Global Political Shenanigans: "PSI & DUE Diligence" 2010/2011

This thread makes available copies of E-mails selected from my "PSI & Due Diligence" Word document. These E-mails are either referenced in my "SpotlightON- Principia Scientific International" article (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html) or relate to it.

E-mails will be added to this thread as necessary during the development of the "SpotlightON - Principia Scientific International" article.

UPDATES: (see Appendix for earlier updates)

1st Dec. 2012 - added E-mails of 2nd July 2010 on Lord Monckton
12th Dec. 2012 - added 6th and 7th November 2012 E-mails regarding the relationship between the Alpha Institute of Advanced Science (AIAS) and PSI
23rd Dec. 2012 - added E-mail of 5th Dec. 2012
27th Dec. 2012 - added E-mails from 27th Nov to 14th Dec.
9th Jan. 3013 - Added E-mail of 3rd Jan. 2011 @ 3:14 PM
16th Jan. 2013 - added E-mails for 13th Jan, 2011 relating to new section "6.0 Why PSI – A Case Study" in "SpotlightOn - Principia Scientific International"
13th April 2013 - added E-mail from Joe Olson dated 4th Jan. 2011 @ 05:34 PM with attachment "Rancor within Reason".

=====================

From: Andrew Skolnick ...

To: JOHN OSULLIVAN ...

Sent: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 4:41

Subject: Gov. Cuomo signs law making phony lawyers felons

John,

Great news! Yesterday, Gov. Cuomo signed into law the long-awaited bill to make unlawful practice of law in New York a class E felony.

That means I should have a better chance getting the attorney general's office interested in prosecuting you for fraudulently claiming to be an attorney with "more than a decade of successful litigation in New York State and Federal 2nd District courts" and for advertising yourself as the "Acting Internal Legal Counsel" for the "Albany"-based Principia Scientific International.

I'll keep you posted.

-Andrew

==============

From: peterridley...
To: cliff.ollier@...; morner@...
CC: peter.ridley@...
Sent: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 10:53
Subject: Membership of Principia Scientific International

Hi Cliff,

Thanks for forwarding copies of Niklas's 21st Century paper "There Is No Alarming Sea Level Rise!" and Lewis Page's Register article "New science upsets calculations on sea level rise". I'll use them and pass on to others as appropriate.

I take the liberty of asking Niklas about membership of PSI but if I have used an incorrect E-mail address would you be kind enough to forward this to him?

Hi Niklas,

Thanks for providing those interesting publications which provide useful ammunition for use in this vexed Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) debate. In my humble opinion there is far too much dishonesty coming out of CACC supporters motivated not by a desire to take over Nature's job of controlling the different global climates but for other devious reasons. Unfortunately such dishonesty is not restricted to the CACC supporters.

It is claimed that you have joined Principia Scientific International (http://www.principia-scientific.org/about/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc.html). I find this surprising and wonder if you would be good enough to advise whether or not this is correct. I was involved with that group of individuals during the discussions in 2010/2011 about setting it up and the plans the founding members had for it. After undertaking a due diligence exercise I dissociated from them. That PSI page also claims that Professor Myron Evans and his associates at the Aklpha Institute of Advanced Science are members, which Professor Evans (following his own due diligence exercise) has confirmed is not the case (http://drmyronevans.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/aias-has-not-joined-psi/).

If you have indeed been persuaded to join PSI then I recommend a read of "SpotlightOn - Principia Scientific International" and related articles published on the Global Political Shenanigans blog (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/) since April.

Thanks again for the copies of articles on sea level and melting ice.

Best regards, Pete

=============

From: peterridley...

To: vinmary.gray@...

CC: aaskolnick@...

Sent: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 19:48

Subject: Re: Claims about membership of PSI

Hi Vincent,

I am happy that you should publicly and unequivocally dissociate yourself from John O'Sullivan and all who have jumped into bed with him. I though that I'd made that clear.

As for " .. attacking the so-called climate science .. " I do all that i can, within the limitations of my own competence, to open the eyes of others to the nonsense that is thrown at us by the UN's IPCC, the power-hungry, the politicians, the environmental activists, the renewable energy industry and their financial investors (such as Gore, Soros, Strong, the BBC's and other pension funds, etc. etc. etc.

But as well as trying to get those guys to clean up their act we have to do our utmost to clean up our own.

Best regards, Pete

=================

From: Andrew Skolnick

To: Vincent Gray

CC: peterridley.fsmail@talktalk.net

Sent: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 19:39

Subject: Re: Claims about membership of PSI

On 12/8/2012 1:57 PM, Vincent Gray wrote: Dear Peter What exactly do you expect me to do? …. Etc. etc. etc.

I for one can testify that Peter spends a lot of time "attacking the so-called climate science."

Do you know the meaning of non sequitur? That's what your reply to Pete was. He alerted you to how you're being used by O'Sullivan and his gang. Your reply questioning whether he's spending enough time "attacking so-called climate science" is an utter non-sequitur and is hardly an appropriate answer for someone kind enough to warn you of harm to your reputation that may result if you don't correct these false claims about your PSI membership being reported.

It's very strange that Pete appears to be more concerned about your reputation than you are.

My mind boggles that you would ask what you should do. You should send a statement to any blog or other medium that reports the untruthful claim that you joined or are a member of Principia Scientific International -- asking for a correction.

Unless of course you want the public to think you are a PSI member.

If some blog or news medium reported that I'm a member of the Boy Scouts of America, the National Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Bar Association, the National Rifle Association, or any other group I'm NOT a member of, I assure you I would request a correction of that misinformation -- whether or not membership in the group might be positive or negative for my reputation.

Andrew

===================

From: Vincent Gray ...

To: peterridley...

CC: aaskolnick@...

Sent: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 18:57

Subject: Re: Claims about membership of PSI

Dear Peter

What exactly do you expect me to do? Why do you not spend your energies attacking the so-called climate science?

Cheers

Vincent Gray
....
New Zealand

-----Original Message----- From: peterridley.fsmail@talktalk.net
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 12:35 AM
To: vinmary.gray@paradise.net.nz
Cc: aaskolnick@verizon.net

Subject: Claims about membership of PSI

Hi Vincent,

I think that you need to be aware that claims about your membership of Principia Scientific International are spreading. Etc. etc. etc. See below

===============

From: peterridley...

To: rupertwyndham@...; vinmary.gray@...; aaskolnick@verizon.net

CC: afjacobs@...; ....jamesdelingpole...; weston46@...; hans.jelbring@...; bryanleyland@...; piers@...; timothyball@...; omatumr@...om; bastardi@...; john0sullivan@...; houston2000@...; PF.SMP@...; curryja@...; kalhnd@...; bob.carter@...; singer@...; rlindzen@...; t.v.segalstad@...; jonicol18@...; monckton@...; bbracci@...; peter.ridley@...

Sent: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 13:28

Subject: Fwd: Claims about membership of PSI

Hi Rupert,

I think that it is worth offering my opinion about Andrew Skolnick because I have had months of exchanges with him, including heated debate over the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis.

As I understand it Andrew had no serious involvement in the CACC debate until John O’Sullivan placed a comment on LinkedIn’s “Science & Technology Media Professionals” thread around May 2011. Andrew’s area of interest was investigating and reporting on malpractice in the medial field, having spent 9 years as associate editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) vigorously fighting faux-science within the medical profession. Around 1998 his career came to a sudden end (http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/ama-fires-a-loose-cannon-psst--wanna-buy-a-wire-service/Content?oid=897862) during what appears to me to have been a clean-out of left-leaning JAMA editors/journalists by an AMA executive more interested in supporting right-wing politics.

John attracted Andrew’s interest in CACC by saying on that thread “ .. Has Global Warming Propaganda Killed Science Journalism? Now that ' journalists' routinely censor science that disproves the man-made global warming meme, will the public increasingly turn to alternative news outlets?” (http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/linkedin_discussion3.htm). That broad condemnation of science journalists was like a red flag to a bull because of th eunfair treatment that Andrew had received in the hands of the AMA.

