DeSmogblog Fail with Pop Gun Character Assassination Ploy

Big Green’s Canadian web warriors, DeSmogblog promote “faked” online evidence to smear global warming legal analyst. The move is seen as retaliation after a slew of adroit articles compare and discredit separate Penn. State investigations into university employees Jerry Sandusky and Michael Mann. trying hardest to cloud climate science trying hardest to cloud climate science

DeSmogblog writers Demelle and Littlemore jump the shark with their article ‘Affidavits in Michael Mann Libel Suit Reveal Astonishing Facts About Tim Ball Associate John O’Sullivan’ (July 26, 2012). The piece claims to have “facts” undermining the integrity of this author.* Upon examination the supposed “facts” prove to be naught but rehashed hearsay claims dismissed last year by an investigation of the Law Society of British Columbia. Disgraced former journalist Andrew Skolnick submitted the affidavits to the very same court where prominent skeptic climate researcher, Dr. Tim Ball is defending a libel suit against Dr. Michael Mann. Professor Mann is Director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University (PSU) and has proved a successful promoter of the lucrative billion-dollar business of global climate alarmism. Skolnick’s affidavits add not one iota of actual evidence dispositive of accusations that Mann perpetrated a fraud.

The piece from the David Suzuki-backed attack dogs is easily exposed as a bait and switch ploy. It’s purpose: to distract attention from the real issue of the failing Vancouver lawsuit of the alleged Climategate fraudster whose history is being indelibly entwined with that of convicted pedophile, Jerry Sandusky. Both men were the subjects of internal investigations by their PSU employers that critics say were “whitewashed.”  The supposed reason being that the university wanted to protect the  income stream and kudos associated with these high-profile characters. I’m betting it’s no coincidence that Mann fans Demelle and Littlemore worked up a sweat when they read my articles about their hero here, here and here.

Litigious Mann Threatens Ever More Libel Suits

When one of his Facebook cronies gave Mann a link to my last article Mann’s swift reply was: “This has been sent to the legal team at Cozen O’Connor.” But I’m in good company – last week Mann and his Big Oil lawyers were making similar SLAAP lawsuit threats against Mark Steyn and the National Review.

The back-story is that Michael Mann has been pursuing a vexatious libel claim in the British Columbia Supreme Court for more than a year against popular Canadian climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball. Ball had quipped that Mann – a prominent public figure advocating reductions in human emissions of carbon dioxide – belongs “in the state pen., not Penn. State.” Mann’s advocacy has influenced policymakers to seek draconian restrictions on western industries.

Ball’s analysis of Mann’s discredited “hockey-stick” graph (the universal icon for green climate activism) is highly critical of Mann’s unethical cherry picking of evidence and withholding of key metadata for his graph. Prominent statisticians have already proven that Mann’s methodology was flawed. But an objective analysis of his hidden metadata could establish beyond doubt whether such flaws were intentionally perpetrated as part of a criminal fraud.

In light of the Sandusky conviction hindsight is telling Mann his suing Ball in Vancouver was a huge miscalculation not least because Canadians have fallen out of the love with David Suzuki’s “green revolution.” While Americans are seeing the recent Freeh report affirming the existence of an insidious culture at Penn. State that predisposes the hierarchy to subvert evidence of criminality committed by apex employees. Since the report’s publication Mann is hearing his name spoken so often in the same breath as Sandusky’s that the perturbed professor is throwing hissyfits threatening more libel suits. An unmistakable stench of malfeasance is triggering calls for a fresh, independent investigation into this “Mann-made” global warming science. Like other analysts, I believe public policy considerations alone merit such a thorough probe.

North of the 49th Parallel DeSmog’s hapless hero is reeling as he sees his cozy climate coterie crumple under the stark glare of an objective legal light. The culture shock of being in that British Columbia courtroom is certainly proving a far cry from the darker recesses of Mann’s university safe haven. Ball’s compulsory disclosure demands for Mann to hand over his “dirty laundry” – the hidden metadata for his graph – won’t go away. The more Mann prevaricates the more suspicion grows that he and his university employers dishonestly secured the spoils of $2 million in U.S. federal research grants.

Thus the Demelle and Littlemore distraction story is a straw-clutching exercise to trumpet unfounded and refuted allegations that I made numerous misrepresentations over academic and professional credentials. The most serious of the slurs is that I falsely obtained monies masquerading as a licensed attorney – a criminal offense. However, the Law Society of British Columbia (LSBC) investigated the matter and found no proof of wrongdoing. Indeed, if the LSBC had found even a jot of evidence they are duty bound to inform the police. [1.]

Curiously, Andrew Skolnick, the source of the slurs against me, was fired from his employment as associate news editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Exposed as a liar and his career in tatters Skolnick now ekes out a living in New York as a pet photographer. Earlier this year his shenanigans culminated in the hasty take down of several discussion threads on the Climate Etc. website. Blog owner, Dr. Judith Curry, sagely removed offending sections of her blog when it was found they were infected with Skolnick’s libelous commentary. Then last week  the recalcitrant rascal was also banned from the Science Writers’ Forum of LinkedIn for posting similarly malicious and offensive slurs against other folk. Rumors are he’s banned from any further activities as a Wikipedia editor as well.

Hearsay Affidavits Not Admissible in Canada

But these are admirable traits among those connected with the David Suzuki-backed DeSmogblog website. The ineptitude and hypocrisy of Demelle and Littlemore is amusingly exposed by D&L’s poor grasp of the “facts.” The pair have already apologized to readers for having to amend their flawed article post-publication. So much for Dumber & Lamer’s jibe about me being “highly prone to error.” But then DeSmogblog doesn’t seem to care that it’s perceived as a joke and the unprincipled sock puppet for discredited extremists in the Canadian green movement.

But the DeSmogblog’s non-story comes at a moment when truth and transparency appear to be coming back into fashion among the political class – at least in Britain. The House of Commons Justice Committee is learning lessons from Climategate and has now published a post-legislative review favoring toughening up of freedom of information laws. Not good news for Mendacious Mike and his hockey-stickers!

Certainly, what’s been written about me is worthless and easily discredited in a legal context. Not just because of the flaws cited above but because – as per the rules of hearsay and “unclean hands” – those Skolnick affadavits are inadmissible under the Canada Evidence Act.

To reiterate previous public statements: I have called Skolnick out as a fraud and a liar but he hasn’t followed up on his threat to sue me for libel. Thus we can safely say Demelle and Littlemore’s article is mere grandstanding built on fluff to distract from the real issue at hand: Mann’s impending demise in the science trial of the century.

