Feb
How I now debate a climate fraud denier
On another website I’ve been engaged in a brusque debate with an evangelizing global warming doomsayer–the type that Dr. John Costella, expert science analyst of the leaked CRU emails, aptly terms,’ climate fraud denier.’ Quickly, to counter my scientific arguments he turned to personalizing the matter. I was called ‘obsessive’ and a ‘conspiracy theorist.’ I was then challenged to justify why I knew better than ’97.5% of all climate scientists.’
Here was my reply:
I am a legal advocate, totally unpaid in relation to fighting these climate criminals. I have litigated against government corruption for over a decade in the U.S. federal Court Second Circuit as well as the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Appeal Court and Division of Human Rights. I have insight plus I still haven’t lost a case. If that makes me ‘obsessive’ about fighting corruption then count me in.
I am 100% in support of conservation, recycling and prudent use of natural resources. I have close friends who were former members of environment groups until those organizations became heavily politicized in the early 1990’s.
I argue the free market has been most adept at taking care of the supply and demand issues over dwindling fossil fuels. Fuel price rises compel us to conserve regardless of unnecessary government policy. Nationalized industries have an appalling history of waste and inefficiency. Common sense tells us if a commodity becomes more rare it goes up in price, so we become more precious about it. Technological development occurs best in a free market economy so we do not need big government to force us to ‘go green.’
Many so-called green energy alternatives are uneconomic and futile e.g. wind turbines use vast amounts of copper, are wholly unreliable plus extremely expensive to build and maintain. Without huge government subsidies no one would touch them. France runs on 80% nuclear power most efficiently and happily. Nuclear power is the only practicable long-term solution for national base energy loads.
Humans are NOT heating up the planet. Simply check the two oldest and most reliable ground RAW temp records in the world: the CET (England) and the Central European Record (Prague). These prove that for the past several hundred years global warming has been occurring naturally at a rate of 0.25 C per century, entirely normal for the Holocene interglacial period in which we live.
Indeed, the warming blip that climate scaremongers get all hot about is that time from 1975-98, which compares neatly with those entirely natural yet similar blips of 1860-80 and 1910-40 and which no climatologist attributes to human emissions. Therefore, we see no human climate-forcing signal.
The truth is in the science. Science is about facts, not a show of hands. The complexity of climate involves a multiplicity of scientific disciplines. Yet climate scientists have had to rely on a small core of a mere two dozen or so ‘elite’ climate scientists who are responsible for the ‘homogenized’ temp data sets produced from a central WMO source. That is where the fraud lies.
Government agencies GHCN, NOAA and CRU have been artificially heating up the numbers to show a warming signal; they call it ‘homogenisation.’ Independent analysts have now exposed the fraud of homogenization of climate data. The raw data so far examined proves that older temperatures have been pushed down, while recent temperatures have been ramped up–that’s fraud.
Hundreds of honorable climate scientists have been fed the faked numbers so that they have been duped for years, en masse. This is why independent auditors, for the past seven years, have tried to have access to how the homogenization process was done by those few crooks. But they have been declined. Why?
From the leaked Climategate emails we learn that this crooked elite rigged the peer-review process and also admitted to ‘fudging’ the data to ‘hide the decline.’ Discredited Professor Phil Jones of CRU admitted to the BBC that there has been ‘no statistically significant’ temperature rise since 1995, proving the world had been continuously fed the lie that the temperatures were rising at a ‘catastrophic’ rate.
I have analyzed the leaked emails from CRU, and in my opinion they prove a conspiracy to commit fraud. This is the greatest Ponzi scheme of all time. Bernie Madoff is a small fry by comparison. That is why 16 major climate actions have just hit the US courts. The truth is out and the game is up. I care not whether you ‘believe’ in global warming or not–the task of legal advocates, like me, as for honorable scientists, is to work with the facts.
I am actively lobbying the UK police and Attorney General to bring criminal charges against Jones et al. I can assure you, on the lower quantum of proof in civil courts, the likes of Al Gore, Jones, Mann, Hansen, etc. will be fined and made bankrupt. But we need their kind behind bars–they have wasted over $50 billion of taxpayer’s money already. Even this corrupt UK government had to admit that Freedom Of Information (FOI) requests were criminally refused as per ICO investigations. Only self-serving politicians continue to obstruct justice. But as they see their political constituency dwindle they, too, will soon capitulate to facts and reason.
Carbon trading was going to make billions for a select few. That investment bubble has now burst. Climategate has irrevocably changed history. The proposed carbon economy was intended as a global wealth redistribution scheme and green taxes were the thread to sew together all nations into a one world government. Read the Copenhagen Draft Treaty–it spells out in black and white the plan for a new world socialist order–no elected representatives for you, no democracy! Read it, and then try telling me I’m a conspiracy theorist. Just be thankful climate skeptics saved you from that dystopia.
Possibly related posts:
- U.S. Lawyers get their legal briefs in order
- Phil Jones admits withholding scientific data
- Police pension fund conflict of interest raises question of Climategate cover up
- British climate professor John Mitchell may face fraud charges
- Attention Penn State: Top fraud attorney seeks climategate whistleblowers
CARBON TAX IS THEFT, PLAIN AND SIMPLE,
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=181254384531&v=wall
Brilliant and articulate. A solid reply indeed!
This is the forceful coherence we need in public debates to expose these fraudsters.
Excellent work Mr. John O’Sullivan!
Thanks John for putting those thoughts in writing. Its the changing of the actual temperature data that is most corrupt & leads to the chirpping of Alarmists. I would say you are 1000% correct, well sais.
Our EPA uses claims made by the IPCC and the fraudsters.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/Federal_Register-EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171-Dec.15-09.pdf
Every issue is covered by “endangerment” But the endagerment of 40,000 deaths due to CAFE (small car) standards is ignored.
I think the continued efforts to ultimately win this war have to proceed in parallel pursuing:
1. Continued efforts to weaken the ‘scientific’ basis; i.e. keep digging into relevant material and expose bad science.
2. As the basis materializes (strongly enough) pursue the matters using John’s approach. Go the legal route. Sue.
And while doing this, let the others do the ad hominum. Be polite, sincere, and stick it to them.
Thanks John
John – why are you frightened of linking to my website here? Is it because you’re concerned that your followers might see an alternative point of view?
You landed on my website when I admitted I was unsure of whether human-induced climate change is actually happening. Since that point I’ve researched the topic, and listened to the debate between you and one of my other readers.
You have helped me come to a very clear decision. And that is that genuine scientists have highlighted to humanity that action is required urgently. And a lunatic fringe is hell bent on stopping this action from happening.
Matthew, over here anyone is welcome to come and have their say. I’m sure you and others who share your views, will be made very welcome to join the debate. There are not only keen lay people who post but actual scientists – many happy to help in understanding why climate fraud denialism is not only unethical, but can prove criminal for certain individuals.
Matthew,
As you – say good people are on your side and bad people are against this truth.
Are you aware that the “ad hominem” argument is arguably the most infamous error of logic known, dating to the philosophical debates of ancient Greece.
If you can’t attack the issue, attack the man. So you can’t attack the issue? But hey we all enjoy a little ad hominem once in a while, me included.
Nevertheless your comments regarding the actual issues, especially your criticisms, really are wanted here.
From a humble lunatic on the fringe
An excellent piece.
I like the term “CLIMATE FRAUD DENIER” (CFD) – a good response when accused of being a denier- it has a ring to it, I think it could catch on!
yes Doug. Dr John Costella coined the CFD term and it certainly does seem very apt.
Another big thank you Mr O’Sullivan!
I am hoping for the best success in the Peabody suit and, am quite amused as well as disappointed in our Congressional response to date. Please continue to keep us informed.
David La Due
Excellent post! I’m tired of having this climate change crap being shoved up my throat by educators. We just need to make the rest of the world smart enough to understand this.
A Convenient Lie documentary, anyone ? We could get Lord Monkton to be spokesperson!
Great summary.
John, the “critical path” here appears to be a day in court. Any more self investigations, and we’ll all get to heaven!
So how does that happen. A petition? The roadblock appears to be at the political/party level. What else can be done? Fund raising? Political activism. Swinging placards at people who don’t agree with me seems like it might be more fun than paintball.
But no. Dr Torr said it well above, leaving not even a vacuum of a doubt, be polite and sincere. And I’m sure he would agree, its better to convert a warmer than piss one off – even though we all feel like “sticking it”.
Especially on this precious website.
You personally seem to represent the tip of the spear to many of us. It’s in your arena that this whole thing will be finally settled. There’s much more support available for your efforts, more than just moral.
from a fringe lunatic
Roy, luckily those of us who live on countries under English common law still have the right to vote. Therefore, we need to lobby politicians every which way we can to make them fear losing their seats. We voted them in, so we need to vote them out. As a Brit I intend to use my vote for UKIP in the upcoming general election as that, to me, is my best endorsement by ballot box for the preservation of my rights as a citizens.
I see in Australia, Dr. John Costella working very hard to promote his new Sceptic Party. In the US we’ve seen the Tea Party movement catch on. These are our political avenues of opportunity that we must harness alongside the scientific and legal channels we are slowly working to our advantage.
In truth, this is a numbers game, the opinion polls are coming our way. But we now need to convert opinions into votes.
Assemblyman Dan Logue is trying to get a straight vote on California’s global warming law on the November ballot.
You won’t read about it here in California though. The AG wants it to be kept as deep a secret as the NOAA homogenation data.
To read about it you have to travel 1500 miles across two statelines, then out of the country, into Canada, where they don’t give a care what Jerry Brown thinks.
Schwarzenegger’s climate change legacy may be in trouble; By Craig McInnes, Vancouver Sun.
Are you registered to vote in California? Do you think global warming is a fraud? You want to sign this petition to suspend the Calif Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. – We need 500k signatures by June 24th.
http://www.SuspendAB32.org – click the link and sign baby sign.
J Mayeau, good luck – keep spreading the word online about this. Our best weapon is the internet and I’d love to see you get the half million signatories to bust this scam in California.
You might be thinking, “California? They got a snowballs chance in hell of voting down global warming in Ca. Might as well dream that Nancy Peloci will be voted out of office.”
Not true. Arnold Shwarzeneggar snuck the global warming act into his agenda two weeks after he was elected the second time. He never ran on it. It was never mentioned on the campaign. He just pulled it out and stuck it in our back when it was too late for us to do something about it.
The next election, when Barack Obama mania swelled the ranks of California’s voter rolls with first time left leaning voters, there were two suplimentary ballot measures augmenting the effects of AB32 up for vote.
California Proposition 7, would have required California public utilities to procure half of their power from renewable resources by 2025. This would have forced SMUD and other municiple utilities to operate under the same sort of draconian restrictions that AB32 forces on Chevron, Cal Edison, and PG&E.
California Proposition 10, also known as the California Alternative Fuels Initiative, was an initiated state statute that appeared on the November 2008 ballot in California. This was T Boone Pickens windmill bill.
Prop 8 was defeated 64 to 35. Prop 10 was defeated 60 to 40.
It was the first time Californians were given a vote on Al Gore’s global warming. We were not consulted in other elections.
In all other elections we would be given a choice between party A’s candidate who strongly believes in global warming , or party B’s candidate who strongly believes in global warming.
This time we will end it, if we get the chance. The Democrats are doing their best to freeze out our ballot measure, to kill it stillborn in the petition phase. The reason? Because they are terrified of what the people will say about AGW if they’re ever given a chance.
Plots of Central Europe (Praque) and Central England are here:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climgraph.aspx?pltparms=GHCNT100AJanDecI185020090900110AR61111518000x
http://i49.tinypic.com/rc93fa.jpg
Nik, your version of the Prague record is bogus – as per my article on czechgate the true record belongs to Praha/Klementinum data covering the period 1770 to 2009 and shows 0.25 C degrees C per century. The data you link to is far more recent plus its next to an airport-not good. Your other link is to GHCN discredited homogenized data. Go check the raw CET numbers that don’t include ‘London’ as does your GHCN graph. London never has been, and never should be included in the CET for obvious reasons.