk Police have have made comment as to whether they intend to pursue such enquiries which, under the Roskill Report (1988) mandates that international fraud involving sums in excess of £1 million be investigated, not by provincial police services acting unliaterally, but by the full weight and expertise of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO). The SFO are THE fraud specialists with the powers to apply the Fraud Act (2006), which has no statute of limitations in cases involving conspiracy to defraud.

 It is an outrageous abuse of standard procedure that the SFO is not on the case despite Jones’s public admissions and the ICO’s affirmation that climate data was criminally and irrevocably destroyed. As someone who has ligitated for over ten years in government corruption cases I know a political whitewash when I see it. This is the greatest scandal of our age.

 But with the greatest scoop at his feet what does Guardian environment journalist, Pearce, the author of ‘The Last Generation: How nature will take her revenge for climate change’ seek to do?

 Pearce remains an apologist from climate con artists. He and his cult followers are not interested in detecting and exposing crimes that have already cost hundreds of thousands of lives due to biofuel-induced famine and hundreds of millions in funding junk science and gravy-train showboating by world leaders.

 Poor, pathetic Pearce has his eyes resolutely fixated on his navel. He sees the game is almost up and we have reached his credibility tipping point. He won’t be making his fortune from the sale of his ridiculous book. His career, like his socialist dreams are fast headed for the trash can to join Phil Jones’s data.

 The growing reluctance of the public to swallow any more of this climate crap has at least, compelled the Guardian to do something, anything to appease the masses. So they have tossed old fumbler Pearce into a metaphorical Petri dish so we can all re- examine those 12 microbe-laden samples of Fred’s ‘take’ on 1,000 Climategate emails. Ok, I’ll join in with this ‘experiment’ for a moment just to prove that environment journalists like Fred are now more exposed than the junk science he blatantly trumpets.

 To expose him I put this paragon of the paparazzi under the microscope and my attention was immediately caught by the heading for ‘Part Two’ of this special feature. Immediately Fred gives away his game. As soon as I clicked on the hyperlink the first of many biased headline hit me in the face:

 ‘How the ‘climategate’ scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics’ lies’

Just like the climatologists Fred knew what his conclusions were going to be even before he started his ‘experiment.’ As you’ll see Fred avoids the science and keeps to the propaganda pitch. But I reserved making further judgment and conscientiously delved deeper.

 But, as I’d feared immediately we are continuously fed Pearce’s partisan prose:

“Whether it was democracy in action, or defence against malicious attempts to disrupt research, climate scientists were driven to siege mentality by persistence of sceptics.”

 Yes, us nasty skeptics who wanted to know why Jones and his ilk were defying FOIA request and hiding data drove these poor scientists into a ‘seige mentality.’ Way to go, Fred- tell it like you see it. I was pleasantly surprised to find at the end of that article a slew of incisive comments from readers attacking this drivel. Clearly, some Guardian readers are more knowledgeable on the subject than frightful Fred.

 But, sadly, as I proceeded to the next instalment what I found in Pearce’s ‘Petri dish’ of an experiment was distinct and unwelcome cross-contamination. Everywhere I looked it was the same moribund organism beginnning to decompose.

In Part 10 Fred gives up that decaying hacker theory and surrenders to idle speculation:

“After the July incident, perhaps CRU failed to batten down the hatches, either through technical failings or because someone inside was subverting the efforts.”

 ‘Perhaps…either…or’? It’s not very edifying stuff here, Fred. If readers are by now overwhelmed by this odious green guff then save I suggest you cut to the chase and go to Part 12 and amaze yourself (not) with Fred’s considered conclusion:

 ‘Climate science emails cannot destroy argument that world is warming’

 Oh, now? That’s strange, Fred. I thought Phil Jones had cleared that little issue up for us recently. 

Pearce is an establishment relic still twittering to himself hoping someone, somewhere gives a fig about his analysis.But in that alternative green reality, yes, Fred could be right. Not to worry, folks, from decomposition comes new life. And as our environmentalist friends will tell us, that helps to recycle the finite matter that occupies physical space in the biome. Forlorn Fred submits thusly to his dwindling flock:

 “Claims based on email soundbites are demonstrably false – there is manifestly no evidence of clandestine data manipulation.”

