Attention Penn State: Top fraud attorney seeks climategate whistleblowers

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:

  1. Penn State’s paper spreads the word on ex-CIA agent going after Michael Mann
  2. Penn State Daily Collegian keeps the focus on Michael Mann
  3. Penn State Protects Michael “Climategate” Mann
  4. Federal preemption law forbids Penn State from hiding behind “FOIA Exemption”
  5. Economic stimulus funds that went to Penn State climategate scientist should be returned

109 Responses to “Attention Penn State: Top fraud attorney seeks climategate whistleblowers”

  1. It would be oh so convenient if we “deniers” were simply incompetent conspiracy theorists.

    Regrettably for the other side (and make no mistake, the CAGW crowd chose up sides first), we’re not.

    If you want some political facts, they’re easily found. In the case of CAGW, there is much more of the political than the scientific. It’s a fact that Margaret Sanger and Margaret Mead were both believers in eugenics, i.e., genocide against the “undesirables.” Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to limit the black population in the United States first. She planned to get around to the rest of the world later. Other prominent figures on the eugenics bandwagon were Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt (Theodore).

    Fast forward to 1975, when Margaret Mead was 74 years old. She, John Holdren (Obama’s Science Advisor and Pal to the Ehrlichs) and Stephen Schneider were attendees at a conference where the CAGW scam was founded. They all agreed that the science didn’t need to be accurate. It only must be politically effective. Schneider secretly signed on to the CAGW cause while he still espoused, in public, the global cooling fraud.

    These people have no science in them. With them, it’s ideological all the way. And the whole CAGW crowd pretty much constitutes some bastardized religion, complete with indulgences and penances and priests. You people aren’t in a happy place right now. Prepare to be a whole lot less happy as time wears on.

  2. John says:

    Well said humanpeersonjr. I mean really you figure it out using basic math and the accepted percentages of what’s in our atmosphere. Try using some common sense, which they haven’t taught since the early 60′s do a little research, see how these so-called scientist misconstrue data, lie and cover-up their tracks, deny any scientist with opposing views any discussion and you can see man made gloabal warming is a total crock of shit designed to make people like Al Gore and George Soros rich while the rest of us peons take it up the ass.

    I mean really, C02 is a mere 3.83% of gas in our atmosphere, the claimed man made C02 is claimed to be 1.17% ofr the 3.83%. You tell me how that miniscule amount of man made gas (if that figure is even true) is changinG our climate?

    These people probably beleive in Santa Claus still.

    • mandas says:

      Yes John, you are so correct. How could increasing atmospheric carbon gases (you forgot CH4 by the way) have any effect, since they only make up 3.83% of the atmosphere? Well, I tend to think that if CO2 reaches 3.83% of the atmosphere, we will all be dead. The actual figure is around 0.038%, or about 1/100 of your number. Is this an example of your scientific knowledge? Are you wrong by such orders of magnitude on other issues as well?
      And you criticise scientists for errors – good job!!

      • JOHN says:

        Well I certainly am not a scientist, which I freely admit. But if we use your figures it makes my argument all the better. So thanks for the assistance.

        • mandas says:

          Not a problem at all.
          Can I recommend an experiment to help you out? Walk into a room which has a concentration of 0.038% sarin gas. It should give you an indication of the effects of low concentrations of certain chemicals. Unfortunately, you probably won’t be able to pass on your findings to anyone. But it’s dramatic!!

  3. John, that’s exactly right.

    There is some hard science involved in climatology, and I have great respect for it. However, climate modeling, in particular, cannot be done successfully for many years hence. Our supercomputers aren’t powerful enough and the variables which affect climate are just too numerous and capricious.

    However, as you said, the stuff we’re talking about is relatively simple math. I don’t deny the earth is warming. Of course, it’s warming. We’re coming off a serious cold spell, the Little Ice Age.

    I also don’t deny that CO2 plays a role in the current warming. However, the warming we’re experiencing is mostly due to natural causes and will be, on balance, good for all of us.

    Those who clamor for mitigation rather than adaptation usually (not always) have an agenda. When it comes to CAGW, there are two kinds of people (just like in Scientology) — There are the useful idiots and their rich and powerful masters. I wouldn’t care to be either one. I just want to be left alone to live my life, unmolested by central planners.

  4. Steve Mennie says:

    man..it would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic to listen to you idiots in the echo chamber back and forthing and getting your damp shorts in a knot

  5. @ Steve Mennie. Your personal ad hominems against me betray your ignorance of the facts. It ill behoves your case to attack the messenger and ignore the message. From my ten years of experience in litigating in government corruption cases (fact) I know credible evidence when I see it. I’ll let the facts do my talking. Just read and learn from them, Mr. Mennie. Try this example, the leaked email entitled, 1120676865.txt, where Prof Phil Jones of CRU refers to Michael Mann thus:

    Mike’s response could do with a little work, but as you say he’s got the tone almost dead on. I hope I don’t get a call from congress ! 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. I’ll send on one other email received for interest.

    Where I come from we call that self incrimination.

    • Steve Mennie says:

      Are you or are you not a lawyer..could you please explain what is a legal advocate?
      Could you perhaps point me to one or two corruption cases you were involved in over the last ten years that I could perhaps peruse?

      Sometimes there really is no message to ignore. The short comment you offered from the email without any larger context doesn’t really prove anything where I come from. What, exactly has Mr. Jones admitted?

      I Don’t mean to make ad hominem attacks..just want to determine that you are indeed a lawyer. I mean I really do doubt that an international lawyer of the stature that you would lead me to believe you are would be utilising Prison Planet as a solid reference.

      As an aside..had any takers as yet on the bait dangled at Penn State? That strategy (for want of a better expression) sounds like ambulance chasing where I come from.

