We are turning up the heat in pursuit of prosecutions against scientists involved in the recent Climategate scandal. Our dedicated group of volunteers working with Climategate.com are behind a plan to entice co-workers of discredited Penn State University climatologist Michael Mann to turn whistleblowers in return for millions of dollars in federal reward money. Mann is famous for his emails obtained from the East Anglia University server hacking, and for creating the widely disputed ‘hockey stick’ graph that is depicted in Al Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth.”
An “inconvenient truth” for Mann is that an ally of ours, former CIA agent Kent Clizbe, has this weekend emailed the proxy professor’s co-workers with details of the tempting offer that could turn 2010 into quite a prosperous New Year. We hope someone at this premiere world research institution will come forward and substantiate the facts from evidence already uncovered from the government emails leaked on November 19, 2009. The emails, among other things, show correspondence between Michael Mann and British Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research, which discuss methods to “hide the decline” in global temperatures.
If any of the dozens of co-workers in the US or the UK are prepared to give evidence, even if it doesn’t lead to any convictions, they could benefit from a share of tens of millions of dollars in recovered public funds. The Whistleblower idea came up in Internet discussions with top US fraud lawyer, Joel Hesch, of Hesch and Associates and former CIA agent, Kent Clizbe. Clizbe’s idea was to email the offer to all 27 of Mann’s co-workers at Penn State’s Earth System Science Center (ESSC) this weekend.
Whether convictions are obtained or not, Mr. Hesch assures prospective whistleblowers they will receive a substantial share of any monies recovered. Federal investigators reward whistleblowers with an average payment of $1.5 million based on the sums of money recovered. The US Federal government has paid out almost $3 billion so far in such rewards. The largest rewards to date exceed $150 million, and one out of every five applicants gets a monetary reward. Estimates of the total sums invested in government climate research already exceed $50 billion. The offer put on the table to Mann’s colleagues could be the most lucrative whistleblower deal ever made.
Kent Clizbe, who authored the email to Mann’s co-workers, has extensive experience in protecting the confidentiality and security of his clients. Both as an executive recruiter, and as a former government intelligence officer, Kent specialized in protecting the confidentiality of interactions with his clients.
ESSC employees will read Kent’s offer Monday morning when they switch on their computers to check their email. In his message, Kent tells them, “the whistleblowers with inside knowledge of misused federal grant dollars will enjoy the highest level of confidentiality possible. We suggest that you contact Kent using an email account outside of your work. Details can be found at www.kentclizbe.com. Alternatively, you may also contact attorney Joel Hesch, of Hesch and Associates, through his website HowToReportFraud.com.
We at Climategate.com made the decision to give our scoop to the widely read climate change skeptic and journalist, James Delingpole of the Daily Telegraph, for maximum dissemination of this story. Earlier today he went public with it in Climategate: Michael Mann’s very unhappy New Year at the Telegraph.
Possibly related posts:
- Penn State’s paper spreads the word on ex-CIA agent going after Michael Mann
- Penn State Daily Collegian keeps the focus on Michael Mann
- Penn State Protects Michael “Climategate” Mann
- Federal preemption law forbids Penn State from hiding behind “FOIA Exemption”
- Economic stimulus funds that went to Penn State climategate scientist should be returned
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. Any opinions he expresses are his own and do not necessarily represent those of the site owner.
{ 13 trackbacks }
{ 96 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Well CottShop..
I spent about an hour putting together a reply to your last post and when I went elswhere to find a source for my statement that millions of years ago the oceans were 37 degrees and highly acidic,I inadvertently lost my post…so you’re lucky..I haven’t the jam to do it all again and I’m sure it would be a waste of time..so for now I’ll just leave you with this link to a presentation by Richard B Alley who, coincidently, is from Penn State U. where he talks of the rise and fall of CO2 for the last few hundred thousand years..it’s really quite interesting and if you actually watch it you might actually learn something. Although you have proven yourself to be quite resistant so far.
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
Just for the record..whales aren’t fish..they are mammals.
And what in hell are talking about here in response to my statement about beetle kill in forests?
…”Egads- Talk about non sequitors- what has the fact that a mistake which allowed those beetles i n in hte first place got to do with ‘man caused’ global warming?…”
Pine beetles have been an integral part of the forests for hundreds of years..perhaps millennia. But as we no longer get minus 30 degree winter weather to control their numbers they have grown exponentially and have eaten their way thru millions of square miles of forests. A direct result of global warming. For brevity’s sake, I’ll ignore the ‘man made’ question for now. I really have no clue what you are talking about in your quote above which is a direct cut and paste from your post.
