This thread presents copies of comments posted on Professor Judith Curry's "Letter to the dragon slayers" thread by Andrew Skolnick, John O'Sullivan, me and any others that appear relevant to the discussions in other threads on this blog. It has been made necessary to post them here because they are no longer available for viewing elsewhere. The reason is explained on the "Professor Judith Curry threatened with blog closure attempt" thread (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/professor-judith-curry-threatened-with.html). Comments here are referenced on that thread from "Update #2" onwards and on the "SpotON - Principia Scientific International" thread (in draft at 6th June).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Followers
UPDATES
7) 2012-12-24 Added E-mails of 18th - 23rd Nov. 2011 covering debate over John O'Sullivan's questionable claims about being a successful litigator in the USA and UK
Letter to the dragon slayers
Pete Ridley | October 21, 2011 at 5:07 pm |
There was an enormous flurry of several hundred E-mails on the subject of “John O’Sullivan’s specious claims” during 8th – 20th Oct. a subject that was started by Professor Petty with QUOTE:
.. On Sat, 8 Oct 2011, JOHN OSULLIVAN wrote: “ .. of the so-called greenhouse gas effect) being that no such concept exists anywhere in the laws of thermodynamics. ‘Back radiation’ is now proven to be as unphysical and absurd an idea as suggesting there exists ‘back conduction’ or ‘back convection’ because energy, when measured as heat, can only move one way, from warmer to colder. You call our book .. ”
I’ve been trying to avoid getting embroiled in this fruitless “debate”, but I can’t help but respond to the above claim. .. In short: The downward emission of IR radiation by the atmosphere — which this group calls “back radiation” — is both well documented and well understood. It is settled science and has been for more than a century.
John O’Sullivan correctly asserts that thermodynamics forbids the spontaneous flow of heat from cold to warm, but he reveals a glaring misunderstanding by applying this statement to the ONE-WAY flux of radiation from one body to another rather than to the TWO-WAY EXCHANGE of radiation between two bodies. It is the NET FLUX (upward minus downward) that must obey the 2nd Law.
Both Planck’s Law and the Stefan-Boltzman Law (the latter is just an integration of the former over wavelength) have been known for generations to accurately predict EMISSION (one-way) from a blackbody. Nothing in either formulation requires one to know the temperature of the body (if any) RECEIVING the radiation. And Planck’s Law was itself derived via thermodynamic arguments by a guy who understood the 2nd Law extremely well.
John O’Sullivan’s statement is tantamount to a claim that neither Planck’s Law nor the Stefan-Boltzmann law is valid, a century’s worth of unambiguous experimental evidence notwithstanding. Please judge his “scientific” arguments with that fact in mind. UNQUOTE.
Several hundred E-mail exchanges followed that one but it has all suddenly gine very quiet. I’ve received none since John O’Sullivan’s response to Joel Shore on “ .. 20 Oct 2011 16:20 .. Subject: Re: John O’Sullivan’s specious claims ..
Joel, Is that really all the ‘evidence’ you have to prove the Slayers are “ideologically motivated”? Canadian, Joe Postma, describing an American as a “patriot” and your innuendo that our U.S. publisher may not be quite as PC as you about racial sensitivity? Wow .. ”.
Joel had suggested on several occasions that the “Slayers” are ideologically motivated but I had raised the issue of political motivation in an E-mail on 8th Oct. with reference to a comment by Professor Curry (http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/04/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon-part-iii-discussion/). I commented that QUOTE: .. it looks as though Professor Johnson listened to Professor Curry’s advice “ .. I am hoping that Johnson learns from this that if he wants his scientific arguments to be taken seriously, that publishing them in a politically motivated book does not help his credibility and does not motivate people to take his arguments seriously .. ”. Professor Johnson seems to have wisely dissociated himself from the “Slayers” and PSI UNQUOTE
In John’s response (the one to which Professor Petty responded on the subject of “John O’Sullivan’s specious claims”) John said to me “ .. You call our book “politically motivated” – please elucidate as to what politics it supports .. You then seek to smear Chapter 21 of the book authored by me which addresses legal matters. .. the chapter was peer-reviewed extensively and is based upon first hand evidence supplied inter alia by esteemed NZ barrister, Barry Brill. .. For your information, Roger Sowell, a Californian lawyer and qualified engineer has kindly accepted our offer to review the book (plus my chapter) and will be providing his own review in due course. So what other due diligence do you suggest I now do to further prove your allegations baseless and biased? .. ”.
I repeatedly attempted to get the “Slayers” to discuss this issue of political motivation using Chapter 21 of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” and the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails of Dec/Jan. as a basis but to no avail. In the spirit of transparency that is claimed to be so important to PSI I also tried to persuade the “Slayers” to discuss the issue on their PSI web-site but there were no takers.
You say “ .. It should be fairly obvious, but for some reason isn’t, that there is no party line with the dragons. .. ” but there is more to politics than the party line. Also, there is more to any company than what is declared in its Mission Statement. Very few companies are formed with the sole objective of pursuing a “ .. good cause .. ” (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s). On top of that there is the financial motive and the desire for recognition.
The financial motive is hinted at repeatedly in the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails, with the words “money” and “pay” or their derivatives appearing rather frequently. Also, John said on 2nd January, two weeks before that appeal for charitable donations was made QUOTE: ..
Personally, I have no time to not earn a living. I know from my own private conversations that my coauthors may also not have time to devote unpaid to setting up and running a charity .. The ‘Slayers’ project is first and foremost a commercial operation because, for all our hard work and endeavor, we wish to be paid .. ”. “ .. In the year of inception, 2011, our Chairman is Dr. Timothy Ball; our managers are John O’Sullivan (CEO), Hans Schreuder (CFO) and Rev. Philip Foster (Compliance Officer) .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc). Note that clause “The ‘Slayers’ project is first and foremost a commercial operation” and the PSI executive comprises – “Slayers”.
I would have hoped this important matter of financial incentives for its executives would be highlighted on the PSI web-site for all potential subscribers to see but I haven’t found it yet. It would be helpful if one of the PSI managers were to provide a link to where this is spelled out or why no statement is made about it. After all, as I indicated in my previous comment, it is claimed that “ .. Transparency is an important aspect of PSI .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association). Maybe Ken Coffman can encourage one of the PSI managers to post a link or even the financial incentives here.
In those recent E-mail exchanges with the “Slayers” I provided a link to John’s self-promotion on LinkedIn (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/19/6b4/84a). John has updated his profile to now present himself as CEO and Legal Consultant at Principia Scientific International – very impressive if PSI was all that is claimed on the Web-site. As I pointed out recently to the “Slayers” the Web-site is presenting incorrect information and needs to be updated and I do wonder about those claims made by John in July that “ .. Postma and Nahle join long-standing GHE skeptics, Alan Siddons and Hans Schreuder as they prepare to formally launch a new global research association, Principia Scientific International (PSI) recruiting untold numbers of conscientious scientists sickened by endemic corruption within science .. ” (http://climaterealists.com/?id=8073).
In an E-mail to the group on 30th September I suggested to John that “ .. you could consider replacing much of you latest PSI promotional material (which I doubt many find inspiring) with facts about the status of the organisation, e.g. confirmed membership list, outstanding applications (you know the kind of thing) so that your target market can understand the real picture .. ” but he didn’t take me up on that.
You say “ .. The other sceptics groups are free standing and there is no sceptics manifesto. If climate science was normal science there would be no need for such a massive movement calling it into question .. ” but I hope that you are not referring to PSI with that “massive movement”. Very early in the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mail exchanges I asked “ .. why start a new organisation when there is already in existence an international structure with the same objectives – The International Climate Science Coalition (http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/) .. ”. John’s response the question was “ .. Let me ask you this question: why have none of those organizations filed suit already? They are fearful perhaps? Lack of knowledge, expertize and commitment may be a factor. I’ve staked my reputation, sweat and own money on beating the AGW fraud in the courts-its the only serious game in town. My legal associates and I are ready and waiting to take the battle on. The navel gazing and hot air blowing around the blogosphere has gotten nowhere for years. I recommend you look here to see what my legal strategy has already accomplished:
http://www.suite101.com/content/legal-defeat-for-global-warming-in-kiwigate-scandal-a294157 .. ”.
I wholeheartedly agree with your “ .. Lets get it out in the open .. ”. Maybe Professor Curry will allow the discussion to take place here.
Of course, as well as the politics there is a scientific discussion about the “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change” (CACC) hypothesis still to be had. You said that “The various varieties of the Greenhouse Effect also have no common agreed bottom line. Nullius in Verba posting here has a version of the “greenhouse effect” is almost identical to Postmas “atmosphere effect”. Why have an e-mail debate?”. I raised that same point with the “Slayers” concerning their extravagant claim to have caused “The Death of the Greenhouse Effect”. Alan Siddons’s response was QUOTE: .. I don’t know what you mean by “chosen version of the definition of the Greenhouse Effect.” We go by the consensus version, if it may be called that .. UNQUOTE.
After posting my last comment here I had started another, which so far says QUOTE:
I found Bryan’s comment of 17th October at 5:53 am interesting “ .. The zeroth law is as usual quite awkward to fit into a greenhouse theory. Two objects are at thermal equilibrium (same temperature). What happens when you bring a third object (at the same temperature) close to the two? .. ”.
“ .. thermal equilibrium: .. the relationship between two isolated systems the states of which are such that no net transfer of energy would occur between them if they were connected by a diathermic wall. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/thermal+equilibrium).
See http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/thermo0.html and http://www.newrelativity.net/Energy.Dynamics.pdf
UNQUOTE.
I’ll come back to that in a later comment (if Professor Curry allows me back) because after reading “Slaying the Sky Dragon” (not that I wasted any money buying it but managed to get a free copy from someone involved with the “Slayers”) I had the impression that most of them found it hard to draw a distinction between radiated and conducted energy.
Before pursuing that topic I would like to ask to whom you are referring when you say “ .. We have a collection of individuals whose only common denominator is a firm conviction that IPCC science is almost fraudulent .. ”. If you are referring to the “Slayers” and their puny Principia Scientific International” association then I am interested to find out where you get your information from (other than from their own promotional web-site http://principia-scientific.org/).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I agree that Professor Curry’s blog “ .. is a good testing ground for the tumult of ideas around climate science. .. ” and she is to be commended for encouraging open debate between supporters and sceptics of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis. She runs an extremely informative and well-read blog.
John O’Sullivan, lead “Slayer”, CEO of and Legal Consultant at Principia Scientific International, does not always show Professor Curry or other scientists who dare to challenge the “Slayer” version of science the respect that they deserve. On the contrary, on 8th October in the “PSI & Politics” exchanges John said to me QUOTE: .. Your appeal to the less qualified authorities of Lord Monckton (a journalist) and Judith Curry (a geographer who admits little training, if any, in thermodynamics) only serves to further weaken your case (simply an unscientific appeal to authority rather than science) when laid alongside the scientific, engineering and mathematical credentials of the authors and supporters of the Slayers (23 with PhD’s) .. UNQUOTE.
John then went on to say on 9th “ .. Unlike many of the Slayers, Curry admits she has no training in higher-level thermodynamics – key to comprehending the more arcane elements of climate. Monckton and Colose, I suspect have less still than Curry; while Professor Petty seems to be lacking in that department, too .. ”.
John’s 9th Oct. outburst against Professor Curry in the “PSI & Politics” exchanges says it all really “ .. True to form you run liked a scared cat from debate hurling insults at those who challenge you. It hasn’t escaped notice that although you hosted a few discussions on your blog you were frequently conspicuous by your absence. Indeed, I recall nothing of note ever having been contributed by you in those discussions. When you did appear you were soon taken to task and grudgingly had to concede Claes was correct about back radiation and you abandoned this nonsense. Is that your definition of being taken seriously?
As for recommending the Slayers submit to the climate science peer-review system – well, that’s broken and well beyond repair as everyone knows. So please don’t try that tired old dodge on us.
As for your closed doors “professional meetings”, they also do nothing to expose the woeful incompetence you and your climate peers are so desperate to keep hidden. Frankly, you’re refusal to woman up and defend your ‘science’ is precisely why you and those discredited IPCC pseudo-scientists are treated as a joke among the wider scientific community .. ”.
John must have been standing in front of a mirror talking to himself when he put that comment together.
On 18th Sept. John said “ .. Curry goofed by posting on her blog that even her students could refute us. I wonder how – is she actually suggesting her students are better educated on the science than her? I know my co-authors are. Aren’t you smelling her brand of BS yet?
So please man up on this or we may reasonably infer that ad hom and ignorance wins the day in the unscientific world of Ridley and Curry .. ”.
You said “ .. Of legal matters I know nothing. Andrew Skolnick has made a number of serious allegations about John O’Sullivan. John has failed to respond which gives the impression that Andrew might be correct .. ”. At the end of September John and I discussed this matter of tight-lipped silences. During those exchanges I said “ .. I get the impression that Andrew Skolnick (and other like-minded individuals) might consider the claims made on the PSI promotional page “Principles of Association” (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association) about the credentials of its principal founder are just another “ .. brand of BS .. ” (as you put it about Professor Curry). You claim on that page and in “Slaying the Sky Dragon” that you have “ .. litigated successfully for over a decade in government corruption cases in the New York State Court system and Federal Court (Second Circuit) .. ”. Andrew has challenged you on that but if it is true then I expect that you are aware of what is said in “Criminal Justice: Does Silence Mean Guilt?” (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,899502,00.html). Regardless that “ .. The decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States have, in effect, shattered the tacit-admission rule .. ” silence can still leave a strong suspicion of guilt in the minds of the lay public .. ”.
One of my comments to John was “ .. You .. remain silent about the challenge that I issued regarding the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails and your academic and professional claims. .. In my E-mail of 18th Sept. I made a request that you persistently ignore “ .. will you provide:
- access to all of the E-mails that we all exchanged during the December/January discussions about setting up PSI as a CIC. I’m happy for all of my E-mails to be made available to the public, how about you and the rest of those receiving this E-mail,
- full substantiated details of your academic and professional training and experience .. ”.
I followed up with QUOTE: .. Having said a fair bit about Andrew Skolnick and friends we are in danger of allowing ourselves to be dragged down a side-track away from the main issue of interest to me, PSI and transparency. You seem to be reluctant to take up my challenge that you make the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails available for public scrutiny on the PSI web-site and have remained silent on that. I suspect that many are suspicious of those who worship Harpocrates (http://www.whale.to/b/silence.html) .. UNQUOTE.
Silence is not always golden.
I don’t disagree with your QUOTE: .. IPCC advocates it seems are only interested (in) back radiation. This is because it provides the only link to the “pollutent CO2 and global warming” .. UNQUOTE. The IPCC is a highly politicised organisation, not a scientific one. I understand that the scientific content of AR4 WG1 had not been agreed when the Summary for Policymakers was published in March/April 2007 and the WG1 scientific report had to be aligned with the SPM rather than the SPM properly reflecting the scientific report. As you suggest, the objective appears to be to finger CO2 as a culprit, but I am of the opinion that this was for political, not scientific, reasons. (I expect someone to jump in shortly and accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist like Lyndon LaRouche.)
You are of course correct that “ .. A sceptic organisation would need office and publicity staff and publishing would involve costs plus the usual trade mark up. The necessary professional back up people should be paid the going rate .. ” but the real question is what could the “Slayers” and PSI add that is not already available from organisations like The International Climate Science Coalition (http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/), The Centre for Research on Globalisation (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=section§ionName=about) or the UK’s Science & Public Policy Institute (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/). Similar points were discussed during the Dec./Jan. “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges.
As I said in my previous E-mail, John’s justification for trying to form another such organisation was “ .. beating the AGW fraud in the courts-its the only serious game in town .. ”. Slaying the Sky Dragon Chapter 21 and the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mail exchanges in Dec./Jan. indicate that this may have been John’s original plan for PSI.
On 15th Jan. John told the “Slayers” QUOTE: .. PSI IS NOT A LITIGATION MACHINE Pete’s opinion is that PSI will still be “construed as a political campaigning organisation.” On the issue of litigation, PSI is not pursuing a primary goal to litigate – to insist on making this unfounded assertion would also be defamatory to PSI once it becomes a legal entity .. ”. My response on 18th Jan included “ .. Without the objective of taking legal action against Governments/Agencies/individuals to court there appears to be little difference between CRG and PSI so why would PSI, constrained in this way, succeed where so many other groups of sceptical scientists have so far failed to get policy-makers to acknowledge that CACC has no sound science to support it? What extra benefits would another separate organisation like PSI bring to this “noble cause” that is not or cannot be better provided by giving support to established organisations? In my opinion this is simply fragmentation of effort when what is needed is a strong, unified international group .. ”.
In my final E-mail of those Dec/Jan. “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges I said “ .. In the first of my “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails last year (Dec 30 2010, 08:52 PM) I quoted from the Executive Summary of my “Due Diligence” report QUOTE: Executive Summary “Self-praise is no praise at all”
Although there is a plethora of boastful promotion material there are many unanswered questions about PSI’s structure, the relationships between and motivations of the principle individuals involved, its modus operandi and strategies. I find no convincing evidence that PSI will be anything other than a minor addition to the existing tally of international organisations of people who are sceptical of the doctrine that our continuing use of fossil fuels is leading to catastrophic change to the different global climates.
UNQUOTE .. ”.
Here we are 10 months later and it appears to me that nothing has changed excepting that the original group of founders, promoted as being “ .. a group of 36 respected international scientists and related professionals. Mostly we are the authors of ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon,’ .. ” (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s) has dwindled, not grown. It looks as though Professor Curry was correct when saying on 10th Oct. “ .. Get a clue, your dragonslayers are jumping ship. .. ”.
Moving away from the heavily weighted political side of the CACC coin to look at the science, you said that “ .. Postma and Hans Schreuder have made a useful contribution to the debate. .. ”. On 18th Oct. in the “ ” exchanges with the “Slayers” et al. I quoted some of Hans’s words of wisdom from “Slaying the Sky Dragon” QUOTE: .. Hans makes several interesting observations, such as “ .. Earth does not need a ‘blanket of greenhouse gases’ to keep it warm or protect it from the cold of space. The vacuum of space is the best possible insulator we could wish for .. it is a misconception that the earth’s temperature needs insulation to begin with .. ”(Page 190). He then goes on to apparently confirm that the Greenhouse Effect (as I understand it) does indeed exist (e.g. see Page 196) “ .. Or is it perhaps that a blanket prevents convection and thus your body can not freely dispose of its generated heat as in a real greenhouse with glass panes or plastic sheeting or metal sheeting or even a wooden shed. Stop or hinder convective heat loss and bingo, the cooling process is interrupted. No extra heat is generated, if only. It just takes longer for the same amount of energy to disperse itself. .. ” – although he fails to mention that energy is lost to space from the global system of geo/aqua/cryo/bio/atmo-spheres by radiation, not conduction or convection .. ”.