  6. May I also recommend for your further reading on the legal issues, my other recent article:

    • Steve Mennie says:

      John O’Sullivan..

      Are you actually a lawyer..could you give some more information regarding the last ten years of your involvment in international government corruption cases? Why is it so difficult to answer these questions?

  7. Steve Mennie, if you doubt they’re central planners, you can go to their own words. Perhaps you could address specific points where you think I have it wrong.

    This CAGW thing is an artificial construct, and, as such, requires constant structural props, maintenance and attention. It is on the way out. It is actually a walking corpse that needs to fold and forget it. The objectives won’t be met. Even the AGW Paper-In-Chief, the NYT, allowed heresy in a New Year’s article.

    It’s over, except for the crying and the jail time.

  8. John says:

    Very good Mr. Menne, typical libtard response. No facts (at least no real ones), so let’s blather away and cast aspersions. FYI I ajm not John O’Sullivan. Very typical, predictable response to all this. Al Gore would be so proud of you.

  9. @mandas. You state: ““if CO2 reaches 3.83% of the atmosphere, we will all be dead.”
    That’ll be a shock to the medical profession then.No one dies at 3.83% CO2 concentration. Actually, that level of CO2 or higher concentrations is what the Earth has known for 98% of the life of the planet. But you wouldn’t know that. I think you will find that the name of the condition you’re alluding to is Hypercapnia. I suggest you educate yourself on the facts before pontificating to others. To get you started on your enlightenment I suggest you read this paper: “CARBON DIOXIDE TOLERANCE STUDIES” by Glatte Jr, HA, Motsay, GJ, Welch, BE. You can find it here: http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/6045
    The experiment involved seven normal volunteers who were exposed to an environment of 21 mm. Hg CO2 (3%) for a 5-day experimental period bracketed by two 5-day control periods.
    Wise up. CO2 is not poison its plant food. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 will be most beneficial to life and increase crop yields by 30%. But you’re not interested in such facts are you, mandas?

    • Steve Mennie says:

      John O’Sullivan..

      Let’s not forget that H2O is also not a poison but necessary for life..does this mean that one could drink five gallons of it at once. Just because something is beneficial it does not follow that more of it is more beneficial. Next time you have an infection and are prescribed an antibiotic..try doubling the ammount and see if it’s benefits double.

      • John says:

        You sure come up with some wierd arguments, justificatons or whatever you prefer to call them. I suppose I could counter your antibiotic argument with an acoholic beverage argument. If I drink more the “benefits” double (i.e. I get drunker). It’s about as relevent.

  10. [...] looking at statements they had made in their prospectuses, but the first move I am aware of is going after the scientists themselves. As best I can see Michael Mann is in their targets, but Phil Jones should be worried too. [...]

  11. mandas says:

    Hmmmmm. High CO2 levels for 98% of the history of life? Without attempting to argue the accuracy of these figures, I am wondering about its point? For 90% of the ‘history of life’, there were no land animals at all, and mammals didn’t exist for that whole 98%. So why do early atmospheric CO2 concentrations matter at all to humans?
    And let’s look at your links on CO2 toxicity. Your wikipedia links show – your link not mine – that at 8% concentration, unconsciousness results. I’m going to suggest that, with the whole world unconscious, death is probably not far behind. Even at 5%, humans experience dizziness, confusion, headaches, shortness of breath. I’m also going to suggest, that if everyone in the world experienced these problems all the time, we are completely stuffed and will all die, because not a lot will get done.
    At 3%, people suffer hearing loss, narcosis (mild), increased blood pressure and heart rate. So – what part of this don’t you understand? Do you really think we could live in a world like that? Do you really want to keep supporting the idiotic claim about CO2 already being at 3.83% of the atmosphere?
    And you really think it isn’t a poison? So why does it kill you at high concentrations? Oh – of course, its a plant food! But I’m not a plant, and I’m pretty sure you aren’t either. So I’m still going to suggest that is a problem for humans (and other animals as well). And I checked some of the chemicals in my cupboard at home as well, and guess what? There was a poison label on the fertiliser I use. Guess that plant foods can be poisonous to humans after all!
    And with regard to increasing crop production and being beneficial to life (I assume you mean land plants, because we already know it will be detrimental to animals, and will cause huge problems to ocean life due to rising acidification); you are probably referring to studies conducted by – inter alia – Kimball et al in the 1980s. You do know – sorry, apparently not – that those studies were conducted under enclosure conditions, and more recent studies (in the last few years) such as by Long et al (2006) in open field conditions show the enclosure trials did not simulate real world conditions and the CO2 produced yield increases were more than offset by other adverse conditions (such as temperature increases).
    So go away, do your research, keep up to date, and take some of your own advice (educate yourself on the facts!!).

  12. John says:

    Mandas has a new schict…baffle them with useless buillshit…what a novel idea.

  13. CottShop says:

    The 3% figure is 3% of the TOTAL Co2 in atmosphere- NOT that the atmosphere is 3% CO2- let’s not skew the claims here to make points- our total contribution has been a scant 11.9 ppm- it would take over 5000 ppm in our atmosphere in order for the amount to be toxic to us- Our forrests and plants etc have been dealing just fine since the beginning of time with what little CO2 there has been in the atmosphere, and the overwhelming majority of the CO2 has been naturally caused- our contribution has been negligible, and we have a LONG LONG way to go before folks can even begin to start claiming we’re reaching toxic levels and ‘must act now before it’s too late’ lol- Ah- alarmism- Eeeeek! we’re contributing 11.9 ppm- run for hte hills!