From that point on John O’Sullivan has been in Andrew’s sights. After several weeks of research by several journalists Andrew made a pertinent comment on the thread “ .. we're slowly putting together the missing pieces to the puzzle. While it might not show us exactly who John "The Denier" O'Sullivan is, it will likely show us what he is and who he isn't .. Soon we may have the evidence that the legal credentials he claims are similarly exaggerated, if not fabricated whole cloth .. O'Sullivan's letter of application for a job at WalesOnLine is the nail in the coffin of whatever shred of his reputation is left .. ”.

Can anyone in this circulation say with all honesty that in their opinion Andrew was wrong? In my opinion he was spot on! As someone who has spent almost six years fighting this CACC nonsense I had seen more than enough dishonesty from the CACC supporters during the first 4 and want nothing to do with similar dishonesty on our side. Some in this circulation may consider that we need to fight fire with fire (and dishonesty with dishionesty). I don’t because in my opinion it does nothing but undermine our efforts to expose the dishonesty of the power-hungry, the UN, the IPCC, the politicians, the environmental activists, the renewable energy industry and their financial backers.

You say of John O’Sullivan and Andrew Skolnick “ .. Both leave a bad smell .. ”. They aren’t the only ones in this vexed debate to do that. Do any of us smell of roses?

That’s another fine rant to which I’ve subjected you all. Now it’s your turn!

Hi Vincent,

I have no argument with most of what you say and have enormous respect for th eway that you have fought the CACC nonsense coming out of the IPCC and elsewhere. Yes “ .. The whole system is a travesty of the scientific method .. ” used so effectively by that brilliant polymath Ibn al-Haytham 1000 years ago. One small part of your E-mail that I reject is “ .., yet many of you .. waste your time pursuing a tiny number minor delinquents .. ”. In my humble opinion exposing dishonesty to the spotlight is not a waste of time (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html).

You ask “ .. Why all this attention criticising the PSÏ ? .. ”. In my opinion for several of the PSI founding members this is an appropriate quote “ .. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs .. ” 1 Timothy 6:10.

As always, if I have misinterpreted of misrepresented any of the facts upon which I have formed the opinions expressed here then please let me know specifically where and how. I can then reconsider and decide whether or not a retraction or apology are warranted. I have no wish to defame anyone through expressing ill-informed opinions.

Hi Andrew, I was unsure about including you in the circulation because I anticipated a fiery response but decided to add you in rather than forward separately. If you decide to respond I appeal to you to do so in a CIVIL manner rather than hurl insults at anyone. I think that we are all entitled to have the opportunity of putting our side of the story but let’s try to do it in a CALM, CONSIDERED AND RESPECTFUL manner.

Best regards, Pete

=================

From: Rupert Wyndham ...

To: peterridley...

CC: afjacobs@...; ...jamesdelingpole...; vinmary.gray@...; weston46@...

Sent: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 10:10

Subject: Re: Fwd: Claims about membership of PSI

Frankly Pete, if Skolnick is a supporter of Michael Mann, then he is no more worth bothering with than is O'Sullivan. Both leave a bad smell.

ATB

=================

From: Vincent Gray...

To: peterridley...; weston46@...

Sent: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 1:18

Subject: Re: Fwd: Claims about membership of PSI

Dear Peter and Wes

Änd why beholdest thee the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye

Why all this attention criticising the PSÏ ?.

They are a miscellaneous bunch of people who know there is something wrong with the "Anthropogenic Global Warming" hypothesis

Science depends on controversy and it is deplorable that there is outright censorship and derision directed against anybody who questions this hypothesis. The only place you can discuss it at all is on the web.

I have gained much enlightenment from my long period of argument with many of them. I have refused to associate publicly with them as an organisation because they have fallen for one of the many deceptions carried out on the public by the IPCC. They think that the IPCC claim that the energy entering the earth equals that which leaves it. that it is "balanced", means that this can only be so if the "climate system"as defined by the IPCC is in equilibrium. If this is so it must comply with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. and since it does not the whole system breaks down.

It is true that the "Climate System"does not comply with the laws of Thermodynamics because it is not in equilibrium. because It is attached to the sun and the earth. Therefore the IPCC assumption that the entry energy equals leaving energy is untrue. Therefore the claim that calculated effects of increases in greenhouse gases can predict future climate is wrong

How many of your friends believe the falsehood that there is an energy balance"

There is talk of the "Scientific Method. The IPCC associates violate almost every principle of the scientific method and many of you seem not to care. Amongst their most serious violations are as follows.

They have no scientific evidence that trace gases influence the climate, so they employ the opinions of people who are paid to provide them, who always used phrases like |confidence"and "likelihood"instead of "proof . They "project"but never "predict., Detection attribution and simulation are merely various terms fro correlation, which does not provide evidence of cause and effect.

They routinely violate the first principle of mathematical statistics that you have to start with samples that have all been obtained in identical circumstances. They routinely evade the task of estimating the accuracy of any of their "data"which are always complex manipulation of actual experimental observations.

They replace the real climate which consists of changes in air pressure, air and ocean circulation, convection, evaporation and deposition of water, with a system that ignores all of these things and replaces it with one based entirely on radiation exchanges.

The whole system is a travesty of the scientific method, yet many of you accept it on face value and waste your time pursuing a tiny number minor delinquents.

Chersz

Vincent Gray

...

New Zealand

=============

From: peterridley...

To: rupertwyndham@...

CC: afjacobs@...; ...jamesdelingpole...; vinmary.gray@...; weston46@...

Sent: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:54

Subject: RE: Fwd: Claims about membership of PSI

Hi Rupert,

I don't have a copy of any E-mail from Albert referring to "vindictive" so if it is relevant then I'd appreciate seeing it. I speculate that it was in some way referring to Andrew, with whom I have had many spats on the CACC hypothesis but despite his dogmatic attitude towards the subject and staunch support of people like Michael Mann I have found him to be sincere and honest. If I was forced to make a choice between trusting Andrew or those who support John O'Sullivan there is no doubt in my mind who I would choose.

As you surely all acknowledge, this vexed CACC debate brings out the worst in all of us.

I warned John and the rest of his "slayers"/PSI group members during my "PSI & Due Diligence" activities in Dec 2010/Jan. 2011 that each member of the group had to make sure that he/she was "squeaky clean", e.g. on 4th Jan. I said " .. I see it as being vitally important for the protection of group integrity that there is nothing underhand about what we do. The CIC Regulator must fully understand the reason why PSI is being established. If there is anything that appears dishonest about PSI disciples and supporters of 'the doctrine' will amplify it out of all proportion. I say that each if us must be squeaky clean in what we say and do and provide no ammunition for our opponents to support their inevitable claims that our motives are avaricious not altruistic but then again, maybe I’m being paranoid – put it down to my age) .. " (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/psi-due-diligence-20102011-selected-e.html).

On 14th Jan I said to the group " .. Whatever form it eventually takes, if PSI is ever perceived by disciples and followers of the CACC doctrine as a threat to their cause not only PSI but everyone associated with it will be attacked with whatever can be used or invented. Each of us will be carefully researched and any skeletons in cupboards will be dragged out into the open. Any suggestion of past dishonesty or irrationality will be exploited .. Several of us have already experienced this sort of treatment but it may be new to some. It can get very unpleasant, even for those who stick to the science. .. what is there about any of us that could seriously undermine PSI’s standing? As I’ve said before, we have to be seen to be squeaky clean. Are we all happy that we can achieve this? .. ".

What surprised me was how little reaction I had from most of the recipients. As I recall only Professor Claes Johnson and ex-CIA operative Kent Clizbe made worthwhile points in response to John and my exchanges.

Well, none of the "Slayers"/PSI members can claim that they were not made aware of what was coming, although I didn't at the time think that I would be one of those exposing PSI to the Spotlight.

Best regards, Pete

==============

From: peterridley....

To: aaskolnick@...

CC: vinmary.gray@...; peter.ridley@...