[1.] Pursuant to the LSBC investigation proof was submitted of my academic and professional qualifications.

*Update (August o1, 2012):

The New York County Lawyers Association has formally notified Demelle (and Huffington Post who also ran the story) that what they have published is a misrepresentation. However, the defamatory story remains unaltered and no apology has been issued by Huffington Post or Demelle.

Frankly, this validates my belief that Demelle and Huffington Post are in the business of publishing their lies to serve a pro-green media agenda. This is to distract from the real story: the alleged criminal fraud of Michael Mann and his accomplices at Penn. State University.


Filed under Uncategorized

47 responses to “DeSmogblog Fail with Pop Gun Character Assassination Ploy

  1. Snapple

    Dr. Mann is not only suing Tim Ball for libel. He is also suing “John Doe.”
    Any thoughts about who John Doe is?

    Also, you claim that Dr. Mann has not released the meta-data for the hockey stick. Do you mean the computer code? If so, a link was given to Congressman Barton (page 6) years ago, although the computer code is not needed for replicating the results–only the data is needed.
    Scientists are not required to release the computer code–see the letter from the NSF on page 5.

    Click to access Mann_response_to_Barton.pdf

    • johnosullivan

      Snapple, I’ve no idea who the “John Doe” could be. But the law provides no blanket exception from the discovery process to scientists anymore than it does to accountants, businesses or bankers when it comes to due process in civil litigation. This is where as an armchair lawyer Mann’s delusions have gotten the better of him. As the plaintiff in the action against Ball he is confronted by the “truth defense” and must fully comply with Ball’s disclosure motions. There is nothing meaningful in your reference to policy by any foreign jurisdiction (including the NSF).
      Independent statisticians have reliably established that Mann’s methodology would generate a hockey stick graph regardless of almost any data input. What is at issue in the Mann-v-Ball trial is not whether or not there are errors in Mann’s calculations (there surely are!) but whether there exists yet undisclosed evidence (in Mann’s emails) that substantiates allegations that Mann perpetrated his skewed results intentionally (i.e. to commit fraud). This would thus go to the heart of determining the truthfulness of Ball’s comment that Mann belongs “in the state pen, not Penn. State.” To keep alive his case Mann must comply with the B.C. court rules and hand over to Ball’s attorney of all his withheld emails. As per my previous articles, if Mann prevaricates willfully in contempt of Ball’s discovery motions then he will face severe punitive sanctions likely to be fatal to his case.

  2. Snapple

    You are so delusional. Many peer reviewed articles have established that the hockey stick is right. I have seen no evidence that Mann will have to produce emails. You just claim this.

  3. Snapple

    You are the delusional armchair lawyer. Mann has hired a real lawyer who is an expert on Canadian libel law.

  4. Snapple

    McIntyre and McKitrick removed data included in the original hockey stick work.

  5. Snapple

    The journal that published McIntyre’s and McKitrick’s article–Energy and Environment– is not a recognized scientific journal. M and M deleted key records from Mann’s proxy network. See “False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick Regarding the Mann et al. (1998) Reconstruction, ” Dec 4, 2004 and in subsequent peer-reviewed work in other journals.

    The fortran program is linked on this page.

    It’s not real smart to put Steve McIntyre’s words in the mouth of FBI Agent Rice. I know it wasn’t a mistake, because you wouldn’t fix the false attribution. That shows me you are dishonest.

    • johnosullivan

      Stick to the matter in hand. You fail to comprehend that evidence admissible in a court of law is not confined to only those “recognized” science journals you may wish to cherry pick. The case is not about the vagaries of climatology but rather a black and white number checking process of Mann’s methodology and use/abuse of the numbers, as per in any accounts audit. Mann’s civil suit is about determining whether Tim Ball’s statement that Mann belongs “in the state pen, not Penn. State” is verified as true by examination of all the available evidence, including personal documents, emails, etc. to check whether Mann knowingly rigged his metadata to churn out hockey sticks regardless of the raw data.
      For Mann to prevail at trial he will need to show all the evidence Ball’s attorney has demanded as per the discovery process to satisfy the above test. That Mann declines to disclose renders him liable to the spoliation inference and dismissal of his claim.
      In your prior comment you said you see no evidence that Mann must release his hidden evidence. However, I cited case law to guide you on this: see McDougall v. Black & Decker Canada Inc.,2008 ABCA 353; October 2008.
      Also check the Court Rules Act (Canada); Supreme Court Civil Rules; [amended by B.C. Reg. 112/2012, July 1, 2012].This affirms that Mann is required to comply with Ball’s discovery motion as per

      Check: Part 7 — Procedures For Ascertaining Facts; Rule 7-1 — Discovery and Inspection of Documents. This requires: ‘Response to demand for documents’ in which: (12) A party who receives a demand under subrule (10) or (11) must, within 35 days after receipt, do one of the following: (a) comply with the demand in relation to the demanded documents; Application for production of documents. (13) If a party who receives a demand under subrule (10) or (11) does not, within 35 days after receipt, comply with the demand in relation to the demanded documents, the demanding party may apply for an order requiring the listing party to comply with the demand.
      Consequences of certain non-compliance (5) Without limiting any other power of the court under these Supreme Court Civil Rules, if a person, contrary to these Supreme Court Civil Rules and without lawful excuse, (c) refuses or neglects to produce or permit to be inspected any document or other property, then; (f) if the person is the plaintiff or petitioner, a present officer of a corporate plaintiff or petitioner or a partner in or manager of a partnership plaintiff or petitioner, the court may dismiss the proceeding. ‘Failure to comply with direction of court:’ (6) If a person, without lawful excuse, refuses or neglects to comply with a direction of the court, the court may make an order under subrule (5) (f) or (g).

  6. Snapple

    Since you aren’t a lawyer, I am certain you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. The data and code about the Hockey Stick graph are on the Internet, something you never tell people.

    I notice that you have not denied any of the allegations in the affidavits.

    • johnosullivan

      I’m guessing reading and comprehension aren’t your best assets and you certainly have trouble sticking to the issues.

  7. Snapple

    Who is going to audit “a black and white number checking process of Mann’s methodology and use/abuse of the numbers”?

    You? Steve McIntyre? Elmer Fudd?

    This has to be done by specialists who publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The data is posted on the Internet, but McIntyre did not use all of the published data.