And as for citations and papers you have presented as evidence for you more outlandish and categorical statements, I find it impossible to accept as credible a proposed refutation that contains inane remarks like:
…”Why cannot 21st century scientists properly understand the basics of physics and chemistry that were known over a hundred years ago? It is due to the corrosive influence of an atheist worldview…”
I won’t go on..these are just a few of the innumerable half baked half truths and other totally unjustified remarks that you present as rational discourse.
I have suspicions that you are indeed a creationist as you still won’t answer the question. As a further aside..I’m curious..How does someone who believes the earth was created..I don’t know..6 or 7 thousand years ago hold that concept in their mind and at the same time seriously consider ice cores that are 6 or 8 hundred thousand years old without their head exploding? I realize it’s way off topic but I had to ask.
I would be curious to hear your response to the address by Dr. Alley referenced above.
Help !!!! My bullshit meter just exploded!
Lol- talk about ‘being resistant’ to evidence- It seems (since you’;re intent on making htis personal) that you and htose who desperately wish to pin the ‘blame for warming on man’ that anyhtign that ‘looks bad’ must be man’s fault due to CO2 levels (which again, man contributes a mere 11.9 ppm compared to the 320 ppm nature produces)
Pine beetles- oh my- man must be to blame- and it turns out you might actually be right here- however, NOT for the reasons you state- NOT due to global wamring (I see you’re glomming onto all the usual alarmist talking points of the AGW crowd)
“According to a recent study done by the Colorado Forest Restoration Institute, these outbreaks should not be regarded as a crisis: “There is no evidence to support the idea that current levels of bark beetle or defoliator activity in Colorado’s lodgepole pine and spruce-fir forests are unnaturally high” and that “Historic photos and tree-ring evidence also document extensive insect outbreaks prior to the 20th century.”
Furthermore, there are more factors than just temperature which cause outbreaks of pine beetles. According to Dave Thom, a natural resources specialist with the Black Hills National Forest, the density of the forest is a major contributor,
“As the trees get more dense, they are less able to resist bark-beetle infestations. When you take increasingly dense trees and add the drought, the intersection causes weakened trees that are more susceptible to beetle attack. That phenomenon can happen regardless of a few degrees of change in climate, measured on a global scale.
These experts reveal that current outbreaks are neither unusual nor preventable by a few degrees of global cooling.”
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/11/19/pine-beetles-not-a-good-reason-for-climate-change-legislation/
[[Just for the record..whales aren’t fish..they are mammals.]]
I never said Whales were fish- I was simply pointing out that whales have made remarkable comebacks thanks to man’s efforts to curb overfishing them, and I pointed out htat while some larger fish might be in danger, there certainly isn’t any scientific evidence to support that ‘man-caused’ global wamrign is to blame
[[I won’t go on..]]
No- you ‘won’t go on (although you will) simpyl because the FACTS that are presented aren’t as important to you as the personal opinions of the writers of articles that are mingled in with the FACTS- Rather than simply focuss on the key facts that I’ve been tryign to argue- you wave and hand and dismiss them as erronious or ‘half-baked’ as you put it because the article writer has personal opinions about hte motives of AGW folks that lie OUTSIDE of the issues I’m discussing. this is a typical far left tactic- ignore the facts, and glom onto irrelevent statements- As I’ve said- I’ve argued these issues with the AGW crowd for a long time now, and as I’ve said, there is a key recurring tactic used by the AGW crowd- ignore the content, ignore the evidence, and go after the character of the writers for posting their opinions ALONGSIDE the relevent evidence being discussed- but only do so when it ‘looks good’ for your argument, and ignore any similar statememts when citing from papers you use to try to support your side-
Again, We’re talking specific scientific issues here- we’re NOT talking about someone’s feelings about subjects unrelated to the key principles of science-
IF you wish to address the FACTS, You let me know- but I’m not goign to sit aroudn while you dodge the FACTS of the case by trying to derail the arguments by pointing to issues irrelevent to the FACTS
[[I realize it’s way off topic]]
As are most of your ‘arguments’- I’m still waiting for for you to present scientific evidence supporting your claims and stay on topic- I’ve done so, but you keep evading the request to do so
[[it’s really quite interesting and if you actually watch it you might actually learn something.]]
