Monthly Archives: May 2010

Greenhouse Gas Theory Discredited: NASA charged with Fakery


 Shock new evidence of a NASA scientist faking a fundamental greenhouse gas equation ignites dispute inside beleaguered space administration over global warming fraud.

Caught in the heat are NASA’s Dr. Judith Curry and a junk science equation by the space agency’s Dr. Gavin Schmidt creating disarray over a contentious Earth energy graph.

The internal row was ignited by the release of a sensational new research paper discrediting calculations crucial to the greenhouse gas theory.  

NASA in Internal Spat over Data

Hot on the heels of my recent scoop that the U.S. space agency may have suppressed evidence from the Apollo Moon landings that invalidated the greenhouse gas (GHG) theory, an internecine fury among NASA employees over fudged equations is set to further embarrass the current U.S. Administration’s stand on global warming.

Word is getting round that junk equations were threaded into the GHG theory to artificially inflate the heating effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by a factor of two.

The spark to this cataclysmic revelation was lit in April 2007 after a public gaffe (see below) by the space administration’s Dr. Gavin Schmidt, who fronts popular pro-global warming website, ‘Real Climate.’

‘Moon Paper’ Exposes Climate Theory Fraud

What ignited this latest Climategate-linked rumpus is a sensational new research paper, ‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?’  otherwise called the ‘Moon Paper.’

Researchers for the paper scientifically proved that since at least 1997 climate scientists knew that guesswork was underpinning the whole greenhouse gas theory. In fact, so flaky are these numbers that they can be rendered to show a GHG effect on Earth’s moon, where no greenhouse gases exist! Thus, skeptics argue, the burning embers of political heat generated by the discredited theory should now finally and unequivocally be extinguished.

But more sinisterly, it turns out that NASA climate scientists, with access to better climate equations used for  the Apollo Moon mission, forsook those in favor of dodgy Dr. Schmidt’s ‘back of an envelope’ numbers.

With nothing short of religious fervour, government-funded climatologists in cahoots with the IPCC, trumpeted  this flim-flam to political leaders who now claim they can limit global warming to ‘two degrees’ on the back of green cap and trade energy taxes. Priceless!

Schmidt’s Fake Carbon Accounting

The ‘Moon Paper’ spectacularly reveals that Apollo mission scientists devised a three-dimensional model for accurately determining Earth’s energy budget far more practicable than the rudimentary flat blackbody numbers of Stefan-Boltzmann. But those numbers contradicted any greenhouse warming effect and have thus been ignored by global warming tax advocates.

In addition, it appears Siddons has uncovered intentional fraud, as explained in an earlier of his online publications, ‘The Greenhouse Hustle’ that reveals the almighty multiplication ‘error’ of NASA climatologist, Gavin Schmidt.

In 2007, Schmidt blogging on ‘Real Climate’ sought to explain how government climatologists obtain the “full surface energy balance equations” referred to by Dr. Judith Curry (below). 

Schmidt’s ‘Up and Down’ Scam

Schmidt wrote that he and his colleagues took the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody numbers and multiplied them by an additional factor of two to devise NASA’s official Earth energy budget. But why multiply by two? Schmidt explains: 

"The factor of two for A (the radiation emitted from the atmosphere) comes in because the atmosphere radiates both up and down." – Gavin Schmidt (Real Climate, April 10, 2007)

It is Schmidt’s lunatic “up and down” elaboration on Stefan-Boltzmann’s numbers that Siddons proves contradicts the laws of physics. Gases do not radiate “up and down”- their radiation is isotropic, meaning the intensity is equal in all directions-not just ‘up and down’ as Schmidt describes. Thus multiplying CO2 by a factor of two is at the very least junk science, or worse: criminal fraud.

Pointedly, Schmidt soon entered the dark side by appearing to cover up his gaffe. Within a month he snuffed out all debate by closing the comments thread on his heavily censored website.

Stefan-Boltzmann Blackbody Equations

Our junk science back story involves explaining how climate doomsayers misused the long-established Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody equation to invent the greenhouse gas theory of climate. The theory incorporates the two-dimensional flat body numbers to ‘calculate’ how much of the Sun’s energy enters and leaves the Earth’s atmosphere.

But the problem is Stefan-Boltzmann never intended for his numbers to be applied to a three-dimensional rotating planet.

Schmidt merely repeated the errors shown in the Kiehl and Trenberth  diagram (1997). The Kiehl-Trenberth graphic calls Schmidt’s “up and down” effect the ‘back-radiation’ with a heat flux. Thus we may reasonably infer that Schmidt’s shenanigans are inextricably intertwined with those of his fellow warmist climatologists, K. E. Trenberth and J.T. Kiehl who, 13 years ago, first applied the bogus “full surface energy balance equations.”