    • johnosullivan

      Clearly, you do not grasp how the judicial system operates. It is ONLY the trier of fact who weighs and determines the credibility of the audits and evidence presented to the court (i.e. judge and jury). Mann will be required to show the court his hidden files/emails and they will be subject to open court room scrutiny. Your fatuous claim that this “has to be done by specialists who publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals” exposes your ignorance. Each party is permitted to introduce their own third party experts in statistics to validate/refute the evidence presented in open court. Once both sides have concluded their presentations of the evidence the court decides who is the most credible.
      If Mann refuses to disclose his hidden files and emails the court will then adjudge that this constitutes a willful contempt (intentional spoliation of evidence). As such the trier of fact/jury will apply sanctions and likely decide that Mann withheld/destroyed his evidence from a “consciousness of guilt.” That outcome then leads directly to a ruling in favor of Ball. There is thus no way Mann can proceed with his case unless he consents to allowing the jury to see all his data and emails. That is the unavoidable path this case must take because the court has already accepted Ball’s due process right to the “truth defense.” Go look up Canadian rules of civil procedure and see for yourself. For your guidance here is an article on the issue from a successful Canadian law firm:

  8. Snapple

    I’m guessing reading and comprehension aren’t your best assets and you certainly have trouble sticking to the issues.

  9. Snapple

    You seem to like to guess a lot. Try reading the facts.

  10. Mark G

    Are you a lawyer yourself Snapple? You appear to be making some rather curious comments about the judicial system, indicating you’re not…or even a well-informed lay-person. And why make such personal insults? ….it merely undermines the persuasiveness of any argument you make (if there is one).

    • Snapple

      O’Sullivan has a very poor track record of predicting the outcome of legal cases.

      O’Sullivan opined that Attorney General Cuccinelli would prevail, but Cuccinelli lost in state and federal court. He is wrong about the basic facts of the cases/issues he comments on. He claimed that the Norfolk police were investigating the scientists when the police were investigating the hacker/s.

      Deniers are constantly claiming that Dr. Mann is a fraud who hides his data and his code, but both his data and his code have been posted on the Internet for years, as Dr. Mann told Congressman Barton, a stooge for the fossil-fuel interests. Since Mann’s Hockey Stick, other scientists have replicated his results and published them in peer-reviewed literature.

      O’Sullivan has put the words of Steve McIntyre, which appear on McIntyre’s own site, into the mouth of FBI Agent Royden Rice, and O’Sullivan refused to correct this obvious error on all his posts. This shows me that O’Sullivan is a dishonest person. Probably it also shows the FBI, which is full of lawyers, what a dishonest person John O’Sullivan is, too.

      The FBI is part of the National Intelligence Council (NIC) which is very concerned about climate change and water issues. The CIA, which is part of the NIC, has a Center for Climate Change and National Security.

      Foreigners who attack the great American scientists who do research for the government are attacking the national security interests of the American people, and our security agencies will protect our people and our scientists.

      Even though the Norfolk police announced that they have closed their investigation, the U.S, Department of Justice has not announced that they have closed their investigation, and the FBI comes to help Dr. Mann by investigating when people send him threats.

      I don’t know Canadian law, but I do know that Tim Ball said that Dr, Mann belongs in prison, and Tim Ball has to show evidence for why he believed this. He can’t base his defense on something he has never seen.

      • Mark G

        Snapple, you and Mr. O’Sullivan are more intimately aware of the facts in the case, so I won’t comment on the facts per se. My comments related to your understanding of the judicial system…as you said, you don’t know Canadian law and I think Mr. O’Sullivan has more knowledge in this area.

        But I was rather taken aback by your comment that “foreigners who attack the great American scientists who do research for the government are attacking the national security interests of the American people.” Sorry, but that smacks of totalitarianism to me…something I’d expect to read in a George Orwell novel. If one doesn’t allow scientists to be challenged or ‘attacked’ (in America, Canada, North Korea or anywhere else), how can science ever advance?

        My other point, relating to personal insults, probably needs re-iterating as well..and I respect the fact that your comments are slightly less inflammatory, more substantive this time round. I made a separate comment about Mr. Skolnick, who appears to leading the charge to try and besmirch Mr. O’Sullivan’s character.

        Challenging O’Sullivan’s credentials is one thing, but Skolnick appears incapable of doing so without making snide personal comments and insults (humbug lawyer, liar, etc). As well as mentioning criminal charges from which Mr O’Sullivan was fully acquitted. In my opinion it’s wholly unprofessional and merely discredits his own character/integrity….I’d expect such behavior from a 20 year-old troll, not an experienced (former?) journalist as Skolnick purports to be. But I believe he’s been removed from at least one professional forum for such behavior, so it’s pitifully predictable.

        And, as I commented, Skolnick hypocritically appears guilty of padding his own resume with such misleading claims as ‘nominated for a Pulitzer prize’.

        The area of global warming is emotionally charged enough…devolving into personal insults doesn’t advance healthy debate.

      • Whatever

        “He can’t base his defense on something he has never seen.”

        This goes to the heart of it. O’Sullivan goes on and on about how Ball will have access to all these records of Mann’s that are already in the public record. Then O’Sullivan alludes to “other” hidden data that Mann has not released, but he has no clue as to what is hidden, if indeed there is anything hidden. O’Sullivan seems to be favor promoting fishing expeditions into peoples’ lives as a way of defending an original slander. I don’t know what type of law O’Sullivan practices, if O’Sullivan really is a lawyer, but I would never hire him.

      • johnosullivan

        You are clearly ignorant of Canadian civil procedure. It is drivel to claim Ball is on a “fishing expedition” because it is Mann who is the plaintiff in this case, not Ball. Mann is under the delusion that scientists are somehow a profession apart from all others and exempt from disclosure rules – they are not. The issue at hand is that Mann has gone on record to assert he refuses to release his hidden metadata after being accused of data fraud. But if an accountant or bank acted like Mann they would face criminal proceedings. Pointedly, Ball has invoked his due process right to apply the “truth defense.” This requires Mann to release all his hidden evidence. If Mann refuses then Ball is entitled to motion for dismal because of Mann’s intentional spoliation.

  11. Mark G

    Some interesting comments about Skolnick, the pet photographer.

    As I’ve also had to endure some defamatory comments from him, I did some of my own ‘investigative reporting.’ After just an hour or so of sleuthing, its clear that this individual is rather economical with the truth when it comes to his own credentials.

    More specifically, he claims on his resume to have been nominated for a Pulitzer prize in 1999. Any responsible journalist knows that they cannot claim to be a nominee just because a newspaper submits a piece for entry into the competition (“The Pulitzer rules make clear that the only people to be known as nominees are those finalists chosen by the Pulitzer juries. From those nominated finalists, the Pulitzer board chooses the winners. Everyone else is just an entrant.”). See Was he a nominated finalist? Hell no! But he even states in sworn court affidavits that he was nominated!