Sent: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:14

Subject: Re: Fw: Claims about membership of PSI

Hi Andrew,

You may recall that I drew Vincent's attention to this "Hot Topic" article on 4th Dec.

I have little regard for fruit grower Gareth Renowden but at least he is giving exposure to John O and associates.

What surprised me was how little reaction I had from most of them. As I recall only Professor Claes Johnson and ex-CIA operative Kent Clizbe made worthwhile points in response to John and my exchanges.

Wee, none of the "Slayers"/PSI members can claim that they were not made aware of what was coming, although I didn't at the time think that I would be one of those exposing PSI to the Spotlight.

Best regards, Pete

==============

Message Received: Dec 07 2012, 07:39 AM

From: "Andrew Skolnick" ...

To: "Vincent Gray"...

Cc: "Pete Ridley" ...

Subject: Re: Fw: Claims about membership of PSI

Dr. Gray,

It appears O'Sullivan has succeeded in fooling a lot of people into believing -- and telling others -- that you ARE a member of the humbug's disreputable group.

Here's a screen shot of a recent post by another blogger O'Sullivan has misled.

-Andrew

http://hot-topic.co.nz/leyland-joins-the-uber-cranks-signs-up-with-serial-liar-osullivans-vanity-science-group/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+co%2FRbRF+%28Hot+Topic%29

Intro to article included.

=============

Message Received: Dec 06 2012, 10:47 PM

From: "Pete Ridley"...

To: "Vincent Gray" ...

Cc: "Andrew Skolnick" ..., peterridley.fsmail@...

Subject: Re: Claims about membership of PSI

Hi Vincent,

I don't recall responding to this E-mail or the previous one. Thanks f=very much for copying me on the one from John O' claiming not to have implied that you were a member of PSI. In cases like this I'm usually prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the other party but not on this occasion. My experience with John O' warns me not to believe a word that he says unless he can prove he is not lying.

I am very disappointed that Bryan Leyland has jumped into bed with John O' and his slayers because in my opinion it destroys any credibility that he ever had. Is there anything that you can do to persuade him to change his mind and publicly dissociate from the group? The same goes for Malcolm Roberts, a good friend of Wes Allen (who recognises the "Slayers" for what they are). Can't these guys see beyond their noses?

I have to say that I am so relieved that you haven't been taken in by them. You were one of th efirst to lead me down the enlighening path to CACC scepticism (Andrew, stop it. This is my E-mail and I can say what I want).

I note that John O' has taken to adding " PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL .. This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient .. " etc. etc. etc. I take the credit for that because I suggested it to his bosom buddy Joe Postma (recently elevated to the status of PSI Senior Fellow) a few days ago during one-to-one exchanges when he suggested that he couldn't trust me to stick to my claim that I regard them as P&C between the two individuals unless otherwise agreed on specific items.

Best regards, Pete

==============

From: Andrew Skolnick ...

To: peterridley...

CC: ...jamesdelingpole...; hans.jelbring@...; bryanleyland@...; piers@...; rupertwyndham@...; timothyball@...; omatumr@...; bastardi@...; Nils-Axel.Morner@...; morner@...; john0sullivan@...; houston2000@...; PF.SMP@...; ...ilovemycarbondioxide...; curryja@...; afjacobs@...; kalhnd@...; vinmary.gray@...; bob.carter@...; singer@...; rlindzen@...; bbracci@...

Sent: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 17:04

Subject: Re: Claims about membership of PSI

On 12/6/2012 3:44 AM, peterridley... wrote: “ .. Hi Andrew,

I doubt very much if we'll here any more about that from John O' but the ideal "respected and independent journalist at any major news medium" is James Delingpole. You'll remeber that James is one of the referees on John's CV Best regards, Pete .. ”

Well, if the FOX News network can pass off Newt Gringrich, Karl Rove, Rick Santorum, Dick Morris, and Sarah Palin as "fair and balanced" news commentators, I suppose you can call this guy an "independent journalist." ;-)

The benefit of living in an alternate universe is that no matter what you say, it is always the "truth."

-A

=============

From: peterridley...

To: aaskolnick@...; ...jamesdelingpole...

CC: hans.jelbring@...; bryanleyland@...; piers@...; rupertwyndham@...; timothyball@...; omatumr@...; bastardi@...; Nils-Axel.Morner@...; morner@...; john0sullivan@...; houston2000@...; PF.SMP@...; ...ilovemycarbondioxide...; curryja@...; afjacobs@...; kalhnd@...; vinmary.gray@...; bob.carter@...; singer@...; rlindzen@...; bbracci@...

Sent: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 8:44

Subject: Re: Claims about membership of PSI

Hi Andrew,

Best regards, Pete

===========

From: Andrew Skolnick ...

To: Peter Ridley ...

Sent: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 23:09

Subject: Re: Fw: Claims about membership of PSI

Let's cut to the chase, guys.

If Peter Ridley and I are the frauds and liars, rather than John O'Sullivan, he could prove it easily and publicly, simply by sending a brief letter.

If he is not the shameless fraud and pathological liar we say he is, all he would have to do to make us eat our words would be to mail a letter to the University of Surrey authorizing the registrar's office to send a letter certifying that they awarded him a law degree, to a respected and independent journalist at any major news medium.

Every time I publicly challenge him to do this, he slinks away.

Do you hear that slinking sound?

- Andrew

==============

From: peterridley...

To: aaskolnick@...; hans.jelbring@...

CC: bryanleyland@...; piers@...; rupertwyndham@...; timothyball@...; omatumr@...; bastardi@...; Nils-Axel.Morner@...; morner@...; john0sullivan@...; houston2000@...; PF.SMP@...; ...ilovemycarbondioxide...; curryja@...; afjacobs@...; kalhnd@...; vinmary.gray@...; bob.carter@...; singer@...; rlindzen@...; peter.ridley@...; bbracci@...

ALSO FORWARDED TO weston46@...; cliff.ollier@...:

Sent: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 20:57

Subject: Re: Fw: Claims about membership of PSI

...

Hi Andrew,

Appended to your E-mail is an E-mail from Vincent which simply said "FYI Cheers". Am I correct to assume that he was simply referring to John O's E-mail to him on 5th Dec. in which John alleges that you and I " .. are well known compulsive liars and smear merchants .. " and that QUOTE: .. others have obtained evidence Ridley is a "cyberstalker" and identity faker .. "? As ever, John is just one big bag of hot air.

I eagerly await the day when John O' is called upon to substantiate the allegations that he has made against us (and others), e.g. see "Professor Judith Curry threatened with blog closure attempt" (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/professor-judith-curry-threatened-with.html). Among allegations from John following that "FORMAL 'TAKE DOWN' NOTICE" of his were that " .. Ridley, You are a proven liar and a con artist .. ". He even hurled his invective at Rupert Wyndham " .. Mr. Wyndham, I call Ridley and Skolnick liars because they are. Your attempts at playing armchair lawyer are as laughable as theirs. As I've said umpteen times - either put up or shut up. The same goes for you, too. You're a joke .. ".

Allegations such as "compulsive liar", "smear merchant", "con artist" made by John against others are in my opinion a prime example of the well-used stove pot calling the shiny new kettle "black". You may recall this being discussed on Professor Judith Curry's "Letter to the sky dragon" thread during Nov. 2011. I mentioned to John that QUOTE: .. 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 .. UNQUOTE (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/professor-judith-curry-threatened-with.html).

That particular exchange was on this very same subject of PSI membership that we have been discussing recently. John and I had been discussing QUOTE: .. what appears to me (and Professor Curry?) to be a dwindling band of “Slayers” .. ", specifically relating to whether or not Professors Claes Johnson and Nasif Nahl and Dr Matthias Kleepsies had dissociated from PSI. We also talked about John's claim on 17th Jan 2011 in his failed appeal for £15,000 on Gofundme (so far raised £450) that the founders of PSI " .. are a group of 36 respected international scientists and related professionals .. " (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s). John's reaction to my suggestion then of a declining PSI membership was similar to his more recent allegations.