 How pathetic, how sad. Fred says ‘no evidence’ because Jones destroyed it. I just wish mainstream journalists would start to give their readers the real news. Jones committed evidence destruction and manipulation. He destroyed evidence of the crime and that in itself, is a crime. He is still liable. The criminal law is very adept at snagging criminal fraudsters who try to hide their crimes – its par for the course. The Establishment are currently engaged in stage-managing ‘Plan A’ of crisis prevention and the press is letting them get away with it. But being that Britain is on the cusp of a general election speaks volumes:

 Thankfully, there are currently under way in the U.S courts 16 ‘Endangerment’ lawsuits filed against the EPA.

I have read the litigants’ briefs and they cite the fact that the ICO affirms data fraud crimes were committed in the UK. Working closely with other skeptic legal associates I have written an article detailing how ordinary citizens can mount legal challenges against these purveyors of an ill-founded one world, un-elected socialist green government.

Such lawsuits will succeed because the data has been destroyed and the defendants in the action, without proof, cannot mount a vigorous defense. Once this scam is busted in the civil U.S. courts the global warming game is over. International governments will give up the ghost on pursuing junk science based cap and trade socialist agendas. The scientists at the hub of this fraud will become sacrificial lambs to a baying public that will demand that heads must roll. I would not want to be in Phil Jones’s, Michael Mann’s, Fred Pearce’s or the Guardian’s green sandals when that day dawns.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Camelgate: Gassy Camels Yield No Carbon Taxes

If only we still lived in the era of the ‘Carry On’ comedies! This story is the best tonic to get you laughing at the total absurdity of climate taxation policy.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/feral-camels-clear-in-penny-wongs-carbon-count/story-e6frg6nf-1225827641354

In a peach of an article, the ‘Australian’ makes a mockery of Prime Minister Rudd’s failure to address the serious amount of greenhouse gas that belching and farting camels inflict upon that nation’s climate. The stink of catastrophe is surely brewing.
Reporter, Ean Higgins, tells his readers:
“Scientists have found camels to be the third-highest carbon-emitting animal per head on the planet, behind only cattle and buffalo. Culling the one million feral camels that currently roam the outback would be equivalent to taking 300,000 cars off the road in terms of the reduction to the country’s greenhouse gases.”

It is one of the many quirks of international carbon accounting standards that nothing can be done to address the camel problem. Camels in Australia are the only feral herds of their kind in the world and are estimated to number more than 1,000,000 with the capability of doubling in size every nine years. Does Prime Minister Rudd give a flying one? Not on your Nelly! Like us he knows co2 junk science is all hot air and government carbon emissions policies are merely a tax raising scam that just hit the fan.

(For all non-British readers, ‘Carry On’ films were the epitome of bawdy and farcical English humor much of the ilk of Benny Hill. And this is the kind of farce that is going to make Rudd as unpopular as his camel-toe trousered Climate Minister, Penny Wong).

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE RISES LAG TEMPS BY HUNDREDS OF YEARS

Global warmists often venomously proclaim that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased about 40% since pre-industrial times, so we are responsible for about 30% of the present concentration.

However, let’s rebut that spuriously posited conclusion by illiciting the help of the best peer-reviewed science as cited by that excellent website, CO2 Science.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.php

Firstly, we need to question where that ‘30%’ number comes from as no one has yet been able to delineate between natural and man-made co2 signals – its guesswork. Carbon dioxide molecules from natural emissions have no trace identifier to seperate them from man made co2 emissions.

Secondly, we ought to point out that current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have more to do with paleoclimatic impacts from hundreds, if not tens of thousands of years ago, than any contributions humans have made in the recent past.

Clearly the best advice is to read Smagorinsky et al. (1982) and Idso (1982, 1989) who show that the paleoclimatic record proves the change in CO2 concentration actually considerably lags the change in air temperature by at least 800 years.

Meanwhile, independent peer-reviewed papers by other climate scientists, based on reconstructed histories of surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration from data obtained from a Vostok ice core that covered the prior 420,000 years, had determined that during glacial inception “the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years.”
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V2/N12/C1.php

Fischer et al. (1999) found that “the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions.” Indermuhle et al. (2000) performed a statistical test on the data that suggested that shifts in the air’s CO2 content lagged shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years.

Caillon et al. (2003) examined Vostok ice cores and they also concluded “the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years.” Caillon et al., “confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation.”