Yet the idea that the science or the energy budget is "settled" is blown apart by Trenberth, himself. When asked by his colleague, Tom Wigley, “where’s the Global warming?” Trenberth admits they can’t answer the question. "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t… Our observing system is inadequate." (Leaked Climategate email: Oct. 14, 2009: Filename:1255496484.txt)

Trenberth then re-iterated his confusion to the American Meteorological Society in January 2010 when lamenting the current woeful state of climate models.

Schoolboy Errors in NASA’s High School Textbooks

Trenberth’s and Schmidt’s lack of the wherewithal to provide a convincing calculation of Earth’s energy budget is further glaringly exposed by NASA’s Education Department which publishes high school textbooks, ‘Energy Social Studies; Investigating the Climate System: A Balancing Act’ for 9-12th graders.

In the publication is a graph that contradicts the Kiehl-Trenberth/Schmidt energy graph but clearly agrees with the numbers applied by climate skeptics and the original Apollo moon mission.

I pointed out the confusion to Dr. Judith Curry who responded, “Everybody would agree that the simple black body planetary energy balance model is a drastic oversimplification, it is used only for illustrative purposes.”

Why Confuse the Public with ‘Oversimplified’ Data?

But I then put it to Dr. Curry that neither NASA nor the IPCC publish anywhere anything other than the off beam Stefan-Boltzmann equations to illustrate the GHG theory. And why present the public (and presumably policy makers) with such a “drastic oversimplification” if NASA has tucked away a more accurate and robust equation ready to silence its critics?

No response. Yet Dr. Curry did assure me that, “Climate models (including very simple ones, not just the global general circulation models) include a full surface energy balance equation to determine surface temperature.”

But Dr. Curry left me no wiser as to what the “full surface energy balance equation” actually is. I, along with millions of taxpayers, hope to high heaven it’s not Gavin Schmidt’s snake oil.

NASA Sued in Court by CEI for Hiding Data

In truth, the passing of time is showing that NASA has stooped to break the law to stop anyone seeing what their “full surface energy balance equation” is-if it exists. We know this because the space agency has defied all such Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) for several years. The ongoing scandal has been dubbed NASA-Gate.

CEI is now taking NASA to court for refusing to permit independent auditors the chance to assess the reliability of both government-funded science as well as the validity of current U.S. Administration’s expensive green energy policies.

At a minimum, NASA-gate raises serious questions about competency and the integrity of certain government space agency employees.

Dr. Curry’s final words: “I’m contacting NASA about this.”


Trenberth, K.E., J.T. Fasullo, and J. Kiehl, 2009: Earth’s Global Energy Budget. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol 90, No 3, pp 311–323.

© J. O’Sullivan June 01, 2010 (1,271 words)


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Real Climate’s Gavin Schmidt: A Foot in His Global Warming Mouth

You know the wheels really have come off the climate bandwagon when you get blatantly unscientific nonsense statements like the howler below from ‘Real Climate’s’ Gavin Schmidt. (Hat tip: Malcolm Roberts).


Self-styled climate expert, Schmidt has sought to explain how advocates of the greenhouse gas theory can ‘calculate’ that a benign minor trace gas, carbon dioxide, can lead to runaway global warming due to its alleged superior radiant properties. Here’s how Schmidt works the numbers:


"The factor of two for A (the radiation emitted from the atmosphere) comes in because the atmosphere radiates both up and down." – Gavin Schmidt


Up and down? You mean – unlike other gases- but why no side to side and then shake it all about,too, Gavin?  But no, as Schmidt would have you believe it’s just that two times – for the ‘up’ and the ‘down’- the crucial factor of two that sets this greenhouse gas apart from others and allows junk theorists to multiply their dodginess.


How’s that for contravening the First Law of Thermodynamics? Why pause to think, it’s so easy to say.  Did you get that all you atmospheric scientists out there?


This and other gems are cogently exposed in a discerning article authored by American radio-chemist, Alan Siddons, entitled ‘The Greenhouse Hustle’  

 Siddons applies useful graphic representations to prove that, “Only to the extent that it absorbs energy can a CO2 molecule be a source of heat – and since its frequency response is limited, so too is its ability to heat. CO2 fails to intercept anything close to the full span of the earth’s radiant spectrum.”


Thanks to the enlightened insight of a more credible climate researcher such as Siddons the blogosphere is becoming an increasingly uncomfortable stomping ground for snake oil peddlers such as ‘Real Climate’s’ Gavin Schmidt.


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

University Shields Climate Scientist with Legal Delay Tactic

The legal ramifications from Climategate rumble on. As expected, the university accused of shielding a climate scientist from a fraud probe finally shows its legal cards.

Accused by climate sceptics as apologists for scientific misconduct the University of Virginia’s (UVA) petition has been duly served on Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli. The writ is to protect discredited climate scientist, Michael Mann from a possible fraud prosecution.