How strange that at that time all he could muster were 33 names of possible members of the group even including Dr Kleespies who had advised that he was a FORMER member. So much for John's allegation on 26th Sept. 2011 that I had made an “ .. unsubstantiated claim ( in effect, a lie) about the Slayers being in decline .. ” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/selected-e-mails-with-slayerspsi.html).

Currently we have the dubious claim that PSI members include Professor Myron Evans and his AIAS members (http://www.principia-scientific.org/about/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc.html) despite the fact that Professor Evans has said quite clearly that " .. Aftet due diligence AIAS has decided not to join PSI .. " (http://drmyronevans.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/aias-has-not-joined-psi/). On top of that there is the misleading claim that Piers Corbyn is a PSI member and the implication that Vincent Gray is too.

Then there are all of those conflicting claims that John has made about his education, training and experience, e.g. see his 2010 CV and the associated notes (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/curriculum-vitae-for-john-osullivan-2010.html). In that CV John claimed that his education included " .. State University of New York (SUNY), Batchelor’s Degree in International and Comparative Law .. ". John's wife tells a different story.

You mention contacting the records office at University of Northampton to check up on that claim of John's on his LinkedIn page to have been " .. Lecturer University of Northampton .. September 1987 – August 1999 (12 years) .. " (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/19/6b4/84a). That's another fine example of a claim that conflicts with what he claims in his 2010 CV.

You will recall John's comment on 29th Sept. 2011 when you were challenging his claim that he " .. was appointed as a consultant to Canadian Law firm, Pearlman Lindholm .. to assist Dr. Tim Ball in his defense of two high profile libel suits .. " (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/selected-e-mails-with-slayerspsi.html). He said of you " .. 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 .. despite Skolnick’s claims to the contrary .. I openly publish my educational and professional background on my ‘bio’ page on the 'LinkedIn' website .. ". Only 7 months later on 26th April 2012 in an E-mail apparently sent by Dr. Ball to Rupert Wyndham (Ccd to Dr. S. Fred Singer) Dr. Ball says " .. I was made aware of the charges against O'Sullivan almost from the start .. I legally disassociated myself from O'Sullivan very early .. " (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html).

Is there any wonder that I said on 18th April 2012 " .. I prefer not to accept anything from the “Slayers” or PSI on face value. As far as the claimed or implied membership is concerned I would only be convinced by each named individual publicly acknowledging having joined and remained a member – of course excluding John O’Sullivan, Hans Schreuder, Joe Olson, Joseph E. Postma and last but by no means least, dear old Dougy Cotton .. " (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/professor-judith-currys-letter-to.html).

You may recall Norm Kalmanovitch saying to us on 23rd Aug. 2012 " .. Our problem is that we are all polite professionals and the perpetrators of the CAGW fraud are all rather nasty. What we need on our side is a bit of this nastiness and them Slayers have it in spades, so my intention in this is to get the Slayers working with us and giving the warmist crowd a taste of their own medicine! .. ". I don't agree with all of that but certainly agree that as far as nastiness is concerned the lead "Slayer" has it in spades. Several of his close associates from his school-teaching days would agree too.

Hi Hans (Jelbring),

Please would you pass this on to Nils-Axel.Morner because the E-mail addresses that I have for him seem to have been discontinued.

BTW, as always, if there is anything that I have said which misinterprets or misrepresents the facts on which I base my opinions then please let me know specifically what so that I can review and consider whether a retraction or apology are warranted. The last thing that I want to do is defame anyone.

Best regards, Pete

==================

Message Received: Dec 05 2012, 10:21 PM

From: "Vincent Gray"...

To: "Andrew Skolnick" ...

Cc: "Pete Ridley" ...

Subject: Re: Claims about membership of PSI

Dear Andrew, Pet

It is evident that John OSullivan is a menace to those who dispute the arguments of the IPCC. I wonder where his money comes from or who has financed his website and his operations. Is it the CIA, or some wealthy

supporter of the IPCC?

I have been sceptical of the IPCC claims for over 20 years. As an old time scientist I originally took these claims at their face value, that they were honest contributions to scientific thought. The more I have studied the more evidence I find of dishonest and fraudulent manipulation. I now consider that their basic theory, that climate can be understood entirely from exchanges of radiation, is fundamentally false.

Unfortunately it is sufficiently plausible to have been accepted

Vincent Gray

...

New Zealand

==============

Message Received: Dec 05 2012, 03:59 AM

From: "Andrew Skolnick"...

To: "Vincent Gray"...

Cc: "Pete Ridley" ..., "JOHN OSULLIVAN"...

Subject: Re: Fw: Claims about membership of PSI

Thank you, Dr. Gray.

In my second email to you, I quoted O'Sullivan's published statements, in which he certainly infers if not outright claims you as a member of his group -- and I provided a web link to those statements for you to see for yourself.

I'll repost them to let O'Sullivan's own statements refute his latest lie, that he "did not state or infer you are a member of PSI":

http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/71-the-courts-hans-jelbring-and-the-kiwis-bring-joy-for-greenhouse-gas-deniers.html

Today renowned climate expert Hans Jelbring and Bryan Leyland, spokesman on energy and economic matters for the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition each announce themselves among dozens of new faces in the PSI team. Dr. Vincent Gray, Leyland's colleague at NZCSC also issued a press release seen as further validation of PSI’s indomitable stance in refuting greenhouse gas science.

As independent climate researchers move closer towards the universal abandonment of the greenhouse gas “theory” last week the indomitable Bryan Leyland showed his leadership by becoming the first prominent Kiwi skeptic to join PSI. Leyland, from the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) is their spokesman on energy and economics while fellow NZCSC stalwart Dr. Vincent Gray is editor of the popular Kiwi newsletter. Each, along with Professor Cliff Ollier of the University of Western Australia announced their acceptance of all key elements of PSI science (see below).

It's hilarious when this bogus attorney tries to smear others as "compulsive liars," "smear merchants, "frauds," and "pals of pedophiles." These are perfect descriptions of the con artist who's been fraudulently passing himself off as an attorney with more than a decade of successful litigation in New York and federal courts, and as an accomplished science writer with articles published in National Review and Forbes magazine -- none of which is true. John O'Sullivan is, hands down, the most compulsive liar I've encountered in more than 20 years of investigative reporting. (http://www.aaskolnick.com)

O'Sullivan's degree is in art, not law. He claims he earned a law degree from the University of Surrey, during most of the years he was actually earning his art degree from West Surrey College of Art and Design. For more than 15 years, he taught art and physical ed in high schools in England until his career ended in scandal in 2003, when he was arrested and charged with sending dozens of obscene messages to a 16-year-old girl, offering her money for sex.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/SIR+CLEARED+OF+SEX+TXTS.-a0113713467

After being acquitted due to conflicting evidence, he thumbed his nose at the police and prosecutor by self-publishing an autobiographical novel he called Vanilla Girl: A Fact-Based Crime Story of a Teacher's Struggle to Control His Erotic Obsession with a Schoolgirl." http://cupboard55vanillagirl.blogspot.com/

In it, he defends what he called "kiddie fiddlers" and argues against laws that prohibit adults from having sex with children and young teens. A few samples from that book:

“I tell my online friends that the age of consent varies widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The median seems to range from fourteen to sixteen years, but globally ages can range anything from nine to twenty-one. It sickens me that people, so-called civilized, intelligent people can’t see it. Their clinical, sanitized attitudes toward the appropriate age of consent have drifted upwards in modern times-Ignorant people rally against me-against us-us free thinkers.”

“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.”

“Too many fools still believe and need to believe that children are ‘innocent’ and ‘pure’, that is, asexual, untainted by sexual thoughts, feelings or urges. But, you see, Leo, you and me know this is not true even of very young children, and it is certainly not true of children much past the age of ten or eleven.”