All in all,unless our pro-green pontificators can debunk the above with some robust peer-reviewed science the CO2 warming amplification hypothesis rings mighty hollow.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

PROSECUTING CLIMATE FRAUD: THE INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION

Many international readers have asked where we, the people who oppose carbon legislation, stand in mounting our own legal challenges against policy implementation based on discredited junk climate science. In this article I shall outline the general legal strategies for challenging what is fast being recognised as the greatest criminal fraud of all time.

THE INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION AND ‘COMMON LAW’

What has struck me and many other commentators is the astounding extent and pervasiveness of this climate data fraud. Effectively we are confronting an international Ponzi scheme that has festered within five English-speaking nations; the UK, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. All these nations operate under independent legal systems premised on English common law. The basic rights of citizens under common law are explained here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

I argue it is no coincidence that it is these five common law nations that have been targeted for attack from stringent and repressive climate regulations. But investigating that issue would take up a whole article in itself. Being that these five common law nations share a vastly similar judicial system makes matters far easier in elucidating the various avenues that sceptical opponents of these climate capers may pursue.

Common law tells us that governments cannot impose climate regulations on their citizens by regarding similar facts differently on different occasions. This principle is known among legal practitioners as stare decisis (i.e. judges are obliged to obey the set-up precedents established by prior decisions). I’ve examined two of the recently filed climate skeptic petitions filed by U.S. corporations. In both there is the common argument that ‘arbitrary and capricious’ governmental climate-related decisions have been imposed upon the people. These EPA regulations, they argue, must be over turned because the science that underpins them has been proven to be fraudulent and significantly based on subjective elements. Thus, the basis of the EPA’s decision to determine that carbon dioxide is a pollutant is unlawful due to the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ components within the EPA’s fact finding process.

Before anyone may file a legal proceeding they must have a ‘cause of action’ that is explained here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_of_action

As litigious-minded skeptics, we are mostly concerned to target our local, regional and national governments as well as hoping to make those errant climatologists individually culpable for their alleged fraudulent conduct. Legal action limits itself to those who can substantiate a personal or class ‘cause of action’ thus you may only sue agencies and individuals that have directly caused you to suffer, or potentially suffer, a future loss, financially, material or in terms of your civil rights.

Below readers can follow the links and examine in greater depth how corporate lawyers have used the evidence gleaned since Climategate and applied it judiciously to make their cases against what they argue is the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ application of EPA policy, which, if proved under the principles of common law would be unlawful.

Thus, to counter the unlawful hubris of a deceitful and amoral minority we may bust this scam in our respective courts in one of two ways:

1.) Class action lawsuits
2.) Judicial review and mandamus petition

CORPORATE LAWSUITS LEAD THE WAY

This is a good time to investigate this issue now that 16 ‘Endangerment’ Lawsuits Filed Against EPA Before Deadline

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/02/17/17greenwire-16-endangerment-lawsuits-filed-against-epa-bef-74640.html

Some legal experts say the courts are unlikely to block the endangerment finding during any legal challenge. While Patrick Traylor, a partner at the Washington office of Hogan & Hartson says,

“The EPA is on a tightwire without a net with this tailoring rule. There’s a very real risk a court could vacate the rule and a higher-than- normal risk they could stay it.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091224-703208.html
In particular, the EPA is using an obscure legal doctrine that basically gives the agency flexibility to craft new rules under existing law. If the agency were to draft new greenhouse-gas rules at the much lower thresholds as stated in the law, the EPA says there would be “absurd” results in terms of the bureaucratic process and potential economic impact.
Under existing case law, particularly the Chevron vs Natural Resources Defense Council decision, federal agencies are subjected to a two-part test, however. The first step is determining whether the statutes are unambiguous.
I strongly recommend anyone contemplating filing their own civil suit to study carefully the evidence and arguments presented in the Peabody Energy Company (PEC) petition and apply the points to their own individual locale and circumstances.
The full 240-page petition can be found here
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/no_legal_option.pdf
Each citizen has the right to challenge an unlawful government agency determination if it can be shown to be ‘arbitrary and capricious’ i.e. not based on fact but on subjective criteria.