Naturally, the legal writ opposes Cuccinelli’s demand for disclosure of what may be important hidden climate data withheld by that once impeachable institution. But buried within the legal papers is a potentially cynical delay tactic.

Filed on May 27, 2010, UVA’s attorneys make a thin case; they cite little or no legal precedents; hardly surprising when there are few, if any similar cases in the annals of Virginia’s case law.

Hypocrisy of ‘Academic Freedom’ Meme

Certain auspicious sections of academia have been quick to roast Cuccinelli in the build up to this. They and their lawyers spuriously contend that Virginia’s Attorney General had impinged upon their ‘academic freedom’ with his recent demand for UVA’s records of their former employee, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann. 

To sceptics of man-made global warming this is a rather galling view to take in the circumstances. No such ‘academic freedom’ was bestowed on those sceptic scientists who disagreed with the global warming lobby. As distinguished legal professor, Jason Scott Johnston, points out many such reputable scientists have been marginalized or rejected by IPCC gatekeepers. As we learned from the ‘Climategate’ emails, there was a concerted effort behind the scenes to ensure that only one side of the story was heard.

Scott Johnston’s well-publicised take on all this proves that at least some sections of the legal profession hold a different view from that of the self-serving section of the ivory towers of academia.

Academics Have No Exemption from Fraud Laws

Academia has no over-riding privilege that places that profession above and beyond the fraud laws. There does seem to be a prima facie case and Cuccinelli is right to test if there is any fire behind this smoke.

The UVA seeks to rebut this by claiming there are "no objective reasons to believe" Mann has done wrong-well, let’s the hidden data first, shall we? The petition accuses Cuccinelli of being ‘overbroad’ and ‘burdensome’ in his disclosure demands. What this precisely means isn’t specified.

Aside from the legal ramifications, filing this petition does UVA no favors at all. It merely plays into their opponents’ hands and vindicates the view that climate science is unlike any other science and is exempt from any meaningful public scrutiny. This is a moral as well as a legal issue: publicly-funded research should be open to public scrutiny.

A ‘lose-lose’ scenario?

UVA has decided to risk jeopardising its outstanding reputation by seeking to perpetuate the smoke screen that keeps the core data of discredited climate scientists well hidden. Even if this petition succeeds UVA will forever stand accused of being just another apologist institution for scientific misconduct.

There is no dispute at all over the fact that that independent analysts seeking reasonable Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests to view key climate data have been unlawfully denied, in some cases by between three to seven years (as per NASA and Britain’s Climatic Research Unit). The shabby cover up has to stop.

University Refuses to Comply with Subpoena

The petition concedes there is a controversy revolving around Michael Mann’s hidden data. But it doesn’t concede the fact Mann, contrary to established scientific procedure, has taken the unusual line of refusing to disclose his meta data reasonably sought by independent climate analysts.

The petition offers no reason for unwillingness of Mann and his former employers to let others audit his numbers. Indeed, nowhere does the petition address any of the charges of wrongdoing against Mann. 

Neither does the petition acknowledge that the Oxburgh Committeea British independent inquiry into Climategate that addressed the conduct of the clique of climate scientists to which Mann belongs, found that scientists had, indeed, cherry-picked, lost and/or destroyed key climate data. At least one of the clique, CRU’s Phil Jones, escaped criminal prosecution only by a legal technicality. So the question is: what are these scientists so desperate to hide?

Is Petition a Cynical Delay Tactic?

A considerable portion of the argument in UVA’s instant petition is cleverly intertwined and dependent on the outcome of the AG’s other pending case that was filed on February16, 2010 (Commonwealth of Virginia v. United States Envtl. Agency, Case No. 10-1036 (D.C. Cir.)). No further state proceedings can be meaningfully advanced until the federal case has been concluded.

As much as taxpayers and climate sceptics would love to see this issue promptly disposed with this now seems unlikely. Slick lawyering may have bought Mann and the university more breathing space and there is little Cuccinelli can do about it. 

Where to From Here?

As Jason Scott Johnston Professor of Law, and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy of the University of Pennsylvania Law School concluded in his fine essay, certain facts will remain; global warming advocates and their institutions have applied “a rhetoric of persuasion, of advocacy that prevails throughout establishment climate science." 

The consequence of such bias and subterfuge has been that federal and state policymakers will remain blissfully ignorant of all the climate facts. They thus blindly stumble on in the dark pursuing what are increasingly perceived as dystopian cap and trade climate taxes without any credible and proven scientific basis.



Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

NASA in Shock New Controversy: Two Global Warming Reasons Why

NASA covered up for forty years proof that the greenhouse gas theory was bogus. But even worse, did the U.S. space agency fudge its numbers on Earth’s energy budget to cover up the facts?  