He also created and published a montage of semi-nude photos of himself gazing at his bare-breasted young "muse":

http://a2.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/12/a83bb92b7c7c368d21f8dc4b7e260dd5/l.jpg

And then there's his fellow Sky Dragon Slayer and co-author Oliver Manuel -- one of the "highly qualified luminaries" whose "Select Member Biographies" appears on PSI's web site: http://principia-scientific.org/about/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc.html

In 2006, Manuel was arrested and charged with raping and sodomizing four of his children. Because of his state's statute of limitation, all but one of the charges had to be dropped. He was convicted of attempting to sodomize his 11-year-old daughter. I think he may still be on probation for that crime. You can see the record of his conviction on the Missouri State Highway Patrol Sex Offender Registry:

http://www.mshp.dps.mo.gov/CJ38/OffenderDetails?page=0&column=name&id=1097755&lastName=Manuel&suffix=&firstName=Oliver&middleName=Keith

I suggest the next time O'Sullivan contacts you, ask him to authorize the registrar office of University of Surrey to send you a letter certifying that he earned a degree in law from the institution. I find this request usually makes him scurry away. :-D

You might also call the head of records at the University of Northampton to verify, as I did, that they have no record of O'Sullivan ever teaching there (when it was known as Nene College.) In his resume and bios, O'Sullivan claims he taught law there as a lecturer for 12 years from 1987 to 1999.

As I said, I've never encountered bigger liar and fraud in more than 20 years of investigative reporting.

Best regards,

Andrew

On 12/4/2012 6:51 PM, Vincent Gray wrote:

FYI

Cheers

Vincent Gray

...

New Zealand

-----Original Message-----

From: JOHN OSULLIVAN

Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 9:36 AM

To: Vincent Gray

Subject: Re: Claims about membership of PSI

Vincent,

To the best of my recollection nowhere do I or my colleagues state or infer you are a member of PSI. Indeed on our published member list (below) your name is absent. Ridley and Skolnick are well known compulsive liars and smear merchants.

http://www.principia-scientific.org/about/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc.html

Clearly you've become their latest target to harass and bait. Be careful - others have obtained evidence Ridley is a "cyberstalker" and identity faker: http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/pete-ridleyfsmail-net-is-the-presumed-cyberstalker/

John O'Sullivan

Coordinator

Principia Scientific International

http://principia-scientific.org/

=============

From: peterridley...

To: bryanleyland@...; piers@...; rupertwyndham@...

CC: timothyball@...; omatumr@...; bastardi@...; Nils-Axel.Morner@...; morner@...; john0sullivan@...; houston2000@...; PF.SMP@...; ...ilovemycarbondioxide...; curryja@...; askolnick@...; afjacobs@...; kalhnd@...; vinmary.gray@...; peter.ridley@...

Sent: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 13:10

Subject: Re: PSI and “ .. 9 leading scientists . . ”

Hi Bryan,

I have no argument with your comments but perhaps you missed my point, which I cover in my response to Piers.

Hi Piers,

As you are already aware I agree with Rupert that you posted an excellent comment on Bloomberg. Thanks also for clarifying that you are not a member of PSI.

It seems that you misunderstood my comment that “ .. It seems to me that referring to all of these individuals as .. leading scientists .. in the context of the processes and drivers of the different global climates is stretching the imagination somewhat too far .. ". I was specifically referring to the 8 individuals who I listed in my E-mail, not to other signatories, although it seems to me that not all of those other signatories have demonstrated that they are leading scientists in “ .. the processes and drivers of the different global climates .. ”, e.g. I found nothing of relevance to that specific area for:

- Dr. J. Scott Armstrong, a Professor of Marketing, “ .. Research Interests: educational methods, forecasting methods, persuasion through advertising .. ”, (https://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/profile/226/),

- Ian Bock, BSc, PhD, DSc, Biological sciences,

- Alan Carlin, B.S. (California Institute of Technology), PhD (economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology),

- Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., Arctic Animal Behavioural Ecologist, wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology.

I suspect that I could find more but if I am mistaken about these and others then please correct me by providing links to their research papers. In my opinion that “ .. undermines the strength of the 125 signatories letter .. ” far more than any issues that I might have with any organisation or individual. In my opinion it is no different to what the IPCC and other CACC supporters do with regard to their fictitious consensus.

As I have said on numerous occasions I am happy to be corrected on anything that I say and am always prepared to review and consider whether or not a retraction or apology are warranted.

Best regards, Pete

===============

From: Piers Corbyn ...

To: 'Bryan Leyland' ...; peterridley...

CC: timothyball@...; omatumr@...; bastardi@...; Nils-Axel.Morner@...; morner@...; john0sullivan@...; houston2000@...m; PF.SMP@...; ...ilovemycarbondioxide...; curryja@...; rupertwyndham@...; askolnick@...; afjacobs@...; kalhnd@...

Sent: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 6:13

Subject: RE: PSI and " .. 9 leading scientists .. "

Pete,

Further to the question I am not a member of PSI and understand my listing error there will be rectified. I have communicated with them and members thereof on climate matters.

I am, as you note, one of the 125 signatories. I appreciate your concerns about the need for accuracy in all lists but I have to say I question the sense of you saying:

"It seems to me that referring to all of these individuals as “ .. leading scientists .. ” in the context of the processes and drivers of the different global climates is stretching the imagination somewhat too far."

I know you have issues with some PSI members and that is a matter for those concerned but this remark unfortunately, doubtless not intentionally, undermines the strength of the 125 signatories letter. As far as I am concerned every single one of the 125 are leading scientists in the context you mentioned because they are objectively leaders compared with the delusional foolishness of the fraudulent anti-scientific CO2 warmist creed on those matters. No stretch of the imagination is needed to see that.

Thank you for your attention,

Piers Corbyn

=============

From: Bryan Leyland ...

To: peterridley...

CC: timothyball@...; omatumr@...; piers@...; bastardi@...; Nils-Axel.Morner@...; morner@...; john0sullivan@...; houston2000@...; PF.SMP@...; ...ilovemycarbondioxide...; curryja@...; rupertwyndham@...; askolnick@...; afjacobs@...; kalhnd@...

Sent: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 3:50

Subject: Re: PSI and “ .. 9 leading scientists .. ”

Peter,

I belong to PSI and I believe I have qualifications relevant to climate science. I have a Masters degree in power system analysis which involves computer modelling of very complex power systems in steady-state and in transient situations.

All computer models must be an accurate representation of the system that they are modelling, they must have accurate input data and theny must have been demonstrated to produce correct answers. As climate science is largely about computer modelling rather than climate itself, I do feel qualified to comment.

What I do know is that no climate model is an accurate representation of the system simply because we do not understand how the climate works.) For instance, none of the climate models can predict El Niño events which are the major periodic climate disturbance. Therefore, we have proof that they cannot accurately represent the system.

In addition, the climate models predict that increasing carbon dioxide will cause warming simply because they are programmed with a "climate sensitivity factor" (in engineering parlance a positive feedback factor) of between two and three. Therefore, the prediction of warming is not because the model has determined that this would happen but it is simply because this is built in to the program code.

How anyone with a knowledge of computer modelling can believe that they can give accurate results is totally beyond me.

Kind regards,

Bryan Leyland

....

www.bryanleyland.co.nz

===============

Message Received: Dec 04 2012, 11:51 PM

From: "Vincent Gray"...

To: "Andrew Skolnick" ..., "Pete Ridley"...

Cc:

Subject: Fw: Claims about membership of PSI

FYI

Cheers

Vincent Gray

...

New Zealand

---- ----- Original Message ---- ----- ----

From: JOHN OSULLIVAN

Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 9:36 AM

To: Vincent Gray

Subject: Re: Claims about membership of PSI

Vincent,

http://www.principia-scientific.org/about/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc.html

Clearly you've become their latest target to harass and bait. Be careful - others have obtained evidence Ridley is a "cyberstalker" and identity faker:

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/pete-ridleyfsmail-net-is-the-presumed-cyberstalker/

John O'Sullivan

Coordinator

Principia Scientific International

http://principia-scientific.org/

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL

....