    “In October 2000, the Department of Energy estimated that about 3 percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere was caused by man. After all, it is believed that the overwhelming majority of tropospheric CO2 existed before the year 1750 (288 parts per million). In 2000, total tropospheric CO2 was 368 ppm. The increase was comprised of 68.5 ppm by natural causes, and only 11.9 ppm from man’s activities, or about 3 percent. As CO2 levels are currently at 385 ppm, saying the majority of atmospheric CO2 is manmade is nonsense. Unfortunately, Chetry and Roberts let Gore get away with this falsehood as well. Nice interview job, huh?”


  14. CottShop says:

    And just for the record, I predicted awhile ago, that when the ‘man-caused global warming’ was exposed as a fraud, the alarmists would turn to a new tactic- claiming we’re all in danger of poisoning the world with CO2- The far left, self-flaggelating agendist crowd just can’t help themselves, they feel some kind of sick need to impose guilt on everyone, and i knew they would simply switch tactics once their FRAUD that man is to blame for global warming was exposed as a scam- and that’s EXACTLY what these folks are now doing- we saw that with the EPA’s recent claim that CO2 is ‘dangerous’ and needs to be regulated.

    K- let’s put htis in perspective- Say we regulate the scant 3% that man contributes- that still leaves 97% that is purely natural that we can do absolutely NOTHING about (and FAR FAR BELOW the toxic levels at only 338 ppm- remember, it takes 5000 ppm to be toxic apparently). Even if we ramped up burnign fossil fuels to match what nature produces, we would still only be at 672 ppm- about 3400 ppm BELOW the toxic levels,- and in order to ramp up our contribution to meet nature’s production of CO2- We’d have to practically set the hwole earth on fire- every coal mine, burn everything- just to even come close to what nature is produicing

    Again- the argument that man is ‘ruining hte planet by producing CO2′ is a rediculous argument that is REFUTED by the FACTS- so the alarmists can blatt on all day long, but in the end, their claims are silly and unfounded when we examine the FACTS. Even if we could match nature’s production- we’re still WAY below toxic levels, and we could never, in a million years even hope to produce 5000 ppm- and even then, this amount is in dispute about how toxic it would even be as John pointed out in the link he provided.

    Now if ya’ll will excuse me, I’ve got a mountain of garbage to burn.

    • Steve Mennie says:


      I usually refrain from answering posts by persons who can’t restrain themselves from using capital letters thinking that if they shout they make more sense.

      Ah, but I have weakened. You constantly refer to man’s contribution to the CO2 in the atmosphere as being scant, and that that tiny ammount can’t have any effect. You also refer to what ‘nature produces’ as if there was a yearly build-up of CO2 and our scant contribution was negligable..

      Now, I could be wrong but as I understand it, there is a mighty carbon cycle in operation,not just nature’s ‘production’….an ongoing exchange between the oceans and the atmosphere and between plants and the atmosphere etc. and this exchange is in terms of hundreds of billions of tonnes. But it is a cycle..not just a linear accumulation.

      And into this cycle – which is in dynamic equilibrium – we introduce our paltry little 5 or 6 billion tonnes..after a hundred years or so this tiny little scant bit makes a difference..and we produce about 130 times as much CO2 as volcanoes..and it’s fossilized CO2..it’s CO2 that’s been sequestered for millions of years and is not really a natural part of the present CO2 cycle – it’s extra. Seems very likely to me that this is gonna make a difference.

      Like if you raise your caloric intake by 1% and don’t also increase your level of physical activity, then over time you will gain weight even tho’ you only increased your caloric intake by a scant ammount.

      What part of this doesn’t make sense? And I’m not really interested in toxicity etc. Just in the process by which we are incrementally changing the makeup of the atmosphere.

      • mike says:

        seems madam? seems like it would have an effect?? that’s what it all comes down to isn’t it. not science, just “seems”. it seems like the polar bears are in trouble, it seems like we’re bad, evil, polluting. you want seems? how about sunspots. sunspots can be the size of jupiter. that seems like it might have an effect on the earth’s climate more than an evil old smoke stack. a nuclear explosion the size of jupiter seems to be more important to our climate than a thousand smokestacks. seems.
        the real issue here is that the beloved sheeple have trusted scientists to impartially bring us science. now that we see they’re liars, it seems that we should begin again. that’s how it seems, madam.

  15. CottShop says:

    The CO2 LIE:

    “Climate Change: A new study shows that Earth’s ability to absorb carbon dioxide from all sources, including man, has remained unchanged for 160 years. As it turns out, there may be no carbon to offset.

    A major tenet of the global warming religion, straight from the Book of Gore, has been that the ability of the earth to handle increasing CO2 emissions is finite and that once the “tipping point” is reached, the earth will warm uncontrollably. Well, another climate domino has fallen — the myth that man-made CO2 is leading to climate catastrophe.

    This “settled science” has been upended by an unsettling (for warm-mongers) new study out of the University of Bristol in England. Unlike the Climate-gate charlatans at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, Wolfgang Knorr of Bristol’s Earth Sciences Department followed the data where it led instead of trying to manipulate it to “hide the decline” in global temperatures the earth has experienced in the last decade.

    The new study, published in the online journal Geophysical Research Letters, does not deny that increasing amounts of CO2 have been generated as the world has industrialized, eradicated disease, produced agricultural abundance and improved man’s standard of living. It does show that only 45% of man’s emissions, not 100% as warmers claim, stays in the atmosphere, and that includes the carbon emissions of the private jets that flew to Copenhagen last month and the limos that drove the occupants around.”


  16. mandas, it would be fitting if you showed some integrity and admitted that you either lied or were mistaken when you claimed that if CO2 levels reached 3.83% of the atmosphere “we will all be dead.”