 NASA: Hiding the Decline of the Greenhouse Gas Theory

Forty years ago the space agency, NASA, proved there was no such thing as a greenhouse gas effect because the ‘blackbody’ numbers supporting the theory didn’t add up in a 3-dimensional universe:

" During lunar day, the lunar regolith absorbs the radiation from the sun and transports it inward and is stored in a layer approximately 50cm thick….in contrast with a precipitous drop in temperature if it was a simple black body, the regolith then proceeds to transport the stored heat back onto the surface, thus warming it up significantly over the black body approximation…"

Thus, the ‘blackbody approximations' were proven to be as useful as a chocolate space helmet; the guesswork of using the Stefan-Boltzmann equations underpinning the man-made global warming theory was long ago debunked. If NASA had made known that Stefan-Boltzmann's numbers were an irrelevant red-herring then the taxpayers of the world would have been spared the $50 billion wasted on global warming research; because it would have removed the only credible scientific basis to support the theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide changed Earth’s climate.

But, until May 24, 2010 these facts remained swept under the carpet. For the Apollo missions NASA had successfully devised new calculations to safely put astronauts on the Moon-based on actual measured temperatures of the lunar surface. But no one appears to have told government climatologists who, to this day, insist their junk science is 'settled' based on their bogus ‘blackbody’ guesswork.

NASA’s Confusion over Earth’s Energy Budget

 But it gets worse: compounding such disarray, NASA, now apparently acting more like a politicized mouthpiece for a socialist one world government, cannot even provide consistent numbers on Earth’s actual energy budget.


Thanks to further discussion with scientist, Alan Siddons, a co-author of the paper, ‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon,’ it appears I inadvertently stumbled on a NASA graph that shows the U.S. space agency is unable to tally up the numbers on the supposed greenhouse gas "backradiation." Why would this be?


In its graphic representation of the energy budget of the Earth the agency has conspicuously contradicted itself in its depiction of back-radiation based on its various graphs on Earth's radiation budget.

As Siddons sagely advised me, "This opens the question as to WHICH budget NASA actually endorses, because the one you show is consistent with physics: 70 units of sunlight go in, 70 units of infrared go out, and there’s no back-flow of some ridiculous other magnitude. Interesting."


Climate Sceptic Scientists’ Growing Confidence


Thanks to Siddons and his co-authors of ‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon,’ the world now has scientific evidence to show the greenhouse gas theory (GHG) was junk all along.

As the truth now spreads, an increasing number of scientists refute the greenhouse gas theory, many have been prompted by the shocking revelations since the Climategate scandal. The public have also grown more aware of how a clique of government climatologists were deliberately ‘hiding the decline’ in the reliability of their proxy temperature data all along.

But NASA’s lunar temperature readings prove that behind that smoke was real fire. Some experts now boldly go so far as to say the entire global warming theory contravenes the established laws of physics.


How NASA responds to these astonishing revelations may well tell us how politicized the American space agency really is.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Malaria-gate Now Infects More Global Warming Conspirators

Controversial climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann is still up to his old tricks; he’s now alleged to have assisted a university colleague in obtaining a cool two million dollars for discredited research into malaria. 

Ace skeptic investigator, Barry Woods has unearthed another useful lead in the corrupt and immoral world of climate science-this time linking the breaking Malaria-gate scandal with Penn. State University bad boys, Michael Mann and Matthew Thomas.


We all know the stink of Michael Mann but who is Thomas? He’s Penn. State’s Professor of Entomology and like Mann has been doing overtime trying to salvage the remnants of the discredited man-made global warming theory.


No Link Whatsoever between Malaria and Climate


Thomas is under the spotlight because he’s just been discredited as an expert in the field due to the recent publication of ground-breaking research on malaria in Nature (Gething et al. (2010)). The new study proves there is no link whatsoever between malaria and climate. In fact, Gething’s data shows the mortality rates from malaria are actually in decline-a body blow to the hype of doomsaying establishment junk scientists.


The Nature study is a gamechanger on climate issues involving malaria so that politicized alarmist advocates like Thomas will soon be classed as ‘sub-prime’ as supposed experts in this field. Thomas had steadily built a lucrative business for himself as Professor of Entomology, at Penn State’s Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics. He boasts a published exploration of the ecology and evolution of "enemy-victim" interactions (malaria).


IPCC Had Blown Up Worry about Malaria

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ,in Chapter 8 of their 2007 Report, displayed a prominent graphic on malaria (Table 8.1) that makes worrisome reading, especially for the peoples of India, Australia, Portugal and Bolivia. The UN organization had boldly foretold that the worldwide geographical range of malaria “will expand” with a level of confidence that it proclaimed to be “very high.”

Such regions were predicted to be blighted most by malaria; all such alarmist claims are now proven to be bogus by Gething’s findings.

In 2009 Thomas had enjoyed some success in further helping the IPCC to whip up climate concern with the questionable paper;  ‘Understanding the link between malaria risk and climate.’ Paaijmans, KP, Read, AF & Thomas, MB(2009).Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106:13844-13849.