=============

Message Received: Dec 04 2012, 08:05 PM

From: "Pete Ridley" ...

To: t.v.segalstad@..., cliff.ollier@..., jonicol18@..., monckton@...

Cc:

Subject: FW: Fwd: PSI and “ .. 9 lead ing scientists .. ”

Hi Folks,

Ref. the appended E-mail, I included other signatories to the "open letter" who had a connection with Principia Scientific International but overlooked you. My apologies.

I have had one response so far, from Oliver Manuel, who didn't seem to get my message. Hopefully it is clear to you all but if not then please ask for clarification.

If any of you has an E-mail address for Vincent Gray would you please forward to him. The address that I have failed (vinmary.gray@....).

Best regards, Pete

=============

From: peterridley...

To: omatumr@...

CC: askolnick@...

Sent: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 18:24

Subject: Re: PSI and “ .. 9 leading scientists .. ”

I certainly would have agreed with you if you had said " .. there is no scientific merit to Catastrophic AGW claims .. ".

As for "What is your point" - are we not judged by the company that we keep?

=============

Message Received: Dec 04 2012, 05:29 PM

From: "Pete Ridley"

To: piers@...

Cc:

Subject: RE: CO2 warmist delusionism is pointing the world in the wrong direction, Comment posted by Piers Corbyn on Bloomberg + Forecast News

Hi Piers,

Thanks for the OK about me advising others that you are not a member of PSI. You say " .. the confusion might not have been deliberate .. " but I think otherwise. I challenged John a long time ago about PSI membership and have my doubts about others named on the PSI web-page (http://www.principia-scientific.org/about/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc.html). I agree regarding Philip, of whom it was claimed on the "Why PSI is a Private Association" promotional page on the launch of PSI in July 2011 " .. 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) .. ". Perhaps you'd like to ask him if he had agreed to that appointment or not before it was announced.

Perhaps you'd also like to ask Professors Claes Johnson and Nasif Nahle if thee ever (or if so still do) considered themselves to be one of the PSI " .. Founding Members and stakeholders .. " as was announced on that same page.

After that and taking into consideration the statement by Professor Myron Evans regarding AIAS you may wish to reconsider whether or not John's inclusion of individuals in his list of PSI members is deliberate or otherwise.

In my opinion it is imprudent for anyone to associate with PSI without first undertaking their own due diligence exercise. A good starting point is my blog entries since may 2012, including "Spotlight On Principia Scientific International" (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html).

I suspect that you didn't pay much (if any) attention to the E-mail exchanges that took place among the "Slayers"/PSI group during Dec. 2010-Jan. 2011. I have posted the significant ones on my "PSI & DUE Diligence" 2010/2011 - Selected E-mails" thread (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/psi-due-diligence-20102011-selected-e.html). They are very revealing of what was the motivation for setting up PSI.

Best regards, Pete

===============

From: Oliver Manuel ...

To: peterridley.fsmail@...

CC: timothyball@...; piers@...; bastardi@...; bryanleyland@...; morner@...; john0sullivan@...; houston2000@...; PF.SMP@...; ...ilovemycarbondioxide...; curryja@...; rupertwyndham@...; askolnick@...; afjacobs@...; kalhnd@...

Sent: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 16:54

Subject: Re: PSI and “ .. 9 leading scientists .. ”

What is your point, Pete?

One hundred and twenty-nine (129) scientists agree there is no scientific merit to AGW claims. Some of these are associated with Principia Scientific International (PSI).

So? Independently of Principia Scientific International (PSI), there is no scientific merit to AGW .

I agree.

Oliver

==============

From: peterridley...

To: timothyball@...; omatumr@...; piers@...; bastardi@...; bryanleyland@...; Nils-Axel.Morner@...

CC: john0sullivan@...; houston2000@...; PF.SMP@...; ...ilovemycarbondioxide...; curryja@...; rupertwyndham@...; askolnick@...; afjacobs@...; kalhnd@... (also forwarded to Vincen Gray)

Sent: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 16:24

Subject: PSI and “ .. 9 leading scientists .. ”

Hi Folks,

There is excessive euphoria in some quarters over those “ .. Nine leading scientists from Principia Scientific International (PSI) .. among the 125-plus signatories of a key open letter last week to UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon .. ” (http://www.principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/75-absence-of-any-greenhouse-gas-warming-dulls-doha-climate-conference.html and http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=10705).

There are only 8 names from that list (http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/29/open-climate-letter-to-un-secretary-general-current-scientific-knowledge-does-not-substantiate-ban-ki-moon-assertions-on-weather-and-climate-say-125-scientists/) that I recognise as being claimed as members of PSI (http://principia-scientific.org/about/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc.html).

- Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant and former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

- Oliver Manuel, BS, MS, PhD, Post-Doc (Space Physics), Associate - Climate & Solar Science Institute, Emeritus Professor, College of Arts & Sciences University of Missouri-Rolla, previously Research Scientist (US Geological Survey) and NASA Principal Investigator for Apollo, Cape Girardeau, Missouri, U.S.A.

- Terri Jackson, MSc (plasma physics), MPhil (energy economics), Director, Independent Climate Research Group, Northern Ireland and London (Founder of the energy/climate group at the Institute of Physics, London), United Kingdom

- Nils-Axel Mörner, PhD (Sea Level Changes and Climate), Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

- Piers Corbyn, ARCS, MSc (Physics, Imperial College London)), FRAS, FRMetS, astrophysicist (Queen Mary College, London), consultant, founder WeatherAction long range weather and climate forecasters, American Thinker Climate Forecaster of The Year 2010, London, United Kingdom

- Joe Bastardi, BSc, (Meteorology, Pennsylvania State), meteorologist, State College, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.

- Cornelia Codreanova, Diploma in Geography, Researcher (Areas of Specialization: formation of glacial lakes) at Liberec University, Czech Republic, Zwenkau, Germany

- Bryan Leyland, M.Sc., FIEE, FIMechE, FIPENZ, MRSNZ, consulting engineer (power), Energy Issues Advisor – International Climate Science Coalition, Auckland, New Zealand

It seems to me that referring to all of these individuals as “ .. leading scientists .. ” in the context of the processes and drivers of the different global climates is stretching the imagination somewhat too far.

Also, whoever agreed to the names of anyone who is claimed to be a member of PSI being placed on the list may not realise the impact that has on how seriously the open letter will be taken by supporters and rejectors of the CACC hypothesis alike..

It is even doubtful if all of these 8 are indeed members of PSI because others named as members seem not to be so. A prime example of this is Professor Myron Evans, founder of the Alpha Institute of Advanced Science (AIAS). Despite an unambiguous statement from Professor Evans that " .. Aftet due diligence AIAS has decided not to join PSI .. " (http://drmyronevans.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/aias-has-not-joined-psi/) he and about 20 of his AIAS members are listed as memers of PSI.

Perhaps Dr. Mörner, Piers Corbyn, Joe Bastardi, Cornelia Codreanova and Bryan Leyland would like to comment on whether or not they are indeed members of PSI. .

Please forward this E-mail to those among the list of “ .. 9 leading scientists .. ” who I have overlooked and to anyone else you think may be interested.

Best regards, Pete. Global Political Shenanigans (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/)

=============

Message Received: Dec 04 2012, 06:42 AM

From: "Piers Corbyn"...

To: peter.ridley@...

Cc:

Subject: RE: CO2 warmist delusionism is pointing the world in the wrong direction, Comment posted by Piers Corbyn on Bloomberg +

Forecast News

Pete,

Thanks for note.

No its OK I sent to John OS and he said he would put it right.

I probably agreed to be on their mailing lists so the confusion might not have been deliberate and JOS has written good stuff about what we do. My contact with Hans S predates PSI and he night well have made assumptions.

They invited me to join some meetings and publications but I declined. Philip Foster might be in a similar position.

Bloomberg, well we should hound them. Did they remove or what?

Thanks Piers

...

================

P&C

From: Pete Ridley ...

Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 10:32 PM

To: piers@...