Hans places great faith in his sixth sense, as indicated in a comment of his on 8th Jan. during the “PSI & Due Dilignce” exchanges “ .. My sixth sense has yet to be proven wrong .. ” but Atmospheric Physicist Professor Petty depends on science rather than intuition and seems less convinced than you are about Hans Schroeder’s contribution. In his response to that first Hans Schroeder quote from Page 190 he said QUOTE: ..
This is a classic example of the common confusion among skeptics who conflate (deliberately or merely ignorantly) the completely different physical phenomena of thermal conductivity and radiative transfer. A vacuum is a perfect insulator when it comes to heat transfer via molecular conduction (collisions between molecules). No molecules, no transfer of thermal kinetic energy.
A vacuum is a perfect conductor with respect to exchanges of EM radiation (emission and absorption of photons). No molecules, no scattering or absorption of radiation.
A bizarre, but too common, variation on this confusion is that “if CO2 traps heat, why don’t they use it to make Thermos bottles?” The ignorance implicit in this kind of question is truly breathtaking.
Anyone who doesn’t understand the vast difference between energy transfer via molecular conduction and energy transfer via radiative exchange really shouldn’t offer themselves as an authority on physics of any kind, period. ..
UNQUOTE.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
LOL! I hope you realize that this comes from someone who only has a bachelors degree in art (studied painting and art history) and then received graduate teacher training in order to teach athletics in public school?
I believed he earned his law degree from the University of Imade Itup and later received science journalism training at Humbug U.
Seriously folks, anyone else notice that John O’Sullivan just changed his LinkedIn profile — apparently in response to the British Columbia Law Society’s investigation of his claim to be a lawyer hired by Pearlman Lindholm to help defend fellow humbug Tim Ball?
At the top of his profile, he had until very recently identified himself as “Legal Consultant at Pearlman Lindholm.” While it’s true he was hired by the law firm — and the firm is now trying to explain to the law society why it had hired and unlicensed “attorney.”
So O’Sullivan now has completely deleted all mention of his “legal” work for Pearlman Lindholm and has replaced it with “Legal Consultant at Principia Scientific International” — the floundering disinformation business he’s now trying to establish.
BTW, have you noticed that first Annual PSI Conference in London is still scheduled for October 2011. According to O’Sullivan, delegates from 12 countries will take part in the three-day event. Here it is, the last week of October — anybody see a PSI Conference anywhere?
O’Sullivan also changed the education section of his LinkedIn Profile. He now claims he earned a law degree and art degree at “University of Surrey/WSCAD 1979-1984.”
In earlier resumes, he claimed he attended the West Surrey College of Art and Design from 1980-1983. After I started challenging his claim of having a law degree, he added “University of Surrey 1979-1982″ to some of his resumes. But that would mean he had attended two DIFFERENT schools full time at the same time for at least 2 years. Busy, busy fellow.
In his LinkedIn profile, he seems to have solved this apparent problem by making the two separate schools into one.
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&authType=name&authToken=0rq9&locale=en_US&pvs=pp&trk=ppro_viewmore
One of the great mysteries of the universe — like why polar bears are having a harder and harder time finding any ice to rest on — is why someone would earn a law degree and then an art degree and then get teacher training for 1 or 2 years more, to become a gymnastics school teacher.
There is a lot that we could say to/about each other but not here, eh. Let’s show Professor Curry the respect that she deserves and stick to the thread topic, “LETTER TO THE DRAGON SLAYERS”, which I am assuming until she tells me otherwise that “letter” can reasonable be interpreted as “E-mails”.
Professor Petty’s letter was in the form of a final E-mail sent to the “Slayers” and others on 14th Oct. in response to a comment by Joe Postma on the subject of “John O’Sullivan’s specious claims”, a thread initiated by Professor Petty on 8th Oct. which spawned about 150 E-mails in those 7 days.
Postma had quoted Professor Petty’s comment QUOTE: ..
You have all made equally bold unequivocal contentions about the validity of mainstream understanding of radiation and climate, which is a vastly more subtle and complex topic than a glass box, do you agree? .. ”
and responded with “ ..
Yes, it is more complex. This is only a minor reason for why teaching the greenhouse as a glass-box model is fraudulent. The logic is inherently tautologous. And it becomes unnecessary, in point of fact, when you use the instantaneous heat input from the Sun in a proper heat-flow equation, rather than these diluted average values which don’t actually physically correspond to what the system responds to in real-time anyway. We will still have this latter fact and independent area of research to explore even if the glass-box GHE is proven to work….as I have basically mentioned previously.
In a large way, we are driven to do the research we do because of the myriad and countless other fraudulent claims, presumptions, and sophistries related to climate science. It has become apparent to us that the errors extend to the deepest level of the science .. UNQUOTE.
Those 150+ E-mails, involving individuals across the spectrum from Professors to laymen, reflect the situation across the entire blogosphere debate between supporters and sceptics of the CACC hypothesis, with the same mix of science, reason, opinion, speculation, dogma and invective from those on both sides.
I brought your name into the discussions with the “Slayers” on 18th Sept. reminding John of the comments made by you and Gareth Renowden. Eventually John responded on 28th with a comment that supplements what you say in your comment QUOTE:
.. As for Andrew Skolnick – I understand he is a pro-green environmental journalist. He began his personal tirade against me around May 2011 on the LinkedIn website when I mentioned, in one of the discussion forums on the site, that I was appointed as a consultant to Canadian Law firm, Pearlman Lindholm. I was appointed to assist Dr. Tim Ball in his defense of two high profile libel suits (the first, versus Dr Andrew Weaver, the second versus Dr. Michael Mann). A heated debate ensued in the ‘LinkedIn’ discussion forum during which I won from Skolnick an apology for erring in his facts. Yet he has since sought to vilify me on other blogs and last week I was advised by Pearlman Lindholm that Skolnick has filed a “complaint” against me via the Canadian Supreme Court.
In none of Skolnick’s slurs does he provide any web links for verification of his claims. Readers are asked to take his invective at face value. I do not see any need to repeatedly deign to reply to such unsubstantiated smears. If you choose to entertain them absent any evidence, then that exposes your own predilictions and biases. (Frankly, this does also seem to be how you approach to the greenhouse gas effect debate).
Among Skolnick’s false allegations is that I have claimed as my own the work of other writers. Also, he says I’ve been fraudulently assuming the identity of another John O’Sullivan, a graduate of law from University College, Cork. I have made no such claims and have repeatedly challenged Skolnick to provide hard evidence proving where and when I am supposed to have said/written any of this. He has yet to comply.
Also, despite Skolnick’s claims to the contrary, I do not conceal my history. Indeed, I openly publish my educational and professional background on my ‘bio’ page on the ‘LinkedIn’ website that we both frequent. Yet he conveniently chooses to ignore this. See LinkedIn web page: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&trk=tab_pro
Moreover, I openly maintain another ‘bio’ page on the ‘Friends Reunited’ website where I have numerous links to former colleagues and friends (some of whom have reported that Skolnick has been pestering them about me). On their urging I posted on the site an open response to Skolnick:
http://www.friendsreunited.co.uk/blog/read/JohnOSullivan/77846
Not satisfied with the above, Skolnick has gone on to demand that I provide him with a list of cases and former clients to verify that I have litigated for 13 years at all levels of the New York State court system and the Federal Second Circuit. Naturally, I declined to do so because of client confidentiality and the fear that Skolnick intended to misuse such information to inflict injury on my reputation. However, as an indication of the truthfulness of my position one such client, Thomas Neveu, will gladly vouch for me.
I recently achieved for Mr. Neveu the favorable outcome he sought in a vexatious and potentially extremely costly copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court, Nevada. All claims against Mr. Neveu were withdrawn (with prejudice) last week. See here:
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/nevada/nvdce/2:2010cv01674/76457/
For further verification Mr. Neveu can be contacted at this address: tom_neveu@comcast.net and is now added to this c.c. list. ..
UNQUOTE.
I leave you to do your own investigation into that particular case and perhaps get back on what you find, then we could compare notes.
You ask “ .. where can one find these “PSI & Politics” exchanges with John O’Sullivan you speak of? .. ”. Have you forgotten our E-mail exchanges from 1st – 7th July to which you decided to call a halt? In my “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mail folder there are some 300 E-mails and while discussing relevant ones with the “Slayers” recently I have been building up a Word document of the most significant ones. I attached this document to several of my recent E-mails with the “Slayers” and other participants like Professors Curry and Petty, Joel Shore, and a recent participant, Californian attorney Roger Sowell (http://www.resowell-law.com/). The most recent version has 55 pages d I’m nowhere near the end yet. If you wish to get access to those “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails you have my E-mail address. If you ask politely for sight of them then I may consider posting the Word document as a taster.
I have asked Roger Sowell several times about his analysis of Chapter 21 and the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails but have heard nothing from him since 12th Oct. when he said “ .. Mr. Ridley, to further answer your question, yes, I am still digesting and investigating the claims made in Chapter 21, Legal Fallout from False Climate Alarm. I will give my analysis on that at some later time .. ”. Maybe he will comment here.
I’m sure that in the folders of one or two “Slayers” there will be some related E-mails that I haven’t been privy to. Since at least two of them appear to reside in the UK maybe a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act 1998 is warranted. It and the Freedom of Information Act are wonderful tools for finding out what is being said behind one’s back, as I found out recently after raising FOIs and SARs with the University of Cambridge about the activities of their “The Naked Scientists” project (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/) – but that’s another story.
You said “ .. Hey Pete, you remember how you tried to defend O’Sullivan’s bogus claim of being a member of the American Bar Association (which would require his being an attorney licensed in the U.S.)? .. ”. I refer you to the final clause of my E-mail of Jul 03 2011, 09:23 AM, which I suspect you misunderstood. In my comment here on October 22, 2011 at 2:30 pm I quoted from one of those “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails that John O’Sullivan sent on 28th December when he was providing more details about the subject he had presented in his Chapter 21 of Slaying the Sky Dragon “Legal Fallout from False Climate Alarm”. I had asked “ .. why start a new organisation when there is already in existence an international structure with the same objectives – The International Climate Science Coalition .. ”.
John started his response with “ .. Peter, Let me ask you this question: why have none of those organizations filed suit already? .. ” and concluded “ .. As the saying goes: you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. Take the chance while it is offered or it may not be made again .. ”. Do you spot the relevance of that old English proverb (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/you-can-lead-a-horse-to-water.html)?
On the 29th/30th Sept. there were interesting exchanges with “Slayers” arising from a comment by Tim Ball “ .. I understand Skolnick has also filed a complaint with the BC Law Society against my Canadian attorney.
.. ” and John O’Sullivan’s response “ .. I wasn’t aware of that. Although Skolnick’s unsolicited correspondence to me has made it explicit that he’s been liaising with Michael Mann’s and Andrew Weaver’s lawyer, Roger McConchie. So it would be no stretch of the imagination to infer that McConchie has likely put Skolnick up to these shenanigans. The fact Skolnick also filed a complaint against your attorney, too, suggests to me McConchie is not confident of winnning the Weaver and Mann libel suits against you. Savvy lawyers don’t waste valuable time stooping to such tricks if they believe they are already in a good position – smells of clutching at straws to me. So I’ll take this as a good sign! .. ”.
Are you minded to tell us what your involvement with those libel cases is? As you (and several of the Slayers) know, I don’t intentionally disclose what is said in one-to-one exchanges (I regard them as being Private & Confidential) so if you’d prefer to chat on that basis then please do.
Regarding that PSI Conference that was supposed to be taking place this month, I have tried to get some recent information about it but have drawn a blank. I even was given the OK by my wife to attend on our anniversary (as long as I made it up to her) because I was looking forward to meeting “Slayers” in the flesh and asking some pertinent questions during the Q&A sessions. Has anyone else heard what is going on?
As for those poor polar bears having a hard job finding a slab of ice to relax on, it looks as though they’ll have plenty for the next few decades as it gets colder and colder. “ .. British scientists have produced a new study suggesting that the Sun is coming to the end of a “grand solar maximum” – a long period of intense activity in the Sun – meaning that we in Blighty could be set for a long period of much colder winters, similar to those seen during the “little ice age” of the 17th and 18th centuries. .. ” (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/06/lockwood_solar_minimum/).
Hi Phil, ref. your comment of October 24, 2011 at 9:50 am in response to a comment by Bryan “ .. All in agreement with the laws of thermodynamics and radiation .. ”. The relevance of the laws of radiation seem to be incomprehensible to some of the “Slayers” who seem not to be able to think beyond the Laws of Thermodynamics.
I talked about this during recent exchanges with the “Slayers” on the subject of “E/M Radiation Discussion Runs Hot &Cold” following a comment by former “Slayer” Dr. Matthew Kleespies. I had asked the “Slayers” about how a (colder) satellite could send electromagnetic energy to a (hotter) earth station and Matthew responded with the conclusion “ .. But a colder body emitting “colder” electromagnetic waves, i. e. waves with a frequency BELOW the frequency CORRESPONDING TO any body´s OWN TEMPERATURE, or cut-off frequency, will not be able to lift this latter body´s temperature ALTHOUGH it absorbs (and reemits) ALL FREQUENCIES, i. e., also frequencies BELOW its own cut-off frequency. The latter ones, however, are reemitted WITHOUT adding any heat to the (warmer) body .. ”.
Not being aware that E/M waves can be hot or cold I invited clarification with “ .. I’m sure someone else in this group has a convincing explanation which we can all learn from. Georgia State University’s Department of Physics and Astronomy claims that “ .. Electromagnetic waves carry energy as they travel through empty space .. “ (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html) Apparently the rate of energy transport per unit area is described by the Poynting vector. That site makes no mention of the “cold” and “hot” E/M waves that Matthew talks about. But hey, this is all very technical stuff that I’m sure you consider you have mastered. So, what makes that “colder” absorbed E/M energy escape from the black body if it isn’t an increase in temperature? .. ”.
Matthew’s response was “ .. you have two options:
1) Invest some time and LEARN about blackbody science. Because blackbodies are the very (theoretical) basis of this whole climate discussion. You can search for sources explaining you how a blackbody works on your own or you can begin with the reference I suggested you: Claes´ chapter in SSD.
2.) You can stick to your belief that ANY frequency is added to a blackbody´s energy and thus temperature. .. ”.
I preferred the response from well-known and respected CACC sceptic Dr. Vincent Gray of the New Zealand Climate Coalition (http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32) QUOTE: ..
I just sent this to Hans (Schreuder) Dear Hans
Yet another attack on Stefan/Boltzmann. So “visible light” is not thermal. What else could it be? The light from a TV set comes from a phosphor activated by an electron, a liquid crystal display or a light-emitting diode. It does not have any sort of agreed “temperature” and the same goes for the light from a fluorescent tube
I have an interesting paper I was sent by Christopher Essex. who tries to tackle this problem, but not very successfully.
However, the samples you give , the dark side of the moon, and the ice cube, are much better examples, as there is absolutely no doubt that they both emit radiation according to the Stefan/Boltzmann equation, the equivalent of the “back radiation” which you persist in claiming is non existent.
What is so discouraging is that you have your heart in the right place and know instinctively that the greenhouse theory is wrong, yet you get so obsessed with this entirely minor issue which is undoubtedly misguided because it violates the accepted laws of physics.
The greenhouse theory is wrong because the greenhouse model ignores what you have pointed out to me, the outside weather, which is the real controller of the climate. They have grossly exaggerated the possible influence of minor greenhouse gases to boost their claims against the human race. It is sad that some of you are sufficiently bamboozled by the warmers to pursue your non productive sideline .. UNQUOTE.
A couple of days later I asked of Professor Claes Johnson QUOTE: ..
Hi Claes, you may recall me mentioning the Poynting Vector in my E-mail of 17 Oct 2011 19:33 but from what you are saying about radiated energy only flowing from hot to cold bodies some of the Slayers don’t seem to have encountered Poynting’s Theorem “ .. one of the most fundamental and useful relationships of electromagnetic theory .. ”. That quotation is from one of my old text-books that I used when studying radio & electronics engineering all those years ago at Heriot Watt, Edinburg (happy days long before the CACC scare when Professor – then Dr. – Steven Schneider was concerned about a new ice age) to refresh my memory about energy in E/M waves. That text book, “Fields & Waves in Communications Electronics” by Simon Ramo et al. says nothing about any restriction in E/M energy flow arising from the temperature difference between transmitting and receiving bodies.
Come on Claes, what have I forgotten or overlooked? .. UNQUOTE.
The exchanges dried up after that so come on Phil (or some other patient “expert”), what did I say that caused those exchanges to stop all of a sudden? It seems to me that the “Slayers” are reluctant to acknowledge that heat is only one form of energy but maybe that I simply don’t understand their version of science.
Come on Professor Johnson, what have you to say about the Poynting Theory and its relationship with the Stephan-Boltzman Law? Does Poynting have no relevance to the debate about S-B and the Laws of Thermodynamics? On 10th January in your “Correct Interpretation of Stefan-Boltzmann’s Radiation Law” thread (http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/01/correct-interpretation-of-stefan.html) – when you were helping to promote “Slaying the Sky Dragon” – someone hiding behind the false name Anders brought Poynting to your attention. It is noticeable that up to that point you had been engaging in discussion about energy flow but after the Anders comment all discussion on that thread ceased.
Was that the point at which you started thinking about dissociating yourself from the “Slayers”? It was only the next day that you asked of John O’Sullivan in the “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges QUOTE:
“What about these examples of activities not qualifying as CIC:
- The promotion of (or opposition to) changes in the law or changes in the policy of any governmental or public authority in relation to any matter
- The promotion of (or opposition to) any proposed policy of a governmental or public authority in relation to any matter
Since climate science is mixed up with climate politics, how can PSI claim to have no political ambitions? UNQUOTE (see attached file and Jan 11 2011, 08:30 PM) – but we’re back to my favourite topic again, PSI & political motivation.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
O’Sullivan is well aware this is a lie. I’ve never done any work for a pro-green group and never worked as an environmental journalist. In my 35 years of science and medical writing, I never published any article on climate science. Nearly all of my work has been in the fields of biology, medicine, and investigating and exposing medical quacks and charlatans.