I made my own study of PEC the legal challenge earlier this week over at Climategate.com and it is a goldmine for litigants looking for a ready template for a detailed lawsuit to defeat climate regulations
http://www.climategate.com/worlds-biggest-coal-company-brings-us-government-to-court-in-climate-fraud

Here is the far shorter 43-page legal brief of the Coalition requests EPA convene a proceeding for reconsideration
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/petition_for_reconsideration.pdf

Coalition Petitioners:

Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc.
Industrial Minerals Association – North America
Great Northern Project Development, L.P.
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
Rosebud Mining Company
Massey Energy Company, and
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc.

THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO MOUNT A LEGAL CHALLENGE: FILING A ‘MANDAMUS’ PETITION

If you seek to overturn any climate-related regulation imposed on you by your local government authority then I recommend you investigate the most useful legal instrument known for this: the mandamus. The writ of mandamus has long been a prerogative writ in English common law. Individuals in most common law jurisdictions have the statutory right to challenge any decision made by a government agency my way of a mandamus petition. The purpose of mandamus is to remedy defects of justice. It lies in the cases where there is a specific right but no specific legal remedy for enforcing that right.

For a general explanation of mandamus applicable to all countries that base their legal code on English common law check here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandamus

As someone who litigated for over a decade in New York State I am most familiar with the New York version of mandamus known as an ‘Article 78’ action. http://www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/Right_to_know.html

In New York, for example, the filing fees to a court for a petition are around $300. You may also have to pay up to $2-3,000 for a good lawyer to draft one properly for you. Pertinent to this and for anyone looking to take legal action under New York law, you will be interested to know that New York is where NASA’s GISS is located.

In some U.S. states, such as California, the writ is now called mandate instead of mandamus, and may be issued by any level of the state court system to any lower court or to any government official.
http://www.answers.com/topic/mandamus

But whichever English speaking common law state you live in you are highly likely to have something very similar at your disposal.

Under the Australian legal system, mandamus is available through section 75(v) of the Australian Constitution.

CHALLENGING CLIMATE LAWS BY JUDICIAL REVIEW

This is an altermative to a mandamus petition. Judicial review is the doctrine in democratic theory under which legislative and executive action is subject to invalidation by the judiciary. Specific courts with judicial review power must annul the acts of the state when it finds them incompatible with a higher authority, such as the terms of a written constitution.

In the United States:
The US Constitution is very robust and pre-empts all state-level laws if there are apparent conflicts in law. Judicial review under federal law may be brought under the Constitution as per Article III whereby a U.S. citizen may invoke an implied cause of action so that a court may determine that a law creates rights that allows private parties to bring a lawsuit against a specific climate regulation. An excellent analysis can be found here
http://books.google.com/books?id=Kev8w1pfnaUC&pg=PA3&dq=judicial+review&ei=3IkwSqG5IZbozATtxNCvDg#v=onepage&q=&f=false as well as here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States

In Canada:
Judicial review may be sought via the Supreme Court of Canada that has the power to overturn acts of Parliament if those acts violate the division of powers between the federal and provincial levels of government. For more information see here
http://books.google.com/books?id=N_UjZarvAwYC&pg=PA135&dq=comparative+%22constitutional+review%22&as_brr=3&ei=xI0wSsePE4qsywSNx6GjDg#v=onepage&q=comparative%20%22constitutional%20review%22&f=false

In England and Wales:
A person wronged by an Act of Parliament cannot apply for judicial review except in cases where such regulations may infringe a person’s rights as per the the European Law of Human Rights. A challenge against climate regulations wll have to be argued on the grounds of Irrationality (i.e. Unreasonableness).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_English_Law

In Australia:
Kathleen E. Foley tells us that judicial review, “ has long been considered an “axiomatic” part of Australia’s legal system.” Foley advises is that Australian judicial review is more like that of England and Wales system rather than the U.S.
http://law.wustl.edu/wugslr/issues/volume6_2/foley.pdf

CRIMINAL LAW PERSPECTIVE

Certain climate scientists are clearly liable to face charges of ‘Noble Cause Corruption’ that is best explained here.

http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/print/noble-cause-corruption.pdf
I examine in the legal implications for fraud against Professor Phil Jones of the UK’s Climatic Research Unit under the Fraud Act (2006) here
http://www.climategate.com/climategate-professor-phil-jones-could-face-ten-years-on-fraud-charges

and here
http://www.climategate.com/british-climate-professor-john-mitchell-may-face-fraud-charges

The unwillingness of the UK government to bring criminal charges against climate fraudsters says more about their own agenda rather than any loopholes in the law or weakness in the evidence. I suspect the governments of Australia, Canada, the US and New Zealand will be equally reticent in prosecuting climate fraudsters.

The pursuit of criminal convictions for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud cannot be fruitfully pursued by private citizens and effectively resides under the whim of governments. That no criminal charges have thus far been brought against climate science fraudsters at the UK’s Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, despite the British Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) conceding crimes had been committed, speaks volumes. The British Government have disingenuously stated that the statute of limitations had expired under FOI laws, yet they neglect to act under the Fraud Act (2006) for which no statute of limitations applies when acts of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud are identified.

REFERENCES:

Bryan A Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 980, 8th Ed., St. Paul, USA, 2004.
A.T. Markose: Judicial Control of Administrative Action in India, p.364.
RK Choudhary’s Law of Writs; Mandamus.
Erwin Chemerinsky, Federal Jurisdiction § 6.3 at 382 (4th ed. 2003).
Human rights and judicial review. 1994. http://books.google.com/books?id=N_UjZarvAwYC&pg=PA135&dq=comparative+%22constitutional+review%22&as_brr=3&ei=xI0wSsePE4qsywSNx6GjDg#PPP7,M1. (a comparison of national judicial review doctrines)
The American doctrine of judicial supremacy. 1914. http://books.google.com/books?id=Kev8w1pfnaUC&pg=PA3&dq=judicial+review&ei=3IkwSqG5IZbozATtxNCvDg#PPR5,M1. (this book traces the doctrine’s history in an international/comparative fashion)
“The Establishment of Judicial Review”. Findlaw.
——————————————————————————————–

John O’Sullivan is a legal advocate and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain. He is not funded by any third party.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Associated Press Lies About Climategate

Over at tree-hugging apologist mouthpiece, ’Mediamatters’ they’re getting their panties in a bunch over a Fox News story. It seems Fox were biased for a “stale retread” over Climategate data rapist, Professor Phil Jones’s shocking admission that there’s been no statistically significant global warming for 15 years. How ‘outrageous’ of Fox, I hear you scoff. But try and see it from Mediamatters’ point of view – little green journos all now go into apoplectic spasm at every mention of unpleasant and unarguable climate facts.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201002180026

So, thanks to the prompting by Mediamanglers I’ll now prove that the Associated Press is complicit in perpetrating further Climategate hype and lies. Thereby, our readers may judge for themselves how deeply the green-loving press has sunk themselves in the greatest scandal in science.

First, keep in mind that Fox News is the only American TV news broadcaster that has reported the Climategate story from Day One. Mediamatters try to spin the lie that the Associated Press (AP) has been reporting on this epoch-changing event in a “just-the-facts fashion.“ But, as we shall see, in AP’s case ‘just the facts’ means doling out hype and lies supportive of the global warming hysteria.

Astonishingly, it is the leaked Climategate emails themselves that exposes the complicitness of the Associated Press in the Climategate scandal. Keen eyes at that excellent skeptic blog, WUWT, first uncovered the facts exposing media conspiracy in reporting Climategate. Blogger, Anthony Watts, found that AP had a ‘man on the inside’ of information from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit three months before the leaked emails surfaces.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/aps-seth-borenstein-is-just-too-damn-cozy-with-the-people-he-covers-time-for-ap-to-do-somethig-about-it/
It is those leaked emails that expose AP reporter, Seth Borenstein as a Climategate collaborator. So it came as no surprise to bloggers when AP ran the following in a “just-the-facts fashion“ on December 12, 2009 after the Climategate story broke:

“E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.”

http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=987&s=kwborenstein

And whom did AP put in charge of their “exhaustive review”? Yes, you guessed it, Seth Borenstein.

Borenstein has long been known among climate commentators as an avid green sympathiser. As a sample of Borenstein’s affiliations look no further than the leaked email dated Jul 23, 2009 when Seth “just-the-facts“ Borenstein emailed his Climategate chums, Kevin Trenberth, Gavin Schmidt and Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann, three months before Climategate, thus:

“It’s Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth
Seth Borenstein, Associated Press Science Writer
sborenstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx”

Michael Mann’s reply:

“hi Seth, you always seem to catch me at airports. only got a
few minutes. took a cursory look at the paper, and it has all
the worry signs of extremely bad science and scholarship.”