Subject: RE: CO2 warmist delusionism is pointing the world in the wrong direction, Comment posted by Piers Corbyn on Bloomberg + Forecast News

Hi Piers,

Thanks for getting back with that. Am I at liberty to repeat it to others?

I ask because I regard one-to-one exchanges as being Private & Confidential unless agreed otherwise between the parties on specific items.

Best regards, Pete

=========

P&C but OK’s later

Message Received: Dec 03 2012, 04:44 PM

From: "Piers Corbyn" ...

To: peter.ridley@...

Cc:

Subject: RE: CO2 warmist delusionism is pointing the world in the wrong direction, Comment posted by Piers Corbyn on Bloomberg + Forecast News

IT IS INCORRECT

==============

From: Pete Ridley ....

Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 3:56 PM

To: piers@...

Subject: RE: CO2 warmist delusionism is pointing the world in the wrong direction, Comment posted by Piers Corbyn on Bloomberg + Forecast News

Hi Piers,

That's a good comment that you submitted to Bloomberg but they didn't seem to appreciate it. I tried to see it but was told "no longer available"!

BTW, you are listed as a member of Principia Scientific International. Please tell me that this is incorrect as in my opinion it will do nothing for your credibility.

Best regards, Pete

==========================

Message Received: Dec 03 2012, 12:18 PM

From: "Piers Corbyn" ...

To: "CO2 warmist delusionism is pointing the world in the wrong direction + WeatherAction December forecasts released"

Cc:

Subject: CO2 warmist delusionism is pointing the world in the wrong direction, Comment posted by Piers Corbyn on Bloomberg + Forecast News

TOTAL DELUSIONAL NONSENSE:- http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-12-02/obama-plans-for-climate-deal-as- fiscal-cliff-negotiations-rage#post_comment Piers posts on Bloomberg and warns "CO2 warmist delusionism is pointing the world in the wrong direction":- "Factual error. You refer to CO2 as a 'pollutant' when it is not. It is the food of plants and recent increases (from the geologically very low level of ~0.03%) are good for agriculture. Furthermore as a matter of fact there is no observed or proxy real data in the real world which demonstrates that CO2 increases contribute to warming and there is not one scientist in the world who can produce real data from recent centuries or millenia (or more) to show this. I challenge your publication to show otherwise.The great danger of the CO2-warmist delusion is that it is pointing the world in the wrong direction. The world is not warming but cooling and the increase in very extreme events in the last 2 years (eg) is as expected as the world approaches a new Little Ice Age (LIA). Indeed the extreme situations in USA, UK and Europe of summer 2012 were predicted in long range in a large amount of detail using a solar-activity understanding of the approaching Little Ice Age. Agriculture is suffering and will continue to suffer and world food shortages will increase as we move more into LIA Climate Change. This real and present climate change is much worse for agriculture and the world economy than the marginal benefit of the small but unrelated, coincidental, increase in CO2. Thank you, Piers Corbyn, WeatherAction long range weather and climate forecasters ...

============

From: peterridley...

To: aaskolnick@...; bbracci@...

CC: john0sullivan@...

Sent: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:58

Subject: Re: Media Matters' shameful omission

Hi Andrew,
You had better be careful what you say to/about John. Don't you recall previous threats of legal action regarding defamation?
As he said on 29th Sept. 2011 " .. 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 .. See LinkedIn web page: .. " (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/selected-e-mails-with-slayerspsi.html).
If you look carefully at John's LinkedIn page you'll see that he is a " .. legal advocate specializing in anti-corruption .. LLB .. litigating for over a decade in the New York State courts and U.S. Federal 2nd Circuit .. CEO of Principia Scientific International. Also Acting Internal Legal Counsel .. de facto CEO, Legal Counsel, publicist and fund raiser for the Slayers Project .. " (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/19/6b4/84a).
You surely recall him saying " .. I earned my law degree from University of Surrey in 1982 .. The Law School at the University of Surrey provided me with training in English law, not American. I more recently obtained certification in U.S. criminal law .. I have taught law .. (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/selected-e-mails-with-slayerspsi.html).
John also says he was a " .. Lecturer University of Northampton .. September 1987 – August 1999 (12 years) .. " (maybe that is where he was teaching Law).
You may not have seen his CV (apparently sent with his March 2010 job application for a post as " .. Feature Writer: Law journalism .. " - http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/so-you-want-to-be-a-journalist-in-south-wales/)? If not then I can send you a copy. It's one impressive CV QUOTE: ..Batchelor’s Degree in International and Comparative Law (2004-2007) .. Leicester University, UK (1995-2000) Doctoral Degree in Education Management and Leadership (combined M.Phil.) .. 2004-2007: Substitute and Home School Teacher, Delaware Co. New York State .. I have successfully progressed a human rights employment case through the New York State courts and the United States Federal Court (2nd Division) .. " UNQUOTE.
I wasn't aware of all of those achievements but expect that Barbara has some knowledge of them and can back John up there! After all, she has been married to him since - what - 1st Jan. 1998.
So, Andrew, be careful what you are saying about John because his patience and good nature may not be unlimited. So far he has only threatened action (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/professor-judith-curry-threatened-with.html) but you may push him too far.
Oh dear, I've just spotted a possible clash in that employment record. During the period 1995 - 2000 I see Robert Smythe, Thomas Mills and Benjamin Britten but there's no mention of lecturing at the University of Northampton for 12 years from 1987 - 1999. Never mind, I'm sure that John will have an explanation.
Best regards, Pete

-----Original Message-----

From: Andrew Skolnick...

To: JOHN OSULLIVAN ...

CC: Peter Ridley ...; Barbara Bracci-O'Sullivan...

Sent: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 6:41

Subject: Media Matters' shameful omission

John,
No doubt you're bitterly disappointed (if not fuming) over Media Matters' failure to include you in its list of the world's leading global warming denying propagandists. How humiliating it must be for you that its web report "Meet the Climate Denial Machine" doesn't even mention your name -- you, "the world's most popular Internet writer on the greenhouse gas theory of climate change!"
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545
I know that's got to hurt, but please don't let it get you down. You're still my favorite global warming denying pin-head and humbug.
-Andrew

=========================

From: peterridley...

Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 7:37 PM

To: weston46@...

Cc: bryanleyland@... ; vinmary.gray@... ; cliff.ollier@... ; hans.jelbring@...

