Legal analyst and science writer, John O’Sullivan is co-founder and coordinator of Principia Scientific International (PSI) and co-author and instigator of ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory,’ the world’s first full-volume refutation of the cornerstone of man-made global warming science.
O’Sullivan was born in Berkshire, England, of immigrant Irish parents in 1961. As an accredited academic, John taught and lectured for over twenty years at schools and colleges in the east of England as well as successfully litigating for over a decade in the New York State courts and U.S. federal 2nd circuit.
As an analytical commentator John O’Sullivan has published over 150 major articles worldwide. As a direct consequence of controversial revelations in his ‘Satellite-gate’ article the U.S. Government swiftly removed a degraded orbital space satellite from service. His work features in the U.S. in ‘National Review,’ as well as in ‘China Daily,’ the Number One English portal in China, and ‘India Times,’ the prime source of business news in India.
John has acted as consultant to, and is a close colleague of, Canada’s most prominent climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball, who is currently defending libel suits in the British Columbia Supreme Court against fellow climate researchers, Dr. Michael Mann and Dr. Andrew Weaver.
johnosullivan 
“As an accredited academic, John taught and lectured for over twenty years at schools and colleges in the east of England as well as successfully litigating for over a decade in the New York State courts and U.S. federal 2nd circuit.”
Go get ’em!
Ambulance chaser alert!
Dear Mr O’Sullivan,
On your internet site (link received by Dr Kleespies) I found the information that the “greenhouse gas theory is less than 30 years old”.
In my book “Klimahysterie ist keine Lösung” (i.e. climate hysteria is not a solution) I follow another idea describing that climate hysteria came up with the early development of high speed computers in the late 70th of the past century. Until then we had natural paläo-climatology on earth and from the early 80th on all climate changes were suddenly man-made and there was an upcomming climate catastophy predicted. At the end such hysteria may have been caused by people who were not used to think in geological timescales but have used their new scientific toy. In addition, the “end of discussion” postulated by climate alarmists seems to me a religious “dark age” approach to halt the future development of climate sciences – and a majority of scientists have participated.
The question is how history may judge the quality of today’s climate sciences looking back from some decades in future…
Best regards – Uli Weber
Hm… Tim Ball, a climatologist? Really? Reading his CV, I note a distinct lack of published, peer reviewed research on the issue.
Rob, as a self-styled climate expert could you tell us precisely when the greenhouse gas theory was refuted? The American Meteorological Society are adamant it was prior to 1951. Also, can you give us a date when climatologists chose to re-invent that junk science? I ask because there doesn’t appear to be any substantial discovery in atmospheric physics post 1951 that would warrant it’s resurrection. Many thanks.
Whew! Wavy your arms hard enough and maybe no one will notice what I said. So, is Tim Ball an ISI highly cited researcher? No. Has he produced ANY peer reviewed research challenging the idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? No. Has he produced any peer reviewed research that challenges any aspect of man-made climate change? No. He has lots of opinion pieces, yes. But as for substantive or influential research? None at all.
So, in other words, to call Tim Ball a climatologist at all, is an incredible stretch of the imagination.
Rob,
A more prudent man would await the outcome of the decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court in the trials of Mann-v-Ball and Weaver-v-Ball due imminently.These ‘climatologists’ are nothing of the sort. Both Mann and Weaver are about to have their cases dismissed because neither will turn over their data for open court examination. That you so gleefully defend criminality and extol a corrupt ‘pal review’ system says much about your own morals. BTW answer my question: can you give us a date when climatologists chose to re-invent the junk GHE? We know the AMS affirmed it was refuted prior to 1951. Failure to give a date proves you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Still arm waving, John. Your main man for PSI doesn’t even have any published research showing what you claim. That’s pretty sad.
Rob, PSI is a generalist science association with 191 members with many in the ‘hard’ sciences of math, physics, engineering and medicine. Of that number we are proud to say 47 have PhDs (one member is nominated for a Nobel Prize in physics). Climate science is to many a ‘soft’ science as well as being a discredited discipline.
Again, I’m still waiting for you to answer my question. When did climatologists choose to re-invent the junk GHE? We know the AMS affirmed it was refuted prior to 1951. Your stubborn evasiveness proves you are not to be trusted.
So why, John, would you list Tim Ball? The point you keep avoiding is that it’s a stretch, at best, to call Tim Ball a climatologist, being that he’s published virtually ZERO research on the subject, and he’s definitely never published anything that supports what you claim. So, if this is your main “expert,” it really doesn’t say much for your overall claims, now does it?
Rob, still avoiding my question? There’s a surprise! I’ve answered yours now kindly answer mine.
John, you know your question is a straw man. The radiative properties of CO2 have never been rejected since they were first established by John Tyndall in the 1850’s.
And you have NOT answered my question. Why do you list Tim Ball as an expert when he has almost no published research on climate and has ZERO research supporting any position that you profess to hold?