Junk Climate Scientist scooped Cool $2Million


Until Gething came along to spoil the party, Thomas was merrily awash with cash from a very large grant given to him last year, as records show; “2009-2013 Quantifying the influence of environmental temperature on transmission of vector-borne diseases, NSF-EF [Principal Investigator: M. Thomas; Co-Investigators: R.G. Crane, M.E. Mann, A. Read, T. Scott (Penn State Univ.)]. $1,884,991"

Thomas makes a lame defense of his position in the UK’s Guardian newspaper.


Michael Mann in yet another Conspiracy to Defraud?


But as we can see, the “investigator” who helped Thomas scoop the two million bucks is none other than his Penn. State University hockey team buddy, Michael E. Mann. Mann is currently under investigation for fraud by Virginia’s Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli.


Many of us fellow critics of the climate scam will no doubt endorse Barry Woods’ point that $1,884,991 is a lot of money to investigate the influence of environmental temperature on malaria when such influence has now been shown to be of little consequence. It’s also worth noting that you could buy a lot medicine and nets with $1.8 million.

Is anyone now going to ask Thomas to give taxpayers their funding back?





Gething, P. W. & D. L. Smith et al. ‘Climate change and the global malaria recession’ NatureVolume:, 465,Pages: 342–345Date published:, (20 May 2010)


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Did a Secret Climate Deal Launch the Hockey Stick Fakery?

Did a Secret Climate Deal Launch the Hockey Stick Fakery?


The investigation into the alleged global warming data fraud by Virginia’s Attorney General may soon have a whole new angle. This comes from a previously overlooked connection between discredited tree-ring proxy researcher, Michael Mann and Yale’s now deceased climate professor, Barry Saltzman.


Despite his legacy, outside of climate science few people will have heard of Saltzman. It was only right at the end of his 40-year career that this esteemed analyst produced his greatest achievement: a unified theory of climate that drew worldwide plaudits.


‘Father’ of Modern Climate Theory

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) and Journal of Climate among others posthumously gave Saltzman the ultimate accolade, “father of modern climate theory” on the publication of his ground breaking ‘Theory of Climate’ (2002).


The AMS tells us, “Barry Saltzman led the revival of the theory that variations of atmospheric CO2 are a significant driver of long-term climate change.”


As Professor of Geophysics, Saltzman served Yale University with distinction from 1968 until his death in 2001. Michael E. Mann’s position in the highly politicized sphere of climatology has since grown to be just as significant-but far more controversial. But we may have stumbled upon a sinister connection between the two researchers.


Bridging the Climate ‘Culture Gap’

Delving into the Prologue of Saltzman’s last and greatest work provides the clue. In his very first pages of ‘Theory of Climate’ Saltzman reveals the importance of certain researchers [Mann] who helped him bridge the climate “cultural gap.” For Saltzman they “have brilliantly and painstakingly been reconstructing the paleoclimatic record.” Saltzman goes on to say, “It is again my hope that this book will help bridge this gap.”


It did: the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change took Saltzman’s unified theory and used it in subsequent Reports as the template to blame the fossil fuel emissions of western nations for changing Earth’s climate.


The “gap” stayed bridged-at least until Climategate when Saltzman’s neat and tidy theory began to unravel. An unsuspecting world merely had to read the leaked emails to see how the Emperor’s Climate Clothes were crudely stitched together by heady tribalism among opportunist cronies.


Climate History Re-written

Tree-ring expert Michael Mann had simply picked up Saltzman’s thread. Mann’s highly dramatic ‘hockey stick’ graph was to dress the scene very nicely for the launch of the 2001 Third Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Overnight Mann re-wrote the paleoclimatic record to the astonishment of solar physicists, geologists and historians worldwide.


Mann No Expert on Tree Proxies

But the deeper we dig the more we uproot our so-called tree-ring expert. In Mann’s lavish 13,465-word online résumé the word ‘tree’ appears only 6 times. By comparison the word ‘ocean’ appears 37 times. Even his doctoral dissertation makes not one reference to trees-its all about oceans. Clearly, our Michael is not a Mann enamored by tree ring research.


It’s in 1996 that this story gets very curious. At that time Mann needed help to “defend” his Ph.D work in a documented but unexplained controversy at Yale. Inexplicably, this ‘controversy’ was peremptorily swept aside and between 1996-98 Mann was named as the Alexander Hollaender Distinguished Postdoctoral Research Fellow (DOE).


Mann’s Ph.D ‘Rushed Through’

All was now well and Yale gave Mann his Ph.D in 1998. One eminent source in my enquiries confirmed Mann’s Ph.D. was, in fact “rushed through.”


Instantly, Mann was then plucked from obscurity and appointed not just a contributing author for Chapters 7,8,12 of the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (1998-00) but also Lead Author for Chapter 2. And with no track record whatsoever in this field, Mann now with tree ring data thrust into his hand, famously carved out his infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph.


