The evidence was released yesterday by top skeptic science blog, Watts up With That (WUWT)

Professors Jones and Acton had vigorously sought to defend themselves last week under cross-examination at the Parliamentary Select Committee Hearing against accusations that their university criminally defied demands under the Freedom of Infrormation Act (FOIA). In his testimony Jones claimed various nations, including Sweden, would not authorise release of their climate data and this was why he could not comply with FOIA requests. But the Swedes’ evidence proves this is a lie. SMHI have just released the following PDF files as proof:

Request from Professor Phil Jones regarding the release of data from the HadCRUT dataset dnr SMHI

Data from the HadCRUT dataset_100304

DOC111209

The much respected SMHI objected strongly to Jones’s flagrantly false testimony by releasing evidence to the public that proves Swedish climate data was readily available in the public domain. In fact, the new evidence shows that the Swedes had merely refused Jones’s request to attribute his ‘homogenized’ data to them. This revelation is so far the most disturbing because it constitutes blatant deceit by Climategate conspirators perpetrated directly upon Parliamentary investigators.

Professor Acton, head of the University of East Anglia, backed up Jones and may also be proven to have conspired to mislead Parliament about withholding data as shown by his answer in the Committee’s transcript (as per Q94) :

Chairman: “Why did you hide it then?”

Professor Acton:  “Unfortunately, several of these countries impose conditions and say you are not allowed to pass it on…. Seven countries have said, ‘No you cannot publish it’ [including] Sweden.”

Uncorrected Transcript of Oral Evidence

Both discredited professors may now stand accused of conspiring to commit fraud by false representation. Climate skeptics have long argued that the CRU was using a ‘homogenizing’ process on climate data to falsely make global temperatures appear warmer than they actually are. This latest news certainly gives further credibility to the accusation that Jones deliberately, rather than accidentally, ‘lost’ his data. Jones has already narrowly escaped criminal prosecution under the Freedom of Information Act by way of a technicality. But police now have a mounting case to charge Jones for conspiracy to commit fraud where no such technicalities will this time save the errant professor.

We now expect other nations to follow the Swedes and to defend themselves against the false statements of climatologists who refuse to release their climate data. Another key Climategate fraud suspect, Michael Mann, of Penn. State University has been named by US Senator Inhofe among a further dozen potentially criminal climate fraudsters exposed in the leaked CRU emails of November 2009. Without doubt this unravelling story is still set to cause further embarrassment to the British and other world governments who have premised trillion dollar ‘green’ tax raising policies on such discredited and fraudulently obtained junk science.

University of East Anglia Professor Phil Jones

Finally, after all this time we start hearing the truth out of a government inquiry.

Next to him, holding a metaphorical hand, was Professor Edward Acton, his vice-chancellor, who interrupted at intervals to tell the committee what a splendid fellow Jones was and how his unit was doing magnificent work warning the world.

Acton conceded that not everything pointed in the same direction. It’s acknowledged that several hundred years ago Earth became much warmer. If we knew why, we could explain a lot. “The early medieval period is something we should spend more time researching,” he mused.

The infamous ‘hockey stick graph’ is now debunked even by those who used to worship it.

If you use a graph as evidence, then the data you used to make it up is therefore equally exposed as being faulty.

All around it was a bad day for warmism and Dr Phil Jones.

The sight of another scientist being skewered makes for painful viewing. Whatever your view on man-made global warming, you had to feel sorry for Professor Phil Jones, the man behind the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia

Feel bad? You’ve got to be kidding me.

Source: UK Guardian

We’ve been posting about the UK Parliament’s Select Committee Hearing on the Climategate Scandal held in the House of Parliament’s Grimond Room yesterday, with the highlight being Phil Jones testifying. We provided you with a link to the video yesterday from the Parliament’s own website, but it’s now on youtube and you can view it larger here, in five bite size chunks.

Witnesses:

1. Rt Hon Lord Lawson of Blaby, Chairman, and Dr Benny Peiser, Director, Global Warming Policy Foundation
2. Richard Thomas CBE
3. Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor, University of East Anglia, and Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit
4. Sir Muir Russell KCB, Head of the Independent Climate Change E-Mails Review
5. Professor John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Julia Slingo OBE, Chief Scientist, Met Office, and Professor Bob Watson, Chief Scientist, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Press the page numbers at bottom of article for parts 2-5.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Jones’s conduct has already been formally condemned by almost 80,000 scientists from the Royal Insitute of Chemistry and the Institute of Physics who submitted their own reports to Parliament last week.

In his testimony Jones admitted to unlawfully concealing data.

The former chief of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia (CRU) looked bedraggled and forlorn as he testified that it was “standard practice” to refuse submitting data to other scientists who sought to check climate research. Climate skeptics have been quick to pick apart the apparent contradictions in his testimony which contraverts Jones’ conduct prior to 2002, when he first dealt with data sharing requests from McIntyre.

Labour MP Graham Stringer asked Jones why he refused to comply with requests to share data to which Jones answered:

“Because all he [a skeptic] wants to do is find something wrong with it.”