    Similarly he states in his bio that he sued CMS and “obtained an out-of-court settlement.” What he conveniently fails to state is that the defendant (CMS) obtained a summary judgement against his libel claim:

    Among the statements made against Skolnick et. al were such gems as “the reporters’ thesis is flawed, their statements are inaccurate, and the tone is sensationalistic … [the] articles do a terrible disservice to [those] who care for inmate patients … [who are] … dedicated and hardworking people who do not deserve to be vilified by reporters who disregard the truth in pursuit of journalistic accolades.” The court didn’t find these comments defamatory (and the truth is the best defense to a charge of defamation!)…I find the ‘reporters who disregard the truth’ phrase particularly relevant.

    No doubt the threat of an appeal brought a token $1 or so settlement to prevent any further wasted defendant time on this frivolous lawsuit.

    Interestingly, the lawsuit also clarifies why he was fired from JAMA (“On November 3, 1998, JAMA fired Skolnick. JAMA wrote a memo stating that Skolnick was terminated, in part, for contributing to the Post-Dispatch articles without informing his supervisor”). Me thinks I can guess the other reasons implied by ‘in part’.

    What integrity! What hypocrisy! What an unpleasant individual!

  12. Snapple

    I see that the Frontier Center calls Tim Ball a Historical Climatologist, but I read that his degree is in Historical Geography.

    It seems that Tim Ball even claims in the above article that the planet is cooling. What peer-reviewed research can Tim Ball cite for this claim?

    Pravda’s article by Gregory Fegel doesn’t count. Pravda is not a peer-reviewed journal and Gregory Fegel seems to be a 9-11 Truther who believes that George Bush brought down the World Trade Center.

  13. Snapple

    In the 2011 interview where he claimed that Dr. Michael Mann belonged in the state pen, Tim Ball also claimed: “The earth has been cooling since at least the year 2000. It’s a very slight cooling trend but the rate of cooling is increasing.”

    What were his peer-reviewed citations for this claim?

    In this 2006 article, Tim Ball claims: “Earth is warming up… but it’s not humans who are doing it.”

    Tim Ball keeps changing what he says without giving any evidence for his arguments. How can the earth be warming in 2006 but cooling at an increasing rate since 2000?

    I don’t think that Tim Ball is really a climatologist at all. His degree is reportedly in Historical Geography, but the Frontier Centre identifies him as a Historical Climatologist.

    • johnosullivan

      Again you expose your (willful) ignorance of the facts. It is clear your motives are not to understand but to seek to discredit. You don’t need “peer-reviewed citations” when HadCRUT publishes the data for you. All you need is a pair of eyes. The UK’s HadCRUT global temperature dataset proves there exists a global cooling trend of -0.2°C/century over last 15 years:

      Ball’s PhD study was about climate in Canada. .Dr. Ball obtained his PhD (Doctor of Science) from the Queen Mary College, University of London (England) in 1982 before the emergence of university faculties for climatology. If you disagree then please state which universities possessed specified faculties of Climatology prior to the 1980’s.

      Misinformation about Dr. Ball’s career, qualifications, group activities and funding appears to emanate from Desmogblog run by James Hoggan, owner of a public relations company. Hoggan is also Chair of the David Suzuki Foundation, a powerful environmental group. The Suzuki Foundation is in the pay of at least two oil companies. But by a bizarre twist of green logic ‘Big Oil’ money is corruptive only of those who hold skeptical views on environmentalist issues.
      Dr. Ball goes into detail about how DeSmoglog promotes the lies about him on his website:

      From what DeSmog has written about me I have no doubt they are utterly biased and easily dismissed as peddlers of lies.

  14. Snapple

    The renowned American climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann is suing a retired Canadian Historical Geologist named Dr. Tim Ball and a mysterious “John Doe” for libel because of comments they made on a Canadian site called the Frontier Centre (2-11-11). Dr. Ball claimed that Dr. Mann belonged in the “state pen,” although this comment is now deleted from the site.

    The Canadian Dr. Ball did not get specific about any American law Dr. Mann had supposedly broken. Tim Ball only claimed:
    “There is a move amongst the Attorney Generals in the States to start prosecuting.”

    Tim Ball was referring to Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a stooge for the fossil-fuel interests who has hijacked the high office of Attorney General and turned it into a political police, an outpost of fossil-fuel propaganda and persecution of climate scientists. According to information posted on the Internet, Cuccinelli gets money from a company owned by his father, a career lobbyist for the gas industry.
    Just because Attorney General Cuccinelli launched a civil—not criminal—investigative demand, does not make Cuccinelli right. State and federal courts have not allowed Attorney General Cuccinelli access to Dr. Mann’s emails. So far, our courts are protecting this famous scholar and our people from foreign and domestic operatives for the fossil fuel interests who seek to undermine our national security by buying up politicians and attorney generals.

    Dr. Mann’s data and research for his “hockey stick” graph, which shows that the northern hemisphere has been warming, have been posted on the Internet for many years. They are in plain sight; they aren’t hidden, as the liars claim. If Dr. Mann’s research is fabricated, why don’t other climate experts look at his data and code and expose Mann’s errors? Instead, subsequent researchers have published similar results in peer-reviewed literature. The “hockey stick” is not controversial with real, practicing climate scientists at all. Dr. Mann’s results have long been replicated by other scientists.

    Tim Ball, who is not really a climate scientist, sometimes claims that the earth is cooling; but he sometimes also claims that the earth is warming. He does not cite evidence in peer-reviewed literature for either of his contradictory propositions.

    In his 2011 interview with the mysterious “John Doe” of the Frontier Centre (2-10-11), Tim Ball claimed:

    “The earth has been cooling since at least the year 2000. It’s a very slight cooling trend but the rate of cooling is increasing.”

    In the Citizen (5-18-2006), Tim Ball is quoted as saying:
    “Earth is warming up… but it’s not humans who are doing it.”

    Tim Ball keeps changing what he says without giving any evidence for his contradictory arguments. How can the earth be warming in 2006 but cooling at an increasing rate since 2000?
    Maybe the secret data that would prove this conundrum is hidden in Dr. Tim Ball’s emails. I don’t think that Tim Ball is really a climatologist at all. His degree is reportedly in Historical Geography, although the Frontier Centre identifies him as a Historical Climatologist.
    Citations for Dr. Ball’s claims:

  15. Snapple

    Regarding the new HADCRUT data:

    “The UK Met Office Hadley Centre has just released HadCRUT4, which is an update to HadCRUT3 which, as we have known for more than 2 years, has a cool bias. As discussed by Kevin C, this cool bias is predominantly due to a lack of coverage in the Arctic and other land regions which are warming particularly rapidly.”

  16. Snapple

    Regarding HADCRUT data:

    In HadCRUT4, the hottest years on record are 2010 and 2005, with 1998 right behind in a statistical tie. This brings HadCRUT4 into better agreement with the surface temperature records from NCDC and GISS, which also have 2010 and 2005 as the hottest years on record, whereas HadCRUT3 had 1998 as the hottest.

    This is something of a dark day for the many climate “skeptics” who in recent years have exclusively used HadCRUT3 to argue the myth that global warming has stopped, thanks to its cool bias.

    Cited from

  17. Snapple

    As usual, you are cherry-picking and not telling the full context of what the scientific organizations are saying.

  18. Snapple

    Climate “skeptics”… in recent years have exclusively used HadCRUT3 to argue the myth that global warming has stopped, thanks to its cool bias.

    Cited from

  19. johnosullivan

    Snapple, no one is interested anymore in those “homogenized” datasets that are, themselves, riddled with the bias you keep accusing me of. Man-made global warming is yesterday’s news. It doesn’t even feature as an issue in Obama’s campaign rhetoric.
    So let’s just cut to the chase shall we? Show me any trend indicative of “catastrophic” warming in any of the aforementioned data sets – and please spare me those discredited “projections” 50 or 100 years ahead churned out by junk computer models.

  20. Mark G

    Curiouser and curiouser…

    Digging deeper into pet photographer Andrew Skolnick’s own credentials just serves to highlight his double-standards.

    On his alleged nomination for a Pulitzer prize:
    Tellingly, his fellow co-reporter (Bill Allen) makes no misleading claims to be ‘nominated for a Pulitzer prize.’ (RE: “The Post-Dispatch series earned my colleagues Bill Allen and Kim Bell and me a nomination for a Pulitzer Prize. in Investigative Journalism”).

    see and

    Might we conclude that Mr. Allen has greater journalistic integrity and/or less of an ego than Skolnick?

    On previous libel suits:
    Mr. Skolnick is happy to report that he received an out-of-court settlement from CMS following his libel suit against them (see To the untrained eye, this would suggest Skolnick won the case. As previously reported, CMS actually received a summary judgement against him. Further clarification is provided by a Harpers 2003 article that states, “according to CMS, ‘company attorneys determined that a small settlement of Mr. Skolnick’s baseless claim was less expensive than the cost of ongoing litigation.” (see Let’s hope the poor guy got enough money to cover his bus fare home and feed his dogs.

    On resume accuracy:
    Aside from the rather inaccurate and misleading claim to be ‘nominated for a Pulitzer prize’, it appears that Mr. Skolnick was most recently employed by PetsMart (see Good grief man, slap it on your resume, if only in the interests of accuracy…unless they also fired you?

    • Mark G

      Rewriting history….

      Had my above allegations against Mr. Skolnick’s own credentials been baseless, would he have taken the time to quickly rewrite his own bio?

      I think not. Clearly, he now realizes his own credentials are not beyond criticism.

      Two key changes have been made to his bio, as of August 4th…which directly relate to comments previously made (c.f. Pulitzer nomination and CMS libel suit).

      The changes are as follows (August 4th vs. July 23rd 2012, screenshots of both available):

      FROM “The Post-Dispatch series earned my colleagues Bill Allen and Kim Bell and me a nomination for a Pulitzer Prize in Investigative Journalism” TO “The Post-Dispatch nominated my colleagues Bill Allen and Kim Bell for a Pulitzer Prize in Investigative Journalism…”

      Still disingenuous and misleading, per clear PPC guidelines, but at least the pet photographer has recognized his own puffery.

      FROM “I later sued Correctional Medical Services for libel and tortuous interference and obtained an out-of-court settlement” TO “I later sued Correctional Medical Services for libel and tortuous interference, which I withdrew following receipt of a settlement offer.”

      Still no mention of the fact that CMS obtained a summary judgment against his libel claim, but being economical with the truth seems par for the course with Mr. Skolnick.

      Again, one has to wonder why such changes were made if the allegations surrounding his own credentials were so baseless?

  21. Mark G

    P.S. I just noticed. Mr. Skolnick was a little hasty in his rewrite…he didn’t mention himself in the revised and still disingenuous Pulitzer ‘nomination’ blurb!…or maybe the Post-Dispatch didn’t include him as an entrant? Thankfully, his fellow co-reporters never made such misleading claims to be ‘nominated’ (by either the Post-Dispatch or the Pulitzer Prize Committee), so they can never be accused of rewriting history.

    • Mark G

      Mr. Skolnick has now proffered the following:

      “The fact, which is a matter of public record, is CMS offered a settlement for thousands of times more dollars than Thompson smirked, and I agreed to ask the judge for a “dismissal with prejudice” upon settlement — which is legalese for vini vidi vici.” (see

      I’m unaware of such a public record. And my basic understanding of settlements is that they invariably include confidentiality clauses that prohibit both plaintiffs and defendants from disclosing details of a settlement (e.g ‘thousands of times more dollars’).

      But let’s give the pet photographer the benefit of the doubt. Surely he would never renege on a legally-binding agreement or suggest that a public record exists of ‘thousands’, when it doesn’t? He’s apparently an upstanding individual, despite misleading claims to be ‘nominated’ for a Pulitzer Prize.

      Let’s see what CMS has to say on the ‘public record’ as to the ‘thousands of more dollars’ claim.

  22. Mark G

    How on earth is ‘dismissed with prejudice’ legalese for ‘vini vidi vici’ [sic]? Per Skolnick comment, above. It means his case was dismissed, with prejudice.

    ‘Dismissed with prejudice’ means the plaintiff (Skolnick) can never re-file the charge. Far from being ‘veni vidi vici’, the defendant (CMS) received a summary judgment against his baseless claim (I assume he understands what ‘summary judgment’ means…here’s the simple version: summary judgment procedure is a method for promptly disposing of actions in which there is no genuine issue as to any material fact). That’s right, Skolnick’s libel action didn’t even proceed to trial by jury…that’s how strong a case he had! He came, the judge saw his ‘facts’ and then sent him home very quickly.