So what miracle had turned this problematic researcher’s life around? If miracles ever happened then for Mann they came in the form of Barry Saltzman. You see, this struggling student’s career was transformed the moment Saltzman became his Ph.D advisor. Only after Saltzman applied his influence was Mann’s lofty credentials “rushed through.” Mann then turns himself into a makeshift tree ring counter and overnight becomes the iconic figure in the IPCC Third Report (2001). The rest is history, as they say.


If my name were Ken Cuccinelli I would want to chase down one or two grant and funding sources; with proof of collusion a case for fraud holds water. That’s treble damages and Virginia’s taxpayers will be sitting $1.5 million better off plus expenses.


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

EPA Climate Rule ‘Protects’ Americans From Perrier Water

While analyzing the federal government’s latest long-winded publication, ‘Climate Action Report, the Fifth National Communication of the United States of America Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’ I stumbled across something buried deep inside that will dismay (or perhaps amuse) many taxpayers.

In the section entitled, ‘Proposed Regulation Facilitating Geologic Sequestration of CO2’ the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has pulled out all the stops to make an even bigger ass of itself. It is introducing a new requirement under the Safe Drinking Water Act to protect U.S. citizens from being ‘poisoned’ from carbon dioxide in drinking water.


The latest cock-eyed federal policy concerns a new class of injection well—Class VI” (page 44) that at great expense will inject carbon dioxide (CO2) underground by a process that will inhibit drinking water from becoming as carbonated as fizzy Perrier water. The greenies call this process ‘carbon sequestration,’ in case you didn’t know.


A somnolent U.S. administration has completely swallowed the Mickey Finn plied to it by politicized environmentalists and taxpayers pockets are being picked to the tune of tens of billions. All this is due to the passive acceptance by politicians of the unproven hypothesis that human emissions of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, are ‘bad’ for our planet.


With the financial floodgates now open money is now pouring into a new sequestration system that will pump industrially produced carbon emission into the Earth where its is believed they will be ‘less harmful.’ So-called ‘investment’ in the U.S. green economy is currently overflowing at about $18.6 billion.

Unlike any offshore oil disaster, if the underground water supply does become ‘contaminated’ by carbon dioxide from the new ‘Class VI’ system, then the government will have inadvertantly created a benefit: a home grown version of France’s famous tipple.


But by their failure to apply any joined up thinking on the issue, a typically profligate EPA will not apply the necessary logic to see the economic benefits from the inadvertant spiking of our drink. To do so would effectively pull the plug on the whole ‘CO2 is poison’ scam.


The weird and amoral world of eco-politics would rather taxpayers stay blissfully ignorant about how benign CO2 really is in our water. Marketed for generations in its iconic pear-shaped little green bottle Perrier has been regarded as a ‘chic’ and aspirational non-alcoholic beverage among Europe’s middle classes. In fact this ‘Champagne’ of mineral water costs more per barrel than the finest grade gasoline oil.


In Perrier’s manufacturing process the water and CO2 are sourced independently before being mixed in the bottling process. This ensures the gas added in bottled Perrier gives the same fizz as the water from the original source, the Vergèze spring in the Languedoc region of southern France.


Disavowing itself of saner opinion on the matter, the EPA has determined that the ingredient that makes the water’s fizz-that nasty carbon dixoide-is nothing short of an environmental ‘poison.’


I for one, have yet to hear of anyone poisoned by Perrier. So if the U.S. government is serious about generating ‘green’ jobs then they have missed a trick by not turning the new Class VI  injectors into money-making machines. A government mindful of green economic opportunties should be exporting America’s very own ‘champagne’ to nations that don’t view it as poisonous.


Footnote: from 1981 to 2005, the French Perrier company sponsored an annual comedy award in Britain known as "The Perriers.” The EPA would surely scoop their own “Perrier” with this latest joke perpetrated on the American people. Will the EPA yet dig itself an even deeper hole in this climate change fiasco?


John O’Sullivan is a legal analyst and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain. Visit his website

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Another Global Warming Scientist Slates Legal Probe

In the wake of the Climategate scandal establishment figures have been helping circle the wagons and head off unwelcome scrutiny by legal experts. The latest wagon-circler is Dr. Judith Curry, a member of NASA’s Climate Research Committee for three years. Now she is the self-appointed apologist for the unethical and some say, fraudulent, conduct of Penn. State University’s climate professor, Michael Mann.


In an interview with Thomas Fuller of the Environmental Policy Examiner (May 4, 2010) this respected establishment scientist criticizes Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli for doing his job. Dr. Curry somehow confuses an honest mistake with a deliberate pre-meditated criminal fraud.


Her tirade was prompted by Cuccinelli’s legal demand for access to Mann’s records from his former employers at Virginia State University where the tree-ring researcher benefited by almost $500,000 in taxpayer funding.


