Beating the Climategate Cover Up: the next legal step

In this article I will outline the fundamentals of the civil and criminal cases against such climate fraudsters including key crooks Professor Phil Jones, chief climatologists at the UK’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), University of East Anglia, Professor Michael E. Mann of Penn. State University and that old eco-warrior, former U.S. vice president, Al Gore.

As correctly reported yesterday in American Thinker the civil litigation net will soon be cast far and wide in the U.S. skilfully applying the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Although RICO laws were intended to bust Mafia crimes they have successfully been employed in civil lawsuits, too. RICO-based claims will certainly be wending their way to brokers who did not perform the SEC’s necessary “due diligence” research before peddling those dodgy carbon shares.

But more pointedly for climate sceptics, such litigation will bear the names of co-defendants, Al Gore and that ‘team’ of IPCC scientists who participated in blocking the publication of contrary research, cooking the data and whose annual income skyrocketed from the public hysteria.

Not just in the United States, but throughout the world, leaders are under increasing pressure to respond to the seriousness of these matters. In the U.S. we now have the release of the much-anticipated report from the Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW). Spokesman and Minority leader Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) has stated the need for an international criminal investigation into what he called, “unethical and potentially illegal behavior by some the world’s leading climate scientists.”

In his presentation of the EPW’s report, Inhofe emphasized the significant finding of the British Government that data destruction at the CRU was criminal.

This announcement will have considerable impact upon President Barack Obama’s climate change policy that is unravelling in the wake of a barrage of US lawsuits challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) directives. With the abstaining American press increasingly accused of cronyism to politicians, in Britain the climate data fraud is more conscientiously reported by national daily publications such as, ‘The Telegraph.’

At last, skeptic politicians and large corporations are heeding the advice of legal commentators to use the law as the best way to bust what Inhofe terms, “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation.”

Since the Climategate scandal first broke, I’ve been urging fellow skeptics to stop prevaricating over the esoteric finer points subsumed in the darkened confines of science laboratories and, instead, shine the cold light of legal reason on these crooks in public courtrooms. Only then, under the penalty of perjury, will taxpayers glean the truth from climate fraudsters.

I was pleased to analyse for readers that very detailed and robust legal petition filed by the world’s largest coal company, the Peabody Energy Corporation (PEC), that is a superb template for any litigant looking to file their own suit.

PEC shrewdly argues inter alia that the law requires that the federal agency must articulate a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made” as per the case of Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983).

But I’m not just looking to hit climate fraudsters in their wallets; if we play our political cards right, we must aim to put the ringleaders behind bars. To this end we need only apply the long-established American legal principle known as ‘spoliation of evidence’ to beat this fraud hands down.

As Stuart P. Green of Rutgers Law School, Newark, tells us in American Criminal Law Review, Vol. 42, 2005 there is a history of high profile accused individuals shown to have destroyed, concealed or tampered with evidence (e.g. climate data):

As a result, the person has been prosecuted for obstruction of justice, perjury, false statements, or other similar ‘cover-up’ crime. In some of the cases, such charges have accompanied charges for the underlying crime; in others, they have displaced them.

Green gives us two famous examples from both the American and British courts to illustrate his points. In the U.S. we need only go back to June 2002 and the Arthur Andersen accounting firm scandal. Here convictions were obtained for obstructing justice in connection with the destruction of tens of thousands of pages of documents related to the federal investigation of its client, Enron. At trial, Andersen had argued that, in destroying such documents, it had merely been carrying out its own, pre-existing, so-called document “retention” program.

While in the UK, Green points to July 2001 when British thriller writer and life peer Jeffrey Archer was convicted of perjury and perverting the course of justice in connection with a libel case he had initiated fourteen years earlier against the tabloid newspaper, the Daily Star, which had reported that Archer, then deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, had been seeing a prostitute. Archer was alleged to have perverted justice by asking a friend to give him a false alibi, and to have committed perjury by lying in an affidavit to the High Court and during testimony in the libel trial.

Pertinently, even though Professor Jones is a British climatologist employed at a UK university, he made this admission in the leaked CRU emails:

“I’m hoping that no-one there realizes I have a US DoE grant and have had this (with Tom W.) for the last 25 years.” [1120676865.txt ]

Thus Jones remains liable to extradition and may conceivably be convicted under both UK and US jurisdictions. To my mind, Professor Jones and his colleague, Professor Wei-Chyung Wang of the State University of New York at Albany may be most liable for fraudulent data handling in an influential 1990 paper in the journal ‘Nature’ that controversially concluded the urban heat island effect was ‘minimal,’ as reported in the excellent science blog, Watts up with that (WUWT).

Thereupon, from the leaked emails we may further establish a conspiratorial link from Jones to other climate crooks, including key American alarmist professor, Michael E. Mann, of Penn. State University. Mann’s data was officially exposed as junk in the Wegman Committee Report (2006).

Mann cooked up his tree-ring data to make the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) disappear and thus, without the MWP, recent warm temperatures appear more extraordinary than they actually are. Wegman condemned the work as being,

“sufficiently politicized that this [climate science] community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.”

Since ‘Wegman,’ Michael Mann appears to be fairly well lawyered up and primed to plead the Fifth Amendment if dragged before a criminal court. But in a civil court he’s onto a loser as his following ‘plea’ just won’t cut it:

“I have made available all of the research data that I am required to under United States policy as set by the National Science Foundation…. I maintain the right to decline to release any computer codes, which are my intellectual property…” – source

A jury will make up their own minds if Mann refuses to convince the court of his own due diligence and integrity.

But let us not forget, that apart from individual scientists, NASA, too has unlawfully stymied US freedom of information requests and hidden or destroyed their unethical data manipulations.

As Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) who only now has had his three-years-old Freedom of Information Act requests to NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) honored, says:

“This is a damning admission that NASA has been complicit in UN alarmism. This is not science. It is debunked advocacy.“ – source

Skeptic climate scientist, Roger Pielke Sr., among others, has accused top NASA GISS global warmist, James Hansen of misleading the public:

“The GISS news release is symptomatic of the continued attempt to ignore science issues in their data analysis which conflict with their statement in the press release.”

It is scientists such as Pielke who will be called to testify against what he argues are unethical, and perhaps criminal conduct. But as any attorney will tell you, the mere act of misrepresentation with the intention to secure a benefit, is fraud.

Spoliation of Evidence

The theory of the legal doctrine known as ‘spoliation’ is that when a party withholds, manipulates or destroys evidence, it may be reasonable to infer that the party had “consciousness of guilt” or other motivation to avoid the evidence.

In the United States under Federal and most State law spoliation has two consequences: first the act is criminal by statute and may result in fines and incarceration for the parties who engaged in the spoliation, secondly case law has established that proceedings which might have been altered by the spoliation may be interpreted under a ‘spoliation inference.’

The ‘spoliation inference’ is a negative evidentiary inference that a finder of fact can draw from a party’s destruction of a document or thing that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding, i.e. because Professor Jones admitted he destroyed, concealed or lost his climate data the finder of fact (judge/jury) can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party.

From my own experience, once any FOIA notice has been served the courts regard this as constituting notice that legal proceedings may be imminent so that any public official who thereinafter impedes, distorts or destroys such evidence may be found guilty of spoliation.

Thus, Jones, who confessed to destroying such evidence to willfully defy FOIA requests, would likely be convicted of fraud and jailed in a criminal court. But on the lower standards of quantum in a civil court, a jury only has to believe on the balance of probability that he and his co-conspirators intended to withhold, manipulate or destroy data to win a civil RICO lawsuit – a far more probable outcome.

While in other countries that operate an English common law-based judicial system such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand, litigants can implement legal remedies in my article such as mandamus petitions and judicial revue here.

Suffice to say, I’ll let ‘American Thinker’ have the final word about the climate Ponzi scheme’s most grotesque rogue, Al Gore:

Once it becomes clear to everyone that the AGW theory is based on cleverly manipulated data twisted by rigged computer models controlled by several dozen IPCC politicians/scientists, we can expect that investors who lose millions by investing in these companies will eventually haul Mr. Gore and the insider IPCC scientists into court.

Possibly related posts:

  1. U.S. Lawyers get their legal briefs in order
  2. BREAKING! Penn State finds Michael Mann innocent of suppressing or falsifying data
  3. Police pension fund conflict of interest raises question of Climategate cover up
  4. Swedegate: Climate professor’s lies exposed By Swedish meteorologists
  5. Climategate Professor perjures himself to Parliamentary Select Committee

28 Responses to “Beating the Climategate Cover Up: the next legal step”

  1. Dominic says:

    “I’ve been urging fellow skeptics to stop prevaricating over the esoteric finer points subsumed in the darkened confines of science laboratories and, instead, shine the cold light of legal reason on these crooks in public courtrooms”



    • Denis Ables says:

      Dominic: How would you ever know? You’re not listening. You even refuse to believe there’s been no warming for the past 15 years, even when it’s been admitted by Phil Jones. (He’s probably given up on surface temperature readings, knowing what the CRUs have been doing to the data and so preferring NOAA’s satellite readings.

      You also apparently are in denial about there having been a Medieval Warming Period (that’s the most recent, there have been a few more during this 10,000 year interglacial period.

      Do you know there was a “little ice age” that lasted about 500 years? Or that we’ve been in a typical warming bounce from that bottom for about the past 300 years?

      Are you familiar with the concept that during such warming periods, it’s usually the most recent weeks and months which will be the warmest, for obvious reasons?

      If you can’t accept any of that, you might try camping out at the RealClimate website; it’s run by your cult.

      • Dominic says:

        “You even refuse to believe there’s been no warming 15 years, even when it’s being admitted by Phil Jones”

        That’s not what he actually said. I’m not sure if you know that or not. If you do, your intentionally being dishonest, and if you don’t, you’re just ignorant.

        “You also very likely are in denial about there having been an Medieval Warming Period (the most recent, there’ve been a few more during this 10,000 year interglacial period.”

        No, I’m not actually, but hey, THANKS FOR ASKING. You seem to think you can just make up my thoughts for me! Seriously, why should I even bother to respond to you? You’ve already decided for me what I think!

        “Do you know there was a “little ice age” that lasted about 500 years? ”

        Oh! Really! No! I didn’t know that! You surely have a groundbreaking discovery here, I’d bet no other scientist is even aware of this! You should publish right away!

        “Or is the concept that during such warming periods, it’s usually the most recent weeks and months that will be the warmest, for obvious reasons?”

        That’s not even a complete sentence.

        • Spire says:

          Whoa. Diversions, parsing and bad humor, oh my!
          Screw grammar.
          The point was, Dominic, where the hell is the MWP and the LIA on the Hockey Stick. It should look like a big fat camel, instead.

          Or are you one who likes to fiddle with stats, like the one where one hand is in boiling water and the other is in the freezer, hence one is statistically okay? That’s what these IPCC guys got away with when they evened out the two mighty climatic events of only the last millenium.

          • Henry chance says:

            They even admitted the same in e-mails and really left a fine document trail convicting themselves.
            In a jury case, destroying documents like Enron did with shredders is a sign of guilt. They even admitted they would destroy before exposing their data. And the thugs put it in writing. The carbon crisis cartel litterally pled guilty by use of e-mails.

        • Graham says:

          Dominic – you’ve convinced me, convinced me that you’re kidding yourself.

          I think you have more intelligence than to really believe any of this AGW drivel. That’s a sort of compliment, but it means you serve no useful function.

          I’m doing ‘Tofu Free Tuesday’ for the AGW cause. What are you doing?

    • BrianOz says:

      “I’ve been urging fellow skeptics to stop prevaricating over the esoteric finer points subsumed in the darkened confines of science laboratories and, instead, shine the cold light of legal reason on these crooks in public courtrooms”

      Translation: If the bastards aren’t going to tell the truth, force them to in the courts!

      Ever noticed that all the legal action is all going toward making the so called scientists tell the truth yet I’ve not heard of one scientist defending AGW in the courts….curious eh!!!!

  2. Spire says:

    RICO for ClimateGate Fraudsters? Fantastic. Somebody is finally thinking out there. Follow the money!

    Come to think of it,
    Why not RICO the Wall Street crooks, especially the connection to the Fed Reserve? It would be awesome to discover what some of the executive assets turn out to be. Maybe get back some of our money as well. Hopefully it will be a trend.

    Hell, why not RICO the Pentagon!! Imagine the $aving$!

    • Dominic says:

      The only problem is, no crime has been comitted. Other than that, its a solid case!

      This is certainly the lowest point for the deniers. “We don’t like the scientific conclusions you’ve come to, so we’re going to put you in jail!” You know what that sounds like? COMMUNISM

      • bobby says:

        Nobody is going to jail for scientific conclusions they came to that was truthful.

        On the other hand those that have faked climate science or/and made fraudulent catastrophic climate prophecies to enrich themselves from CO2 trading or from government reseach aid are definitely going to jail.

      • Dominic, sorry, but you are wrong. The British government confirmed the UK’s CRU broke the law in refusing to comply with FOIA requests. If you don’t want the less charitable to ridicule you, then I suggest in future you check your facts before posting.

  3. Pedro M. Rocha says:

    All churches have moderate believers who are willing to put their beliefs under question.

    I certainly was a believer on the Church of the Global Warming.
    Then by 2 successive years it snowed in Portugal in places where that is very unlikely to happen– 2006/7.
    From that point on I knew something was wrong and it was my turning point. Then I studied the data from the other side: the skeptics side.

    So I know the story from both sides and I decided where the truth is.

    But unfortunately there are also integrists on every church. They will never check the other’s point of view. Never.
    Useless to try to change them.
    Let’s us not waist our time on them.

    The fight is on and urges many actions.

    pedro m rocha

    PS- this year too it snowed in several places in Portugal where it is very unlikely to happen.

  4. Henry chance says:

    Martha Stewart lied to the agents and not even in court. Michael Mann is also cooking data. It seems he needs to have a real official investigate him.
    I read the Fortran programs and see how Mann altered actual numbers. Since Mann is claiming a degree in Geology and a math user, we can use those same disciplines to let him bring himself down in front of us. Since Mann pushed false documents accross state lines and since he made false representations in seeking government funds, it is work and a conviction is attainable. There are some states that have stronger patterns of RICO cases.

    Is Domonic a sophomore at Penn State?

  5. Tom Roe says:

    We will build the case slowly. No rush to turn perps into victims which an all to willing msm will do. Prediction: The EPA will stand fast under pressure from the alarmist camp to do so. Peabody Energy and others will take the regulatory issue to court. That should be a PR and legal win for us. In the meantime I believe we may be able to find a state AG or two to form a coaltion. States vs an unpopular little trusted federal government. We can win that also.

    • Henry chance says:

      16 court cases.

      Filing petitions were the Ohio Coal Association, the Utility Air Regulatory Group, the Portland Cement Association, the state of Texas and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Another was filed by a coalition that includes the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the American Petroleum Institute, the Corn Refiners Association, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Oilseed Processors Association, the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, and the Western States Petroleum Association.

      These court cases relied on findings from NASA GISS, the Met Office, NOAA, and NCDC and a few others.

  6. Jim says:

    Al Gore might have tried to convince the people the science is settled. But it is the law that is going to settle the science of global warming and it ain’t going to be pretty for the CO2 trading racketeers and the deities who faked the science.

    Well done John for a well written article as usual, there are a lot of us ordinary folk out there that appreciate the sometimes thankless task you have of bringing the spotlight on the global warming hoax. While this was going to be the biggest tax hike in history, the real outrage with the public at large is the loss of freedom that arises from the climate change fraud pushed on us by a predominantly unelected political class. The global warming hoax is a direct attack on democracy by a mob rule of self serving elites.

    When the political system fails us we can only hope the law can redress the imbalance. Every lawyer who takes on the global warming hoax deserves the riches they receive in the pursuit of the evil scaremongering racketeers.

    • Jesus says:

      “But it is the law that is going to settle the science of global warming…”

      You have a severe misunderstanding about what science is. Courts do not get to dictate scientific truth. In fact, their opinion is completely irrelevant.

      • Mary says:

        My Dear Son,

        In this case, the so-called SCIENCE wasn´t REAL science-conclusions draw from non-manipulated facts -enough of the data was fabricated and fraudulant(when not destroyed or “LOST”) to make the results/conclusions questionable. And because of this, IT DOES MATTER what a court decides, not about the science, but about the behavior of the so-called scientists/climate researchers whom appear to have biased results in order to support the Global Warming agenda.

  7. John D. Nier says:

    They dictate about those that commit fraud and they lock their asses up in jail. Ask Bernie Madoff.

  8. Maurice J says:

    Forget Dominic…….Dominic is a Dummy as in Foolish Fake, or to use a Communist term “Useful Idiot”
    To see the World Wide Cabal of Climate Cheats and their Socialist Elite backers in the IPCC and elsewhere in jail cannot happen soon enough for my money…..I would also throw away the keys !
    Enough is Enough of this AGW Tax Scam Scandal.
    NO proof….NO conscience….The Emperor has NO Clothes !

  9. Graham says:

    Dominic is an Al Gore wannabe.

    His posts only show up how desperate the AGW camp are.

    It’s nice to know that Elmer Fudd bats for Al Gore.

  10. yaosxx says:

    “This is certainly the lowest point for the deniers”

    Dominic – No it’s not! You’re just looking through the telescope the wrong way! DOH!!

  11. [...] the care of Murtha’s doctor? Call your senators, you know the drill. We can’t rely on the RICO suits John O’Sullivan says are coming–they’ll be highly entertaining, but they can’t come fast enough. I just hope they [...]

  12. twistedsis says:

    There is a crime here, the crime is the intentional skewing of the data and doing so with our dollars. Generally, we call that FRAUD and fraud is a crime. We have thrown trillions of dollars at global warming based on lies. These lies were deliberate, thought out and planned. This is fraud and it can be pressed in a court house in the USA. I don’t know about other contries but this kind of a crime can be prosecuted in the US. I want all of these assholes in jail. They have perpetrated the largest fraud in human history. They willfully lied, demonized anyone that would not lie for them, and generally made asses of themselves, to bad we can’t prosecute for bad character. Somebody needs to go to jail. We need to re-enforce the idea that fraud is illeagle even when perpetrated by alledgedly educated people. I had to add allegedly
    because it appears to me that climate scientists may well be the most ignorant people on this earth. If they are not stupid then this is a RICO statue case and should be prosecuted with glee.
    I wan’t all of these lying , thieving “scientist” in jail sooner rather than later. They should not get a country club jail, they should be in a federal prison. This is the biggest con job the world has ever seen. It has cost the USA alone billions of dollars if not trillions. Somebody has to go to jail and that includes James Hansen. Theese people have been stealing from every person in this world and stealing from people not yet born who will have to pay for the stupidity and criminal activities of the so-called “scientist”

  13. val majkus says:

    An execellent article John; I’ve had a quick look at the Australian legal site AUSTLII and done a quick search of the database to see if I could find something recent in regard to spoliation of evidence; tampering with evidence; destruction of evidence; and have found some references; but I can’t help thinking other than tampering with evidence (which could perhaps sheet home to the BOM wrongdoing in regard to temperatures) that Australia’s cause of action would be something like ‘disregarding of evidence’ by those whose business should be due diligence; and this brings me back to my inexperience ‘who can bring that suit’; ‘can we bring it against our Climate Change Minister’; my time is a bit short these days but I do intend to continue research and will post further; in the meantime hope to maybe get some tips from informed readers or yourself;

    • Val, I agree, as per your findings, that perhaps the ‘due diligence’ gambit works well for both mandamus petitions and judicial review and is perhaps the most practical step. Skeptics particularly need to lobby Aussie coal companies and urge them to read our commentary and pay heed to the Peabody Energy Co. petition that is a superbly compiled legal document. Also, they should look at Dr. John Costella’s peerless study of the leaked CRU emails.
      I have found that the spoliation doctrine is best defined in the US legal context. In the UK, like you’re finding in Australia, the law has yet to enshrine this concept so definitively. But, perhaps the time has now come. I do hope you can eke out some more time on this to work with me. There are too few legal commentators on either side of the debate, which I find odd, in itself.

  14. val majkus says:

    John did you know that Charles the Moderator from Watts Up with That site has been contacted by the Norfolk Constabulary
    check it out at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/25/ctm-is-contacted-by-the-norfolk-constabulary-and-responds/#more-16713

  15. [...] Beating the Climategate Cover Up: the next legal step, John O’Sullivan traces out the application of the RICO Act and against some of the many who [...]

This website is for sale for $10,000. Contact us if interested.