    According to CMS, “company attorneys determined that a small settlement of Mr. Skolnick’s baseless claim was less expensive than the cost of ongoing litigation.”

    If that constitutes ‘veni vidi vici’, I need a refresher with my Latin. Try looking up the meaning of ‘Pyrrhic victory’…and let’s hope you haven’t breached any confidentiality agreements by stating “thousands of times more dollars…”

  23. johnosullivan

    Thanks for this. I have repeatedly stated that “evidence” against me that Skolnick cites is a forgery – either by him or someone who duped him. But this suggests he has the mindset of a cynical fraudster. These new facts warrant consideration by the British Columbia Supreme Court because they conclusively prove Skolnick committed perjury in his sworn affidavit. As such he has rendered himself liable to criminal prosecution.

  24. Mark G

    The Odd Couple
    I’ve had the displeasure to come across two rather unpleasant individuals recently; Pete Ridley and Andrew Skolnick. But although the personal and unprofessional insults have been rather unpleasant, it has also been rather amusing to read these retiree’s endless vitriolic , defamatory and hypocritical rants. To say they’re rambling would be a gross understatement.
    They’re quite the ‘Odd Couple’, having very different perspectives but sharing the same common goal in their golden years…vilify and defame John O’Sullivan. Aside from John’s very peripheral involvement nowadays in a high-profile libel case, these golden guys have obviously found something to occupy their long days.
    I have never sought to defend Mr. O’Sullivan or his position on global warming (I don’t have the facts, I’m happy to admit), but I do abhor hypocrisy. If the allegations centered around Mr. O’Sullivan’s credentials are true, this may conceivably have some impact on Mann vs. Ball (though it seems very unlikely and smacks of desperate mud-slinging). But as Skolnick and Ridley have sought to question Mr. O’Sullivans credentials, it seems wholly legitimate to question their own credentials. Not just from a moral perspective, but a legal one as well. More specifically, Mr. Skolnick has filed affidavits in a court of law that allege, inter alia, that Mr. O’Sullivan has misrepresented his credentials. As such, the credentials and veracity of Mr. Skolnick have become highly relevant.
    But let’s consider Pete Ridley first.
    Apparently a ‘denier’ and previously associated with PSI. But now an ardent critic of PSI and Mr. Sullivan. Nothing wrong with that, though he has now taken it upon himself to archive and re-post conversations of a “Professor Judith Curry’ forum discussion that were subsequently deleted. Presumably Professor Curry deleted those conversations because they included legally defamatory comments. But Pete clearly feels they’re not defamatory and chooses to re-publish them, at his peril. And as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning ….taking every opportunity to derail otherwise healthy debate in forums to post ad nauseum links to his blog. But being predictable and boring isn’t a crime.
    The more apparently disturbing side of Ridley is provided by Skolnick himself (and who should ever dare question Skolnick’s veracity?). According to Skolnick, Ridley is a cyberstalker, anti-Semitic and supporter of Neo-Nazi’s. See and
    With regard to cyberstalking, a self-acknowledging email from Ridley and another from a third-party appears to support this serious allegation:
    from Peter Ridley
    to Jo Abbess
    date Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:38 PM
    “Towards the end of our public exchanges Phil persistently called me a con man, which I did not appreciate, coming as it did from someone who I considered was cowering behind a false name, so I decided to try to track him down. I was astounded that I was able to find out, in only four hours on the Internet using Google, who he was, where he worked, his E-Mil address and details of family and friends.”

    From a third party:
    Ian Forrester – Thu, 2011-02-24 18:28
    “He is a cyber stalker. There is no knowing what he will do with the information that he collects from the internet. He and his buddy poptart aka poptech put all my personal information including employer, work phone number, personal phone number, personal address, a map of where my house was located and a picture of it on the internet.”

    So is Ridley a cyberstalker, anti-Semitic supporter of Neo-Nazi’s? Or is Skolnick just making malicious and unfounded slurs? Probably best to now discuss Skolnick.

    Andrew Skolnick attacks the credentials of John O’Sullivan. Totally legitimate, provided he doesn’t drift into making defamatory comments about him. But now that Skolnick has provided sworn court affidavits, his own credentials become highly relevant (credibility of the witness et. al).
    Skolnick has previously claimed on his bio that “The Post-Dispatch series earned my colleagues Bill Allen and Kim Bell and me a nomination for a Pulitzer Prize in Investigative Journalism”. The irrefutable fact is that the Pulitzer Prize Committee don’t show Skolnick being ‘nominated’ for a prize…in 1999 or any other year. Tellingly, Skolnick has now recently corrected this disingenuous and misleading claim, since merely been entered into a competition by a newspaper is not grounds for claiming to a ‘nomination for a Pulitzer Prize’….see and
    Other misleading claims by Skolnick have also been previously reported in this thread, so I won’t repeat (see CMS libel suit). Moreover, a previous employer (JAMA) was willing to go on record to confirm that Skolnick had been fired for duplicitous conduct:
    More specifically,
    “On November 3, 1998, JAMA fired Skolnick. JAMA wrote a memo stating that Skolnick was terminated, in part, for contributing to the Post-Dispatch articles without informing his supervisor”

    So what can we conclude from all this? Pete Ridley, an alleged cyberstalker, anti-Semitic and Neo-Nazi supporter (alleged by Skolnick). Andrew Skolnick, a former journalist fired from his job for duplicity and continuing to boast about awards he doesn’t have, lawsuits that are far from ‘veni vidi vici’ as claimed (summary judgement AGAINST his action), and a history of being banned from forums for making malicious personal insults.
    They truly are an odd couple.
    But perfectly suited to each other, in my opinion. Professor Mann must be really proud to have an association with them, directly or indirectly (though, to give him credit, the Professor does appear to have dismissed and deleted Ridley’s comments as ‘crass nonsense’…I wonder if both Ridley and Skolnick are competing for an Olympic gold medal in ‘most blogs banned from’ or ‘most personal insults’?).

  25. Mark G


    I’ve been primarily amused by the the ‘Odd Couple’ but sadly things have taken a turn for your worst. Recent comments by Pete Ridley to me show he is indeed a cyberstalker, if not something more sinister:

    Namely (on a very public forum):

    Behind the times again
    Pete Ridley – Mon, 2012-08-06 13:55
    Hi Mark G Thompson.
    Once again you are way behind. Andrew and I discussed that matter last year.
    I think that you would benefit from a bit peace and quiet in the countriside. Moreau Lake’s only a short drive away so take a break and relax.