    I tried to be civil towards you and described you as appearing to be intelligent. But now you go on and dig your grave even deeper by offering up the lamest of strawmen. Every scientist knows that any substance is toxic when is exceeds a particular level. Your lame attempts to make atmospheric CO2 (0.038%) appear a ‘poison’ when it is infinitesimally less abundant than the main greenhouse gas (water vapour: 60% of atmosphere) will only encourage others to mock you. If, by your reasoning, you conclude CO2 is ‘toxic’ then so too must be water.
    And if you’re going to quote me please do so accurately. I said, “that level of CO2 or higher concentrations is what the Earth has known for 98% of the life of the planet.” Do you not comprehend what ‘life of the planet’ means? In simple English that’s 4.5 billion years. Ask for help if you’re struggling. I’m sure other site users will accommodate you if you used a more reasonable tone.

    • mandas says:

      Tried to be civil huh? Is that where you accused me of BS? If so, then you have a different definition of civil to me.
      And no, I don’t revile from my position about being dead if atmospheric CO2 reached 3.8%. Because you see, there are slightly more factors involved that just the toxicity of CO2 to humans.
      Ask yourself a few questions – what do you think we happen to the ecosystem if CO2 were that high? The ocean? Other animals? You know, the things we rely on to live. If you really think we could survive in that environment, then you really have no comprehension of biology or ecology.
      So, once again, in what way is your assertion about high level concentrations of CO2 for ’98% of the life of the planet’ relevant? Using the figures you provided (and I won’t argue with them because it doesn’t matter), that means the CO2 levels were high for 4.41 billion years. That means they dropped below those levels 90 million years ago. Once again, I’m pretty sure humans weren’t around 90 million years ago. Why do you suppose that is?
      But – and here’s the killer but – if you are going to criticise my figures, at least attempt to get your own somewhere in the realm of credibility.
      Are you really serious that you think “…(water vapour: 60% of atmosphere)…” REALLY???? TRULY???
      I sincerely, truly, hope that is a mistype. Or maybe you could show some of the integrity you demand of me, and admit you either lied or were mistaken.

  17. mandas, for clarification purposes water vapour contributes to the natural greenhouse warming process by approximately 60%. You sound manic, my friend. Drinking Kool-Aid is not good for you.

    • mandas says:

      And the other 40% is contributed by…….???????
      And if you increase the amount of any of these contributers to the “natural greenhouse warming process”, what do you think would happen?
      Just curious.

  18. CottShop says:

    the CPS aren’t yelling- they are stressing key points- as well- yes there are many factors involved in CO2 cycling- hoqwever, the alarmism by the agendists claiming CO2 rises in oceans is goign to be detrimental haven’t looked into the issue very well- I’ll point you to some of the basics on CO2 in oceans, and why it isn’t the problem the alarmists claim it is-

    “The earth has been recycling carbon for a very long time, to which carbonaceous sedimentary formations are testimony. Greenhouse gases have been described by meteorologists, long before global warming, as one of many mechanisms by which the atmosphere stays in equilibrium. Goremania would have it that CO2 in the atmosphere acts like an energy sponge, sopping up the long wave radiation that would otherwise be lost to space. CO2 absorbs at some very specific wavelengths in the infra-red spectrum (that’s how it is detected nowadays), but soon re-radiates that energy (not at the same wavelength) as it returns to its original energy level. So it may slow up some energy in that form, hence its greenhouse parity, but by no means hangs on to it. This CO2, being such a minute percentage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (and the ‘man-made’ portion is maybe 3% of that while H2O is all but ignored), it is almost laughable that it has become the basis of ‘settled’ scientific projections of imminent doom.”


    “Again, the ‘warmers’ are exploiting some half truths. CO2, when dissolved in water, such as a carbonated beverage, will be slightly more acidic. The amount of dissolved CO2 water can hold is temperature dependent, among other things. The colder the water (liq.), the more CO2 it can dissolve. Same holds for methane hydrate. The oceans are a highly buffered systems, and any newly dissolved CO2 will enter that equilibrium. Warmers need to explain just how this system is going to increase 5C degrees, not simply project that if this system were to warm up, ocean water would not ‘hold’ as much CO2, or methane hydrate, as it does at its present temperature.”


  19. CottShop says:

    [[What part of this doesn’t make sense? And I’m not really interested in toxicity etc. Just in the process by which we are incrementally changing the makeup of the atmosphere.]]

    What part of ‘it’s goign to take eons to reach toxic levels doesn’t make sense?- This is just toxic levels to humans and animals- and won’t be reached any time soon- Your caloric intake analogy doesn’tr even apply here simply because we’re not talking about raising 1% CO2 in comparison to calories, but more like .0001% ‘man-contributed’ CO2 in the atmosphere over 1000′s of years- how long would it take to gain even a fraction of an ounce at that rate? How many millions of years would it take to accumulate a few pounds? Again, let’s keep things in perspective here- I’ve noticed several irrelevent analogies posted that simply aren’t appropriate to hte discussion here because they misrepresent the contributions man is making. We are in absolutely NO danger of causing any catastrophic changes in the environment or atmosphere- but apparently the far left feels the need to raise the alarm using inappropriate analogies

    The fact is, yes, there is a ‘carbon cycle- but what we aren’t being told is that this old world of ours regulates CO2 just fine by cooling and warming, slowing hte release of carbon, or speeding it up- it waxes and wanes, just as it always has for 1000′s of years, and our scant contributions isn’t goign to affect it at all- ever.


    “Climate Change: A new study shows that Earth’s ability to absorb carbon dioxide from all sources, including man, has remained unchanged for 160 years. As it turns out, there may be no carbon to offset.

    Unchanged! Our contributions aren’t even registering! Again, we’re not talkign about adding ’1 calorie per year’ (or per decade, or per century) we’re talkign about hte FACT that we’re not even making a dent in measurements over 160 years! not even a fraction of a % point- and again- how many millions of years before we reach even begin moving hte scale? How does htis translate into “We MUST regulate CO2 (by charging everyone through the nose to pay for our suppsoed enviro-sins) before ‘it’s too late’?

    I don’t really want to get into htis as U’ve argued htis over and over and all i ever get in response arem ore inappropriate analogies in respopnse as those uspportive of the agendist mantra that ‘man is evil and must surrender all his dough to pay for his enviro-sins’ simply haven’t got a case to make that we’re suppsoedly ruining the earth- the FACTS simpyl don’t support such an alarmist claim- the ‘man-caused global warming’ alarmism has hit a brick wall, and now we’re seeing a switch in tactics as the left tries to manipulate toxicity levels of CO2 to ‘keep the dream alive’ apparently-

    I’ve been at this a long time, and seen numbers of arguments which are meant for nothign other then sensationalism and shock factor, and which simpyl aren’t supported by actual scientific facts. I began to get frustrated knowing htere was reams of evidence that people in high positions were IGNORING, and I quit blogging htinking these charlatans were goign to win, but then climategate broke, and I felt that finally, the truth was being made knowm- but nope- these charlatans simply are switchign tactics using hte same lame alarmism as before, and the facts will show that the evidnece isn’t htere to support their case, and I think people are getting pretty sick of these alarmists constantly trying to impose guilt on everyone using false and indeed fraudulent claims

    • mandas says:

      Why is it that when scientists say that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing and causing global warming, denialists like yourself scream that scientists are frauds and liars and not to be trusted, but when a scientist (supposedly) says that CO2 is not increasing or climate change is not occuring, you point to it and say that it proves your point?
      Come on – try and be a little consistent here. Either scientists are liars and frauds, or they’re not. Which is it? You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
      Oh, and could we have a link to the study you are referring to so we can all be educated. I assume it is an actual study, with real numbers, and not a blog post or opinion piece.

      • John says:

        Becuae it’s pretty much being proven as I type that the ones claiming Global Warming are a bunch of lying bullshit artist. Now if the ones claiming there is no warming get busted and I find out they’re liars I’ll be happy (as will most people) to bitch about them, too! So far I don’t see any evidence to prove the people claiming there is no man made warming to be liars. Actually seems to be the opposite form my perspective.

      • Steve Mennie says:


        You say you’ve argued this for a long time..just what is your educational background? I mean I could argue about something for years too without knowing what I’m talking about.

        You say: The fact is, yes, there is a ‘carbon cycle- but what we aren’t being told is that this old world of ours regulates CO2 just fine by cooling and warming, slowing hte release of carbon, or speeding it up- it waxes and wanes, just as it always has for 1000’s of years, and our scant contributions isn’t goign to affect it at all- ever.

        I may not have been at this for as many years as you but I have yet to see a serious or legitimate paper that argues anything other than this. (generally speaking) It seems that the present problem is one of speed..the CO2 levels have shot up since the beginning of the industrial revolution and the extent of warming is faster than has been the case going back millions of years. Not the level of CO2 but the rapidity with which it is rising. As well, I don’t think it’s quite as simple as you state. The ‘old world’ doesn’t just regulate the CO2..waxing and waning as you say..there seems to be an influence working both ways..heat causes release of CO2..CO2 causes more heat..more CO2 etc. The waxing and waning carries on over long periods of time coinciding with sun activity the orbit of the earth around the sun, it’s wobbling on it’s axis etc. It doesn’t ‘wax and wane’ in decades. And it is important, I think, to remember that it is fossilized carbon that we are diggin’ up and burning rapidly..sequestered carbon that is, in that sense, extra to the contemporay carbon cycle.

        By the way, just a reminder..I’m not interested in what constitutes toxic levels for animals or man..the toxicity of Co2 is another story.

        You say: …the agendist mantra ‘man is evil and must surrender all his dough to pay for his enviro-sins’

        Again..I’m not aware of any legitimate scientist making a claim anything like this. Although I must say I hear a lot of histrionic comments from the deniers to this effect..that AGW is a socialist scheme to take over the world and tax us to death. Hansen comes closest, I suppose ,in terms of drama and like you, he states that he stayed out of the political argument for years as he didn’t want to get involved. But as the evidence mounted he felt he had to speak out. I mean when he says he’s interested in leaving a habitable planet for his grandchildren, do you interpret that as just another attempt to hide his socialist motives? I’ve heard comments much like this so often that I begin to think that the denialist camp have a guilty conscience..they are the ones who most often bring up the guilt/sin stuff.

        You say: Unchanged! Our contributions aren’t even registering!

        As I understand the Knorr thesis – and I admit I’m not remotely scientific – the CO2 (man made) in the atmosphere is remaining at 40% largely because the other 60% is taken up by sinks..mostly the ocean and this is why the ocean is becoming acidic. I’m generalizing about this of course, but I think this is the general idea. The Co2 levels are rising. Check here: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/iadv/graph/mlo/mlo_co2_ts_obs_03397.png

        I will admit that I spend a good deal of time at sites like RealClimate..(God, admitting that here is like coming out) and I must say that I find most of the writing there – both by the scientists and the regulars that comment – to be relatively balanced and calm..mostly interested in the science and certainly not into conspiracy theories about socialist hordes or the Club of Rome. Really, much less foaming at the mouth alarmism than you indicate. It’s the denier sites where I see a lot of rubbing hands together with glee every time there’s a freak snowstorm somewhere or the temperature dips below the ten year normal, as if this proved anything to do with climate change.

        I’m not trying to make any dramatic or alarmist arguments here I really would like to know what the hell is happening and I find that posts like yours are riddled with non sequiturs and half baked versions of the science (as I understand it) and not helpful. For instance you state that..”…The oceans are a highly buffered systems, and any newly dissolved CO2 will enter that equilibrium…”

        Firstly, what do you mean the oceans are a highly buffered system and how do you know that? If they are and if they are so highly buffered then why are the oceans becoming acidic? And how does an additive of any kind enter an equilibrium without eventually upsetting it? Adding CO2 will at some point upset this equilibrium will it not.? The oceans are big but not infinite. In fact doesn’t the fact that the oceans are becoming acidic show that the equilibrium is already upset?

        And regarding the comment that …”Gormania would have it that CO2 in the atmosphere acts like an energy sponge, sopping up the long wave radiation that would otherwise be lost to space…”

        I remember learning about the (warning metaphorical use of the word greenhouse) greenhouse effect years ago long before AGW was on the horizon and that if we didn’t have an atmosphere blanketing the planet we wouldn’t be here. Gore didn’t make this up. He is pointing out that we are adding to the effect and warming the joint.
        As an aside..I don’t rely on Gore for my info and don’t spend a lot of time trying to make him look bad..he’s not a scientist and not really relevant to attempting to undertstand the subject. He is a favorite whipping boy for the denialist camp however.

        And again, the ammount of CO2, being minute and all, really means nothing. I think the analogy I made using caloric intake and weight gained to be quite good here as it shows that minute changes can, over time, have huge effects. And when there is a corelation between levels of CO2 and global temperature (yes, I undertstand that corelation doesn’t mean causation) going back millions of years then at some point you have to allow that maybe there is causal link. I could give sites to check out regarding this but I have a hunch it would be a waste of time.

        Okay..okay, I give. You’re right. The AGW camp is all a bunch of power hungry socialist bastards. So what would you suggest is happening and how should we react? Should we just forge ahead with the free enterprise paradigm and free libertarian capitalism? Along with all the benefits it has brought,(and I don’t deny the benefits) it has brought us clear cuts, emptying oceans (of fish) water shortages, disappearing species, environmental degradation everywhere and at some point, the oil and the coal will be gone. So then we start looking at alternatives? Or do we start to develop alternative energy and so on now. I mean we do only have this one planet. What if the global experiment that we are currently running like a giant squirrel cage of production/consumption fails? And if you are unable to agree that we are pushing a lot of envelopes in every direction then I would suggest that you are too far gone into denialism to reach.

        • JOHN says:

          Great blathering. Can you do anything besides question everyone’s credentials on here and provide us with hystronics? Keep it up though, I do get a good laugh from your posts.

          • Steve Mennie says:


            Are you only capable of two or three sentence responses? Why not try a little more ‘blathering’ yourself so we get some idea of where you stand instead of just lobbing snowballs from the sidelines a la Beastley?

  20. [...] Attention Penn State: Top fraud attorney seeks climategate whistleblowers [...]

  21. [...] It appears that no new and exciting information is going to surface regarding “climategate” for a while. There are, however, new developments in the ongoing story. The most likely of which, is a potential lawsuit regarding false claims. I must admit that this catches me off guard, though only because I didn’t think it through. I’ve been so focused on where this came from, that I never paused to consider where it’s going. Now that I do, it seems only natural that this is the direction this story takes. John O’Sullivan, a legal advocate who has experience in government corruption cases in both the UK and US, has made an announcement at http://www.climategate.com: [...]

  22. mandas says:

    And what is that perspective exactly?
    Obviously, to be able to determine that all those scientists are ‘a bunch of lying bullshit artist(s)”, you must have done a rational analysis of the things they say/write, and have determined two things:
    1 – What they say is wrong.
    2 – That they know it is wrong.
    You must have also done an analysis of everything the ‘non-warmers’ say, and have determined that it is all correct, with no errors. So obviously, they can’t get busted because there is absolutely no doubt that they are 100% correct – at least according to the analysis you have conducted.
    So please, share your insights. Tell us all what you have found, and what evidence you have for your findings.
    Let me help you out and start you off with something easy.
    Here are a couple of links to 2 papers from 2002 and 2008 about the extent of Arctic ice cover . This should be an easy one for you, since we all ‘know’ that Arctic ice isn’t declining, and these people are obviously lying.
    So please, give me your evidence for what is wrong with these papers and how much these people are lying.
    I await your detailed scientific analysis.

    • John says:

      Mandas you make me laugh, I can’t take you seriously because I suspect you’re one of the lying bullshit artist. I’ll tell you what, why don’t you scurry around the internet and read up on all the evidence about the lying bullshit artist then report your findings to me?

      • Steve Mennie says:

        No John..you are the one making the wild assertion. You do the reading and present the evidence to back up what you are saying.

        • JOHN says:

          Well the papers are based upon data since this has been tracked which is since 1979 (30 years). But that is old data now, here’s some new data from The University of Illinois Climate Research Center that states the sea ice ends at same level as 1979.


          Regardless who you believe or why, I’d have to question basing any conclusions about what is or isn’t happening on only 30 years of data.

          • mandas says:

            Thank you so much for that. Do you even read the stuff you cut and paste here?
            This is why I keep telling people to actually read the source documents, rather than relying on blog posts and newspaper articles for their opinions. If you had actually read the documents, you would have known it was referring to GLOBAL sea ice, not Arctic Sea ice. With regard to Arctic sea ice, it says:
            “….observed N. Hemisphere sea ice area is almost one million sq. km [386,102 square miles] below values seen in late 1979…”
            “[T]he maximum [Arctic] sea ice extent for 2008-09, reached on Feb. 28, was 5.85 million square miles. That is 278,000 square miles less than the average extent for 1979 to 2000…”
            They conclude by saying:
            “Arctic summer sea ice is only one potential indicator of climate change, however, and we urge interested parties to consider the many variables and resources available when considering observed and model-projected climate change. For example, the ice that is presently in the Arctic Ocean is younger and thinner than the ice of the 1980s and 1990s. So Arctic ice volume is now below its long-term average by an even greater amount than is ice extent or area….”
            All the data sets are freely available if you actually want to look at the raw data. Make interesting reading.

            So, what part of this don’t you get?

          • JOHN says:

            What part I don’t get is why the BS you post is better than the BS I post? It’s all BS anyway.

  23. CottShop says:

    [[the CO2 levels have shot up since the beginning of the industrial revolution ]]

    Well now there ya go again with alarmism that is unwarrented- ‘shot up’? To what? 338 ppm? Zowie!

    [[and the extent of warming is faster than has been the case going back millions of years.]]

    Millions of years eh? And you accused me of not knowing what I’m talking about? hint: “Hide the data” (so it doesn’t conflict with the hocky stick graphs)

    [[Not the level of CO2 but the rapidity with which it is rising.]]

    You’re contradicting yourself here- this statement makes no sense

    [[heat causes release of CO2..CO2 causes more heat..more CO2 etc.]]

    Actually that isn’t true- Warming happens first- then CO2 rises AFTER about an 800-1200 year itnerval, then tempuratures begin falling again (while CO2 is ‘at it’s highest’)

    [[And it is important, I think, to remember that it is fossilized carbon that we are diggin’ up and burning rapidly]]

    Once again, it’s important to keep this in perspective- man contributes a scant 11.9 parts per million- nature provides the rest of the 338 total ppm (which again, is far below the ‘toxic levels’ (5000 ppm) that these alarmists are now goign to be tryign to claim CO2 is causing)

    [[By the way, just a reminder..I’m not interested in what constitutes toxic levels for animals or man..the toxicity of Co2 is another story.]]

    Forgive me, but wasn’t it you who began the argument about toxicity? Besides, the only other argument for ‘man-caused’ this or that is the toxicity argument- since CO2 doesn’t infact cause warming, and only follows cyclical warmign trends hundreds of years later, and since temperatures begin falling again while CO2 is at peak levels, it seems the argument for CO2 causing warming is a failing one. and just a side note- plants thrive on CO2- filtering it from the air we breath, them ore plants grow, the less CO2 i nthe air- the warmer the planet due to cyclical warming, the better plants do, the less CO2- which accounts for the fact that there is less CO2 as the earth begins it’s cyclical cooling periods again

    [[Again..I’m not aware of any legitimate scientist making a claim anything like this.]]

    No? Then what were the scientists doing in copenhagen tryign to bind us all to agreements that would have cost we- the taxpayers, trillions of dollars?

    [[the CO2 (man made) in the atmosphere is remaining at 40% largely because the other 60% is taken up by sinks..mostly the ocean and this is why the ocean is becoming acidic.]]

    Again, this is a misrepresentation- the claim is that humans are responsible for ’40% of atmospheric CO2′ which simply isn’t true- We’re maybe- at best, respojnsible for only 25% of TOTAL atmospheric CO2 and that’s being generous, and this translates into only 2.5% of TOTAL GREENHOUSE EFFECT- The false argument is that man is responsbile for 40% of TOTAL GREENHOUSE EFFECT- and htis is false.

    “Assuming that water vapor accounts for about 70% and clouds (mostly water droplets) accounts for another 20%, thus water in it’s various forms is 90% of the total greenhouse effect, leaving 10% for non-water greenhouse effect (we know we cited 95% above — see “important distinction”). Of this remaining 10%, mainly atmospheric carbon, humans might be responsible for 25% of the total accumulated atmospheric carbon, meaning 0.25 x 0.1 = 0.025 x 100 = 2.5% of the total greenhouse effect.”


    [[Really, much less foaming at the mouth alarmism than you indicate.]]

    Hmmm- Emails from Jones woudl indicate otherwise, as well as the reactions of the far left against folks like Lord Monkton at copenhagen, and a reporter askign tough questions being assaulted by the crowd- There’s plenty of ‘foaming at them outh’ alarmism to go around

    [[ It’s the denier sites where I see a lot of rubbing hands together with glee every time there’s a freak snowstorm]]

    I could care less about snowstorms or colder than usual zones- we’re talking about global temperatures here- and the cause- not isolated hot or cold zones- however, it must be pointed out that al lthe charts beign used to support ‘man-caused global warming’ were cosntructed IGNORING and EXCLUDING Russian data which contradicted the claims

    [[posts like yours are riddled with non sequiturs and half baked versions of the science]]

    Lol- sure- I’ve provided lin kafter link of science backing up what I’m saying- these are hardly ‘non sequitors’

    [[Firstly, what do you mean the oceans are a highly buffered system and how do you know that? If they are and if they are so highly buffered then why are the oceans becoming acidic?]]

    “Our harmless emissions of trifling quantities of carbon dioxide cannot possibly acidify the oceans. Paper after paper after learned paper in the peer-reviewed literature makes that quite plain. Idso cites some 150 scientific sources, nearly all of them providing hard evidence, by measurement and experiment, that there is no basis for imagining that we can acidify the oceans to any extent large enough to be measured even by the most sensitive instruments. And, as Richard Feynman used to say, no matter how elegant your theory, no matter how smart you are, if experiment proves you wrong then you need another theory.

    Why can’t rising atmospheric CO2 acidify the oceans?

    First, because it has not done so before. During the Cambrian era, 550 million years ago, there was 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today: yet that is when the calcite corals first achieved algal symbiosis. During the Jurassic era, 175 million years ago, there was again 20 times as much CO2 as there is today: yet that is when the delicate aragonite corals first came into being.

    Secondly, ocean acidification, as a notion, suffers from the same problem of scale as “global warming”. Just as the doubling of CO2 concentration expected this century will scarcely change global mean surface temperature because there is so little CO2 in the atmosphere in the first place, so it will scarcely change the acid-base balance of the ocean, because there is already 70 times as much CO2 in solution in the oceans as there is in the atmosphere. Even if all of the additional CO2 we emit were to end up not in the atmosphere (where it might in theory cause a very little warming) but in the ocean (where it would cause none), the quantity of CO2 in the oceans would rise by little more than 1%, a trivial and entirely harmless change.

    Thirdly, to imagine that CO2 causes “ocean acidification” is to ignore the elementary chemistry of bicarbonate ions. Quantitatively, CO2 is only the seventh-largest of the substances in the oceans that could in theory alter the acid-base balance, so that in any event its effect on that balance would be minuscule. Qualitatively, however, CO2 is different from all the other substances in that it acts as the buffering mechanism for all of them, so that it does not itself alter the acid-base balance of the oceans at all.

    Fourthly, as Professor Ian Plimer points out in his excellent book Heaven and Earth (Quartet, London, 2009), the oceans slosh around over vast acreages of rock, and rocks are pronouncedly alkaline. Seen in a geological perspective, therefore, acidification of the oceans is impossible.

    For these and many other powerful scientific reasons, compellingly explained in great detail in Craig Idso’s masterly review of the scientific literature in this field, the acid-base balance of the oceans will remain in the future much as it has been in the past and, even if it were to change by the maximum quantity imagined by the most lurid of the scientists who have tried to foster this particular scare, the sea creatures that it is supposed to damage would either be unaffected by it or thrive on it.

    Craig Idso’s monograph is not necessarily an easy read. The sheer quantity of evidence that he presents stands in powerful contrast to the empty catchiness of the message of the environmentalist extremists whose sun is now setting.

    This is not an entertaining paper. Instead, it is true. In the words of the father of the scientific method, Ibn Al-Haytham, writing 1000 years ago in the Iraq of the early Middle Ages, “The road to the truth is perforce long and hard, but that is the road that we must follow.”


    As I’ve said- I’ve been over and over htis stuff many times- If you’re really looking for answers, then yes, read reputable sites like realclimate, junkscience, Marc Moranos climatedepot.org and Senator Inhoffe’s Senate.EPW.gov (I beleive that’s the site- there’s plenty of swcientific info explaining all this on those 3 sites)

    [[I remember learning about the (warning metaphorical use of the word greenhouse) greenhouse effect years ago long before AGW was on the horizon and that if we didn’t have an atmosphere blanketing the planet we wouldn’t be here. Gore didn’t make this up. He is pointing out that we are adding to the effect and warming the joint.]]

    The article said Goramania- general term for htose that beleive there’s a ‘CO2 blanket warmign the earth’ – which of course, there isn’t

    [[I mean we do only have this one planet.]]

    We sure do, and we’re in NO danger of destroying it or hurting it to an appreciable degree- and we’re certainly not in any danger of warming or cooling it ourselves- the scientific facts bear this out.

    [[And if you are unable to agree that we are pushing a lot of envelopes in every direction then I would suggest that you are too far gone into denialism to reach.]]

    Careful now, I’m not the one suggestign that our scant 3% contribution is dramatically warmign hte earth to the point of no return- Careful about htrowing aroudn hte ‘denial’ term

    [[going back millions of years then at some point you have to allow that maybe there is causal link.]]

    Really? Because accordign to scientists, millions of years ago there was 20 times the amount of CO2 as there is today, and somehow, if one beleive in evolution of life from the seas (which I don’t- but just for the sake of argument) species evolved in the oceans just fine- indeed must have thrived infact- again, our scant 3% contribution is diddly squat comapred to nature’s production past and present, and we are not even close to what CO2 was supopsoedly millions of years ago- so tell me where the alarm comes in? Where is the ugency to ‘act now’ before ‘it’s too late’? We’re never goign to reach even early levels of CO2 with both nature and our contributions combined that we had in early life- never.

    It’s late- we’ve covered a lot here

    • Steve Mennie says:

      Man…isn’t this fun…so much to argue with…so much loose language..Out of all that verbiage I think I’m only interested in one item. You mention near the end that you don’t believe life evolved from the seas..does this mean what I think it means..? C’mon..are you a creationist? This is an important question as if this is the case then I realize the conversation is indeed over.

      If it’s not the case, then I’ll have to take some time to reply to all the rest of your wild statements. By the way, I didn’t say there was a blanket of CO2..I said an atmosphere blanketing the earth.

      But get back to me on the creationist thingie as I would like to know before I waste any time researching the rest.


  24. Steve Mennie says:

    John O’Sullivan..

    Still waiting for an answer, Mr. O’Sullivan. Are you a lawyer? Could you supply some further information re the ten years of litigation of government corruption you have been involved in?

    Perhaps you and your people are busy litigating. I can wait.

  25. Matthew Downing says:

    I assume you’ll be going after people like Ian Plimer as well, and many of those who’ve worked on so many “independent studies” that were funded by oil companies that directly contradict reality. I mean, it only seems fair.

    I’m not condoning those who wish to hide or distort data on either side of the “debate,” and it’s hard for me to see the value in only going after one side. Have you an agenda aside from science and finding scientific truth? Yes, yes, I bet you do.

    How old is the world, in your estimation?

    I’ve asked some direct questions and would like some direct answers.

    • Steve Mennie says:

      Matthew Downing..Not clear to me who your direct questions are directed to..If me then:

      1) I have no way of estimating the age of the world but as I understand it the scientific consensus (oops) has it as somewhere around 4.5 billion years.

      2)re studies paid for by oil companies etc. I must admit that while I am dismayed at the ethics and morality of their actions, I can understand that big oil and big coal have vested interests to protect so there is a logic to their behaviour. What is troubling is the conspiracy theory baloney that indites everyone from socialists thru environmentalist to Rockefeller..

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