That’s how O’Sullivan caught my interest last May, when he joined our group of science writers on LinkedIn and attacked us as being part of the global warming hoax conspiracy. He claimed to be a well-published science writer and lawyer. A couple of other members and I did some digging and discovered he is a humbug. And I hate humbugs. I step on them like spiders.
O’Sullivan again: ”He began his personal tirade against me around May 2011 on the LinkedIn website when I mentioned, in one of the discussion forums on the site, that I was appointed as a consultant to Canadian Law firm, Pearlman Lindholm. I was appointed to assist Dr. Tim Ball in his defense of two high profile libel suits (the first, versus Dr Andrew Weaver, the second versus Dr. Michael Mann).”
And thereby got Pearlman Lindholm into trouble with the Law Society of British Columbia since O’Sullivan is not a lawyer licensed to practice in BC courts — or apparently anywhere else.
O’Sullivan again: ”A heated debate ensued in the ‘LinkedIn’ discussion forum during which I won from Skolnick an apology for erring in his facts.Yet he has since sought to vilify me on other blogs and last week I was advised by Pearlman Lindholm that Skolnick has filed a “complaint” against me via the Canadian Supreme Court.”
What a maroon! It utterly amazes me how such an ignoramus thinks he can pass himself off as an attorney when he hasn’t a clue about the legal profession. The Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa, Ontario is NOT involved in investigating complaints of unlawful practice in British Columbia. My complaint was filed with the Law Society of British Columbia’s Office of Unlawful Practice. And for the umpteenth time, John, you are NOT defending your fellow humbug Tim Ball in the “Vancouver Supreme Court.” There is NO such court. Ball is being sued in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, you twit.
O’Sullivan again: ”In none of Skolnick’s slurs does he provide any web links for verification of his claims. Readers are asked to take his invective at face value.”
Yet another whopper from John. Readers who have followed my comments about this humbug knows, I’ve provided many links for them to verify the information I’ve provided. Just look above at my comments from earlier today.
Sullied O’Sullivan: ”I do not see any need to repeatedly deign to reply to such unsubstantiated smears. If you choose to entertain them absent any evidence, then that exposes your own predilictions and biases. (Frankly, this does also seem to be how you approach to the greenhouse gas effect debate).
“Among Skolnick’s false allegations is that I have claimed as my own the work of other writers. Also, he says I’ve been fraudulently assuming the identity of another John O’Sullivan, a graduate of law from University College, Cork. I have made no such claims and have repeatedly challenged Skolnick to provide hard evidence proving where and when I am supposed to have said/written any of this. He has yet to comply.”
Yet another whopper. I have copies of his posts to LinkedIn where he claimed to have earned his law degree from University College, Cork, and where he claimed to be the author of two articles on climate warming published in the National Review. Those articles turned out to be written by John O’Sullivan, all right – but the well-known John O’Sullivan who is the National Review’s editor-at-large. I would be happy to send these documents to anyone who asks — or else put them up on my web site and post the links here.
O’Sullied again: ”Also, despite Skolnick’s claims to the contrary, I do not conceal my history. Indeed, I openly publish my educational and professional background on my ‘bio’ page on the ‘LinkedIn’ website that we both frequent. Yet he conveniently chooses to ignore this. See LinkedIn web page: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&trk=tab_pro “
Rather than “ignore” them, I’ve cited them frequently and provided links to them. And I’ve saved the various versions as he keeps rewriting them to hide the contradictions as I expose his lies. Again, I’d be happy to make these documents publicly available.
O’Sullied: ”Moreover, I openly maintain another ‘bio’ page on the ‘Friends Reunited’ website where I have numerous links to former colleagues and friends …”
By “numerous” he means 5 links to colleagues and friends.]
O’Sullied continued: …”the last (some of whom have reported that Skolnick has been pestering them about me). On their urging I posted on the site an open response to Skolnick: http://www.friendsreunited.co.uk/blog/read/JohnOSullivan/77846
“Not satisfied with the above, Skolnick has gone on to demand that I provide him with a list of cases and former clients to verify that I have litigated for 13 years at all levels of the New York State court system and the Federal Second Circuit. Naturally, I declined to do so because of client confidentiality and the fear that Skolnick intended to misuse such information to inflict injury on my reputation.
Considering that court cases are matters of PUBLIC record, it’s hard to understand how O’Sullivan would violate client confidentiality by citing the courts and case numbers he alleges he “litigated successfully for more than a decade in New York and Federal 2nd District Courts.”
The way I’m “inflicting injury on” O’Sullivan’s “reputation” is by posting the link to the NY State web site that clearly shows O’Sullivan is a charlatan. He is NOT a lawyer licensed to practice in NY — or apparently anywhere else. Check for yourselves and you will find a John F., a John Patrick, but NO John A. O’Sullivan: http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneySearch .
”However, as an indication of the truthfulness of my position one such client, Thomas Neveu, will gladly vouch for me. I recently achieved for Mr. Neveu the favorable outcome he sought in a vexatious and potentially extremely costly copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court, Nevada. All claims against Mr. Neveu were withdrawn (with prejudice) last week. See here:
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/nevada/nvdce/2:2010cv01674/76457/”
Actually, you should look here, where you will learn just why the suit was dismissed and that John O’Sullivan was NOT Neveu’s attorney. Neveu had represented himself pro se! http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2:2010cv01674/76457/36/
According to this court ruling, on March 14, 2011, Thomas Neveu, acting on his own without an attorney, requested a court stay in order for him to obtain “a Competency Hearing and Psychiatric Evaluation.” Following that competency hearing and psychiatric evaluation, he and the plaintiff requested that the case be dismissed based on the “condition of Mr. Neveu’s health.” The court ruled, “Whereas, the parties have concluded that the continuation of this action may adversely impact Mr. Neveu’s health and welfare and that it is in the best interests of all parties to resolve this matter.”
So I now think I know what John O’Sullivan is going to do once all his lies and chicanery catches up with him: He’s going to plead an insanity defense.
Pete said: “I leave you to do your own investigation into that particular case and perhaps get back on what you find, then we could compare notes.”
Just did.
He also removed his false claim of being a member of the American Bar Association — only an attorney licensed to practice law in the U.S. can join the ABA. There are still plenty of false claims in Sky Dragon Slayer leader’s bio. Can you tell which ones?
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&authType=name&authToken=0rq9&locale=en_US&pvs=pp&trk=ppro_viewmore
I too hate humbugs – but I try to avoid inflicting pain unnecessarily on other forms of life, including spiders.
You say of John O’Sullivan “ .. he claimed to be the author of two articles on climate warming published in the National Review. Those articles turned out to be written by John O’Sullivan, all right – but the well-known John O’Sullivan who is the National Review’s editor-at-large. I would be happy to send these documents to anyone who asks — or else put them up on my web site and post the links here .. ”. If you can get your hands on a copy of the US version of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” you’ll see a reference to this in the “Author Biographies and Acknowledgements” section of the book on Page 356 under “John O’Sullivan (United Kingdom & United States)”.
In my comment of October 24, 2011 at 5:17 PM I mentioned that QUOTE: .. On the 29th/30th Sept. there were interesting exchanges with “Slayers” .. UNQUOTE. In those exchanges I said to John QUOTE: ..
“Slaying the Sky Dragon” says about you that “ .. In the U.S. his work is featured in the National Review .. Among other internationally-esteemed publications he has appeared in both the China Daily .. as well as India Times .. ”. Andrew Skolnick claims that you haven’t featured in the National Review and correctly pointed out that there is another John O’Sullivan featured there, the National Review’s well-known editor-at-large (http://old.nationalreview.com/jos/jos.asp).
On 4th July Gareth Renowden said of you (http://sciblogs.co.nz/hot-topic/tag/osullivan/) QUOTE: ..
John O’Sullivan has never had any article, major or otherwise, published in National Review or Forbes. National Review does have a writer called John O’Sullivan – .. their Editor-at-Large. Pressed to confirm his status as a writer for National Review .. O’Sullivan posted links to two articles written by the other John. Tasked with this apparent theft of another’s reputation, he resorted to bluster and attempts to change the subject.
.. China Daily .. and The India Times .. For O’Sullivan, “featuring” in China Daily means having someone post one of your articles in a discussion forum. The same is true for The India Times ..
his legal background .. He claims to have a law degree (LLB) and to have litigated in New York State courts and the US Federal 2nd Circuit. .. Does O’Sullivan really have any kind of legal training or background? .. Research by Andrew Skolnick discovered that a John O’Sullivan does appear to have obtained a law degree .. but it’s not Sky Dragon O’Sullivan.
What about his experience in the US courts? .. O’Sullivan had been involved in bringing a sexual harassment case against a former employer of his wife. This suit appears to have been a failure. .. He has recently joined the American Bar Association as an associate — but is not, and should not be claiming to be, a full member .. UNQUOTE (please read the complete article as I have cherry-picked in an effort to reduce turgidity)..
John, please can you once and for all shut up Andrew, Gareth and any other vile detractors by providing links to irrefutable evidence of your educational, academic and professional claims and telling us precisely which articles of yours featured in the National Review and which appeared in China Daily and The India Times. It is common practice for accredited academics to give full details of their achievements so why don’t you? In my opinion the information provided in Friend Re-united and Linked In doesn’t really adequately support the claims that you make elsewhere .. UNQUOTE.
As I had expected, in his response to that E-mail John ignored what I had said and moved on to other matters “ .. Peter, Forgive me, but your emails are becoming rambling and repetitive and I am frustrated at the time they are taking up. All your questions have already been asked and answered. By repeating them over again in slightly difference guise suggests to me you are seeking to coerce others into conforming with your own sensibilities on these issues. Rather than nitpick around the edges, I suggest you address the ‘meat’ of this debate which is the validity or otherwise of the science supporting the GHE.
In particular, I urge you and others to debate about Slayer science. I say this because currently on another thread many leading skeptics are currently in discussion with us on important matters in dispute regarding the GHE. Indeed, one very useful new development is that the Slayers have identified a major error in the understanding of adiabatic lapse rate by one of the most prominent skeptics. Keeping up to date with that thread is taking up a considerable amount of my time so you will understand that I will have to address my priorities accordingly .. ”.
As I have mentioned previously (October 23, 2011 at 6:10 pm) the CACC debate is a two-sided coin, the science and the politics. I’m sure that John has his reasons for wanting to steer clear of debating the political aspects, which were outlined in his Chapter 21 of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” then discussed in detail during the “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges in Dec./Jan. and in more recent exchanges. On the other hand I would love to have more discussions, particularly with potential “Slayer” Roger Sowell, about whom John said on 29th September “ .. Californian attorney Roger Sowell .. is in discussion with us as a potential new recruit, but his decision is pending because he is currently reviewing our Sky Dragon book.
In my comment of October 22, 2011 at 2:30 PM I talked about “Slaying the Sky Dragon” and Professor Curry’s comment that “ .. I am hoping that Johnson learns from this that if he wants his scientific arguments to be taken seriously, that publishing them in a politically motivated book does not help his credibility and does not motivate people to take his arguments seriously .. ”. I also quoted John’s strong objection to me suggesting a political motivation in the book. I subsequently gave my opinion of some of “Slaying the Sky Dragon”, including QUOTE: ..
Chapters 1 & 10 by Dr. Tim Ball were a big disappointment. It is declared in the “Author Biographies” that Dr. Ball “.. has an extensive science background in climatology .. ” yet I could find nothing of scientific significance in all of the 17,000+ words that he contributed. Of course, not being a scientist it is possible that I simply didn’t appreciate what scientific treasures he was revealing. If anyone can point out what I have missed then I’d appreciate it. One thing that I did notice is that the word “politics” or its derivatives appears 67 times.
Although John’s Chapter 21 hardly mentions politics it mentions “government” 28 times and that is in only 4000 words, which end with “ .. We offer this volume as evidence both to the U.S. government and other nations so they may act on the incontrovertible facts presented herein and conspicuously discard that mythical Sky Dragon once and for all from all policy considerations .. ” (see Page 352). That’s “politic” and “government” appearing 95 times in a book that ends with an appeal to national governments to change their policies yet is claimed not to be politically motivated. Please can someone (other than a “Slayer”) explain how Professor Curry and I are misleading ourselves .. UNQUOTE.
John’s response, to ignore the point and divert attention elsewhere (I think he might refer to it as “ .. stooping to ham-fisted bait and switch antics ..” – by first challenging Professor Curry with QUOTE: .. Pete, You made Dr. Curry your chosen thermodynamics expert and we have shown that is a poor choice by you. Indeed, somewhat inflamed, Dr Curry has rushed to counter our rebuttal that she is not well schooled in thermo by citing HER textbook “Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans.” .. UNQUOTE then turning the spotlight onto Professor Petty and Dr. Shore.
Regarding that case involving Thomas Neveu, I found similar to you elsewhere:
- Dec. 15, 2010 “Thomas Neveu of Dorchester, Mass., filed the counterclaim .. Neveu, who is representing himself in the litigation, charged in his 160-paragraph counterclaim that the Righthaven lawsuit against him was caused by a strategy by Stephens Media .. ” (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/dec/15/third-defendant-countersues-righthaven-stephens-me/) ,
- 1 October 2011 “ .. Neveu, representing himself .. ” (http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/oct/01/righthaven-stephens-media-eating-more-legal-costs-/).
None of those articles mentions any John O’Sullivan, however, you seem not to have contacted Mr Neveu at tom_neveu@comcast.net (http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2:2010cv01674/76457/42/)? I had a reply early this month from Mr Neveu which presented a glowing picture of the kind assistance that John had given him, for free. You commented QUOTE: .. Pete said: “I leave you to do your own investigation into that particular case and perhaps get back on what you find, then we could compare notes.” Just did UNQUOTE but maybe you should take your investigation a little further
For anyone engaged in the debate around the CACC hypothesis because they wish to learn something rather than just win an argument this must be one of the most educational debates that there are. We can lean not only about science, politics and finance but even the English language. What a lovely word Andrew used by as an alternative to “hypocrite, phony, phoney, pretender” (dictionary.die.net/dissembler). I must try hard to remember that one.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
http://www.aaskolnick.com/humbugs/screencapture_Garreth_5.26_7.43.jpg
http://www.aaskolnick.com/humbugs/screencapture_Garreth_5.26_7.11.jpg
And here are screen captures of the humbug’s 2 posts in reply, where he provided links to two climate articles written by John O’Sullivan — but not John “The Humbug” O’Sullivan. They were written by National Review’s well-known editor-at-large.
http://www.aaskolnick.com/humbugs/OSullivan_NationalReview_claim_email_screen_capture.jpg
http://www.aaskolnick.com/humbugs/OSullivan_NationalReview_claim_email_screen_capture2.jpg
As for my reference to “stepping on spiders” it was strictly metaphorical. I was once stopped by a rather odd old man as I was about to enter church where friends were getting married. The old codger said to me, “He prayeth best who loveth best all things both great and small.” I never forgot that lesson.
I don’t bother with little spiders who share my home. With the big ones, it’s strictly “catch and release.” Or sometimes I capture them and set them up in a comfy home for a while to be photographed. Like this guy (gal, actually):
ftp://aaskolni@www.aaskolnick.com/public_html/crabspider.jpg
I’d like to see that happen to Mr. O’Sullivan someday — you know captured, photographed holding a card with his name and numbers below his chin, and housed in a small but comfy cell.
The suit against Mr. Neveu was recently dismissed because a competency hearing and psychiatric examination found that he was too ill for the case to continue and the plaintiff agreed to withdraw the suit. I don’t think asking him needless questions at this time would be appropriate. It’s clear enough from the court record that O’Sullivan did not represent him.
Pete said, “I had a reply early this month from Mr Neveu which presented a glowing picture of the kind assistance that John had given him, for free.”
Oh, I’m sure, Just as sure as I am of the adage, you get what you pay for.
Funny thing about this great country Pete. You can give people all the legal advice you want if you’re not licensed to practice law — just as long as you don’t charge for it or claim to be an attorney. For example, I can advise Mr. O’Sullivan to turn himself in for making fraudulent claims. If I did that for a fee holding myself out to be an attorney, that would be illegal.
The bottom line is this: Despite his claims, John O’Sullivan does NOT appear to have a law degree. He claims he earned his law degree from the University of Surrey (back in June, he claimed it was from University College, Cork*) as the SAME time he was earning his art degree at another college! He is not licensed to practice law in New York State. He is not licensed to defend Tim Ball in Canadian courts. And he did not provide legal services to Mr. Neveu any more than I now provided O’Sullivan by suggesting he turn himself in.
*http://www.aaskolnick.com/humbugs/universitycollege_cork.jpg
I recall that you claimed several years ago that someone posted a comment allegedly from you and I too have been impersonated. If not then, in the spirit of transparency claimed to be so important to PSI, John really should clear this up once and for all. Until he does so and makes available the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails on the PSI web-site for review and discussion I find it hard to understand how anyone can feel comfortable about what motivated the “Slayers” to set up PSI.
I couldn’t get into the ftp://aaskolni@www.aaskolnick.com/public_html/crabspider.jpg page because a log-in was required.
As for the spiders, I was teasing just a little there, but what about trees having rights too?
On a more serious note, from where on earth did you get “ .. Pete says I should take my investigation of O’Sullivan’s claim to have successfully represented Tom Neveu in a Nevada Federal Court further .. ”? What I said was “ . maybe you should take your investigation a little further .. ”, by which I meant talking to Thomas Neveu direct, like I did. Please don’t start twisting my words again as I hate that sort of thing as much as I hate humbugs and dissemblers.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Nope. None at all. It was confirmed in a great many ways.
Not to mention that the real live Truth Slayer John is still falsely claiming to be the author of one or more articles published in the National Review — even though no one named John O’Sullivan authored any article in that magazine other than its well-known editor-at-large.
Talk about grasping at straws.
Have you heard the saying “ .. tarred with the same brush .. ”? As I pointed out to the “Slayers” on several occasions during the “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges, the actions of each and every one of them reflected on the group as a whole and all would need to be squeaky clean.