The Evidence Shows Probable Cause


If anyone doubts Cuccinelli’s just cause then I suggest they read the Wegman Report, those leaked Climategate emails plus the British investigation known as the Oxburgh Committee Report.


As someone who has studied the available evidence in great detail I share Cuccinelli’s concerns. I fear government scientists may have been complicit in foisting junk science upon us to help world governments introduce unwelcome cap and trade tax policies.


The only reason Mann’s British counterparts are not in jail is because they evaded prosecution on a mere technicality. Across the board climate researchers are shown to be guided by “subjectivity” leading them to cherry pick their data.


I recommend that Dr. Curry and other warmist sympathizers pay heed to science fraud experts like James Sheehan. 

 James Sheehan is an Associate US Attorney working out of the US Attorney’s Office, US Department of Justice in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Mann’s new stomping ground. Sheehan confirms that fraud in scientific research is a widespread problem. (1.)


Studies prove that 40% or more of surveyed researchers knew of scientific misconduct but did not report it (2.). In the field of medical science alone, 17% of surveyed researchers personally knew of fabrication by colleagues over the previous 10 years (3.)


Scientific fraud can and does happen because researchers either crave professional recognition or adamantly believe they have the “right” answer, despite evidence to the contrary. Scientific swindlers, being highly educated and intelligent, are extremely adept at falsifying data and documents. We are talking here about cases such as the Korean stem cell cloning fraud and Britain’s MMR vaccine-autism scandal. These remind us that society must stay vigilant in such matters.


Specialist US attorneys, like Sheehan, routinely apply criminal fraud statutes, such as section 1001 of title 18 of the US Code (18 USC §1001), to nail such crooked scientists. Thus, Attorney General, Cuccinelli and US attorney Sheehan are clearly on the same page, but Dr. Curry won’t even look at the right book.


Science fraudsters give off “warning signs” that Sheehan says are clearly “suggestive of fraud or conflict of interest.“ He goes on to say that law enforcers “should not hesitate to take a second look at the research results and other relevant documents.”


In Sheehan’s world Cuccinelli is simply doing his job.


The Criminal Fraud Standard


U.S. prosecutors who identify a fraud merely apply, “the standard of good faith and fair dealing as understood in the community, involving deception or breach of trust, for money.”


Sheehan reports that juries will hold an individual researcher responsible “if they are convinced that he or she knowingly deceived others and had a plausible motivation to cheat.”


A fraud jury only convicts if they are convinced there has been a breach of the ‘community standard.’ In other words, only when “a lie or a false document has been perpetrated with the intention of creating a false impression.”


Upholding Transparency in Government


I urge Dr. Curry to rethink her position on this issue. According to independent audits of what little evidence has come light, it has been shown that Mann’s infamous ‘hiding the decline’ of global temperatures was statistical sophistry, not science.


 If Professor Mann is innocent then he will have nothing to hide. But despite repeated requests for access to Mann’s data, independent auditors have been denied. Thus, Cuccinelli smells a rat and was compelled to use the law to force disclosure.


Dr. Curry and other apologists for unethical scientists should respect the rule of law. While such scientists remain under suspicion they should receive no further government funding unless they provide utter transparency and cooperate fully in all such lawful investigations. Particularly in such harsh economic times, voters have the right to know how these scientists have spent our hard-earned tax dollars.



(1.) Sheehan, J.G., ‘Fraud, conflict of interest, and other enforcement issues in clinical research’ Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, Volume 74, Supplement 2 (March 2007)


(2.) Ranstam J, Buyse M, George SL, et al. Fraud in medical research: an international survey of biostatisticians. ISCB Subcommittee on Fraud. Control Clin Trials 2000; 21:415–427. 7. Geggie D. A survey of newly appointed consultants’ attitudes towards research fraud. J Med Ethics 2001; 27:344–346

(3.) Gardner W, Lidz CW, Hartwig KC. Authors’ reports about research integrity problems in clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials 2005; 26:244–251.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Follow the Money: BBC Exposed in Biggest Climate Racket on Planet

 The world is learning fast that climate pseudo-science is fraught with fraud. The best way to go to the heart of any moneymaking scam is to follow the money. Here is where we take you on a journey from the toilet of the United Nations to the BBC’s top floor. For non-British readers the BBC extorts an annual compulsory license fee of £142.50 (US $200) per household via government legislation for the privilege of owning a television.

 The BBC Pension Trust is worth about £8 billion while its mainstream operations are struggling to reverse an estimated £2billion deficit as reported on last weekend by that fine journalist and writer, James Delingpole of the ‘Telegraph.’

 The BBC’s handsome pension pot is invested in the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) alongside another 50 plus member funds. The total assets of this consortium is around €4trillion (Euros) that, in turn is invested in a larger consortium known as ‘UNEP FI’ worth about $15 trillions (US).