To which Mr. Stringer again challenged Jones:

“But scientists make a name by proving and disproving things, don’t they? The statement seems to be anti-scientific. It is an absolutely clear denial of the man’s attempt to get at what you were doing. He wanted your information and you refused to give it to him? Why?”

Jones’ answer:

“Because we had invested a lot of work and resources in it, and this was before FOI started.”

Despite his damning claim that crucial climate data disproving the theory of man made global warming was withheld due to ‘standard’ practice’ Jones can be shown to have freely obeyed data sharing requests up until 2002.

By examination of revealing correspondence with independent climate analyst, Canadian Steve McIntyre we can reveal that Jones freely submitted data upon all such requests. This was despite Jones’s awareness of confidentiality agreements which he later used as his reason for not releasing data.

In stating to Parliament that it was ‘standard practice’ not to release climate data Jones may have perjured himself as per the following facts.

Respected unpaid auditor, McIntyre has spent much of the last decade investigating the claims of climate scientists and is noted for spotting an error in NASA’s climate data whereby NASA wrongly attributed the warmest year of the 20th Century to 1998 when, in fact, it was proven that 1934 was the warmest year in the American records. NASA grudgingly corrected their facts. Climate skeptics have since exposed other government climate data as false and global warming advocates, such as Jones have been circling the wagons against further public scrutiny.

McIntyre recounts the former openness of Jones that disproves his testimony from yesterday:

“At that time, I was surprised by the promptness of the response and the extra effort that Jones had put into the response. (I think that I noted Jones’ courtesy as a correspondent from time to time in the first years of the blog.)”

Jones had helpfully released to McIntyre temperature data for 5,159 global weather stations, a most revealing act never since repeated. Thus this contraverts Jones’ testimony to Parliament that it was ‘standard practice’ to withhold data. Such ‘practice’ only began after 2002 when skeptics began to uncover climate data irregularities.

McIntyre cites the correspondence he received from Jones on this issue. Jones replied to the Canadian making the following statement that was never honored:

“Once the paper comes out in the Journal of Climate, I will be putting the station temperature and all the gridded databases onto our web site.”

In 2007, when Willis Eschenbach, another independent analyst, also sought station data he, too, was refused under various pretexts. After three or four further FOIA requests Jones partially relented and gave access to just 4,138 of the stations, placing them on the CRU website.

The question not yet asked of Jones is why was there a change of policy that was blatantly contradictory to the Freedom of Information laws, after 2002. The ‘standard practice’ Jones refers to can only be proven to have occurred between 2002 and 2009.

Jones has repeatedly defended his unlawful conduct by alluding to problems created by various countries refusing to make their data freely available. Yet Jones refuses to point the finger at any such countries that continue to stymie FOIA requests.

Skeptics will claim this is proof of willful criminal conduct, or ‘trick’ committed by Jones in a self-serving fashion to ‘hide the decline’ in the standard practice of climate science perfomed at CRU. I would suggest that Jones would be more forthcoming on this issue if he faced stern cross-examination in a court of law, a place where this scandal will surely now be finally determined.

The committee did not ask him about several of the most damaging e-mails he had sent, including one in which he asked a colleague to delete information that had been requested. The committee had been asked not to press him too closely because he was close to a nervous breakdown.

Yeah, this investigation is not going to be a whitewash is it?

And “asked by” whom, we wonder? Hmmm….

Most of the witnesses seemed like polished BSers. But Jones isn’t as polished. He seemed very nervous.

He was all over the place on his answers regarding the question of if data was withheld and why, but he did end up admitting that he had withheld some scientific data about global temperatures.

Why would he not want to release it? Well, for one thing, even though he said it would be a good idea, it was “not standard practice.” Following up, Labour MP Graham Stringer asked him: “If that’s not standard practice, how can science progress?” Professor Jones replied: “Maybe it should be but it isn’t.”

He also said, “because all he [a skeptic] wants to do is find something wrong with it.” To which Mr. Stringer again challenged Jones: “But scientists make a name by proving and disproving things, don’t they? The statement seems to be anti-scientific. It is an absolutely clear denial of the man’s attempt to get at what you were doing. He wanted your information and you refused to give it to him? Why?”

Jones’ answer: “Because we had invested a lot of work and resources in it, and this was before FOI [Freedom of information legislation] started.”

And he’s calls himself a scientist?

Oh wait, there is some good news: Jones says that children will likely still see some snow someday.

To see Phil Jones squirm, watch the video beginning at aorund the 01:02:00 hour/minute/sec mark.

Source: Independent UK

In all seriousness, you can watch this afternoon’s proceedings from the UK Parliament’s Select Committee Hearing on the Climategate Scandal held in the House of Parliament’s Grimond Room, with Phil Jones testifying. We’re watching it right now, so we can’t comment on it yet.

Watch it on this page. Sorry we don’t have an embeddable version (if anyone does give us the link).

Here is the agenda:

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

Witnesses:

1. Rt Hon Lord Lawson of Blaby, Chairman, and Dr Benny Peiser, Director, Global Warming Policy Foundation
2. Richard Thomas CBE
3. Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor, University of East Anglia, and Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit
4. Sir Muir Russell KCB, Head of the Independent Climate Change E-Mails Review
5. Professor John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Julia Slingo OBE, Chief Scientist, Met Office, and Professor Bob Watson, Chief Scientist, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spoliation of Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Firstly, ACPO is the statutory consultee for the British Government coordinating national police operations and major investigations. My concern, shared by many others, is that despite the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) affirming that crimes had been committed, no charges were being brought under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) because the statutory time limit had expired.

But this was a disingenuous under-reporting of the facts because criminal charges could still be brought against Professor Phil Jones, chief climate scientist at the Climatic Research Unit (CRO) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), because he confessed to destroying crucial climate data and the leaked emails appear to suggest a conspiracy among a clique of climate scientists to commit data fraud.

As I have shown in an earlier article, criminal charges may still be brought against Jones and his alleged co-conspirators because under the Fraud Act (2006), conspiracy to commit fraud is not subject to such a statutory time limit.

Question: is it true or false that ACPO, a private limited company with no obligations under the Freedom of Information Act, has investments in carbon trading stocks and thus has a personal conflict of interest in investigating ‘Climategate’ thoroughly – a scandal involving alleged global climate data fraud that concomitantly would impact the value of such stocks?

Answer: Firstly, I can confirm that the Association of Chief Police Officers does not have any investment or financial interest of any kind in the trade of carbon stocks.

On a more general point, ACPO became a company limited by guarantee in 1997. This was a pragmatic step taken to maintain independence from Government while enabling the Association to fulfill its functions, including employ staff, enter into contracts for accommodation and allow for transparency in publishing accounts. All funds to ACPO are employed in the public interest.

As a company limited by guarantee, you correctly point out ACPO has no obligations under the Freedom of Information Act. However you may be interested to know that the Ministry of Justice has said it intends that ACPO will be added to the list of bodies subject to the Act, an intention which we welcome.

Question: Can you confirm or deny that officers under your sway are following up the recent Information Commissioner’s (ICO) admission that government officials working at the University of East Anglia did, indeed, unlawfully break the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), such offences not being subject to any statute of limitations (see below) so that you are now centering your investigations, not solely on ‘hacking’ of emails, but the illegal conduct and possible data fraud of international climate scientists involving many millions in taxpayer grants?

Answer: On your second request, Norfolk Constabulary has confirmed it is investigating a data breach at the UEA and how the circulation of private e-mails became public, with the assistance of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) which is providing advice on Data Protection and FOI. This investigation is led by Norfolk Constabulary and the National Domestic Extremism Team has provided assistance. NDET’s role is to assist police forces: it does not have a remit to carry out investigations independently.

Question: Would you care to comment why the NDET, a non-specialist fraud unit are investigating what some legal commentators are saying is likely to be the greatest science racketeering fraud of all time, a matter more properly dealt with by the Serious Fraud Office?

Answer: NDET has provided assistance as a national police unit with relevant expertise and good background knowledge of the groups involved in climate change issues. Computer forensic expertise is one aspect of that assistance. The Serious Fraud Office has clear case criteria which are a matter for that body.

Question: Would you please relay to us your interpretation of the fraud laws so that our readership may be in no doubt that you recognise that while there may exist a continuum of fraudulent data manipulation, such crimes cannot yet be time barred under the rules of ‘compounded offences’ so that charges may still be lain under the Fraud Act (2006) and ‘conspiracy to corrupt,’ contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

Answer: It would be for Norfolk Constabulary to make any comment, if appropriate, on potential outcomes to this investigation. Under legislation, charging decisions are made by the Crown Prosecution Service.

To be frank, no one can reasonably accuse ACPO of foot dragging on this issue. It is simply the duty of ACPO to advise the government that the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) as per the recommendations of the Roskill Report (1988) ought to be conducting this case, not Norfolk Police nor NDET.

The SFO is under the sway of that political appointee, the Attorney-General who in turn is accountable to Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. The British Government knows only too well that since the Criminal Justice Act 1987, the Serious Fraud Office is mandated responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of suspected cases of serious or complex fraud where £1 million or more is involved or in cases of multi-national jurisdiction (i.e. the Climategate scandal).

Prime Minister Brown knows the buck stops with him on this but he is so far having an easy ride and not being exposed for his own complicity in this scam. While the mainstream media is yet to pick up on this it is left to the blogosphere to pursue the matter. I will now be writing to the Attorney General, the Director of the SFO and the Chief Constable of Norfolk Police and I urge other British taxpayers who also feel ripped off to help keep the pressure up.

We must ensure that self-serving politicians like Gordon Brown cannot bury Climategate by, as I suspect, unjustly under-employing the powers of the police merely because we are in the run up to a general election this Spring.

—————————————–
Acknowledgment: Gareth Bowden of ACPO

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.