I know a great deal about the rise and fall of CO2 i nthe past- the evidence does NOT support the claim that CO2 is the cause of warming- NOR does the evidence support the alarmist claim that man is ‘tipping hte balance’ of nature by producing an insignificant amount of CO2. I’ve cited many links hsowing that our contributions of CO2 are nowhere near the ‘crisis’ that alarmist’s claim that it is, nor is it causing ‘catastrophic acidification of our oceans’ as the alarmists would have everyone beleive it is.
You’ve also managed to dodge the facts of that issue as well- and managed to turn the to claims that warmign is somehow killing off fish, causing massive beetle outbreaks etc without givign any evidence that man’s scant CO2 contributions are the cause- you’re makign claims without providign evidence- it seems, per usual, per far left tactics, that those makign alarmist claims dmeand evidence from ‘the opposition’ while never feelign hte need to provide evidenc e to support your own claims- if you’re goign to engage i nthis type of ‘conversation’- then quite frankly I’m not interested- I’ve had my fill of such ‘conversations’ i n the past. IF however, you wish to provide evidence to back up your claims, I’ll concider addressign htem one or two points at a time
CottShop..
I’m done..I’ve spent more enjoyable moments on my front porch discussing things with Jehovah’s Witnesses..As far as references, I would once again point you to the link about the CO2 ..it really is worth it..I know you think you know what you are talking about but this video might make you think again..hope springeth eternal in the human breast…may the force be with you.
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
CottShop..
I know, I know..I said I was done..I’m a sucker for punishment but I had to let you know that I did indeed go to the site which was dismissive of the pine beetle problem being connected to global warming and discovered this on the page..which you conveniently ignored of course.
Dave, Colorado writes:
The article and the many of the comments that follow are not aware of how wide spread and devastating this problem is. The article fails to mention that the mountain pine beetle was restricted to British Columbia in Canada and that the population and spread was kept in check by prolong periods of extreme cold each winter. A documented warming trend has allowed the the beetle to spread. It is a trend which some are choosing to ignore like people who choose to live on a flat earth.
carry on…
We’re doomed, unless we submit to the UN.
The science is settled. The debate is over. That train has left the station. All scientists agree.
Finally, we’re all on the same page. The glorious worker’s paradise awaits us, each worker equal to every other worker, except, of course, some workers will be more equal than others. But, that’s all right. The workers at the top are continually looking out for us, and they deserve to be a bit more equal. I can hardly wait to get me some of that equality.
If you actually knew anything about science you would know that science is never ’settled’..but there really is no point in going there as it would mean you’d have to spend some time actually reading the science to understand this. And from reading your previous posts..in your case the train really has left the station.
“However if we look at the history of outbreaks in the western mountain states, the climate change argument is on very shaky ground. Montana has been hit by pine beetle outbreaks on and off since the 1920s so this is nothing new for the state. An even earlier outbreak is documented from 1894 to 1908 in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Since Co2 concentrations were considerably lower around the turn of the century, it does not follow that a reduction in Co2 will eliminate the pine beetle problem.
According to a recent study done by the Colorado Forest Restoration Institute, these outbreaks should not be regarded as a crisis: “There is no evidence to support the idea that current levels of bark beetle or defoliator activity in Colorado’s lodgepole pine and spruce-fir forests are unnaturally high” and that “Historic photos and tree-ring evidence also document extensive insect outbreaks prior to the 20th century.”
Furthermore, there are more factors than just temperature which cause outbreaks of pine beetles. According to Dave Thom, a natural resources specialist with the Black Hills National Forest, the density of the forest is a major contributor,
“As the trees get more dense, they are less able to resist bark-beetle infestations. When you take increasingly dense trees and add the drought, the intersection causes weakened trees that are more susceptible to beetle attack. That phenomenon can happen regardless of a few degrees of change in climate, measured on a global scale.”
These experts reveal that current outbreaks are neither unusual nor preventable by a few degrees of global cooling.”
Again- if you have evidence linking man’s contributions of CO2 to pine beetle infestations- then present it
[[I’m done..I’ve spent more enjoyable moments on my front porch discussing things with Jehovah’s Witnesses..]]
mmm Hmmm- Jusy can’t help yourself eh? Gotta get those ‘last few digs’ in eh? Whatever- I didn’t htink you’d provide evidnce linking man’s production of CO2 to ANYTHING you’ve claimed yet- just more posturing and unsupported alarmist claims-
[[I’m done..]]
Oh darn, and I was just about to poison the tea
← Previous Comments