 UNEP FI is fast becoming seriously embarrassed with its strong ties with the now discredited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that lurches from one climate data fraud scandal to another. Nonetheless, the UNEP FI puts on a smug face and gleefully describes itself as,

  a global partnership between UNEP and the financial sector. Over 180 institutions, including banks, insurers and fund managers, work with UNEP to understand the impacts of environmental and social considerations on financial performance.”

 The UNEP FI Insurance Working Group boasts of its “ground-breaking report” on its website that I well recommend to readers. These swindlers advise is that there is a “complex relationship” between environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors, core insurance operations, and the insurance industry. Yes – and so much more complex since criminal climate scientists destroyed their ‘fudged’ data and refused to obey lawful freedom of information requests for over seven years.

 Despite the string of climate calamities that have befallen the UN since the Climategate scandal first broke last November, the UNEP FI consortium is feverishly demanding that governments impose higher fuel duties and caps on carbon emissions that will encourage scarcity and demand. Thus this profit-chasing unholy alliance of conspirators will still be able to cream off some of the loot for their ‘green’ pension scams.

 The losers in the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time are western taxpayers and Third World poor who will likely suffer starvation and disease due to the increased costs of food and essential medicines.

The chairman of IIGCC and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe said:

 “The credibility of emissions trading schemes would be greatly improved with a robust price signal as well as clear and frequent communication from the regulator on trading data and improved transparency over direct government participation in schemes.”

 Yes, you did read that correctly: “IIGCC chairman and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe…”

The BBC is in the Chair of this Carbon Trading driven investment scheme! Now you know why the BBC’s thought police have been censoring climate skeptics shamelessly for years.

 UKIP’s Member of the European Parliament, Godfrey Bloom was vilified by the warmist press for refusing to back down from his attack on the BBC in the UK’s fine Daily Telegraph, in which he said:

 “The BBC has blocked skeptics of climate change for four years now, no debate is allowed on the BBC. It is biased reporting and it is censorship.”

Speaking to Left Foot Forward, Mr Bloom continued:

 “I absolutely stand by what I said. This is one of the most important subjects since the war. The whole thing has been a complete farce and a cover-up. Name me one instance of an informed debate on the subject? “

 But Godfrey Bloom is now being entirely vindicated as we see that the BBC has been shamelessly plugging its own profiteering agenda and ignoring any dissent even when it involves news stories of great interest to its viewers and listeners. And all for the so-greater good of that Low-Carbon Economy.’ The investor statement reads,

 “ it is imperative that efforts advance this year to negotiate and conclude a legally binding agreement with ambitious greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.”

 The BBC’s Peter Dunscombe as Chair of the IIGCC endorses ( he may have even written) that in his pension trust’s policy statements that,

Without government actions, however, private-sector investment will not reach the scale required to address climate change effectively.”

 You got that? Climate change has to be addressed ‘effectively’ i.e. effective for his pension pot. With a shameful hidden agenda like that its no wonder viewers are abandoning television and coming to the Internet for impartial news reporting. This self-serving hypocrite baloney goes further: 

“….we remain firmly convinced that climate change presents both material risks and significant opportunities for investment portfolios…”

 The ‘risks’ it seems are wholly upon gullible taxpayers, the incentives for BBC newsreaders, environment correspondents, journalists, planners, schedulers, documentary program makers, etc. is enormous. No wonder the BBC produces the best environmental television in the world – BBC employee thinks: ‘investment portfolios’!

 Meanwhile, something for all our readers in North America – a story waiting to be written concerning that other vast consortium in the U.S. known as the Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR). INCR has over 80 members and $8 trillion in assets across its network of North American private funds and very much tied up with UNEP FI.

 So for anyone wondering why the American mainstream media has done diddly to report on the great climate swindle, we’re betting it’s something to do with INCR.

 For U.S. readers looking to know more about what INCR is doing you may contact: Mindy Lubber at Web:

For European readers would like to know more about the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) we suggest you contact: Stephanie Pfeifer at Web:

Those British organizations tied into IIGCC who may have a conflict of interest when they communicate with you include the following:

Baptist Union of Great Britain
 Bedfordshire Pension Fund
BT Pension Scheme
Central Finance Board of the Methodist Church
Corporation of London Pension Fund
Environment Agency Pension Fund
Greater Manchester Pension Fund
Kent County Council
London Borough of Hounslow Pension Fund
London Borough of Islington Pension Fund
London Borough of Newham Pension Fund
London Pensions Fund Authority
Merseyside Pension Fund
Roman Catholic Diocese of Plymouth
Roman Catholic Diocese of Salford
South Yorkshire Pensions Authority
The Church Commissioners for England
The Church in Wales
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth
United Reform Church
Universities Superannuation Scheme
West Midlands Metropolitan Authorities Pension Fund
West Yorkshire Pension Fund




Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized