Huffington Post and their Lies about John O’Sullivan

They say truth is stranger than fiction. And here is the proof. Let’s begin at the end, or where an “end” might be perceived today. Climatologist, Michael Mann is now exposed by the Nobel Committee perjuring himself in his botched courtroom capers hoping to silence critics of his junk climate science claims. Even the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has now thrown Mann under the bus. But what has that got to do with the Huffington Post and their lies about me? Well, it seems that HuffPo’s ploy to trash my name has backfired as badly as Mann’s phony Nobel Prize claims. In their haste HuffPo has exposed at least one of Mann’s own witnesses also committing perjury.

In this article we see there are no “white lies” told by this cheating scientist and his cronies. Lies perpetrated by Mann, and at least one other co-conspirator, are lies given under oath in a court of law with the express intention of inflicting serious financial harm on an opposing litigant. This matter refers specifically to the now crumbling Mann-v-Ball lawsuit filed last year in the British Columbia Supreme Court.

It seems in the interim Mann’s Canadian lawyer recruited a disgraced former journalist from the Journal of the American Medical Association to provide faked evidence to smear me and thus Tim Ball, by association.

Last week the Nobel Committee and the IPCC came out to trash Dr. Mann’s ludicrous Peace Prize claims inserted into his court papers with the hope of swaying jurors. The most recent bogus lawsuit from his perjuring hand was filed two weeks ago against Mark Steyn, the National Review and other defendants. This was joyous news to Dr Tim Ball who has risen to be one of Mann’s most popular critics. He is also my trusted colleague and Chair of Principia Scientific International (PSI), a free-to-join grassroots association advancing openness and the traditional scientific method. PSI, like me, gave its full support to Ball when Mann proved how thin-skinned he was in filing a libel suit against Ball for quipping that Mann belonged “in the state pen, not Penn. State.”

Unfortunately, for Mann his grand plan to make an example of us “deniers” has backfired spectacularly. Almost immediately after he filed his claim in Canada huge public interest grew about Mann’s “dirty laundry” – dirt that could expose his global warming data fraud. Skeptics have long argued that if exposed to honest scrutiny such data could discredit Mann’s “hockey stick” graph – touted since 2001 by global warming doomsayers as the smoking gun of human impact on climate. Not only that, if it’s showed Mann tortured his data as badly as some suggest, it may prove an intentional fraud was committed.

But among Mann’s greatest traits are his huge ego and bully boy manner, as exposed by those leaked Climategate emails. So Mann was quick to seize the help offered to him via the deep pockets of the David Suzuki Foundation. Nutjob Suzuki wants any politician who doesn’t agree with his fascist green agenda “thrown in prison.” In no time Mann had a hotshot Canadian libel lawyer representing him. Incredibly, it was the second time in a matter of months that Big Green backers had come out to hit Ball with a vexatious libel suit (the first was filed by IPCC climate modeler, Andrew Weaver). Again the same hot shot libel attorney, Roger McConchie was batting for Big Green.

But the move incensed public opinion as it was felt courtrooms shouldn’t be used by rich NGO’s to silence free speech in scientific debate. Mann and Suzuki soon found they’d made a monumental miscalculation in believing 72-year-old retired Ball would be a soft target. Ball was now firmly ensconced as an international icon for the skeptic cause and a grassroots campaign soon provided Ball with a very healthy legal fund to defend himself against both Mann and Weaver.

Suzuki’s money-no-object attrition tactic had failed and as time passed it became very apparent that if it came to a showdown neither Mann nor Weaver were going to allow any actual open courtroom examination of their dodgy secret science. Unable to then advance their claims according to the openness required under the rules of the British Columbia Supreme Court, both cases stalled and Ball’s legal team are left very much on top. Neither Mann or Weaver can beat Ball if they don’t come to court and demonstrate to two juries that their hidden data is robust and concurs with the UN IPCC claims that humans are dangerously warming the climate. Their obstinate secrecy is contrary to all the normal tenets of good scientific practice.

Instead, all they are left with is a hope and a prayer that the courts (and the world) will take their word for it, on their “authority” as official UN IPCC scientists, that their work is reliable. For years the UN and “leading academies” backed the pro-green media trope so surely, it must be right, yes?

Well – no. Public doubts grew in tandem with the failure of junk science prophecies about temperature and sea level rises. Indeed, official satellite data shows beyond doubt there’s been no global warming trend for 16 years. As interest in his flagging lawsuit collapsed Mann turned to his cronies at Huffington Post to rally his demoralized fellow eco-warriors.

HuffPo duly obliged by running an attack piece by Brendan DeMelle on yours truly based on “evidence” submitted in a sworn affidavit from one of Mann’s loyal supporters. I was singled out for a vicious attack after the story that I literally wagered my house on Ball beating Mann went viral. HuffPo’s “evidence” was gleaned from an affidavit submitted by Andrew Skolnick, a disgraced former editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), to the B.C. Supreme Court.

But neither DeMelle or HuffPo did any proper due diligence on Skolnick. They were so impressed by his bogus affidavit claim to be a “Pulitzer Prize nominee” they simply swallowed whole his pack of lies. And why wouldn’t they – it was all in Skolnick’s sworn Canadian court affidavit to help Mann so it must be true right? Wrong.

Skolnick is no less a perjurer than Mann. The most sickening part of HuffPo’s attack piece was the (already officially discredited) lie that I unlawfully misrepresented my legal credentials in Canada, plus the inference I was a pedophile (disproved by a full official UK Govt. investigation). But even when the New York County Lawyers Association came out to denounce HuffPo’s misrepresentations with evidence in my defense, no retractions were made. Even to anyone vaguely up on the law, it is very obvious I would face criminal prosecution if I’d falsely represented myself as a licensed attorney.

But as we have seen so often with these pro-green radicals, their mission isn’t to gauge the veracity of the evidence, it’s simply to wound their target with lots of cheap shots and innuendo. Skolnick’s “pedophile” slur relies heavily on newspaper cuttings from 2004 from a time when I was working as a schoolteacher. I had been arrested, tried and then acquitted on six criminal counts involving a teenage girl in my care. Naturally, such a salacious story had initially filled the British national press and, up till the surprise verdict, I was certainly painted as a violent pedophile.

But as we have learned from media coverage about global warming, the truth is often very different from what is portrayed in the mainstream media. Yes, I was accused of some awful crimes. Yes, even being accused is very damaging not just to me, but to my family, especially my young son and daughter. But I wasn’t a quitter. I mounted my own defense and I set out to prove that the key physical “evidence” against me, a transcript of a secretly recorded conversation between the girl and me, had been faked. In a three-day ordeal by public trial I exposed the lies of the prosecutor and his witnesses. A verdict of “not guilty” was handed down on all charges within 30 minutes. All this is on court record.

Just as with the Mann lawsuits versus Ball and others, in my story we find eerie parallels of evidence abuse and fake claims made from authority. Unbeknown to me the girl had taped the conversation I had with her at the time of the alleged “attack.” In my case the court was urged to accept on police and Crown Prosecution authority that the transcript they provided of the girl’s secret tape recording was a reliable and true record. In it’s submissions, the only evidence the prosecutor wanted the court to examine was their carefully prepared transcript, not the secret tape recording itself. However, I fought for my rights until I was granted a full courtroom examination of the tape, too.

Given access to listen to the tape, I prepared my own transcript and presented it to the court alongside the prosecutor’s version. Thereby everyone present in the court could verify for themselves the reliability of each transcript by comparison to the tape recording as it was played out repeatedly to a stunned court. Such is how the truth is uncovered. No evidence should be kept secret under lock and key and no authority can be assumed to be always faithful to the truth.

Against the odds I succeeded in forcing the Crown Prosecution Service to comply with the rules of evidence to ensure a full, fair and open examination of ALL the evidence. Widespread shock and outrage ensued when the prosecutor’s transcript was shown to be so biased and riddled with omissions and bogus added dialog (damning words not heard on the tape) that all such “errors” somehow favored only the prosecutor’s case and/or harmed my own. Angry voices at the back of the court could be heard that, in legal parlance, accused the prosecution of succumbing to noble cause corruption. In the fifteen minutes it took for the court to hear the tape recording the case against me had unraveled and the girl exposed as a liar.

Of course, the British tabloids, always keen to get their teeth into a salacious story had already done the damage to my reputation. The press has never had a good track record when it comes to putting right their goofs. It seems the same goes for the HuffPo.

Upon my full acquittal a full internal police inquiry ensued and I prepared for a long legal battle to claim damages. Soon my case was used by civil rights activists as evidence for a change in English law so that schoolteachers accused of child sex offenses should have their identities kept anonymous, unless found guilty.

Moreover, medical evidence that could have proven the girl was mentally ill was never allowed to be presented at trial. No press stories ever appeared about my complete vindication or about the exposure of the police and prosecution conspiracy. The case was virtually “sanitized” from the Internet. But a year later the matter was finally settled out of court in my favor. The Secretary of State for Education completely exonerated me and contrary to Skolnick’s lies, I could resume teaching any time I wanted. But because of my change in financial circumstances I chose not to.

It is from such personal experience that private individuals become inspired to fight government corruption. This is how I first became immersed in the Climategate scandal. I wanted to be a champion for climate truth and, as they say, eventually “the truth will out!” Now, I sense another legal victory coming. When it happens I hope to see criminal prosecutions against those climatologists that knowingly engaged in the conspiracy to falsify data to bolster a concocted narrative. Fraudsters who peddled the lie of catastrophic man-made global warming must also pay for their “noble cause corruption.”

26 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

26 responses to “Huffington Post and their Lies about John O’Sullivan

  1. Pingback: Huffington Post and their Lies about John O’Sullivan « Skeptics Chillin'

  2. Ilma630

    It takes a steeley nerve and courage to see it through to the end, so don’t give up, and don’t let Mann try and back out so his data is kept behind closed doors. It must be revealed to expose it, he and the whole carbuncle for what it is, a deliberate and massive fraud.

  3. johnosullivan

    Thank you. I will continue to give my full backing to Tim Ball as he pursues his legal counter offensive to bring perjurer Michael Mann to justice.

  4. Mervyn

    A very good article. When the truth is on your side, and people have conspired to bring you down, there is nothing sweeter than demolishing the case against you in a court of law… and experiencing that feeling of victory.

  5. Thanks Mervyn. Too often the tag “conspiracy theorist” is bandied about to suggest those who claim to have found it are somehow nutjobs. But as the criminal justice system shows, conspiracies are sadly all too common. We are currently seeing more prosecutions at Penn State Uni now that its own den of conspirators has been flushed out. Fingers crossed Michael Mann will soon feel the full force of the law for his wrongdoings.

  6. Steve Mennie

    You people here sound like the poor republicans who are telling each other what they need to in order to remain within the bubble. Sitting around in a self-congratulatory circle jerk while the planet continues to warm is really irrelevant and dangerous. C’mon fellas, reality is not a conspiracy theory.

  7. Mr Mennie,
    Why are you still dodging my $100 bet if you’re so sure?

  8. Steve Mennie

    Because judging from your various ‘identities’ and because we still don’t know where you received your law degree – if not from a mail order degree factory – and because you’ve generally presented yourself in such a dubious manner I really don’t have faith that any money you put up would not be counterfeit.

    Why sir, do you refuse to come clean about your ‘law degree’?

  9. Mr Mennie.
    You are in denial. I’ve published on my blog a full reply to accusations about my credentials.
    http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/41331.html
    Not only that but pursuant to the official investigation into my professional standing by the Law Society of British Columbia I fully complied and submitted proof of my law degree and my studies at the law school of the University of Surrey (1979-82). As such, the investigators found no wrong doing.

    Not only that my accuser, Skolnick has been exposed as a perjurer and faker of web page evidence against me . Plus for years I’ve kept a very public profile on LinkedIn showing my academic credential that I’ve repeatedly referred people to:
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/19/6b4/84a

    But if you or anybody else can prove I have counterfeited my credentials to falsely represent myself as an attorney then please report the matter to the police. Otherwise move on and factually address the REAL issue: fraud and deception by junk climatologists like Michael Mann.

  10. TheJollyGreenMan

    Hi John,

    Amazing how false accusations seems to get a life of its own, especially if it were started by the self righteous liberals. You must be watching the fun and games at the BBC, where Entwistle had to fall on his sword, with delight!

    Lastly, the vacuum of space that does not conduct heat and let the astronauts fry on the one side and freeze on the other side is just a bit too much for some people to understand. The NASA link to the story was not working when I tried it earlier this evening. Did the guys at NASA get orders from Hansen to cut it because your story is getting attention and traction?

    • johnosullivan

      Hi.
      Thanks for the feedback. Did you see the latest on Entwistle? He’s one of the “experts” called in by the BBC to advise on climate policy and ban any references to skeptical science.
      Yes, as for the vacuum of space – it’s gotten a lot of climatologists caught out thinking it has a temperature. But no one else has told me the NASA link is broken. If you still cant access it let me know.
      Best
      John

      • Johannes L Pretorius

        Hi John,

        Thank you for taking the time to reply to me in person, and sorry to have wasted your time, as the link is working tonight.

        Rgds L

      • johnosullivan

        no problem. I’m simply glad to know there’s nothing suspicious (in this instance!) going on at NASA to remove the link.
        Best
        John

  11. Mark G

    Too true John.

    Mann is the archetypal ‘Emperor Wearing No Clothes’. His egocentricity and mendacity has now been exposed, but he still continues to desperately lash out at those that have the ‘audacity’ to challenge his ‘claims’…in terms of either the fraudulence of his ‘science’ or his puffed-up and inaccurate credentials. And, predictably, he deletes any dissenting comments, however polite, on his FB page…how mature!

    I just wonder how long it will be before he sues the IPCC for stating that “The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner” Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/02/the-ipcc-weighs-in-on-the-mann-nobel-dilema-and-throws-him-under-the-bus/

    This clearly contradicts his own grandiose, ego-driven claims in court affidavits (e.g. “as a result of this research, Dr. Mann and his colleagues were AWARDED the Nobel Peace Prize”…emphasis added). But, of course, he could never admit to such deception.

    Talking of egocentricity, the minor-league pet-photographer Andrew Skolnick is worthy of a mention. Only because this former PetsMart employee and disgraced journalist is guilty of the same mendacity and egomania in his affidavits filed in the Mann vs. Ball case.

    Like Mann, he also seems prone to making disingenuous claims about his credentials. Skolnick has never been ‘nominated’ for a prize by the Pulitzer Prize committee, but he continues to try and mislead the court with such bogus claims…as ‘real’ Pulitzer Prize winners such as Bill Dedman and the PPC themselves has discussed, merely being entered into the competition by a newspaper does not entitle one to claim ‘earned a nomination’ or any other talk of being ‘nominated’. His co-authors have never made such claims but, there again, they’re not currently self-employed as pet photographers. Go figure!

  12. Mark G

    P.S. At the risk of giving pet-photographer Andrew Skolnick more attention than he ever deserves (and he clearly craves attention), I find it very amusing that he’s so quick to attack the credentials of others (e.g. John, myself and others), but cannot respond intelligently to questions raised about his own.

    Maybe he’s just interested in trying to resurrect a long-gone journalism career (as Pete Ridley has opined) rather than take a genuine interest in the lawsuit and issues, per se?

    As a certain Mr. Ridley has suggested, “Andrew’s [Skolnick] real objective may be to try to kick-start a career that floundered back in 1998 when he was dismissed as an associate editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)” and “Another difference is that I am wary of making unsubstantiated accusations whereas Andrew appears to be somewhat less cautious.” Source: http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/of_dragons_scorpions_and_climate_change_deniars

    Aside from Ridley’s allegations, Skolnick’s past behavior also clearly questions his integrity:

    He was fired by JAMA, inter alia, for duplicity (failing to inform his employer of moonlighting, but simultaneously implying to CMS he was acting on behalf of JAMA) and “your supervisor…indicated that she felt your journalistic approach of confrontation and criticism of those on whom you are reporting was inappropriate and potentially damaging to the AMA and JAMA.” (source:http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/ama-fires-a-loose-cannon-psst–wanna-buy-a-wire-service/Content?oid=897862).

    The article headline says it all to me…”AMA fires a loose cannon!”

    Me thinks a couple of egomaniacal loose cannons are about to blow up!

    • UPDATE: “Nice to be noticed”
      I find it highly amusing that this post has caught the attention of pet-photographer Andrew Skolnick, leading to yet another threat of a libel lawsuit against John O’Sullivan.
      Tellingly, in a post on a LinkedIn group he started (with a membership of 33 and presumably started because he has been banned from at least one other LinkedIn group), he once again seeks to self-promote his affidavits in the Mann vs. Ball case…accompanied by a comment of “nice to be noticed”. See: http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&discussionID=147711359&gid=4556880&commentID=104457839&trk=view_disc&ut=234a8fDOBZ45w1
      To me, this comment is yet another example of his out-of-control egocentricity, giving further credence to Pete Ridley’s previously-discussed claim of “Andrew’s [Skolnick] real objective may be to try to kick-start a career that floundered…” (see link below).
      Following a sympathetic post from Pete Ridley (the very same Pete Ridley who also stated not so long ago, “Another difference is that I [Ridley] am wary of making unsubstantiated accusations whereas Andrew [Skolnick] appears to be somewhat less cautious”)…see http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/of_dragons_scorpions_and_climate_change_deniars).
      By way of an interesting aside, Skolnick has also previously accused Ridley of being a cyberstalker, anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi supporter! Ridley has remained largely silent on the issue, indicating that he’s either guilty or not man enough to challenge Skolnick’s malicious slurs.
      Skolnick replies to Ridley with “Yes, and I’m looking forward to having a New York Supreme Court judge see it. I’m getting ready to give that make-believe lawyer a lesson in libel law that I’ve promised him.”
      Apparently Skolnick thinks it’s totally acceptable to libel others with suggestions of pedophilia, bogus credentials, etc., but this free-speech advocate ‘cries wolf’ when his own credentials are called into question. It will be interesting to see if this Pulitzer-Prize nominee (not!) actually specifies the comments about him that are allegedly libelous…he has also threatened me with a libel suit, so it will interesting to see if he also includes me in this latest libel action.
      Maybe Skolnick believes that ‘three is a charm’? Two previous libel actions brought by him were less than successful; IMDS (quickly dismissed and allegedly involving illegal recording of phone conversations by Skolnick) and CMS (summary judgment to defendant)…his egregious behavior against both companies was also apparently instrumental in getting him fired from JAMA (e.g. see http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/ama-fires-a-loose-cannon-psst–wanna-buy-a-wire-service/Content?oid=897862) ).
      How many frivolous lawsuits will it take for Skolnick to learn his lesson? But let’s hope he follows through with his ‘promise’…it will be ‘nice’ to expose this charlatan for what he is.

  13. John,

    They’re only getting personal because they’re not honest enough to concede when the fundamental facts don’t support them. And the article in question? It was self-plagiarized, word for word, from the author’s contribution to Desmogblog the previous day. Journalist? Cut and paste posts are the modus operandi of internet trolls, not journalists; whether they be disgraced or otherwise. Moreover, the article was fed to some 800 sites; maybe to prevent people from finding the key quotes which were not sourced. Correct me if I am wrong, but the author’s failure to cite gave me the distinct impression that you did not say the things he claims you did.

    And, while they’re making it personal, to evade the inconvenient facts; what is this so-called Huffington Post?

    Why not Huffington Blog? Why Huffington “Post”? Is it a newspaper tabloid? A broadsheet? We have a tabloid in Australia called the Post. Many countries have publications with the word “Post” in the title. They’re all tabloids and broadsheets; all “newspapers” filled with gossip columns.

    So I find myself wondering…what page of the so-called Huffington Post’s 2012-Jul-27 tabloid or broadsheet was this article on? Sure, I’ve seen their site often enough but can someone buy an edition at a news-stand? Could a news-stand copy of the the actual Huffington Post tabloid or broadsheet be sent to my PO box?

    I put it to you that the so-called Huffington Post is the publisher’s equivalent of a sock-puppet used by politicians to put their more vocal constituents “in their place”. I put it to you that, when the dust settles, the so-called Huffington Post site will be taken down and there will be no hard evidence that there ever was a Huffington Post. Hypothetically speaking, if I haven’t misjudged the so-called Huffington Post, this would make it the perfect channel for propaganda. The Communists of the “Democratic Soviet Socialist Republic” were not so lucky. Pravda was in print, which makes it forever. Ditto the publications of the pseudoscience called “Eugenics”.

    So, until I can dirty my hands with a tabloid or broadsheet edition of the so-called Huffington Post, I will consider this “tabloid” to be meagrely a blog pretending to be a newspaper. Returning to the issue, however, all this ad hominem gossip adds nothing to the claim that the greenhouse effect actually works as promised. After more than a century, this is still yet to be substantiated. Until such time, the greenhouse effect is an unnecessary “entity” which no honest person would consider scientifically admissible because, as an unnecessary entity, it violates Okham’s Razor – which, by definition, makes it unscientific. And the best that the financial dependants of the greenhouse effect can come up with is consensus, ad hominem and straw-man arguments, not to mention liberal and positively laughable abuse of Simpson’s Paradox – just like the Creationists, Eugenists and Lysenkoists before them.


    Timothy Casey
    PO Box 1011, Clayton South, Victoria, Australia 3169.

  14. Timothy,

    It is the general case that, if anything is posted on the internet and scanned by the Wayback Machine, it is not lost. It is even better than newsprint. Newsprint contains unneutralized acid and thus becomes yellowed and fragile with age. Repeated handling can soon cause it to disintegrate. Not so with the Wayback Machine archive. It can be accessed many millions of times and remain as good as ever.

    See: http://archive.org/web/web.php

    A simple search on “Huffington Post” returns 394 hits.

    They may not archive everything but what they do archive can be very revealing. For example, I maintain a horse registry website. I used the Wayback Machine to recover a major fraction of the breed’s show history that was thought to be long lost.

    The bottom line is that it is very difficult to hide on the internet. The only way to hide is avoid using the internet and especially don’t post anything there. If you do, a copy will likely soon be archived. Hence, it is wise to say what you mean and mean what you say and to expect your words to haunt you for many decades thereafter.

  15. Too true Lionel.

    Previous internet posts (on this forum and others) have exposed the mendacity and egocentricity of Mann, Skolnick, Ridley et. al.

    These ‘gentlemen’ merely dilute the strength of their arguments with juvenile and puerile attacks against those who raise legitimate questions about their own credentials or arguments.

    Mann’s desire to sue anyone who has the ‘audacity’ to challenge his ‘Nobel prize-winning contributions’ (not!) is well documented. Bring it on!..I’m sure Mark Steyn and Timothy Ball will have a field day, given both the disingenuous ‘science’ and ‘reputation’ claims (Nobel prize, etc). That’s assuming Mann ever provides the R square data…why the delay Dr. Mann?

    Andrew Skolnick? A minor-league pet photographer who is full of hot-air and eager to cry ‘libel’, despite his free-speech philosophy.
    Two less-than-successful libel suits to date and guilty of double standards, IMO. But I hope this pet-photographer (and Pulitzer-prize NON-nominee) proceeds with his (long-threatened) lawsuit against John, myself or others. Hopefully, a third failed libel suit will teach this former, disgraced journalist a lesson.

    Pete Ridley? Just a rather confused retiree IMO. Accused by Skolnick of being a cyberstalker, anti-Semite and neo-Nazi supporter. But unwilling to respond to such serious allegations as far as I can see. Just obsessed with delving into the personal lives of folks who choose to disagree with him (e.g. me, ‘Phil’ or ‘Snapple’)…please get a life Pete and stop the cyberstalking.

  16. Lionel,

    Archive.org are a very useful institution. However, I get the impression that they are a not-for-profit organisation, also beleaguered by frivolous litigation (in this case revolving around copyright politics), and I don’t think that they receive the support they should be getting from universities. Unless things change drastically, I think it would be unwise to assume they will be around forever.

    I would also remind you that much of the content on archive.org is older than the internet by an order of magnitude. The internet may well seem to be permanent, but it represents the pinnacle of freedom in the current version of civilisation. In other words, it is that fragile “dream which can vanish at the meagre whisper of its own existence”.

    Historically, such dreams have never lasted very long. Moreover, as many observations made on this thread demonstrate, the historically mandatory hypocrites and tyrants have entered the stage and seek to banish that dream so they can replace it with the double standard in which only they have the right. To this end, the scene plays out with libel and libel-lawsuits coming from the one and the same person. I fear that this brazenly open endeavour to force the past’s double standards of class stratification on a relatively free people already speaks for itself – not to mention the imminent end of peak civilisation in this current phase of our history.

    One reason that evil so often overcomes good is because people will often not defend a good, that they have, unless they know the evil that comes from want of that good.

  17. John, you may be interested to know that a poster on James Delingpole’s blog http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100191821/the-cornish-holiday-cottage-from-hell/#disqus_thread on the Daily Telegraph website has twice accused you of paedophilia.

    The relevant entries are by a poster named jobrighton, and read:

    “Would that be the same John O Sullivan, former teacher who was fired for having an affair with a child?”

    And

    “Not bluster parrot as you well know. Now, why would you cite a serial liar and paedophile to give an opinion on a highly respected climate scientist? “

  18. I just defended you from a Drewski who without merit make blatant falsehoods about you that you have already debunked here,I quote him:

    “Drewski says:
    February 22, 2013 at 3:03 am

    Yes he was, tommy, I understand it was due to the intervention by his daughter (the girl in question was her friend). However, did he also “earn” his supposed law degree or was it purchased online? Did he not also misrepresent himself to the law firm representing Dr Tim Ball? Did he not also claim that he has successfully litigated cases in the UK and the US? Does he also say that the Greenhouse Gas Effect doesn’t exist? And did he not also write a book about paedophilia?

    A real stand-up sort of guy, this John O’Sullivan. You should be proud to have him as your inspiration.”

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/greenland-meltdown-update-4/#comment-194785

    I posted a couple replies to him in the thread.

    • johnosullivan

      Thanks. As you rightly point out I’ve rebutted the lies posted about me. As Drewski has chosen to repeat the lies knowing they are such then he, too, is a liar and a fraud.

      • He is now insisting that you do not have a legitimate law degree and that he persists in this despite that he was shown by links what you said in the contrary:

        http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/greenland-meltdown-update-4/#comment-194832

        It appears that he does not know what Defamation is and running off the mouth making fictional claims against you is what he prefers to do.

        He is also saying that Skolnick is more credible than you and I quote:

        “Regarding Skolnick and O’Sullivan — you are couldn’t be more wrong on both counts. Its utterly laughable (though entirely predictable) that would elevate a person who resorts to buying his Law degree from an online mill (O’Sullivan) above a person who was nominated for the Pulizer prize for journalism (Skolnick).”

        This is one bad man!

      • Mark G

        Except Skolnick was never nominated for a Pulitzer prize!
        At best, a newspaper coughed up $50 to ‘enter’ a piece he had co-written into the Pulitzer Prize competition…it ended up in the trash bin, alongside the 2000+ other entries.
        Merely being entered into the competition does not make one a ‘nominee’ or ‘nominated’. As shown on their website, the PPC actively discourages this kind of misleading boast. Only finalists have the right to say they were ‘nominated’ for a Pulitzer….which is why his co-authors (who have professional integrity, me thinks) make no mention whatsoever of a nomination in their bios.

  19. johnosullivan

    clearly drewski isn’t aware that Skolnick lied about being a Pulitzer Prize nominee. Skolnick’s own former work colleagues disown him on that fabrication.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s