Thus speaketh Michael ‘always’ Mann, the biggest ‘bad’ scientist of all! Whatchya think of that? To quantify how far AP journalists have fallen off their integrity perch just take a look here at their own code of conduct
http://www.ap.org/newsvalues/index.html
Laughably, AP claims that:

“we avoid behavior or activities that create a conflict of interest and compromise our ability to report the news fairly and accurately, uninfluenced by any person or action.”

So if readers are troubled by AP’s “exhaustive review” you can phone or write and ask in a “just-the-facts fashion“ at the following address:

The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,
Washington, DC
20005-4076
Tel: 202-641-9454

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Lies of Aussie Climate Minister, Penny ‘Wrong’

Our Australian skeptic friend, Val Majkus, has sent me a link to a speech made yesterday by Australian nutjob, Penny Wong, who is the Aussie Federal Minister for Climate Change and Water.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/wong-climate-sceptics-are-all-red-herrings-and-quackery-20100218-ogb3.html?comments=73#comments
Wong somehow kept a straight face when she told the crowd:

“Climate change [is] happening more quickly than we previously thought.”

Wong was addressing the first national forum on coasts and climate change in Adelaide and promulgating all the usual doomsaying myths for her dwindling band of climate cult followers that global temperatures are fast rising and sea levels, as a consequence, will rise by a meter this century.

Then, the self-serving climate minister showed no remorse for going on to smear tens of millions of concerned citizens that form the grassroots movement of climate skeptics by implying they are under the sway of the tobacco lobby! Wong will come to rue her ludicrous statements. Projecting herself as some kind of high priestess she is, in fact, no more than another gray-suited peddler of snake oil patter.

Here, in Britain the mainstream media has remembered what it means to do objective journalism. Sadly, the Aussie press hasn’t yet woken up to Wong’s wonky word spin – but they will. The days of her ilk are numbered. So I need only proffer a couple of simple facts to debunk Wong’s ‘catastrophic’ global warming myth. But the minister won’t want her audience to hear such basic truths:

First, as widely reported, Professor Phil Jones, one of the world’s key alarmist climate scientists, admitted to the BBC last week that there has been no statistically significant rise in global temps for 15 years.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
and;

Second, scientists from 50 research and operational agencies from 26 countries have proved that world sea levels have fallen for the past six years.
http://www.climategate.com/sea-levels-proven-to-have-fallen-for-past-six-years#more-4236

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Oceangate: Sea Levels Proven to Have Fallen for Past Six Years

Independent bloggers have found that by using the Pacific Marine Atlas program to plot data from the entire network, there is was actually a downtrend in Sea Height over the past six years (January 31, 2004 – January 31, 2010).

‘The Hockey Schtick’ blog has made an astonishing discovery after analyzing the full 6-year dataset of ocean levels from January 31, 2004 to January 31, 2010.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/02/global-sea-level-decrease-2004-2009.html

By using the data from the ‘ARGO’ global network of sea level measurements it was found that ocean levels have been decreasing and not rising, contrary to expectations. This latest revelation is wholly contrary to claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC has continually argued that human emissions of carbon dioxide were causing polar ice and glaciers to melt and such warming would cause global sea levels to rise, according to the 35 SRES scenarios, by up to 0.5 meters (18 inches) this century.

These new revelations are bound to lead to further dismay for climate alarmists reeling after a flood of scandals suggesting either corruption or incompetence by the IPCC in gathering climate data and projecting future trends.

The ‘ARGO’ project was first set up in 2004 and is a collaboration between 50 research and operational agencies from 26 countries, with the United States contributing over half the total funding (as of December 2004). ARGO is a component of the Integrated Ocean Observing System and consists of a large collection of small, drifting oceanic robotic probes deployed worldwide. The data are transmitted to scientists on shore via satellite. There have been 3,198 of such probes set around the world’s oceans since November 2007.

The probes float as deep as 2 km ( 1.2 miles). Once every 10 days, the probes surface, measuring conductivity and temperature profiles to the surface. From these salinity and density can also be calculated. The data collected are freely available to everyone, without restrictions.

Further information about the ARGO Project may be found here

http://www.ARGOs-system.org/documents/publications/newsletter/anl_67.pdf

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized