Feb
Legal Elephant now In the climate room but Mainstream Media absent
The stridently leftist national newspaper, the UK’s Guardian, has set itself on the pointless task of a diversionary, “unique experiment” into allegedly unraveling the truth behind the Climategate emails.
Guardian readers are now being asked to read the paper’s analysis of the Climategate emails and then,
“send in your own annotations.”
In other words, they’ve been found out as being incapable of doing real journalism—something skeptics have been telling them for years. Now they need readers to do their job for them. Perhaps our readers might oblige?
But please, be under no illusions that the Guardian has had some epiphany and is abandoning being just a mouthpiece of the UN’s IPCC. Oh, no, not a bit of it. Look no further than the top skeptic science blog, Watts Up With That? (WUWT) to see their latest take on how conniving and complicit the Guardian truly is in this doomsaying scam.
This parsimonious labeling of us internet skeptics with the meme that we are nasty well-funded shills in the pay of the tobacco and big oil lobby is fast back-firing. I’ve never been paid for my blogging and neither have the tens of millions of other skeptic grass-roots supporters. It’s the Guardian that profits from muck spreading not us.
So, with so much misinformation and propaganda in the leftist mainstream media, savvy bloggers have come to rely on their own resources to advance the cause of truth and justice. The internet is where we are exposing the greatest of all Ponzi schemes. We, the public still want the scoops, we want to see what the legal eagles are doing now this circus enters the courtroom stage. For example, we all know that the British government has confirmed climate crimes were perpetrated by British scientists.
East Anglia’s Phil Jones confessed he did wrong while the leaked CRU emails proves he encouraged other scientists to break the law.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) stated that Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests were unlawfully refused. This finding thus indicates that one or more climate scientists committed their crimes to cover up data fraud that enabled them to fraudulently procure tens of millions in government grants. But more insidiously, the implication is also that such scientists falsified global warming data upon which international governments may have unecessarily premised public policies on needless mitigation of non-existent global warming, costing world taxpayers trillions of dollar. I can think of no more pertinent public interest requirement for a rigorous police investigation than this at the very highest level.
However, neither the ICO, nor Norfolk Police, have made comment as to whether they intend to pursue such enquiries which, under the Roskill Report (1988) mandates that international fraud involving sums in excess of £1 million be investigated, not by provincial police services acting unilaterally, but by the full weight and expertise of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO). The SFO are THE fraud specialists with the powers to apply the Fraud Act (2006), which has no statute of limitations in cases involving conspiracy to defraud.
It is an outrageous abuse of standard procedure that the SFO is not on the case despite Jones’s public admissions and the ICO’s affirmation that climate data was criminally and irrevocably destroyed. As someone who has litigated for over ten years in government corruption cases I know a political whitewash when I see it. This is the greatest scandal of our age.
But with the greatest scoop at his feet, what does Guardian environment journalist, Pearce, the author of ‘The Last Generation: How nature will take her revenge for climate change’ seek to do?
Pearce remains an apologist from climate con artists. He and his cult followers are not interested in detecting and exposing crimes that have already cost hundreds of thousands of lives due to biofuel-induced famine and hundreds of millions in funding junk science and gravy-train showboating by world leaders.
Poor, pathetic Pearce has his eyes resolutely fixated on his navel. He sees the game is almost up and we have reached his credibility tipping point. He won’t be making his fortune from the sale of his ridiculous book. His career, like his socialist dreams are fast headed for the trash can to join Phil Jones’s data.
The growing reluctance of the public to swallow any more of this climate crap has at least, compelled the Guardian to do something, anything to appease the masses. So they have tossed old fumbler Pearce into a metaphorical Petri dish so we can all re-examine those 12 microbe-laden samples of Fred’s ‘take’ on 1,000 Climategate emails. Ok, I’ll join in with this ‘experiment’ for a moment just to prove that environment journalists like Fred are now more exposed than the junk science he blatantly trumpets.
To expose him I put this paragon of the paparazzi under the microscope and my attention was immediately caught by the heading for ‘Part Two’ of this special feature. Immediately Fred gives away his game. As soon as I clicked on the hyperlink the first of many biased headlines hit me in the face:
‘How the ‘climategate’ scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics’ lies’
Just like the climatologists, Fred knew what his conclusions were going to be even before he started his ‘experiment.’ As you’ll see, Fred avoids the science and keeps to the propaganda pitch. But I reserved making further judgment and conscientiously delved deeper.
But, as I’d feared immediately we are continuously fed Pearce’s partisan prose:
Whether it was democracy in action, or defence against malicious attempts to disrupt research, climate scientists were driven to siege mentality by persistence of sceptics.
Yes, us nasty skeptics who wanted to know why Jones and his ilk were defying FOIA request and hiding data drove these poor scientists into a siege mentality. Way to go, Fred–tell it as you see it. I was pleasantly surprised to find at the end of that article a slew of incisive comments from readers attacking this drivel. Clearly, some Guardian readers are more knowledgeable on the subject than frightful Fred.
But, sadly, as I proceeded to the next installment, what I found in Pearce’s ‘Petri dish’ of an experiment was distinct and unwelcome cross-contamination. Everywhere I looked it was the same moribund organism beginning to decompose.
In Part 10, Fred gives up that decaying hacker theory and surrenders to idle speculation:
After the July incident, perhaps CRU failed to batten down the hatches, either through technical failings or because someone inside was subverting the efforts.
‘Perhaps…either…or?’ It’s not very edifying stuff here, Fred. If readers are by now overwhelmed by this odious green guff then save I suggest you cut to the chase and go to Part 12 and amaze yourself (not) with Fred’s considered conclusion:
Climate science emails cannot destroy argument that world is warming
Oh, now? That’s strange, Fred. I thought Phil Jones had cleared that little issue up for us recently.
Pearce is an establishment relic still twittering to himself hoping someone, somewhere gives a fig about his analysis. But in that alternative green reality, yes, Fred could be right. Not to worry, folks, from decomposition comes new life. And as our environmentalist friends will tell us, that helps to recycle the finite matter that occupies physical space in the biome. Forlorn Fred submits thusly to his dwindling flock:
Claims based on email soundbites are demonstrably false – there is manifestly no evidence of clandestine data manipulation.
How pathetic, how sad. Fred says ‘no evidence’ because Jones destroyed it. I just wish mainstream journalists would start to give their readers the real news. Jones committed evidence destruction and manipulation. He destroyed evidence of the crime and that in itself, is a crime. He is still liable. The criminal law is very adept at snagging criminal fraudsters who try to hide their crimes – its par for the course. The Establishment are currently engaged in stage-managing ‘Plan A’ of crisis prevention and the press is letting them get away with it. But being that Britain is on the cusp of a general election speaks volumes:
Thankfully, there are currently under way in the U.S courts 16 ‘Endangerment’ lawsuits filed against the EPA.
I have read the litigants’ briefs and they cite the fact that the ICO affirms data fraud crimes were committed in the UK. Working closely with other skeptic legal associates I have written an article detailing how ordinary citizens can mount legal challenges against these purveyors of an ill-founded one world, un-elected socialist green government.
Such lawsuits will succeed because the data has been destroyed and the defendants in the action, without proof, cannot mount a vigorous defense. Once this scam is busted in the civil U.S. courts, the global warming game is over. International governments will give up the ghost on pursuing junk science based cap-and-trade socialist agendas. The scientists at the hub of this fraud will become sacrificial lambs to a baying public that will demand that heads must roll. I would not want to be in Phil Jones’s, Michael Mann’s, Fred Pearce’s or the Guardian’s green sandals when that day dawns.
Possibly related posts:
- The University of East Anglia CRU comes clean: there WAS a medieval warm period
- Inhofe accused of turning climate row into ‘McCarthyite witch-hunt’
- Police pension fund conflict of interest raises question of Climategate cover up
- Exclusive: Q&A on Climategate with Britain’s Chief Police Officers
- Beating the Climategate Cover Up: the next legal step
The Guardian has literally become a tabloid mess. The readership are openly hostile to the newspaper over the climate fraud cover up. The commentary on most climate related articles has turned overwhelmingly anti-alarmist. Every article like the above drives a wedge further between the readership and the paper.
The Guardian is looking more like a propaganda tabloid for big government and the environmentalist movement, than a main stream newspaper. Climategate brought us mediagate, the blogosphere brought us the truth.
They’re just a little behind the game, and if their readers haven’t already got the full low down by now, then they are clinically beyond help.
Without the internet and sites like this we’d all be dangling like little fishies on a hook, ready willing and gullible to listen to their pompous tripe.
The thing is – even core figures in the scientific world find the e-mails disturbing, so what do they hope to achieve ? I can only imagine that it’s an attempt to ward off public ridicule and contempt when the inquiry into the UEA CRU reports – and I’m sure gives them a clean bill of health. I’m psychic (winks).
You can be sure that those with the power to so obviously corrupt the printed press media are desperately looking for ways to censor the Internet. China and Iran are no doubt set to be templates for government censorship the world over.
I believe that the reason groups such as the Guardian just keep barging forward oblivious to their readers and oblivious to any outside information is that they expect to once again regain the special privilege of being the only voice that gets heard. They really think they can get away with this, and what worries me is maybe they really can.
Tel, I agree with you and suspect the hubris of Pearce et al. is borne of some smug assurances made from higher ups that ‘all will be well come what may.’
for your info; comment I posted on
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/tips_for_tuesday_february_23/desc/P20/
today and reply to it
LITIGATING AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE FRAUD
John O’Sullivan is a British writer, retired academic and legal advocate who has ten years’ of experience litigating against government corruption in the U.S. federal and state courts. He has an interesting article today http://www.climategate.com/legal-elephant-now-in-the-climate-room-but-mainstream-media-absent#more-4601
It has a link to an opinion piece he wrote detailing how ordinary citizens in common law countries including Australia can mount legal challenges against these purveyors of an ill-founded one world, un-elected socialist green government at http://algorelied.com/?p=3768
There are now under way in US courts 16 ‘Endangerment’ lawsuits filed against the EPA by Industry groups, conservative think tanks, lawmakers and three states challenging the EPA’s “endangerment” finding for greenhouse gases. The lawsuits ask the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review EPA’s determination that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare. That finding—released in December in response to a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling—allows the agency to regulate the heat-trapping emissions under the Clean Air Act. One of the petitions has been filed by Peabody Energy Company and it’s instructive reading
It strikes me that if the ETS is passed Australian litigants including Industry groups ought to start similar proceedings; does anyone have any contacts in any industry groups to whom that suggestion could be made
val majkus (Reply)
Tue 23 Feb 10 (10:45am)
handjive replied to val majkus
Tue 23 Feb 10 (03:17pm)
Great link, Val.
The Climate Realists have won a couple of skirmishes but, the battle is far from over as ‘our’ elected representatives are using our tax payers dollars to promote their Global Warming Cultist fraud.
The scientific evidence of truth is mounting though, we must keep chipping away until it is overwhelming & impossible to ignore, even by the lapdog media.
Unlike the GFC, where billions are stolen & trillions given away in ‘stimulus’ to the perpetrators & no one has done ‘time’, the law must be shown to work or society will be worse for it.
Keep the legal links coming, as they are the start of the snowball.
Thanks to John for the article
nice job, Val.
Val, just a thought – if you have the time, I’m interested in investigating the case law from our respective common law countries on the issue of evidence tampering and destruction. My area of expertise pertains especially to spoliation doctrine in New York State and the U.S. federal Second Circuit. However, I am aware of basic principles in UK law of conspiracy to defraud including evidence tampering. I’m sure we could share resources on this and assist international litigants with useful info as well as bring these matters into the public domain to better inform general understanding.
It’s certainly a long long way from ludicrous claims & accusations of wacko, fringe, religious, non-peered, denialist, skeptic beliefs & mindsets to firm lawsuits as result of insightful researched legal interpretation.
I’m so glad you made the journey & are now able to embark on this campaign as a result of your research.
So, how will they now attempt to disparage, talk down, bully & deny lawyers – this should be very interesting to observe the developments.
Maybe they’ll claim this is part of the orchestrated collaboration funded by oil & tobacco firms & other large corporations.
John thinking about your comment above; in the meantime guys check this out
the much anticipated report from Environment and Public Works (EPW) minority leader Senator Jim Inhofe has been announced in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works” hearing
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/23/climategate-minority-report/#more-16658
This EPW Minority Report shows that the CRU controversy is about far more than just scientists who lack interpersonal skills, or a little email squabble,” said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. “It’s about unethical and potentially illegal behavior by some the world’s leading climate scientists.
“The report also shows the world’s leading climate scientists acting like political scientists, with an agenda disconnected from the principles of good science. And it shows that there is no consensus-except that there are significant gaps in what scientists know about the climate system. It’s time for the Obama Administration to recognize this. Its endangerment finding for greenhouse gases rests on bad science. It should throw out that finding and abandon greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act
links to the report
sorry if you’ve already run it; just spreading the news here
Inhofe’s doing a great job. I’ll be referring to his report in the future, thanks Val.
John the consensus amongst USA comments on the various blog sites reporting there is that the Senator’s motion will be blocked; I don’t know what the process is there; perhaps you could give us a comment to bring non USA readers up to date
just curious to know what sort of precedent this actually sets & within what scope that it would apply.
Does this at all affect what is happening at a State level in a number of the states ?
MhR; when you say ‘this’ do you mean the current congress motion by Senator Infohe?
Val, yepp, exactly ..