    I have never made my location in the US public on the forums I share with him (or any others, for that matter). Yet I was quick to acknowledge my full name (how stupid!). Ridley’s cyberstalking and ‘googling’ seems par for the course, but very, very disturbing.

    What;s up with this guy?

    Can he not engage in healthy debate without resorting to such tactics? (why not just say, ‘I know where you live, so be careful’?). Now my proximate location is available to all the crazies who crawl out of the woodwork.

    Thanks Pete, I hope you feel very proud of yourself. You really are special.

  26. Mark G

    On Professor Mann:
    I recently had the ‘audacity’ to question the the credentials of Skolnick on Professor Mann’s Facebook page. Perhaps not unsurprisingly, my polite comment was deleted and I can no longer post on his Facebook. More importantly, it appears that any poster who has the ‘audacity’ to challenge his views is now deemed a ‘troll’ ( no criticism, in any form, appears to be entertained). I’d respectfully suggest that if Professor Mann wishes to retain some credibility, he will allow counter-argument. By all means delete comments if they’re uncivil or malicious (per Pete Ridley’s ‘crass nonsense’). But suppressing counter-argument and healthy debate merely highlights a rather myopic and blinkered philosophy.

    • Mark G

      On ‘seasoned’ journalist Andrew Skolnick.

      The latest and greatest from ‘Pulitzer prize-nominated [sic] former journalist Mr. Skolnick.

      “Mr. Thompson, you are a cyberstalker and a bully. Only someone who is squeaky clean — or a self-destructive fool — would pick on a seasoned investigative reporter to stalk and harass. What the heck were you thinking?! ”

      Am I the only one to think that this smacks of self-importance, arrogance and hypocrisy?

      Cyberstalker? God forbid Mr. Skolnick should ever be accused of cyberstalking himself….googling some obscure ProSkore reputation I have could never be evidence of cyberstallking by himself (see link, way too boring to repeat). Maybe its just myself and Pete Ridley who cyberstalk, as he has alleged?

      Bully? God forbid anyone should ever challenge Mr. Skolnick’s own credentials when he chooses to attack someone elses in a court of law. How bullying!

      Harass? God forbid I should ask him to answer a few simple questions.

      #1: I’ve asked you (repeatedly) why you have chosen to recently rewrite your bio, if my allegations of misleading claims (c.f. Pulitzer and CMS) were so inaccurate? Care to have the integrity to respond directly to these questions?

      #2: I’ve asked you (repeatedly) to defend or retract your comments about Pete Ridley (re: your claims that he’s a cyberstalker, anti-semite and neo-Nazi supporter). Care to have the integrity to respond directly to these questions?

      #3: Didn’t CMS ask you to sign a confidentiality agreement, prohibiting you from discussing specific details of their ‘small’ settlement?

      If asking questions such as this constitutes harassment, then clearly I need some re-education.

      What the heck was I thinking? I was thinking that the veracity of your credentials were as relevant as those of Mr. O’Sullivan. What part of this simple logic doesn’t connect?

      If you choose to challenge some one elses credentials in a court of law, your own credentials become just as relevant. I thought you were a ‘seasoned’ investigative reporter? Don’t you have the slightest familiarity with the judicial system?

      Your credibility and claimed credentials are highly relevant…though your libel suit against CMS resulted in a summary judgment against your claim, I was hoping you recognized the basic tenets of the legal system Mr. Skolnick.

      • Mark G

        The hilarity of hypocrisy and puerile nature of personal attacks by Mr. Skolnick never fails to amaze me….more evidence of desperation, a failed career and intellectual limitations, in my.opinion. What a great ally Professor Mann has, as Skolnick resorts to discredit anyone who has the audacity to question his own credentials and can’t come up with a coherent counter-argument or response to questions posed.

        Skolnick, one of the ‘Odd Couple’ (see above) has now devolved into even more deplorable depths. Incapable of answering legitimate questions about his own credentials (let’s not forget he’s been quick to question the credentials of Mr. O’Sullivan in a court of law…but clearly thinks he’s immune to a challenge of his own credentials, either morally or legally), he now further evades these questions by throwing mud in my direction surrounding my personal life. See Science Writers of New York (LinkedIn) or John’s FB page for his evasive and cyberstalking irrelevant attacks of my personal life.

        Here’s my reply:

        What a sad reflection on the decline and premature retirement of a once-promising journalist. A journalist whose career has now ‘crashed’ (his own words), now finds it necessary to cyberstalk and google personal lives, rather than address legitimate questions raised about his own publicly-promoted credentials (see above).

        Accusing others of harassment and stalking is as hypocritical as ever, evidenced by the above. If this isn’t an example of unprofessional behavior, cyberstalking and ‘ad hominem’ attacks, I don’t know what is.

        Your credentials were questioned Mr. Skolnick…totally legitimate as you chose to publicly attack the credentials of Mr. O’Sullivan in a court of law…your mud-slinging towards me, mention of a case in which Mr. O’Sullivan was fully acquitted and evasion of questions asked merely highlights your own unprofessionalism, character flaws and inability to answer questions asked (hence a rewriting of your bio). Are you so insecure or scared of constructive debate that you cannot defend (or acknowledge) the puffery of your own credentials, without such juvenile and irrelevant smear attempts? Ask yourself, have you ever acknowledged making an error in your life?…I certainly can’t see it in your endless rants against anyone who has the audacity to disagree with you…non-sequitar comments and evasive personal insults seem to be the norm. Are you so insecure and egocentric?

        To quote an excerpt from your private email to me:

        “Do you really want me to publish this, Mr. Thompson?

        Publishing these links to your writings on should help people understand why you have nothing better to do than spend months stalking me and post endless nonsense about St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s Pulitzer Prize nomination of our series on correctional health care, and all your other “have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife” accusations.

        Sober up and give serious thought as to whether you really want this published. You can’t unring a bell — and bells rung on the Internet can be heard around the world for a long time to come.”

        Is this what professional ‘seasoned journalists’ do? Make threats bordering on blackmail?

        If you can’t accept that your own credentials (not your personal life) become relevant when you make sworn court affidavits challenging the credentials of another, then I really think you need to do some more research on the legal system in Canada and libel law (hopefully CMS’s summary judgement against you made you realize you need a little more knowledge).

        Though I suspect slinging out personal insults and cyberstalking are what occupies your days nowadays. It’s presumably why you have been banned from at least one LinkedIn group and other blogs.

        A sad reflection upon a once-promising career. No offense, but this kind of journalism will never get you a Pulitzer Prize, just a libel suit….it just smacks of desperation, insecurity, egocentricity and an inability to construct a coherent counter-argument.