The first indications that I had of what were John O’Sullivan’s original plans for PSI were in his E-mail of 28th Dec to the core “Slayers”/PSI members (see Note) in which he said QUOTE: ..
we have enough evidence to force NOAA to either substantiate their claim or retract .. in my opinion, we would succeed if we compile our evidence and file a mandamus petition to challenge NOAA .. I am happy to work with one of my contacts in the DC area to file a mandamus in the federal court in D.C. on behalf of PSI. To do this we need to pay filing and court fees, paralegal costs land office expenses. A typical mandamus petition will ordinarily cost a client $3,000. If we can raise $3,000 I can set the legal wheels in motion. The legal skills and resources are at the ready so now the ball is in our court and that of our supporters to raise the $3,000.There is no fear of a counter suit so we cannot be sued for frivolous or malicious filing. This is as cheap a way to score a legal victory as I can suggest .. UNQUOTE.
Oliver Manuel and Tim Ball quickly jumped in with offers to contribute and Miso commented “ .. I am really glad that this is moving on, with a good chance that something may actually result from this legal action .. ”. Perhaps it was Miso’s comment that prompted John to issue his 30th Dec. E-mail declaration on “ .. Advancing Principia Scientific International as a Community Interest Company .. ” in which he said QUOTE ..
A Proposal for the Foundation of a Community Interest Company to Fund Legal Challenges Against Fraudulent Climate Science ..
After further deliberations among trusted legal and business advisers we have come up with the following additional proposals to ensure the integrity of our fledgling organization, Principia Scientific International (PSI) .. PSI’s function is to apply the law (in common law nations e.g. US, UK, Canada etc.) to defeat junk science e.g. by exposing fraudulent government funded temperature records in the courts (this has been achieved already in New Zealand .. by the application of a legal strategy I proposed last year ..
The legal strategy, applied so superbly applied by NZ barrister, Barry Brill to force NIWA to capitulate on its bogus “official” climate record has thus proven itself in one common law jurisdiction. We now need to apply it again around the globe. My legal associates and I are asking your support to help raise funds for our next objective: defeating NASA GISS, GHCN and NOAA in the federal court in Washington D.C.
As already agreed by many of us involved in this email discussion, what is needed is an effective fund raising strategy ..
UNQUOTE.
A few hours after that E-mail of John’s I started the exchanges about “PSI & Due Diligence” and expressed my reservations about what John had been proposing.
On 3rd Jan. I said “ .. Rather than funding, the far more important issue at this stage is how PSI can be best structured to achieve what John refers to as the “noble” objectives of this group. This must be done in a manner that provides minimal ammunition to supporters of “the doctrine” who will pull out all of the stops to cast suspicion on the integrity of each and every individual involved .. ”.
John came back with the suggestion that “ .. it is perhaps advisable that you now withdraw from further participation” to which I responded QUOTE: .. I think it might be more advisable from a personal point of view for me to continue participating in one way or another. I did not impose myself on this group. I was invited in and have only recently been made aware of PSI and what is planned for it. What concerns me (and may be of concern to others in this group) is the significance of the term “culpable by association” .. UNQUOTE.
The point that I was making there and continued to make to the “Slayers” during those “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges was that everyone involved with the “Slayers”/PSI would be affected by questionable activities by any one individual member. As the sayings go “You are judged by the company you keep” and “Mud sticks” (http://www.jackiekcooper.com/BIYTB/2008/BIYTB491.htm).
As for John’s fund-raising strategy to get PSI started, I never did get a response from the “Slayers” to my question on 25th January of why QUOTE: .. a group of 36 respected international scientists and related professionals. Mostly .. the authors of ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon,’ the world’s first full volume refutation of the greenhouse gas theory that was “the talk of the Cancun Climate Conference” .. UNQUOTE needed to beg for what amounts to a mere £417 each in order to set up “ .. the creation of the world’s first open to all, politics-free, generalist science association. .. ”.
(see my comment on the page where PSI made its appeal for charitable donations at http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s)
Regarding your suggestion that no-one cares about what really motivated the “Slayers” to form PSI, I’m sure that we can safely leave it to Professor Curry to tell me if she wants me to stop commenting about it.
NOTE:
Miso Alkalaj, Oliver Manuel, Martin Hertzberg, Tim Ball, Hans Schreuder, Joe Olson, Alan Siddons, Charles Anderson, Geraldo Lino, Ken Coffman and Phil Foster (I have no record of ever receiving any comment from Phil during those many “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails, which is surprising considering that he is the PSI Compliance Officer – compliance with what I wonder)
- plus Claes Johnson, Kent Clizbe, Cliff Saunders and me (I do not believe that any of these ever considered themselves to be core members of the “Slayers” or PSI.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
The “ .. ASSOCIATION OF PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL (A PRIVATE CONSORTIUM) .. ” boasts the motto “AD VERITAS AD VICTORIAM” (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association), roughly translated as “transparency leads to success”. That word “transparency” appears frequently in the PSI promotional pages but PSI’s “Slayers” seem very reluctant to be transparent about the original plans for PSI.
That page also makes unsubstantiated claims about “Slaying the Sky Dragon” then talks kindly of “ .. Prominent climate skeptic, Lord Monckton .. ” but Lord Monckton didn’t fare so well in the recent “PSI & Politics” exchanges.
On 8th Oct. during those E-mail exchanges with the “Slayers” and others I drew attention to an E-mail from Lord Monckton to Professor Curry in which he said “ .. It is exasperating that results easily demonstrable by simple laboratory experiment continue to be challenged by some members of this group. However superficially ingenious their arguments, they fly in the face of experiments that even children can perform with readily-available materials, as well as contradicting proven results in astrophysical theory. I do not propose to contribute further to this group: it is not a sensible deployment of my time .. ” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/04/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon-part-iii-discussion/).
At the same time I mentioned how Posma’s article “The Model Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect” has been thoroughly refuted on Professor Curry’s thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/16/postma-on-the-greenhouse-effect/) and on three threads by Chris Colose http://www.skepticalscience.com/postma-disproved-the-greenhouse-effect.htm, http://www.skepticalscience.com/Postma1.html & http://www.skepticalscience.com/Postma2.html).
I also said that QUOTE: .. Professor Curry correctly referred to “Slaying the Sky Dragon” as a “ .. politically motivated book .. ”, which is substantiated by John’s Chapter 21 and his original plans for PSI as described in the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails. John’s Chapter 21 provides a useful starting point. Let me know if anyone else wishes to follow that chapter through with me in conjunction with the “PSI & Due Diligence E-mails”. If not I’ll take the discussion elsewhere because in my opinion there will be others who wish to talk about it .. UNQUOTE.
John O’Sullivan responded by including Professor Curry, Professor Petty, Dr. Shore, Chris Colose (“ .. a mere STUDENT! .. who has already waved the white flag in this debate by putting his own blog into “retirement” .. ” as John put it in his imaginative style) and Lord Monckton in his disparaging comment “ .. Now you have also added professors Petty and Shore to your motley array of experts .. Like the others, Petty and Shore appear just as patently less skilled in those ‘hard’ sciences (e.g. .. Colose: a student). .. Your appeal to the less qualified authorities of Lord Monckton (a journalist) and Judith Curry (a geographer who admits little training, if any, in thermodynamics) only serves to further weaken your case (simply an unscientific appeal to authority rather than science) when laid alongside the scientific, engineering and mathematical credentials of the authors and supporters of the Slayers ( 23 with PhD’s) .. ”.
John also took exception to my agreeing with Professor Curry’s comment about the book being politically motivated but distorted what I had said with his QUOTE: .. You call our book “politically motivated” – please elucidate as to what politics it supports .. So what do you guess “politically motivated” us then Peter, being that you’ve not even read the book? .. UNQUOTE.
(It was at this point that Professor Petty started his “John O’Sullivan’s specious claims” thread)
The PSI promotional material now insists that “ .. PSI is not formed for political purposes, and shall not engage in political activities .. ” but prior to that does say “ .. PSI aims to restore the image of the vast majority of scientists by proactively applying viable strategies (e.g. .. and pursuing legal remedies as a last resort) .. ”. In my opinion John O’Sullivan’s Chapter 21 of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” and the “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges in Dec./Jan paint a completely different picture to a “last resort” use of “legal remedies”. As I told you earlier (October 22nd at 2:30 PM & 23rd at 6:10 PM NOT TO BE SENT) John had declared (on 28th December @ 9:38 PM NOT TO BE SENT) “ .. I’ve staked my reputation, sweat and own money on beating the AGW fraud in the courts-its the ONLY SERIOUS GAME IN TOWN .. ” (my emphasis added).
I wonder if we will ever hear anything on this from US attorney Roger Sowell, of whom John said on 29th September “ .. is in discussion with us as a potential new recruit, but his decision is pending because he is currently reviewing our Sky Dragon book .. ”.
As far as I am aware Roger (an engineer as well as an attorney) has been silent on this issue since rejecting the argument of the “Slayers” about a colder body being unable to radiate energy to a warmer body. In that 12th October E-mail in the “John O’Sullivan’s specious claims” thread Roger said QUOTE: .. Now, to Mr. Ridley, to further answer your question, yes, I am still digesting and investigating the claims made in Chapter 21, Legal Fallout from False Climate Alarm. I will give my analysis on that at some later time. I am not familiar with the other issue, “PSI U & Due Diligence emails”. Perhaps I’ve missed them in the incredible volume of emails that was generated by the simple question of thermal radiation .. UNQUOTE.
I immediately forwarded to Roger and the rest of those involved in the thread an updated version of my Word document with 55 pages of those “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails but haven’t heard from him since. Maybe after reading through those E-mails he too, like Professor Johnson (and others?) has decided to dissociate himself from the “Slayers” and their (unorthodox?)-science association PSI.
I heard a beautiful expression today when a BBC news presenter said of the “rent-a-crowd” demonstrators outside St. Paul’s Cathedral in London “ .. with their disparate agenda they have come together behind a common cause .. ”. This could describe the “Slayers”, who are claiming to have the common cause of “ .. to bring into being a new general international science association to uphold the interests of all scientists around the world supportive of the traditional scientific method and opposed to the pervasive rise of what is widely termed ‘post-normal’ science .. PSI promotes scientists who steadfastly adhere to the Scientific Method as well as individuals seeking to expose corruption in science. To better stem the rise of perceived mendaciousness in the profession PSI commits itself to advancing the formal creation of a new concept: open online peer-to-peer review. We believe such real time transparent assessment of the latest scientific findings will become the new ‘gold standard’ of peer review to replace the secretive ‘buddy review’ system identified as being at the root of the malaise within modern science .. ” – a noble cause indeed, as declared by John on 2nd Jan. when saying of the “Slayers” “ .. we explicitly agree to serve a noble cause- to uphold the English Scientific Method and expose junk science and fraud .. ”!
I think that it would be interesting to take a look at what might be the real agenda motivating each of the original “Slayers” to support John’s proposals for setting up PSI rather than joining more established sceptical organisations and what might motivate others to join an insignificant organisation like PSI.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
You probably are aware that O’Sullivan’s lies are finally catching up to him. A few days ago, his writing gig at Suite101.com was terminated and the 60 or so error- and libel-filled articles he wrote for them during the past two years were deleted. He’s blaming this on censorship. I think it may have more to do with Suite101.com editors’ discovering his bio was full of lies — like claiming to be a member of the American Bar Association, being a “legal consultant for Pearlman Lindholm,” publishing articles in National Review and Forbes magazines, and having “successfully litigated for over a decade in New York State and Federal 2nd Circuit courts.”
Isn’t it time to delete the bogus claim from all your promotional materials that the Sky Dragon Slayer leader has “successfully litigated for over a decade in the New York State courts and U.S. federal 2nd circuit?”
I know, I know, you “like his ideas.” You prefer to associate with a person whose ideas are acceptable to you despite his utter lack of professional and personal integrity. That tells us all we need to know about your own integrity.
Absorption of EM radiation Molecular absorption processes” (http://www.geo.mtu.edu/~scarn/teaching/GE4250/absorption_lecture.pdf) which also makes the point relating to the term “thermal radiation” (which Bryan is so keen on) that “Absorption of visible light causes heating”.
The first of these opinions is that there is no justification for John O’Sullivan’s claim that QUOTE: .. Principia Scientific International (PSI) was conceived after 22 international climate experts and authors joined forces to write the climate science bestseller, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.’ .. UNQUOTE (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association). It’s those bits about there being “ .. international climate experts .. ” involved in writing a “climate science best seller” that I remain unconvinced about.
First let’s look at the core “Slayers” and PSI Founding Members, John O’Sullivan, Hans Schreuder and Joseph Olson (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association) but in a somewhat less promotional manner than is evident on the PSI Web-pages.
John O’Sullivan, “Slayer” project leader and PSI CEO:
A self-aggrandising individual who appears to have attempted to build a career in a string of different disciplines during the past three decades, including school teacher, fiction writer, (self?)-publishing and (self?)-promotions but has had scant success in any. His main claim to fame appears to have been “ .. to be ranked second in the UK for indoor machine rowing .. ” (http://www.friendsreunited.co.uk/JohnOSullivan) although I have been unable to find confirmation of this.
Andrew Skolnick and Gareth Reneowden (http://hot-topic.co.nz/so-many-lies-and-the-liar-who-tells-them/) have spent considerable time researching this “Slayer” and Andrew reported his findings in earlier comments here (e.g. October 15, 2011 at 3:13 pm and October 25, 2011 at 1:33 am) and elsewhere. I too have provided information on John in relation to his PSI project so leave it to anyone who is interested to search for more information.
Hans Schreuder, “Slayer” and PSI CFO:
Nothing much can be found about Hans to justify John’s claims about international climate experts. He’s a retired analytical chemist who’s only claims to fame seems to be that he runs his own “ILoveMyCarbon” blog, co-authored Slaying the Sky Dragon and helped John to set up PSI. On 1st Jan John said “ .. Most of my conversations about a vision for PSI have been with Hans Schreuder and Joe Olson .. ” (see NOTE below). Hans claimed on 8th Jan that “ .. My sixth sense has yet to be proven wrong .. ” so perhaps that is how he makes decisions, including those about climate science. Perhaps it was Hans’s sixth sense that played a major role in helping John formulate his ludicrous plans for PSI as a CIC during 2010.
Joseph A Olson, “Slayer” and PSI Founding Member & Stakeholder:
“ .. author is a Registered Engineer involved in construction, who has a lifelong commitment to functional mass transit and to vast improvements in auto efficiency and safety, and is also opposed to political manipulation thru FALSE SCIENCE. .. ” (http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/attachment.php?aid=284).
The presenters of a Dec 13, 1989, KPRC TV, Nitecast with Ron Stone “Houston 2000 News Release” described Joe perfectly “ .. Just an ordinary guy with some extraordinary ideas .. when Olson thinks big he rally thinks big, but does anybody care .. the dreamers of this world have long been ignored .. Joe Olson is still dreaming .. whether anyone listens or not .. ” (www.fauxscienceslayer.com/video/Olson.wmv). Those comments are as valid today as they were 22 years ago.
Semi-retired Engineer Joe is nicely summed up in his own words “ .. This has been a labor of love, freely given to humanity, that we might rescue humanity from the grips of elitist slavery. To date I have not received and financial return from this investment. That may change, for in July 2010 I was invited to be co-author of Slaying the Sky Dragon, the definitive Earth science text of the 21st century. I wish to thank my fellow Slayers and pray that you join us in educating and freeing science and our blessed human family .. ” (http://fauxscienceslayer.com/pdf/author.pdf). Note that mention of a possible financial return through his association with the “Slayers”.
Among Joe’s strong convictions is one that our different global climates are driven by geo-nuclear energy.
I have seen no evidence to refute what was said of Joe in a comment on 17th July 2009 at 12:31 am “ “Joseph A Olson is an Engineer, not a Climatologist. He’s not even a scientist. He works in construction. He has never published a peer reviewed article on ANY scientific subject. He is prone to getting into childish spitting contests. His use of highly partisan and inflammatory language undermines any pretense of credibility he puts forth. Olson is politically motivated, often allowing his emotions to seep into his pseudo-scientific articles” (http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=127).
Joe is another of the “Slayers” who seems to believe, like John O’Sullivan, that they are a group of noteworthy climate scientists. He did confirm one guess of mine, that John had designed the over-the-top cover for ”Slaying the Sky Dragon” (http://audiofarm.org/audiofiles/14845 at 08:50 mins)
I’ll take a look at the rest of the original “Slayers” Martin Hertzberg, Alan Siddons, Charles Anderson, Claes Johnson and Tim Ball later, then mention a few of the others involved in the Dec./Jan. “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges.
NOTE: In that E-mail of 1st Jan. from my “PSI & Due Diligence” folder John said QUOTE: ..
We realize that the UK govt will not permit us to set up a charity for the express purpose of suing government agencies. It’s a non starter really. Moreover, I’m highly skeptical that we could put together such a large team of experts (scientists, lawyers and media specialists) willing to give up so much time unpaid under the non-paying constraints of charitable status. Personally, I’m barely scraping by financially as I’ve spent the last year working on skeptic advocacy full-time, unpaid. I cannot maintain my current level of commitment without some kind of financial remuneration ( especially now that the UK govt has raised tuition fees so drastically and I’ve 2 ambitious teenagers keen to go to university).
For clarification – if we set up as a CIC we serve a distinct community: scientists and related professionals. (At the bottom of this email there is a current draft why we think PSI should be a CIC).
Suing corrupt govt science agencies is something we know we must do but it cannot be an express aim when applying to set up either as a charity or a CIC .. UNQUOTE
then went on to describe his proposed structure for PSI as a CIC. That final sentence summarises John’s original plans for PSI. If anyone would like a copy of my Word document of “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails then let me know.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
In the meantime, here is the reply I received Friday from Mr. Michael Scherr, who is the attorney representing Tim Ball before the Supreme Court of British Columbia:
Dear Mr. Skolnick
I have never said that Mr. O’Sullivan was working for or engaged by Pearlman Lindholm. What I can confirm is that Mr. O’Sullivan was engaged by my client to provide consultation regarding the lawsuits and he did so. Further, that this relationship has been terminated. I further confirm that he claimed to be an attorney.
Michael R. Scherr
Pearlman Lindholm
The Law Society of British Columbia is not going to discipline Mr. Scherr on the basis that he was not a knowing-party of John O’Sullivan’s misconduct.
In his reply to the law society, Mr. Scherr said his firm “did not engage Mr. O’Sullivan to provide any services to our firm,” and that he was “not aware that Mr. O’Sullivan was representing himself as a lawyer representing Dr. Ball in these actions.”
Back in September during exchanges with Professor Grant Petty, Dr. John Nicols, Roger Taguchi, Colin Davidson, Chris Colose, “Slayers” Alan Sidons, Martin Hertzberg, , “Back Radiation & The Greenhouse Effect” I drew attention to Alan Siddons’s Chapter 4 in “Slaying the Sky Dragon”. There followed a discussion about the cause of the atmospheric lapse rate which suggested that not all of those who support the CACC hypothesis claim that the 33C additional warmth at the Earth’s surface is due to the Greenhouse Effect. Here are extracts from a couple of those E-mails that illustrate the point, first one from Professor Petty QUOTE ..
The dry adiabatic lapse rate gives the maximum lapse rate that can persist in the atmosphere without the onset of spontaneous convective overturning. Such overturning drives the lapse rate back toward the adiabatic lapse rate. In fact, if you put atmosphere through a blender, and if there were no moisture (and therefore no condensation), then you would get an atmosphere that exhibits exactly the dry adiabatic lapse rate.
The effect of radiative cooling from the top of the atmosphere and of heating from below by the sun-warmed surface is to TRY to make the lapse rate VERY steep. But it can only steepen to the point where convective overturning begins, so the actual lapse rate is limited to the dry adiabatic value. In short, it’s the radiation that forces the temperature to decrease with height; it’s the adiabatic lapse rate that LIMITS how sharp that decrease can become.
Throw in moisture and things get complicated, because when condensation takes place, it’s the moist adiabatic lapse rate rather than the dry one that prevails. That’s why the Earth’s lapse rate averages around 6.5 K/km rather than the dry adiabatic value of 9.8 K/km.
I don’t know much about the details of temperature profiles on other planets, but presumably the same basic principle applies, with minor differences in the value of the respective lapse rate. Jupiter, by the way, as an unusual internal heat source, so solar radiation is not the sole contributor to the energy budget.
UNQUOTE
Next an extract from my later E-mail MAINQUOTE:
Professor Josh Halpern – one of Chris’s co-authors in their attempt to refute the paper ‘Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics’ by Gerlich & Tscheuschner (http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/03/new-peer-reviewed-study-falsification-of-the-atmospheric-co2-greenhouse-effects-within-the-frame-of-physics-by-gerlich-tscheuschner/) – had a short item on this in his “The very dry, very adiabatic lapse rate” article” in which he says (http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/05/very-dry-very-adiabatic-lapse-rate.html) QUOTE:
.. The surface temperature is fixed by a radiation balance between incoming solar and out and incoming IR. The second, colder endpoint is some place up there where something else happens to break the adiabatic condition, for example ozone absorption starting to kick in at the top of the Earth’s troposphere. For a planet with an atmosphere and no greenhouse gases, pretty much the temperature of space.
That leaves gas rarification/compression driven by gravitation as the mechanism for setting the atmospheric temperature profile. It is not saying that radiative energy flow is negligible, just that it is balanced .. UNQUOTE.
That last bit suggests to me that Professor Halpern agrees with Alan and Roger that the lapse rate is set by the adiabatic lapse rate for the dominant atmospheric gases (whatever the planet), regardless of greenhouse gases. Professor Halpern talks about the radiation balance into and out of the earth, not about the radiation from greenhouse gases (although that has an effect upon the total radiation to space, hence upon the lapse rate).
That brings us back to “Slayer” Alan Siddons’ question about the turning point in the temperature profile at 0.1bar not only in our atmosphere but in those of Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus and even Titian (but are the diagrams that he provides simply computer predictions rather than actual measurements?) ..
MAINUNQUOTE (sorry about any confusion caused by the nested QUOTEs).
Regarding your attempted clarification of how Cp is “ .. a bulk property summing up all the various relevant thermodynamic processes. Since air contains traces of CO2 it will also represent any radiative properties as it affects the bulk properties of air .. ” I don’t see how this is of any help when considering only the process of energy transfer by radiation.
On the much more interesting issue of “PSI & Politics” you say in relation to the “Slayers” that “ .. Both yourself and Andrew Skolnick .. have made serious allegations of fraud .. The laws of libel seem only to serve the very rich .. ”. Please would you be good enough to provide a link to anywhere that I have alleged that any of the “Slayers” have committed fraud.
I had related discussions with John O’Sullivan in mid-January during the “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges.
On 12th I had sent a 4-page note to the “Slayers” expressing my reservations about trying to set up PSI as a CIC. That note included comments about likely action by those who might perceive PSI as a threat to the CACC hypothesis. One of the possible lines of attack could be trying to link PSI to a John O’Sullivan closely associated with QUOTE: .. that reviled political party the British Nationalist Party. The PSI executive elect can be linked with the UK’s far right BNP – see http://www.climategate.com/uk-independence-party-leaders-tell-it-like-it-is) and http://renegadeconservatoryguy.co.uk/tag/john-osullivan/. .. Can you assure the group that you will be able to refute immediately that you have not nor ever had any connection with Legal Action, the UK’s BNP or with Kevin Gregory (http://liveraf.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/the-impecunious-mr-griffin-the-strange-world-of-the-british-national-party-leader%E2%80%99s-legal-team/)? .. If our opponents can provide a convincing argument which cannot be convincingly refuted quickly then I believe that the credibility of PSI as a CIC, or even as a charity, and the group as a whole could be badly damaged .. UNQUOTE.
I followed this up on 14th with an 8-page statement covering “ .. I believe that trying to set up PSI as a CIC would fail and here’s why .. ”.
John’s response on 15th included “ .. 3. PERSONAL SLURS ARE ACTIONABLE UNDER LIBEL LAWS
Pete is concerned that PSI founders may be maligned due to our associations with ‘disreputable’ third parties. Pete further maligns me for doing my job as a science writer and legal commentator as if this would bar me from being a director of PSI.
He insinuates that I am a member of a racist organisation. For the record, I’m not the ‘John O’Sullivan’ associated with the BNP. Indeed, by contrast I hold libertarian sympathies. But I am not associated with the US Libertarian Party or any political party.
To slur me in that way, or PSI, once it is formed as a legal entity, constitutes defamation and is thus actionable under law. Thus, neither PSI nor I need fear direct personal attack .. ”.
As I explained to John in a follow-up E-mail on 15th “ .. I have not intentionally accused any third party of being ‘disreputable’ and if anyone can point me to where they think that I have done so then I will be happy to rewrite what was said in order to clarify and will apologise if necessary.
I have not deliberately maligned any of you about anything so if you consider that I have then please point me to it and again I’ll be happy to rewrite what was said in order to clarify and again apologise .. ”. No-one pointed to anything that I had said that warranted an apology and I do not expect that you can either.
You end by saying “ .. The three papers by Postma are in my opinion a valuable contribution to the climate debate PSI made publication of these papers possible so if you believe in honest debate you should regard this as a ‘good thing’ .. ”. This suggests that you believe that Postma’s papers could not have been published elsewhere – nonsense, there are numerous more established places where he could publish. As I pointed out to the “Slayers” in my E-mail on 12th Jan. “ .. is there to believe that PSI would succeed where others have failed (and are failing). It has no recognised status as a dependable scientific publishing house. How would it be seen any differently than Lyndon LaRouche’s EIR News Service Inc. and his 21st Century Science & Technology, .. ”.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
- “ .. He is currently a paid consultant to Dr. Tim Ball .. ” (on the PSI “Principles of Association” page – http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association is substantiated ,
- to having been “ .. Appointed Consultant for Canadian law firm, Pearlman Lindholm .. Working, Pearlman Lindholm . ” (on his Friends Re-United page – http://www.friendsreunited.co.uk/JohnOSullivan at 2011-11-09) is false.
- to being “ .. Legal Consultant at Pearlman Lindholm .. As of April 2011 I have been engaged by Vancouver law firm, Pearlman Lindholm as Legal Consultant to advise on matters relating to libel suits involving prominent international climatologist, Dr Timothy Ball .. ” (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/ at 2011- 09-29) was false.
The Law Society of British Columbia’s Ruth Long, Staff Lawyer, Professional Conduct did say “ .. There is no evidence that Mr Scherr .. was responsible for the false assertions published by Mr. O’Sullivan .. ”.
In his 2011- 09-29 LinkedIn entry John also claimed to be “ .. a member of the American Bar Association .. ” which is not strictly true because he appears to be simply an associate member, which I understand is open to anyone who is prepared to pay the annual fee, regardless of qualifications.
Of course it is possible that there has been some misunderstanding. It is my opinion that, in the spirit of transparency (claimed to be so important to PSI) and in order to protect the integrity of all the “Slayers” associated with that organisation, it behoves John to explain how those apparent misrepresentations have come about. Over to you John.
Several of the comments in that letter relate to what I have been discussing with the “Slayers” during September (see my comment of 24th October at 5:17 pm) when Tim Ball and John talked about your activities regarding the BC Law Society and your “ .. unsolicited correspondence .. ” regarding Michael Mann’s and Andrew Weaver’s lawyer, Roger McConchie. Have you any comment to make about those? and once again, are you minded to tell us what your involvement with those libel cases is?
That item about “Soliciting of Funds” to help fund Tim Ball’s defence was also discussed in those exchanges with the “Slayers” and others. In his “PSI, charity v CIC v private company status & Due Diligence” Email of 27th May John had claimed that “ .. Part of helping Tim defend himself .. has been in raising funds via public donations .. Dr. Ball’s supporters have .. donated well over $100,000CAD already in just a few weeks .. ”. I asked on 30th Sept “ .. John, if, as you confidently predict, Dr. Mann loses his claim is Dr. Ball likely to get his costs paid (as well as perhaps getting substantial damages)? If so, what will happen to those funds donated towards the costs of him defending it? Those contributions cannot reasonably be considered as contributions to the PSI start-up fund, can they.
(Dr. Ball, are you prepared to let us know how you would propose to dispose of any surplus donations from that appeal if you recover your costs from Dr. Mann)? .. ”.
As I said on 25th October John’s response was “ .. All your questions have already been asked and answered .. ” which they hadn’t. Transparency does not appear to be as important to the “Slayers” as is claimed on the PSI promotional pages.
If, as is stated by Mr Scherr, Tim Ball’s defence “ ..will cost several hundred thousand dollars .. ” and Tim Ball loses then I wonder where the shortfall will come from. Perhaps there’ll be another “gofundme” appeal for charitable donations.
BTW, those are interesting exchanges that you are having with the Rogue political analyst and opinion-editorialist at http://rogueoperator.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/envirocensors-hide-explosive-japanese-satellite-data/. Rogue doesn’t seem to appreciate that once a person is caught out distorting the facts everything else that he/she utters becomes suspect, as do the utterances of associates. After all, aren’t we often judged by the company that we keep?
Best regards, Pete Ridley
You picked up on my mention of being judged by the company we keep and I’d like to pursue that a bit more along with my opinions on what motivates the “Slayers”. Professor Claes Johnson, who is next on my list of “Slayers”, has decided to dissociate himself from them and talked about this during E-mail exchanges in Oct. In her “PSI & Politics” E-mail of 9th October (@ 14:52 NOT TO BE SENT) Professor Curry said of Professor Johnson “ .. His credibility in the science community is severely diminished by engaging with this group .. ” and I can’t disagree with that. Although the “Slayers” continue to present Professor Johnson as a stakeholder in PSI this seems not to be the case, because Professor Johnson replied (9th Oct @ 15:51 NOT TO BE SENT) that “ .. I am no longer a Slayer, if I ever was .. ”.
Professor Johnson is a respected mathematician who has earned a prestigious position with the highly respected Swedish institution the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm but he appears to be looking for more. Considering his numerous musings about things like “The Equivalence Principle”, “Mach’s Principle and Mystery of a Rotating Universe”, “Soul as Simulation of Body” etc. (e.g. see http://knol.google.com/k/does-the-earth-rotate#The_SI_Standard_of_Length_as_Lightsecond) perhaps he has an eye on a Nobel Prize. That begs the question of why he became involved with the “Slayers” in the first place?
An possible explanation was provided by John O’Sullivan when he said “ .. I’m highly skeptical that we could put together such a large team of experts (scientists, lawyers and media specialists) willing to give up so much time unpaid .. ” (my comment of 4th November at 4:08 pm NOT TO BE SENT), “ .. The directors can be paid .. we wish to be paid .. ” (my comment of 7th November at 4:22 pm NOT TO BE SENT). Professor Johnson also indicated his interest in money when he said in the “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges on 18 January (at 9:13 NOT TOO BE SENT) “ .. Hi John: I see that you are already asking for money .. before we have even agreed on what PSI is supposed to be, in particular on the behalf of me as one in the group of people you are referring to. Is this the way it is supposed work? What will this money be used for? Will I get some money to spend on what? .. ”.
Then again , maybe I am being unkind to suggest that money was a motivator for Professor Johnson. I wonder if anyone else can provide a more reasonable explanation.
Another individual who has been closely involved with the Slayers since at least July 2010 is Piers Corbyn, of WeatherAction (http://www.weatheraction.com/). I mentioned Piers and his appearance at Climate Fools Day 2011 in my comment of 31st October (at 5:13 pm NOT TO BE SENT) and yesterday I tried to post a comment on his “Climate Fools Day! 2011 – REPORT” thread (http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=391&c=5). Piers’s take on the event was just the opposite of mine because he claims it to have been “ .. a great success .. ” whereas I saw it as being a flop.
It was the opening comments by and body language of the Climate Fools Day 2011 Chairman which made me conclude that it was a flop. He said that ” .. our aim, one of the main ones anyway, is to try and get the Climate Act repealed. For that we need MPs to be here and that’s the reason for coming here and I’m not sure that we have any here. I think probably not .. ” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGVzZvX4J6U from 15 – 40 secs).
In the comment that I tried to post on Piers’s thread I tried to explain my reaction but Piers refused to post it and instead sent me an E-mail of complaint. I have told Piers that I propose to post the content of his E-mail and my response to it but have given him time to come back to me with any objections that he may have. Meanwhile, here is what I said in my submission to his thread.
QUOTE: ..
If that A/V presents the 2011 Climate Fools Day highlights then I’m pleased that I didn’t waste time attending. Comments and body language from Chairman Graham Capper (20-40 secs) say it all. The 2010 event included a presentation to you of a $10,000 ” .. Award for Scientific Integrity and Competence” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/oct/25/climate-fools-day-sceptics-parliament which provides a useful description of that PSI extravaganza) but I’ve heard no mention of one this year. Maybe sales of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” were significantly less that expected.
John O’Sullivan claimed “ .. in Parliament we put evidence .. ” but there’s a big difference between using a committee room and putting evidence in Parliament.
Anyone wanting more about the “Slayers” can read Andrew Skolnick’s and my comments on Judith Curry’s thread at http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/.
BTW, have you, like Claes Johnson, dissociated yourself from the “Slayers”/PSI?
UNQUOTE.
(Andrew, I hope that you and others can see clearly who said what there).
I had thought of popping along to the Climate Fools Day 2011 event in order to at last meet some of those “Slayers” and perhaps ask a few questions during Q&A. As it turns out as far as I could tell the only ones in attendance who had been involved in the “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges were Piers and Philip Foster.
Just after the 2010 extravaganza John had boasted on Russia Today that “ .. We are looking at corruption issues that are not made known to the public. Today in Parliament we put evidence to parliamentarians .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/media-centre/113-rt-qcracking-the-climate-fraud-wide-openq-john-osullivan, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24aEw7f1Xuc and elsewhere starting @ 20 secs.). As I said to Piers, there is a big difference between making use of a committee room and putting evidence in Parliament, but John is well known for exaggerating.
Last year’s event was covered in “Cabal of climate sceptics to descend on UK parliament” by Leo Hickman (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/oct/25/climate-fools-day-sceptics-parliament) which makes for interesting reading.
You say that John has blamed the removal of his articles from Suite101 on censorship so perhaps he should have a chat to Piers about how wrong it is to censor just because you don’t like the message. After all, the open exchange of differing views is essential to the resolution of contentious issues.
I’ll let you know what those exchanges were between Piers and me in a day or two, depending upon whether or not Piers objects to anything.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Until Professor Curry asks that I stop posting my comments about the “Slayers” then I shall continue. My comment to Bryan on 8th November (at 2:39 am) that “ .. If my .. long posts about the internal organisational workings of the PSI do not interest .. you then simply don’t read them .. ” applies.
Thanks for the link to John O’Sullivan’s opinion that “Canada Bar Association Rules ‘No Misconduct’ by Tim Ball’s Legal Team”. Although John claims that “ .. The LSBC finding vindicates what I have always publicly stated about myself in my website biography on Suite101. .. ” it does not appear to vindicate what he said of himself on his Friends Re-United page – http://www.friendsreunited.co.uk/JohnOSullivan at 2011-11-09 or on his LinkedIn page – http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/ at 2011- 09-29 about being apponted/engaged as a Legal Consultant for/to “ .. law firm, Pearlman Lindholm .. ” (see my comment 9th November at 5:38 pm).
In my opinion that claim does need clearing up by John because, as I said on 9th Nov. the The Law Society of British Columbia’s Ruth Long, Staff Lawyer, Professional Conduct did say “ .. There is no evidence that Mr Scherr .. was responsible for the false assertions published by Mr. O’Sullivan .. ”.
Neither does it appear that the LSBC’s finding vindicates John’s claim on his Suite101 biography at 13th June 2010 that “ .. In the U.S. his work features in the ‘National Review .. ”. This is another claim about which there appears to be some dispute, because, as Andrew has said here on several occasions, the National Review’s Editor at Large John O’Sullivan is not “Slayer” John O’Sulllivan (http://old.nationalreview.com/jos/jos.asp).
Your “ . ASSkolnick’s apparently malicious intervention in the case .. ” would appear to be an unfounded opinion based upon a misinterpretation of the facts. As Andrew said (9th November at 10:50 pm ) “ .. If you’re asking me if I’m involved in any way with Dr. Mann’s and Dr. Weaver’s law suits, the answer is no. I have no involvement whatsoever with them or their law suits. I don’t know either scientist and I’ve never communicated with either of them. But I have communicated with the lawyers for all three litigants to obtain information and comments .. ”. Do you have evidence to show that Andrew was lying? Because if not then I think that you owe him an apology or you may end up in a libel action.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete, not only has Dr. Curry not objected to discussing the integrity of Mr. O’Sullivan and his fellow Sky Dragon Slayers, she has stated that examining the integrity of scientists involved in these affairs (as well as science writers) is indeed appropriate.
The Slayers and their defenders would have you believe it’s only appropriate to question the honesty of climatologists, never their accusers. They clearly live in their own little world, where they think they need to look up to see down. No wonder it’s so easy to trip them up.
I understand that Professor Curry (and I’m sure that she’ll correct me if I am mistaken) was referring to the recent exchanges with the “Slayers” that included numerous E-mails on the subjects of “PSI & Politics” and “John O’Sullivan’s specious claims”.
I have no interest in making a “ .. return to the science and for instance point out any serious flaws in the three Postma papers .. ” because I prefer providing some transparency about what motivates the “Slayers” to set up PSI. I get the impression from her opening statement “ .. A letter from Grant Petty provides a fitting finale to our engagement with the skydragons .. ” that Professor Curry also has no wish to continue debating the unorthodox science that the “Slayers” insist on pushing. After all, she has been very patient and allowed significant debate to take place on her blog and has been in receipt of virtually all of the E-mails that have been exchanged during the past couple of months. I can understand her desire to concentrate on more productive activities.
Anyone who wishes to discuss the Postma papers should be able to do so on the PSI blog although, if the censorship of my comment (see my comment of 10th November at 5:08 pm) on the blog of Piers Corbyn (a highly valued contributor to the “Slayers” team – see below) is anything to go by, anyone who disagrees with Postma will get short shrift.
Talking about Piers, he hasn’t raised any objection to me posting his E-mail in response to my comment so here it is
QUOTE: ..
Mr Ridley
1. Graham Capper was extremely ill with pneomonia until recently and I find your remarks about his demenour disrespectful and inappropriate.
2. Last year’s “$10k” was in fact “$10k of which we are giving $9k to our own things and you can have $1k” and note this was before the Slayer’s book in which I was not involved. Your remarks on this are nothing to do with CFD 2011.
UNQUOTE.
I have told Piers that I was not privy to information about Graham Capper’s recent medical history but hope that he is improving. I wasn’t commenting on that but on his words and body language when saying ” .. our aim, one of the main ones anyway, is to try and get the Climate Act repealed. For that we need MPs to be here and that’s the reason for coming here and I’m not sure that we have any here. I think probably not .. ” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGVzZvX4J6U from 15 – 40 secs). It appears that there were only about 20 people in the audience, none of whom were MP’s, so I asked Piers to explain how ” .. Climate Fools Day! 2011 was a great success. .. ” (http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=391&c=5).
Piers said that his receipt of the $10,000 ” .. was before the Slayer’s book in which I was not involved .. “. He may not have been involved in the Slayers’ book but he was certainly involved in the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mail exchanges in Dec/Jan. and in the recent “PSI & Politics” and “John O’Sullivan’s specious claims” exchanges in May, Sept and Oct. As he should know, on 29 Sep John O’Sullivan stated that ” .. I can say that currently the most active/influential members of the Slayers team are Hans Schreuder, Alan Siddons, Joe Olson, Joe Postma, Dr Nasif Nahle, Dr Tim Ball, Dr Martin Hertzberg, Derek Alker, plus our publishers, Ken Coffman and Philip Foster .. Other highly valued contributors include .. Piers Corbyn .. “.
Not only that but he was also involved with John and the other Slayers back in July 2010 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/co2isplantfood/message/279).
I have asked Piers if he, like Professor Claes Johnson, is now trying to dissociate himself from the “Slayers”. I can understand why he might wish to do that but I expect that he, like Professor Johnson, is going to find it rather difficult. Are we not all judged by the company that we keep?
Piers should also recall John saying on 2nd January that ” .. As a CIC we may, for example, give a loan or a grant to Piers Corbyn to advance both the science of long-range weather forecasting and help Piers expand a business that has boundless potential but which is much maligned by the advocates of junk science principles .. “. In his 20th Feb. article “British Weather Guru Labels Met Office as Evil Dictator of Science” (http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/31163.html) John O’Sullivan heaped praised on Piers and mentioned “ .. In acknowledgement of his astonishing achievements 2010 ended as an award-winning year for Corbyn as he scooped the Stairways Press Ernst-Georg Beck Award plus a check for $10,000 .. ”. There was no mention in that article about Piers only getting $1k of it so I do believe that Piers should clarify who it was that said “ .. of which we are giving $9k to our own things and you can have $1k”.
I have told Piers that I am posting on this thread my opinions on the motivations of the “Slayers” and that it appears to me that he too may have a financial motive. Hopefully he’ll drop by and have a chat, especially about that $10k award and about his present relationship with the “Slayers”. Come on Piers, don’t be shy.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Anyone who doubts SDS leader John O’Sullivan is promoting his and Ken’s book, himself, his group, and his company, and his fund raising efforts with lies and false credentials, should see for themselves. One thing they can do is call the membership office of the New York County Lawyers Association. Tell them that you verify the membership of a lawyer whose online bios claim he is a member.
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&authType=name&authToken=0rq9&locale=en_US&pvs=pp&trk=ppro_viewmore
If needed, Mr. O’Sullivan’s middle initial is “A.”
NYCLA membership office: (212) 267-6646, ext. 212.
Then get back to us.
I’ve put a comment on that article letting “ .. all who know (him there) on Friends Reunited .. ” that they may get a more balanced picture by reading this thread of Professor Curry’s.
Regarding the other “present” that you say John gave you (11th November at 6:13 pm) tell me when I’m getting close:
- “ .. Andrew Skolnick .. filed the complaint .. as part of a coordinated attack stage managed by lawyer Roger McConchie .. ”.
I wasn’t impressed by John’s .. The LSBC finding vindicates what I have always publicly stated about myself in my website biography on Suite101. .. ”. From the records that I have that statement is valid but I’m not convinced about his statements on LinkedIn, FriendsReunited, etc.
You mentioned on one of the blogs that you believed that John O’Sullivan had returned to New York (you thought Delhi) from Swansea and I came across this entry from 2005 (http://www.blogger.com/profile/01289470993106566998) which appears to be relevant. That also links to “ .. Bloggers with an occupation of Lobbyist against Spitzer .. John O’Sullivan 50 year old .. Location: Delhi : New York .. Interests: Seeking Justice for the brutal rape of my wife; exposing corrupt attorney generals .. ”.
That ties in with your comment on 2nd November at 9:51 am, as does John O’Sullivan’s Nov. 2005 article “My letter to Eliot Spitzer” on his “EXPOSING SPITZER” blog (http://exposingspitzer.blogspot.com/). John said of himself at that time “ .. Long suffering victim of injustice; a Brit married to a yank; with a love of freedom of speech and democracy .. ” then went on to complain that QUOTE: .. My wife, our daughter and me have suffered considerably in what you lawyers would term “non-economic damages” including pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental suffering, emotional distress, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium, injury to reputation and humiliation. .. UNQUOTE.
In his articles “The Background: Bracci v NYSDOCS” and “Why I Think Spitzer is a Criminal” John provided details of the action by his wife Barbara Bracci-O’Sullivan involving her supervisor William Peek and others. John appeared to place all of the blame for that upset on New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer of whom he said QUOTE: .. may be deemed, as the key perpetrator and to have been particularly careless, e.g., grossly, recklessly or wantonly careless or acted with intent and caused injury, then “punitive damages” might be awarded against you in addition to the compensatory damages if you were not so lucky to be under the privilege of tort immunity for that particular remedy .. UNQUOTE. John went on to make several less-than complementary statements about Spitzer, some of which may have been justified, however, Spitzer does have his supporters (e.g. http://usliberals.about.com/od/stategovernors/p/ElliotSpitzer.htm).
In May 2009 Barbara J Bracci’s petition against New York State Division of Human Rights that it had “ .. erred in dismissing her Complaint .. charging DOCS and her former captain with unlawful discriminatory practices relating to employment .. ” was dismissed (http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2009/506150.pdf). In July 2009 John expressed his views on “ .. the crass stupidity of the intellectually challenged presiding over American courts today. Adding my own two cents I can relate a similarly shocking account. I am an advocate currently fighting to uphold the principles of due process in a disturbing case concerning the rape, battery and near killing of a mother of one left permanently disabled with a broken neck. .. ” (http://appellate.typepad.com/appellate/2008/09/appellate-polit.html). He then went on to describe his wife’s complaint (failing to mention that the person he was talking about was his wife) then advised that “ .. Now Bracci is filing with the Court of Appeals. We shall soon see if the very highest court in New York dares be as corrupt. .. ”.
John (describing himself as an “advocate”) exchanged comments about this on several blogs, including The Elliot Schlissel New York Law Bog (http://schlissellaw.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/court-of-appeals-full-custody-includes-the-right-to-make-educational-decisions/). One of those involved claimed to by his wife’s relative and said “ .. If this lady was really telling the truth then maybe someone would listen. But this is all about money. This lady has not make one truthful statement and even all the court orders say that she doesn’t even know what the truth is. She changes her story all the time. I should know because I am her relative! .. ”. It’s hard to know who to believe but there is that mention that “ .. this is all about money .. ”.
On another blog he was asked “ .. Why are you spamming this nonsense, John? .. ” (http://blackbooklegal.blogspot.com/2009/06/raking-it-in-scotus-justices-make.html) and spamming he was (see http://www.newyorkinjuryattorneyblog.com/2009/07/due_process_stunning_decision_1.html http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/?p=464 http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/07/31/denver-doozy-tenth-circuit-orders-new-sentence-fine-for-nacchio/ etc. etc. etc.).
On September 30, 2009 the claim by the O’Sullivans “ .. that representatives of various state agencies continue to wrongfully withhold personal property belonging to claimant Barbara Bracci-O’Sullivan consisting of seven microcassette tapes that she submitted to authorities in connection with prior unrelated legal proceedings .. ” was dismissed. It appears that John O’Sullivan’s efforts as “advocate” in US courts on this case, “ .. litigating for over a decade in the New York State courts .. ” (http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&authType=name&authToken=0rq9&trk=nmp_pymk_name) could hardly be considered an astounding success.
You also talked about John not being a member of NYCLA but what do you have to say about this 28th Oct. letter from NYCLA President Stewart Aaron (attached to (http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9557-canada-bar-association-rules-no-misconduct-by-tim-balls-legal-team) apparently confirming John’s membership?
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Around the first few days of October, O’Sullivan deleted his false claim of being employed by the law firm Pearlman Lindholm from his LinkedIn and Suite101.com bios. He also deleted the bogus claim that he is a member of the American Bar Association, which is open only to attorney’s licensed to practice in the U.S. — which he now admits he is NOT.
And he replaced that bogus claim with another. He now claims to be a member of the New York County Lawyers Association — which similarly requires members to be licensed attorneys — even though he now admits he isn’t a licensed attorney. As the NYCLA membership form states, members must be licensed in NY or they must submit a “current letter of good standing” from a state or foreign licensing board.
http://www.nycla.org/siteFiles/sitePages/sitePages176_3.pdf
That was in the first week of October. After noticing the switch, I called NYCLA’s membership director on Oct. 11 and asked whether John O’Sullivan is a member. She checked the membership list and confirmed that he’s not. I immediately began reporting his latest bogus credential. One of my first reports was in this discussion above on Oct. 15.
Yesterday, hoping to strike a mortal blow to my credibility, O’Sullivan published the thank-you-for-joining letter from the NYCLA over on Climate Change Dispatch, where he and his pack of rabid jackals are dancing a jig over what they believe is my dead reputation.
What hopeless buffoons. It turns out, Mr. O’Sullivan became a NYCLA member on Oct. 30. 2011 — more than two weeks after I had exposed his bogus claim of membership, and nearly a month after he began claiming this latest false credential in his online bios.
There’s much more about this to come. For one, I suspect he may have submitted a phoney “current letter of good standing” from a state or national licensing board in order to qualify for membership. I’ll report what I find out from the NYCLA membership office.
For an attorney to become a member of the New York County Lawyers Association, he or she must be a licensed attorney, as is clearly indicated in its membership application. Active members are licensed attorneys living in or practicing in New York City. Other attorneys can become associate members if they meet the following requirements:
“Associate Member: Member of the bar of the State of New York who neither resides nor practices in New York City, or an attorney not admitted in New York but admitted [to the bar] in any other state, territory, District of Columbia or foreign country. If admitted outside New York, please include a current certificate of good standing with this application.”
http://www.nycla.org/printFriendly.cfm?section=Members_Only&page=Print_Your_ID_Card&newwin=1
In other words, this humbug is barred from being a NYCLA member because he’s NOT a member of any bar. Just WHO says John O’Sullivan has NO license to practice law? Why, the very humbug himself:
“Since May 2011, when Mr. Skolnick first learned that Dr. Ball engaged me, he has sought to make capital out of our ‘professional relationship’ by imputing that I falsely asserted my standing was that of a fully licensed attorney. I have repeatedly denied those allegations and challenged Mr. Skolnick to provide evidence such as weblinks to statements I’ve made to back his bogus claims. … To be very precise, I have never claimed to be a licensed attorney and as such cannot be accused of misrepresenting
myself.“
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9557-canada-bar-association-rules-no-misconduct-by-tim-balls-legal-team
Altogether now, two plus two equals?
Those who didn’t come up with 3 1/2 are probably snickering over the humbug’s claim that no one can accuse him of misrepresenting his credentials.
Yesterday or today, the Sky Dragon Slayer leader finally deleted from his Friends Reunited webpage his fraudulent claim of being employed as a “legal consultant” for Pearlman Lindholm:
http://www.friendsreunited.co.uk/profile/80921442/59D6969B901CDE19B6D7EFE2B66AA2ED
Meanwhile, over on his buddy’s Climate Change Dispatch web site, O’Sullivan has been busy proclaiming this a great victory and vindication. His spin is a marvel to behold, as well as hilarious — I especially like how he mistakes the Law Society of British Columbia in Vancouver for the Canadian Bar Association in Ottawa, more than 2000 miles:
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9557-canada-bar-association-rules-no-misconduct-by-tim-balls-legal-team
Mr. O’Sullivan’s misdeeds are finally catching up to him. In the past month, he was forced to delete his bogus claim of being a legal consultant for Pearlman Lindholm from his online bios, as well as his bogus claim of being a member of the American Bar Association. He has finally admitted that he never held a license to practice law. He was fired as a contributing writer for Suite101.com and nearly all of the more than 60 error-strewn, often defamatory articles he wrote for Suite101 were deleted.
Unable to defend his fraudulent claims, Mr. O’Sullivan has been reduced to bizarre rants, for example, accusing me of being “gleefully aligned with pedophiles.”
See if you can follow his line of “reason”: I exposed Mr. O’Sullivan’s fraudulent claims about being an attorney employed to defend Tim Ball against the libel suit brought by Prof. Michael Mann. Mann is a professor of climatology at Penn State. He accuses Prof. Mann of criminal fraud and claims Penn State is covering up the climatologist’s crimes. He also says Penn State covered up the sexual abuse of children by a former football assistant coach. Ergo, I have “aligned [myself] so gleefully with the climate criminals and pedophiles.’
Which brings to mind that ancient wisdom wrongly attributed to Euripides: “Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.”
http://www.hilluniversity.com/Hill/life_experience_degrees_programs.asp
Hi Andrew, (ref. 14th November at 9:35 pm) thanks for drawing our attention to the latest change that John has made to one of his many (somewhat misleading?) biography entries. Comparing the current one in his FriendsReunited profile with the copy I have from 9th Nov. he has deleted his claim to being “ .. Appointed Consultant for Canadian law firm, Pearlman Lindholm and advising on libel suit of Dr. Michael Mann-v-Dr. Tim Ball .. ”.
I see that he still insists that he is “ .. Working, Pearlman Lindholm, , International legal advocate .. ”. He also still claims that he was “ .. Attending a Parliamentary meeting on October 27th 2010 .. ”. I speculate that few others share John’s opinion that an event organised by “ .. the UK’s close-knit cabal of climate sceptics .. hosted by Sammy Wilson MP” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/oct/25/climate-fools-day-sceptics-parliament) in a Westminster Palace committee room is a Parliamentary meeting. This years fiasco, also hosted by Sammy Wilson in another Westminster Palace room, appears to have had no other MPs in attendance (see my comment of November 10, 2011 at 5:08 pm).
Not one to miss an opportunity for self-promotion, in his FriendsReunited “Books” entry John refers to “Slaying the Sky Dragon: . ” and links to his promotional blog. At the bottom of that blog are links to Piers Corbyn’s “Weather Action” site and to the “Galileo Movement” of Case Smit and John Smeed (http://www.galileomovement.com.au/who_we_are.php). I have a suspicion that Piers may be following Professor Johnson’s lead in trying to dissociate himself from the “Slayers”. I don’t know about Smit or Smeed but Piers hasn’t responded to my E-mail or put in an appearance here (see my comments on 10th and 11th November).
Piers was a recipient of all of the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails and most of the “PSI & Politics” and “John O’Sullivan’s Specious Claims” E-mails but said not a word, just like his close associate Philip Foster, PSI’s Compliance Officer. I suspect that Philip Foster may also be trying to dissociate himself from the “Slayers”.
The Galileo Movement’s project leader is Malcolm Roberts who runs the “Conscious” blog (http://www.conscious.com.au/). That organisation is associated with Dr. Vincent Gray, a co-founder of highly regarded CACC sceptics organisation, The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=12&Itemid=45). Dr. Gray was involved in the “PSI & Due Diligence”, “PSI & Politics” and John O’Sullivan’s Specious Claims” E-mail exchanges during the past year. John added Dr. Gray to the circulation of E-mails on 1st January but Dr. Gray didn’t make a single contribution to the “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges. Six months earlier John had invited comments on his article “X-Factor Hid Fakery in the Greenhouse Gas Theory” (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5850&linkbox=true&position=1). In response to John’s “Any feedback is most welcome” (June 11, 2010 7:21 AM) Dr. Gray simply said “Dear John Poppycock Cheers” then followed up with “ .. Dear John Take a course in basic physics. You will discover that radiation goes in all directions, taking radiant energy with it. It does not “cancel out” .. ”.
More recently (17th October) in a “John O’Sullivan’s Specious Claims” E-mail Dr. Gray said of the “Slayers” in an exchange with Professor Johnson “ .. It is sad that some of you are sufficiently bamboozled by the warmers to pursue your non productive sideline .. ” then asked “ .. Folks Please cut(sic) me off–once again .. ”. It looks to me as though Dr. Gray, like Professor Johnson, may wish to dissociate from the “Slayers” so may not be too happy about the connection through The Galileo Movement’s project leader. In the interest of transparency, claimed to be so important to the “Slayers” PSI association, Messrs. Smit, Smeed and Roberts need to be aware of the comments that are being posted here so I have sent a message to Malcolm Roberts.
It’s odd that John, always appearing eager to promote his own works and achievements, in his Friends Re-United “Book” interests makes no mention of his “Summit Shock” publication (http://cupboard55summitshock.blogspot.com/2008/03/and-what-is-cupboard-55_31.html) in which he relates his version of the experience that had at the hands of the New York judicial system. Andrew is convinced that John distorts the facts and some of those who commented on this “Summit Shock” promotional page think along similar lines. The page is well worth reading.
That page is another of the many that says of John “ .. In the U.S. his work features in the ‘National Review .. ” but there seems to be some dispute over that claim. I see that John’s portrait (the out-of-date picture from many years ago that he insists on using) now hangs on the wall of “The O’Sullivan Hall of Fame IV” (http://www.osullivanclan.com/halloffamegalleryiv.html) with the declaration beneath that “ .. The world’s leading global warming theory debunker is an O’Sullivan .. ”. Not only that but he has a version of his biography including that disputed statement “ .. In the U.S. his work features in the ‘National Review,’ America’s most popular and influential magazine for Republican/conservative news .. ”.
Guess who is also proudly (and rightly so) presented on that wall above a banner saying “ .. One of the most influential editors in the world is an O’Sullivan .. ”. That John O’Sullivan is none other than the “ .. editor-in-chief of United Press International. He was Editor of National Review from 1988 to 1997 and in 1998 was named Editor-at-Large .. ”. That John O’Sullivan really does have things to boast about. I have posted a comment on the Clan’s Discussion Board (http://osullivanclan.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/hello-world/#comment-93) drawing attention to this thread and have suggested that the National Review Editor at Large John O’Sullivan be asked if “Slayer” John had any of his work featured in the National Review.
John, despite “ .. successfully litigating for over a decade in the New York State courts .. ” failed to make headway in the courts with the case that he documents in “Summit Shock”. Trying a different career path he turned his attention in 2009/10 to Climate Change and devised his plans for PSI and taking legal action against Government agencies over their CACC activities. I predict another failure for him. I think that his Blogger profile “About Me” statement (http://www.blogger.com/profile/01249494027819685623) “ .. A dark horse-not much to tell .. ” is the most accurate reflection that I have seen so far – part fact and part fiction.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
“It is Skolnick who is the faker and charlatan having been fired from his job at the AMA for lying.”
“He falsely claims on his CV that he was a Pulitzer Prize nominee.”
“He has also lied when he claimed he won two lawsuits that he actually lost.”
“Also, it appears his claims to possess a master’s degree are similarly bogus. Perhaps it is time an independent investigation is now carried in Skolnick… It seems overdue.”
You didn’t earn a law degree from University College, Cork as you first publicly claimed. And it’s hardly likely you earned it at the University of Surrey at the SAME time you were actually earning an art degree at West Surrey College of Art and Design — as you say on your Friends Reunited web bio.
Now I hear it was actually from Hill University. Please tell us if this is true or not.
Just accept you lost and were made to look utterly stupid. Use this as a learning experience. Move on.
A lot of honest people are now feeling very stupid that they swallowed your lies.
I wonder what other lies will you be caught in? It seems others now taking an interest in your fatuous personal claims are already uncovering inconvenient facts already about your history of fakery.
Try to man up and admit you lied about why you were fired from the AMA, admit you lied that you won two lawsuits when you hadn’t and lied that you were a Pulitzer Prize nominee.
another scientist who is dissociating himself from what appears to me (and Professor Curry?) to be a dwindling band of “Slayers”?” .. UNQUOTE.
In you response you said “ .. Why do you persevere with this desperate wishful thinking that the Slayers are in decline when the opposite is true? .. I can further add that although you and Dr. Curry have made play that Claes Johnson took a step back from the team it is evident from recent discussions that he and the Slayers have again come closer with an agreed position that “atmospheric CO2 can have no measurable warming or cooling effect on climate .. “. That seems to conflict with Professor Claes Johnson’s comment here on 15th October that “ .. I am not a member of any group subject to group thinking, in particular not the slayers group .. ”.
Back in January in your Gofundme appeal for charitable donations to set up your company PSI you said “ .. We are a group of 36 respected international scientists and related professionals .. ”. You may recall that on 26th Sept. I raised the point about “ .. what appears to be a dwindling group of “Slayers” .. ”. You responded with what you called my “ .. unsubstantiated claim (in effect, a lie) about the Slayers being in decline is laughable .. ”. I asked on 28th Sept. “ .. who presently regard themselves as being members of your group of “Slayers” .. How many are there now and who are they .. ”.
You responded on 29 Sept. with named individuals which I said on 30th Sept. amounted to QUOTE: ..
only 10 individuals who are “ .. currently the most active/influential members of the Slayers team.. ”. I make the total count in your E-mail to be 33 and that includes those that you “ .. would hesitate to call ‘Slayers’ per se just yet .. ” (and Dr Matthias Kleepsies has just advised that he is a former member of the “Slayers”). Falling from 36 to 32 (at best) certainly appears to me “ .. to be a dwindling group of “Slayers” .. ”! I wonder who else agrees with you about my “ .. unsubstantiated claim (in effect, a lie) about the Slayers being in decline .. ”. (I won’t hold my breath waiting for an apology) .. UNQUOTE.
In that E-mail of yours on 29th Sept. you said that “ .. Certainly Claes Johnson has taken a backwards step lately .. ” but as I said in response “ .. I wonder how he would describe it .. ”. I think that Professor Johnson’s comment above on 15th October about not being “ .. a member of any group .. in particular not the slayers group .. ” answers my question. Of course it does raise another question. Back in 16th Aug. 2010 Professor Johnson said “ .. I am happy to announce that I have joined the project Slaying the Sky Dragon: The Death of the Greenhouse Effect .. ” (http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2010/08/slaying-sky-dragon-of-greenhouse-effect.html) so what made him change his mind and dissociate himself from the “Slayers”? He was involved in most of those 90+ “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mail exchanges so perhaps they helped him change his mind.
Your January Gofundme appeal for charitable donations does beg the question of why “ .. 36 respected international scientists and related professionals .. ” should go begging for what amounted to only $417 each in order to set up a commercial organisation. On 2nd Jan. during our “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges you acknowledged that “ .. The ‘Slayers’ project is first and foremost a commercial operation .. ” yet only two weeks later you were presenting the “Slayers” PSI organisation as “ .. the world’s first open to all, politics-free, generalist science association .. ” and appealing for charitable donations to help you realise your desire for PSI to “ .. become registered as a charitable association in the U.S. .. ”. Please correct me if I am mistaken but I have always considered the motivations of those wishing to set up a charitable organisation to be quite different to those wishing to set up a commercial operation.
I have asked the UK’s CIC Regulator to clarify this and shall let you know her response.
In your comment here on 2nd July you complained bitterly about several matters raised by Andrew and concluded “ .. All I can say to creatures like Skolnick and Shore is put up or shut up! .. ”. It seems to me that Andrew is doing his very best to “put up” rather than “shut up”.
One of your complaints was that “ .. Andrew Skolnick is an inveterate liar who has deliberately misrepresented my words .. ”. In my opinion that last bit could be seen as the pan calling the kettle black. Once again you appear to be distorting what I have said. If you can point to any correspondence or comment of mine where I have said that you are a “ .. a faker and charlatan .. ” then please do so and I will consider whether or not a retraction and apology are due. You should recall that on several previous occasions I have made that same suggestion to you with regard to lying and libel but you have never taken me up on it. I have made several references to that on this thread.
You also complain that I have made “ .. efforts to try to drive a wedge between Dr Ball and me .. ” but once again, please provide a link to evidence that I have done this. Dr. Ball has been mentioned here 84 times, 7 of those in your latest post. I have named him 29 times, 10 of those being in quotations. None of my remaining 19 can reasonably be construed as trying to drive a wedge between you and Dr. Ball. Once again my opinion is that you owe me an apology but I won’t hold my breath waiting for it.
As for your feeble parting shot, investigating me will reveal nothing that diverts due attention from yourself, your “Slayers” and PSI.
Best regards, Pete Ridley, previously C. Eng; M.I.E.E; M.I.E.R.E; P. Eng. APEO; but now retired.
- 2 Original Transcripts
- 1 Award of Excellence
- 1 Certificate of Distinction
- 1 Certificate of Membership
- and 4 Education Verification Letters!
All this for just $849! But wait, there’s more! For an additional $500, you will receive your very own:
- Thesis Approval Letter!
Act now at these very affordable rates: http://www.hilluniversity.com/Hill/online-degrees/online-doctorate-program.asp
Well John, what say you? Did you or did you not get a law degree from Hill University?
To save Roger searching through all of those E-mails I sent another copy of that Word document to him immediately but I haven’t heard a word from him about his analysis.
On 29th September you said “ .. Californian attorney Roger Sowell .. is in discussion with us as a potential new recruit, but his decision is pending because he is currently reviewing our Sky Dragon book .. ”. I wonder if, after reading Chapter 21 and those “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails, Roger too has decided to dissociate himself from the “Slayers” but of course I could be mistaken. Would you, as PSI’s CEO, care to clarify that? – after all, transparency is claimed to be very important to PSI (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association).
Best regards, Pete Ridley, previously C. Eng; M.I.E.E; M.I.E.R.E; P. Eng. APEO; but now retired.
You are a proven liar and a fraud as affirmed by the Law Society of British Columbia’s recent findings after they investigated your unfounded accusations against me. Get over it and move on. See here:
http://co2insanity.com/2011/11/10/canada-bar-association-rules-%E2%80%98no-misconduct%E2%80%99-by-tim-ball%E2%80%99s-legal-team/
As can be seen above, I have repeatedly published online details of my academic and professional qualifications. Full details of them were submitted as part of the investigation by the LSBC who then dismissed every part of Skolnick’s malicious and false complaint.
Not only has Skolnick failed to substantiate any of the lies he published about me but also it turns out that others have now uncovered evidence that it is Skolnick who faked his own resume.
It appears he was fired from his post at the AMA for misrepresentation and does not have the master’s degree he claims. He falsely boasted to be a Pulitzer Prize nominee when he wasn’t and lied when claiming he’s won two lawsuits that he actually lost.
He has made empty threats to sue me for libel but that is as credible as his promise to get the LSBC to “expose” me. If anyone still takes this fraudster seriously then more fool them.
Readers, for a jolly good laugh, look how John changed his name tag link and bio right after the warning notice I posted yesterday:
“Mr. O’Sullivan, I see you are still fraudulently claiming to be a member of the American Bar Association and a legal consultant at the British Columbia law firm Pearlman Lindholm. I’ve brought this to the attention of the General Counsel of the American Bar Association and to the Law Society of British Columbia. And I copied Pearlman Lindholm’s attorney Mr. Scherr.”
I suspect Mr. Scherr and his law firm were not the least bit happy.
Mr. O’Sullivan scrambled to redo his Gravatar bio (and also dropped the “LLB, BA Hons, PGCE” from his name tag — compare today’s name tag with the one he was using yesterday:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-139011
Knowing his penchant for rewriting the record, I saved his Gravatar web page and a screen capture of the bio to show readers which one of us is the humbug: http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/OSullivan_gravatar_capture.11.16.2011.jpg
http://principia-scientific.org/component/content/article/48-upcoming-events/101-second-annual-psi-conference-set-to-take-place-in-boston-mass
Annual PSI Conference scheduled for London, England
“First Annual PSI Conference set to take place in London, England, October 2011. Delegates from 12 countries expected to attend three-day event. Further details to be posted.”
Anyone interested in attending the October conference better hurry. It’s already mid-November.
What a rodeo clown.
That “final E-mail to the “Slayers” from Professor Petty was the climax of numerous (60+?) exchanges about the Greenhouse Effect, radiative physics (and glass boxes) that he had mainly with Joseph Postma and Alan Siddons during 12th-14th Oct. although other “Slayers” did contribute. During those exchanges Postma and Siddons showed Professor Petty little of the respect to which he is entitled considering his status compared with their own insignificance.
Joe Postma made the less than complementary comment to Professor Petty on 11th Oct. “ .. You apparently cannot read .. Just keep your head in the sand. Not that your original critique has any basis in reality, as it was not my own work which was being presented. You didn’t read a damned thing. Congrats, JP .. ”. John O’Sullivan’s response on 12th Oct. exemplifies that disrespect (which he has also shown Professor Curry) saying “ .. Joe, Superb and hilarious retort to Perry! You have put into context that Perry, thinking he had spotted your error of “incompetence” as his excuse to dismiss your paper had mistakenly singled out Harvard University’s version of the GHE for his venom thus attacking his own position. Priceless!!! And all due to Perry’s half-assed and arrogant skim reading of your paper. If ever someone had been hoist by his own petard it is Professor Perry. I’m picturing the humilation that will befall Perry once all this gets published more widely. Perhaps I might title my article thus: ‘Greenhouse Effect Professor Debunks Harvard’s Greenhouse Gas Theory!’ Many, many thanks, John .. ” – that’s typical of John!
Professor Petty’s retort “ .. By the way, what IS your real objective? Science? Or humiliating your adversaries? The more I learn about you, the more I conclude that science has little to do with it .. ” appears to me to sum up not only John but several of his fellow – “Slayers”.
Professor Petty also said in that E-mail to the “Slayers” “ .. you will close your eyes to that evidence forever and continue to be the conspiracy theorists who believe that you’re modern-day Galileos fighting the evil scientific establishment, and everything you see and hear will be forced to fit into that paranoid world-view no matter how divorced from reality it is… ”. On 18th Oct. he said to John QUOTE:
.. I’m done debating it here. You and the others are content to simply contradict or twist whatever I say, making utterly unsubstantiated assertions (e.g., “complete absence of ANY thermal radiation” — where’s the calculation to back that up??) along with casually dismissing every established mainstream principle of radiative transfer — both observed and theoretical — that is cited .., You, Claes, Alan, and Joe P. have demonstrated an unwillingness to even contemplate the possibility that your own belief system may be flawed. The more you are pressed on the evident internal inconsistencies in that belief system, the more you resort to astonishing new inventions such as (e.g.) the idea of photons being absorbed but not imparting their energy to the medium that absorbed them, and so on. It doesn’t get much more fringe than that .. ”.
I think that few of us would argue with that.
Of course, true professional educator that he is, Professor Petty could not leave the “Slayers” struggling with their unorthodox science claiming that no form of energy, even radiated energy, can flow from a colder to a hotter body. He continued enlightening them until at last even Joseph Postma admitted to having erred. Postma acknowledged on 18th Oct. that ” .. To correct the statement: Energy flows in both directions, but the flow of heat is from warmer to colder and the temperature of either body will never increase beyond the initial temperature of the warmer body .. ” – what a breakthrough!
As Professor Petty responded “ .. You are now apparently accepting something that was debated ad nauseum over the past couple weeks. Does Claes agree with you? If so, we could have all been spared a few dozen emails .. ”.
After a final attempt to educate the “Slayers” Professor Petty pulled out of the exchanges on 19th Oct. On the same day Dr Vincent Gray, co-founder of the CACC sceptic organisation New Zealand Climate Science Coalition E-mailed “ .. Please please take me off this madhouse .. ”.
That signalled the end of those exchanges.
Professor Petty talked about the “Slayers” and “ .. modern-day Galileos .. ” but perhaps he isn’t aware of the link between them and Galileo. On 15th November I mentioned The Galileo Movement (http://www.galileomovement.com.au/who_we_are.php) which is linked to the “Slayers” through the Climate Realists blog (http://climaterealists.com/?tid=233&page=1) and “Slayers” Hans Schreuder and Piers Corbyn. It also promotes the “Slayers” unorthodox-science publication although it does so under the (appropriate?) title “Scientific Untruths” (http://www.galileomovement.com.au/scientific_untruths.php).
Anyone interested can listen to the Galileo Movement’s project leader Malcolm Roberts talking about the “Carbon Tax Corruption Scandal” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPIyIMwfcwQ).
I have suggested to Malcolm that he reads the comments here and I wonder if the Movement’s sponsors will still wish to be associated with the “Slayers” after that.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Your cherry picking of many dozens of private email correspondence to mischaracterize what was actually discussed shows that your agenda is utterly biased and has no place being part of a science discussion.
Thankfully, I don’t think you or Skolnick are fooling anyone by filling this and other threads with your witless diatribes
Some advice: learn when to quit.
Regards,
John O’Sullivan LLB, BA (Hon), PGCE
As for ” .. private email correspondence .. ” – there was never any suggestion by those who originated the various E-mail threads that any of it was private. Just because you choose to declare them so does not make it so, just as with the unorthodox science promoted by your “Slayers”.
Sorry to have to burst your bubble but you do have limited powers.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Again you lie. Go check from the top of this thread and see that it addresses how Grant Petty tried to refute our refutation of the greenhouse effect. Petty failed because he resorted to hand waving, pseudo-scientific rambling. Now contrast and compare to the Slayers’ more rigorous approach. For example, my colleague, Professor Nasif Nahle performed a robust replication of RW Wood’s famous 1909 experiment in his laboratories at Monterrey, Mexico in which he demonstrated there is no empirical scientific support for the greenhouse effect. Nahle’s results were thoroughly peer-reviewed and have not been refuted. See here:
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Experiment_on_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf
Nahle’s conclusions are thus utterly credible and are as follows:
“The greenhouse effect inside greenhouses is due to the blockage of convective heat transfer with the environment and it is not related, neither obeys, to any kind of “trapped” radiation. Therefore, the greenhouse effect does not exist as it is described in many didactic books and articles.
The experiment performed by Prof. Robert W. Wood in 1909 is absolutely valid and systematically repeatable.”
I challenge you to personally refute the science. But I know you won’t/can’t because your sole strategy is to subvert scientific debate into a personal diatribe. To my mind that shows you are out of your depth and that’s why you endlessly resort to ad hom slurs.
Mr. O’Sullivan, haven’t you noticed that you have barely any apologists left who are willing to defend your scurrilous record of deceit? Even your publisher Ken Coffman backed off, claiming that he “likes your ideas” and has no interest in whether your resume is fraudulent or not.
Unfortunately for you, most readers here ARE interested in seeing documentation of your fraud and deception. Such as being able to compare the fraudulent bio you just replaced with this one, in which you omitted claims that you knew might get you in further trouble with the American Bar Association, the Law Society of British Columbia, and Tim Ball’s real attorney, Michael Scherr.
Before I “blew the whistle two days ago:http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/OSullivan_gravatar_capture.11.16.2011.jpg
After: http://en.gravatar.com/johnosullivan
Just because someone with a PhD published a book on a subject that, in itself, doesn’t make him (or her) a world leading authority. The Slayers possess 11 science PhD’s between them – so what?
Petty tried and failed to back his hand waving claims that back radiating HEAT exists as Downwelling Longwave [Infrared] Radiation, which he claimed had been measured by NASA. A lie.
When we challenged Dr Petty to cite any source proving these NASA measurements he declined (no surprise there!). Frankly, if NASA had measured DRL that data would have been published and if it existed Petty, you, Ridley and whoever would thus possess evidence to refute Slayer claims.
You and I know that Perry was just blowing the usual hot air that proponents for this junk science usually spout. As we tried to explain to you and Petty at the time, you cannot impute thermal radiation from ‘back radiation.’ As Tim Ball commented,
“ merely resonating in place does not imply reflecting energy back at the source….it is so difficult to argue with the absurd Alice looking glass science.”
As we all know, DLR is claimed by GHE religionists to be half of the Outgoing Longwave Radiation and such energy is then claimed to be re-radiated back by CO2 molecules to warm the Earth.
However, as the Slayers explained, WW II radar operated on a million to one signal-response ratio and with that ratio a good operator could detect a life boat at 20 miles and SOME large weather systems.
Techonology has since moved on dramatically and with signal output and antenna design today (with a billion to one ratio) weather radar can now ‘see’ clouds and rainfall. But even trillion or quadrillion ratios would not allow NASA (or even Petty) to measure the reflection from individual THREE ATOM molecules.
Even if DLR has been measured by NASA (as Petty claims but cannot prove) the reflection off of water droplets is magnitudes larger than CO2 reflections.
For all his ‘authority’ this elementary fact was lost on Petty. Again I challenge you to produce actual measurements to show ANY additional thermal heating from the ‘back radiation’ /’ blanket effect’ (or whatever else you want to call) it from this elusive GHE.
By contrast, Dr. Nasif Nahle validated RW Woods’ experiment of 1909 to empirically show that the fundamental claims about heating from the GHE are refuted by replicable observable facts. Thus, we argue your GHE belief system is even less valid in physics than pixies and tooth fairies, yet you still actively refuse to acknowledge physical proof that the GHE doesn’t exist.
“Just because someone with a PhD published a book on a subject that, in itself, doesn’t make him (or her) a world leading authority,” John O’Sullivan replies, adding: “The Slayers possess 11 science PhD’s between them – so what?”
DUH! The fact that a highly-accredited scientist is an author of a textbook on the subject — that is widely used by universities, to TEACH THE SUBJECT — by definition MAKES HIM a leading authority on the subject.
As predicted, the humbug didn’t forget, he just denied. It’s what deniers do. Cheaters cheat, liars lie, abusers, abuse, con artists con, and deniers deny — just like fish have to swim and birds have to fly.
You will get nowhere trying to reason with Mr. Skolnick. He also doesn’t realize that Dr. Ball subsists on his modest pension and the small sums he makes from his speaking events. The details of which are required evidence as part of the discovery process in the ongoing two libel trials Dr. Ball defends against Dr. Michael Mann and Dr. Andrew Weaver.
I know you so desperately like to clutch at straws but claiming Grant Petty as ‘highly accredited’ and a ‘leading authority’ with a book ‘widely used by universities’ is yet ANOTHER Skolnick whopper.
Petty, himself, makes no such claims because his career achievements are very modest indeed. His one published book is a BASIC physics introduction as shown here on his bio link.
http://experts.news.wisc.edu/experts/81
Petty only addresses elementary thermodynamics, as does our host, Dr Curry whose own book on thermodynamics written 10 years ago has been severely panned by it’s one and only reviewer. Such is the extent of the ‘widely used in universities’ bluster upon which you build your very flimsy appeal to authority.
Frankly, if we’re in an academic pissing contest then neither Petty or Curry has anywhere near the level of academic training nor professional real world expertise or success found within the Slayers. Our think tank possesses two former NASA scientists and 11 PhD’s and several successful science patents that netted millions of dollars in the real world.
But again, I say, so what! Such credentials do not, in themselves, make anyone more right on any issue than anyone else.
The more you rant on with these utter lies the more mentally deluded you look. Your complaint against me to the Law Society of British Columbia was dismissed in its entirety. No evidence of wrongdoing was found because I am qualified as stated and your letter cannot be imputed to mean anything else.
The Law Society tells you it dismisses your complaint against me entirely and specifically advises you that Mr. Scherr agreed,
“…if receiving input from Mr. O’Sullivan at my client’s request, and processing payment, again at my client’s request constitutes a professional relationship then there was such a relationship in place until August 1, 2011.”
http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/BC_LawSociety_4-nov311_Skolnick.pdf
Your false accusations against me have been exposed because I have never claimed to be a licensed Canadian lawyer and you presented no proof to back up your lies. But what is proven is that I work as a professional legal consultant.
I remain happily ensconced as Dr. Ball’s legal adviser and there is nothing you or anyone else can do to get me off Dr. Ball’s legal team. We all know you want to live in a fascist green dictatorship, but at the moment this is still a free society. Therefore, despite all your sour grapes Dr. Ball can take legal advice from whomever he chooses. Grow a pair, admit you lost and move on!
John O’Sullivan LLB, BA (Hon), PGCE
The Law Society of British Columbia did NOT dismiss my complaint against John O’Sullivan. Because it found my complaint valid,
The Executive Director is satisfied that the complaint … is not valid.
How is it possible for even a hopeless idiot to read the Law Society’s findings and then claim the society “concurs” that O’Sullivan is a lawyer who is entitled to represent Tim Ball in court?!
I didn’t make such a claim. I said it’s Fine for Tim to have John as part of his defence team, Which is what I’ve been telling you since August. You demand that Kuhnkat quote what is said rather than (mis)characterise, then perpetrate the same falsehood on others. You are a joke.
I call that dishonesty.
Call it what you like, just don’t call me early in the morning.
I note you have wisely chosen not to contest my assertion that you lied about the LSBC finding your complaint valid.
Do us all a favour and crawl back under your rock.
johnosullivan | November 19, 2011 at 6:55 am | Reply
Skolnick,
Clearly, you like to keep a moving target. I wonder why? Now you make a fresh bogus claim that I “applied for [NYCLA] membership nearly two weeks after I[Skolnick] had exposed his[O’Sullivan’s] fraudulent claim of NYCLA membership.
This is an easily refuted lie. I applied to join the NYCLA online in mid October and was immediately accepted as a member so that bogus claim that I was not a member until October 28th is easily debunked.
Be advised that along with 48 other NYCLA members I was invited to attend a committee meeting on Monday, 24 October 2011 by Richard B. Friedman. Below is a copy of Friedman’s email to me that controverts your claim. Why not contact Richard at the NYCLA to verify he sent me this:
Richard B. Friedman | Partner
McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP
230 Park Avenue, Suite 1700 | New York, NY 10169
Tel: 212.905.8331 | Fax: 212.905.8381
rfriedman@mlalaw.com
Hello All. My co-chair Jordan Kanfer and I are very much looking forward to meeting many of you prior to, during, and after the inaugural meeting of our committee tomorrow at 6:30 p.m. at the House of the Association, 14 Vesey Street, Room 6. I have attached the current draft of our agenda along with some documents that we intend to address during the meeting. I would particularly urge each of you to glance at the list of four proposed subcommittees and give some thought to whether you agree with those proposals and/or have suggestions for additional subcommittees. I envision much of the work of the committee being done through our subcommittees.
See you tomorrow night!
Rich
johnosullivan | November 19, 2011 at 8:01 am |Phil,
Your assertion that I “misled Ball’s lawyer” is easily proved to be a lie. The LSBC passed no judgment on me whatsoever. The investigation ruled there had been no wrongdoing by anyone. Mr. Scherr was accepted as innocently acting upon his misunderstanding; he admitted he never asked and ascertained the particulars of my professional standing and that was the sole root of the “embarrassment” that Skolnick sought to trumpet.
The key here is that Skolnick failed to adduce any evidence for the LSBC. Thus they could not rule that I actively misrepresented my credentials. Despite my subsequent challenges, Skolnick still hasn’t shown us any proof that I lied about anything.
It is increasingly obvious to anyone who follows related events in Virginia (Attorney General, Cuccinelli’s success with a ruling granting access to the hidden Mann emails) and at Penn State (Sandusky scandal proving top level culture of cover ups) that Michael Mann is heading for a very bad defeat unless he can force Tim Ball to quit before trial.
Mann’s attorney, Roger McConchie is likely behind Skolnick’s botched attack because it echoes McConchie’s amended complaint now naming me. In response I have formally offered Dr. Ball a “hold harmless” indemnity in the event the B.C. Supreme Court rules I acted unlawfully.
The Skolnick gambit was to disrupt the good relations between Mr Scherr, Dr Ball and myself but it utterly backfired. Ball’s legal team is more united than ever and we are even more confident seeing the way Mann and McConchie’s attack dog has been humiliated by recent events.
Never mind the actual letter dated Oct. 28, addressed not to “Hello All,” but to John O’Sullivan, Esq.” [sic] — and not from some unknown person, but the president of NYCLA welcoming him to the association:
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/images/stories/NYCLA%20letter.jpg
Yesterday afternoon, NYCLA’s director of membership marketing confirmed by phone that, “Mr. O’Sullivan joined towards the end of October after you had talked with Harriet” [Astor, NYCLA's membership director.].
That was on Oct. 11, I called Ms. Astor to confirm my suspicion O’Sullivan was lying about his NYCLA membership. Ms. Astor confirmed he was NOT a member and I began reporting yet another example of O’Sullivan’s chicanery. Later in the month, Mr. O’Sullivan applied to the association, in which he had been falsely claiming membership.
The NYCLA is now investigation the credentials O’Sullivan cited in his application. He applied as a “Provisional Member” (no membership fee!). Provisional members are recent law school graduates living or working in NY City who are not yet admitted to the bar. In his latest online bios, he claims he earned his law degree in 1984. http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&authType=name&authToken=0rq9&locale=en_US&pvs=pp&trk=ppro_viewmore Yet it appears he told NYCLA he graduated in 2010.
I’m eager to see the results of NYCLA’s investigation.
n 2010. I’m eager to see the results of NYCLA’s investigation.
application. application. Stay tuned.
johnosullivan | November 19, 2011 at 11:24 am | Reply
Skolnick has devoted the last 6 months of his life seeking to discredit me but has failed. I have fully responded to his false claims and called him a scurrilous and inveterate liar. In response he has made empty threats to sue me for libel.
Skolnick’s great humiliation came after he reported me to the Law Society of British Columbia claiming I was representing myself as a licensed attorney when I wasn’t. He offered the LSBC no actual proof and thereupon his complaint was dismissed in its entirety.
He then appeared on my Friends Reunited page and contacted everyone on there who knows me, most of whom have been friends since I was a child. Not one of them disputed that I was trained at the University of Surrey’s School of Law.
Then he claims I could not possibly be a member of the NYCLA but the NYCLA confirmed to him that I am. Now he is reduced to the trivial claim that I jumped the gun by claiming membership too early because the NYCLA did not manually process my application after their online system had already approved me.
Such are the straws that are clutched by this former AMA journalist fired from his employment for continual misrepresentation; boasting he was a “Pulitzer Prize nominee” and “master’s degree graduate.”
I’m now quaking in my boots awaiting his “libel suit.”
steven mosher | November 19, 2011 at 11:45 am | Reply
john you discredit yourself.
“Not one of them disputed that I was trained at the University of Surrey’s School of Law.”
trained as what?
You were put on notice that you will be held liable for continuing to make defamatory statements with clear and intentional malice after you were warned to cease. Yet you continue.
I’m going to enjoy handing you a badly needed lesson in libel law.
Andrew Skolnick | November 19, 2011 at 11:56 am | Reply
“John, you discredit yourself.”
Not as much as he’s going to be discredited in court when I’m done with him.
Delhi,
New York
13753
Bring it on, Skolnick. I look forward to having the court affirm you are a liar.
Andrew Skolnick | November 23, 2011 at 9:18 am |
I, said the Sparrow,
with my bow and arrow,
I killed Cock Robin.
The Law Society of British Columbia confirmed today that the complaint I had filed against John O’Sullivan — not Michael Scherr — was NOT closed. It is still being investigated:
“As we are in the midst of reviewing a complaint of unauthorized practice, we cannot comment specifically. … The Law Society investigates complaints of people who aren’t lawyers engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. These investigations are based on specific facts and circumstances. Where there is a question of public protection the Law Society seeks undertakings from unauthorized practitioners that they cease. If someone refuses to sign an undertaking we may seek an injunction from the courts.”
“As we are in the midst of reviewing a complaint of unauthorized practice, we cannot comment specifically. … The Law Society investigates complaints of people who aren’t lawyers engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. These investigations are based on specific facts and circumstances. Where there is a question of public protection the Law Society seeks undertakings from unauthorized practitioners that they cease. If someone refuses to sign an undertaking we may seek an injunction from the courts.”
Andrew Skolnick | December 11, 2011 at 12:18 am |
Who is this J Daley O’Neal?
Andrew Skolnick | December 18, 2011 at 11:38 pm |
Doug Cotton | February 20, 2012 at 7:19 pm | Reply
I did attend the University of Sydney where I studied physics under Profs Harry Messel, Julius Sumner-Miller and Verner Von Braun from 1963 to 1966 inclusive before doing Economics and Business Adninistration at Macquarie University, making a total of 9 years tertiary education. I subsequently marked students’ university assignments and have operated tutoring services and tutored myself part-time in secondary and tertiary mathematics and physics, all of which required on going study beyond my formal education. I never said I was employed by any university. The marking arrangements were paid for privately by a lecturer who was too busy I guess.
Be careful, Pete, you’re treading close to the defamation line.
Pete Ridley | April 18, 2012 at 12:07 pm (subsequently removed by Professor Curry)
In this autobiographical "novel," O'Sullivan argues: "Didn’t you say you had some theory that a man can’t really be a kiddie fiddler if the object of his affections was a female with the fully-ripened body of a woman?” “'I did indeed. It’s all in the hip-to-waist formula! I have my facts to aid my theoretical arguments, too!' I put my case to him thus: a girl becomes a woman from the time the distribution her body fat attains that Darwinian perfection of a waist to hip ratio of 0.7. That is what makes the fertile female human form so unique. ...'By looking at the female waist to hip ratio, you know when a female is of the right age for reproduction. At that time, and if the mind is mature enough you can argue that you are dealing with a woman and not a child. If nature says she a woman then she is a woman-it’s not arbitrary like the age of consent laws that vary so wildly throughout the world from country to country, jurisdiction to jurisdiction.' " http://cupboard55vanillagirl.blogspot.com/
Doug Cotton considers John O'Sullivan an upstanding leader. I don't. It's just not the age of consent laws that "attorney" O'Sullivan has trouble with. He also has little regard for laws concerning who may call themselves "lawyer."
On May 2nd, a hearing is scheduled in the Supreme Court of British Columbia which may finally answer whether Mr. O'Sullivan is allowed to pass himself off as an attorney with a "degree" from Hill University -- an online diploma mill that promises clients any degree in any field with "Expressed Delivery in Just 15 days!" I will let you know the result of this hearing
Last September, I contacted one of his West Surrey College of Art and Design classmates, with whom O'Sullivan had shared a house from 1980-1982. The roommate, Hugo Sanders, said there were no law school classes at WSCAD and that he knew NOTHING about his classmate attending law school. Here's what Mr. Sander told me in emails I received Sept, 21 and 22, 2011:
--------------------------------
Hi Andrew Thanks for that. John was studying painting at WSCAD. He went on to teacher training college where he trained as a sports teacher. However, all that was 28 years ago. He may have studied Law in the interim. John may have his own take on life and he loves swimming against the tide but he is also great fun and full of energy. Quite honestly if he really wants set himself up as a Lawyer and become a Climate Change Denyer then why not just let him? Of course he's wrong but if we all agreed all the time life would be so boring. Whats wrong with a bit of controversy, and a bit of entertainment, which undeniably helps to raise climate change issues anyway? Anyway, whoever you are don't be too hard on him as he is a nice bloke and he's had some pretty tough times.
Kind regards, Hugo [Sanders]
------------------ Original Message -----------------
Hi Hugo, I'm trying to verify he is who he claims to be. He claims to be a leading authority on climate science and international law and has been extremely vocal in global warming debate. He claims to be a lawyer with a decade-long record of successful litigation against government corruption. However, I have not been able to find any evidence that he has a law degree or a law license.
He has repeatedly declined to say where and when he studied law or where he is licensed to practice law. None of his online resumes and profiles provide this information. Nor do they say what his field of study was in college.
My hunch is WSCAD did not offer either a law degree or classes in law. That's why I'm looking for people who may have known him in college who knew what he actually studied. If you look at his professional profiles/resumes, you will see that he claims he went to University of Surrey -- NOT WSCAD. http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&authType=name&authToken=0rq9&locale=en_US&pvs=pp&trk=ppro_viewmore
When I checked some of the claims he made in this profile, I found they were not true: http://www.suite101.com/profile.cfm/johnosullivan#ixzz0wUoYPbLG For example, he is not a member of the American Bar Association (only lawyers licensed to practice in the US are allowed to be members). According to the ABA, he joined recently as an associate -- an affiliation open to anyone regardless of training in law. So I'm trying to find out if he had any training at all in law.
Thanks, Andrew
------------------- Original Message -----------------
Hi Andrew, I shared a house with John when we were at WSCAD but I have not met him since. I am interested to know why you are curious about him. Regards, Hugo hugosanders@[withheld]
--------------------------------------------
Doug Cotton's association with John O'Sullivan brings to mind the saying about birds of a feather flocking together. If you hitch your star to a dun g wagon, you better get used to flies and pestilence.
Andrew Skolnick commented on Letter to the dragon slayers. Apr 18 2012, 06:39 PM (Notified by E-mail but not posted)
Pete Ridley | April 19, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
Pete Ridley | April 19, 2012 at 12:43 pm |