        P.S. So sad you could never respond to a very simple question regarding your ‘disingeneous’ claim to have been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. Even the likes of Jonah Goldberg have acknowledged their puffery…though clearly Jonah has bigger balls than you.

        P.P.S. I ‘m getting a little tired of feeding odious, old trolls. But it’s amusing to see how persistent you are in evading legitimate questions and just throwing out more irrelevant mud.

        P.P.P.S. Further evidence of your cowardice is provided by your allegations towards Pete Ridley…about a year ago, you alleged he was a cyberstalker, anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi supporter. Now apparently, he’s a happily married man but not an internet dater (like me, and around 40% of single Americans).

        I don’t know your sexual orientation, but I’d rather be an internet dater than an alleged cyberstalker, anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi supporter. But perhaps you feel differently? Unless the slurs against Ridley were malicious and unfounded slurs?

        Which one is it? Have the balls to answer?

  27. Mark G

    I neglected to include the latest threat from Skolnick…the ‘seasoned’, Pulitzer-prize nominated ‘journalist’ [sic].

    The Pulitzer Prize Committee doesn’t show Skolnick as being nominated…and discourages the use of the words ‘nominated’ or ‘nominee’ among mere entrants…any publisher can ‘nominate’ a writer..but PPC regards them as mere ‘entrants’…tellingly, co-reporters Bill Allen and Kim Bell make so such inflated claims to nominations…from PPCc or the Post-Dispatch.

    “You are so lucky Mr. Thompson. I just saw your latest post on O’Sullivan’s blog and was about to begin uploading the true confessions you published on your favorite Thai Bar Girl web site. Fortunately, right before I clicked to upload them to the first of several blogs and web sites, I saw you had posted it at 8:01 am — two and a half hours before I had sent you my warning. That was a real close call.

    The next libelous comment you publish will get you the “re-education” you requested. Not a promise. A fact.

    – Andrew”


    I’ve asked Mr. Skolnick to articulate what I’ve said constitutes response yet…I live in hope so I can respond publicly to this nonsense.

    • Mark G

      By way of another postscript, I just saw some more inane, pitifully predictable, mud-slinging comments on a blog by Skolnick (I’m not going to promote his site by posting the link…I suspect only he and Pete ‘cyberstalker’ Ridley read it, going by the paucity of replies).

      But he’s my reply:

      Mark G on September 20, 2012 at 6:56 am said:

      “How amusing!

      The odd couple are still as obsessive and as illogical as ever. Obviously not the sharpest tools in the tool-box.

      Skolnick throws irrelevant dirt and demonstrates his typical cyberstalking (disclosing my home location as Gansevoort, etc) when he can’t respond to legitimate questions as to his own questionable and egocentric claims (e.g. “I earned a Pulitzer prize nomination” or ‘veni vidi vici’ CMS nonsense).

      What don’t you understand about the PPC rules, Mr. Skolnick? You seem very happy to question the credentials of others, but seem so unwilling to engage in in a discussion about your own, resorting instead to mud-slinging (why?…insecure? inflated ego? bitter and twisted about your firing from JAMA? unhappy that your expose of O’Sullivan hasn’t got more exposure?). Here’s an excerpt from Mr. Dedman’s piece, once again (and he’s a real Pulitzer Prize nominee…and winner!…unlike you):

      “It’s not uncommon for Pulitzer entrants to claim to be nominees. Here’s how it works: Though there are only three nominees, known as nominated finalists, in each Pulitzer category each year, there are more than 2,000 entrants. One could say that all of them were “nominated” by someone. If all Pulitzer entrants could be called nominees, any publisher could give all its authors that honorific by submitting an entry form and a check for $50.”


      “The Pulitzer rules make clear that the only people to be known as nominees are those finalists chosen by the Pulitzer juries.” (source as above).

      And then the guy who Skolnick claims is a cyberstalker, anti-semite and neo-Nazi supporter, weighs in with some ironical comment about rambling tirades (remember your own ramblings about the Norfolk Broads, Pete?). Yup, the evidence suggests you are a cyberstalker, Mr. Ridley (Ian Forrester, Jo Abbess et al)…in addition to Skolnicks claims…you really are a creep, in my opinion.

      If Skolnick is accurate in his allegations that you’re an anti-semite, I’m really surprised you’re happily married to a Jewish gal…or maybe Skolnick has made an unfounded slur, as usual? Which one is it, given that you’re so sure of your convictions? Or maybe evade as normal and refuse to answer? Pray tell, if you have the courage of your convictions….or some balls, to put it more directly.

      Let’s hope these two retirees can find something else to do with their ample spare time. And, no Skolnick, I doubt your “investigative reporting” about Mr. O’Sullivan will ever get reported in the mainstream press, despite your continual efforts and protestations on FB et al…it’s merely illustrative of a disgraced journalists efforts to resurrect a long-gone career…as well as an over-inflated ego.

      Stick to pet photography Skolnick…or dog training if PetsMart haven’t fired you. And no doubt Pete will stick to his life goal of promoting his blog of an archaic and defamatory Judith Curry blog.

      It’s easy to blame censorship of free speech when you two old fools get banned from an ever-increasing number of blogs and LinkedIn forums. At some point, though, you both need to realize your own puerile, immature and ad hominem comments are behind the bans.

      Please either grow up, get married to each other or stick to flying RC airplanes, etc.”

      How really, really sad! If these guys had half a brain, they’d realize that the best way to respond to criticism was with a coherent, non-personal, well-considered counter-argument. Their puerile behavior amuses me, but I’m more fulfilled by the fact that their desperate mud-slinging can only dilute Mann’s lawsuit claim.

      Btw, did Mann also go to great lengths to promote being a Nobel Prize winner…among the other 2000+ winners of that prize that year?…me thinks Mann and Skolnick are related? (c.f. Pulitzer Prize)…I’m tempted to suggest egocentricity is at play here…though I won’t as Mann seems to want to sue anyone who has the audacity to disagree with him.

  28. Mark G

    To clarify, the majority of ‘winners in the Nobel Prize of 2007 have never had the ego’s to claim this accolade on their resumes or credentials:

    “Five Penn State scientists, all members of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), shared in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize when the TWO-THOUSAND-member IPCC and former vice president Al Gore were recognized for their work on climate change issues”

    Time to park one’s ego at the door? Prof. Mann and pet photographer Skolnick?

  29. Its not my first time to visit this website, i am visiting this website dailly and get nice
    facts from here everyday.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s