Subject: Puzzling Claims about Membership of Principia Scientific International

Hi Wes,
In an article yesterday Principia Scientific International's "CEO & Legal Consultant" John O'Sullivan proudly announced " .. Today renowned climate expert Hans Jelbring and Bryan Leyland, chairman and co-founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) each announce themselves among dozens of new faces in the PSI team. Leyland’s influential skeptic body also issues a press release seen as further validation of PSI’s indomitable stance in refuting greenhouse gas science .. " (http://beforeitsnews.com/weather/2012/11/john-osullivan-the-courts-hans-jelbring-and-the-kiwis-bring-joy-for-greenhouse-gas-deniers-2437972.html and http://www.pugetsoundradio.com/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?m-1353960630/ and http://climaterealists.com/?id=10649 and goodness knows where else in the blogosphere! ).
John O'Sullivan even more proudly announced on 1st Nov. that he had acquired loads of new members from the Alpha Institute of Advanced Studies (AIAS) including its founder Professor Myron Evans. That claim was quickly negated by Professor Evans on 7th Nov. when he declared " .. Aftet due diligence AIAS has decided not to join PSI .. " (http://drmyronevans.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/aias-has-not-joined-psi/).
As you can imagine I find it surprising that respected sceptics of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change hypothesis consider it prudent to associate themselves with PSI and wonder if Hans and Bryan really have signed up as members of PSI. For some time now I have questioned several of the claims being made by John, including about membership of PSI. I raised this issue during exchanges with the "Slayers"/PSI group in Sept/Oct 2011 when I suggested to its John O'Sullivan 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 .. " (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/selected-e-mails-with-slayerspsi.html).
As I say in Note 2 of that thread " .. It would be interesting to know which of those individuals currently listed as PSI members actually remain so today .. I prefer not to accept anything from the “Slayers” or PSI on face value. As far as the claimed or implied membership is concerned I would only be convinced by each named individual publicly acknowledging having joined and remained a member – of course excluding John O’Sullivan, Hans Schreuder, Joe Olson, Joseph E. Postma and last but by no means least, dear old Dougy Cotton .. ”.
Here is what was stated on the PSI web-site under Select Member Biographies back in August 2012 and remains there today QUOTE: " .. Bryan Leyland .. is a New Zealand based Consulting Engineer .. Chairman of the Economics Panel of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition .. ". The page ended/ends " .. .. we are proud to list biographies of a selection of our valued members .. ". So it seems to me that either Bryan wasn't a member in August or he hasn't just become a member or he was a member, dissociated himself, then rejoined.
It has also been suggested to me recently that both Professor Cliff Collier and Dr. Vincent Gray (New Zealand Climate Science Coalition) may also have been or are considering membership of PSI. It is a coincidence that only in the last few days I have had exchanges with both of them although I have previously been involved in exchanges with Vincent going back to 2008.
More recently (mid - late 2011) Vincent was involved in numerous exchanges with the "Slayers"/PSI group and others challenging the "Slayer" version of science relating to the Greenhouse Effect and Back Radiation. I say in SpotlightON Principia Scientific INTERNATIONAL " .. My understanding is that Dr. Gray dissociated himself from the “Slayers”/PSI group in 2011 after being involved in numerous exchanges with them debating the Greenhouse Effect and Back Radiation. .. " (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html).
If Bryan, Hans and Cliff haven't yet undertaken their own "PSI & Due Diligence" exercises they may find of interest the article "SpotlightON Principia Scientific INTERNATIONAL" and related May/June threads at (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/).
Another site worth visiting is Joanna Nova's "A discussion of the Slaying the Sky Dragon science: Is the Greenhouse Effect a Sky Dr SkyDragon Myth?" thread (http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/a-discussion-of-the-slaying-the-sky-dragon-science-is-the-greenhouse-effect-a-sky-dragon-myth/#comment-1189505) where my comments provide further information. I wonder if Bryan, Hans, Vincent and Cliff would be good enough to confirm or deny suggestions about their membership of PSI.
You better watch out Wes or your name might appear in that " .. list biographies of a selection of our valued members .. ".
BTW, I have updated my comments on the John O'Sullivan CV (from somewhere between 2006 and 2009?) so I'll send you a copy under separate cover.
The saying "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we set out to deceive" springs to mind.
Best regards, Pete

===============

==================

Message Received: Nov 07 2012, 06:35 AM
From: EMyrone@...
To: peter.ridley@..., rob@..., pennbonvivant@..., raydela@..., corbis@..., garethjohnevans@..., burleigh.personal@..., novam@..., kp.phys@..., graham.hall@..., dwlindstrom@..., ver@..., cr1460solarinc@..., azjadczyk@..., bo.lehnert@..., croca@..., thenarmis@..., alex.hill@..., rpmc_6@..., avanderm@..., ccefalas@..., fdamador@..., mksegumeto333@..., simon@..., horsteck@..., dewi.lewis1@..., wsd@..., johndavies47dolorgan@..., derrickpotter@..., rpotter1@..., dblake@..., robert.thomas@..., john.pethica@..., reedn@..., jcfry1@..., letterswales@..., readers@..., alan.edmunds@..., sandra.loy@..., wayne.davies@..., robin.turner@..., ellisowilliams@..., arthur.turnerthomas@..., fsnape@..., socme.org@..., save.the.eagles@..., mail@..., s.ifan@..., gethin.apgruffydd@..., sandy.gerrard@..., maurice@..., pontwenffrwd710@..., lpozhar@..., tanas@..., mpurcell@..., gclie@..., henryk.ratajczak@..., gwoggg@..., anatolivankov@..., tolgayarman@...
Cc:
Subject: Fwd: AIAS Inquiry from AIAS website

We did our due diligence and decided not to join PSI but act as observers.

========================================

E-mail sent via http://www.aias.us/index.php?goto=contactUs 2012-11-06 @ 18:00 approx

AIAS is mentioned in an article "AN EPIC WEEK OF SUCCESS FOR PSI" by John O'Sullivan, the self-proclaimed "CEO & Legal Consultant" of blogging group Principia Scientific International. John claims that " .. We’ve seen a sudden and most welcome influx of new members and we are now affiliated with the Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies .. ".

Please would you advise if that claim of John's is correct (his claims have often been challenged). If it is then any such relationship reflects on AIAS. I recommend that anyone contemplating getting involved with PSI does their own very careful "due diligence" investigation first. A useful starting point would be http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html and other articles on that blog. Numerous other blogs provide more details about the various participants in that group.

Best regard, Pete Ridley

================

Message Received: May 27 2011, 06:02 PM
From: "JOHN OSULLIVAN"
To: peter.ridley@...
Cc: claesjohnson@..., timothyball@..., hanssch@..., PF.SMP@..., Charles.R.Anderson@..., houston2000@..., ruthhertzberg@..., alan618034@...
Subject: Re: PSI, charity v CIC v private company status & Due Diligence

Hi Pete,

Thanks for the update. Personally, I've had no time to pursue PSI further because I'm deeply involved in representing Dr. Tim Ball in his two libel cases in the Vancouver Supreme Court, BC. Part of helping Tim defend himself against what I regard as two vexatious lawsuits (one filed by Dr. Michael Mann, the other by Dr. Andrew Weaver) has been in raising funds via public donations. In this regards, Dr. Ball's supporters have been fantastic and donated well over $100,000CAD already in just a few weeks. Thus I'm filled with confidence for the future of PSI when I see such grassroots support for what we envision will be an organization that has high principles in the defense of honest science. As we are witnessing here, such an organization must have some teeth to defend it's members if they are attacked for merely expressing their professional opinions on matters of great public concern. I hope once we have defeated these frivolous lawsuits and won substantial damages for Dr. Ball we will be well placed to resume work on PSI on the back of proven successes here.

Best,

John www.slayingtheskydragon.com

===============

From: "Pete Ridley"

To: john0sullivan@..., claesjohnson@..., timothyball@..., hanssch@..., PF.SMP@..., Charles.R.Anderson@..., houston2000@..., ruthhertzberg@..., alan618034@...

Cc:

Sent: May 27 2011, 05:18 PM

Subject: PSI, charity v CIC v private company status & Due Diligence

Hi folks, you may recall my concerns about a proposal late last year and early this to set up PSI as a CIC. I haven't heard anything about PSI during the past few months, the last I was aware of being the appeal for funds (http://funds.gofundme.com/1v39s) way back in January and the announcements on the PSI web-site that "We are currently under construction. Please come back shortly" (http://principia-scientific.org/) and "This site is down for maintenance. Please check back again soon" (http://principia-scientific.org/pso/). I often pop back for an update and check with Companies House for registration of PSI and nothing changes there so has the idea of forming a CIC or even a bog standard private company been dropped?

I was reading the Daily Mirror today and it has an article about a CIC (http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2011/05/brightheartuk---looks-like-a-c.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mirror%2Finvestigations+%28Mirror+-+Investigations%29) which highlights one of the concerns that I had back then about the dangers of getting involved with a CIC if it was subsequently taken over by others with different objectives to ourselves. I leave it to you to read about that particular CIC if you are sufficiently interested but here is a relevant extract

QUOTE: BrightHeartUK - looks like a charity but it's a "community interest company" .. Dressed in a high-visibility jacket and carrying an official-looking bucket, the fundraiser pleaded: "Help disabled children." .. What commuters who made donations would not have known is that the collector did not work for a registered charity, but a "community interest company" in London called BrightHeartUK. .. This is all legal because community interest companies, or CICs, can be run by salaried directors, without the need for any unpaid trustees that would monitor registered charities .. Whether generous donors are so happy to see more than half of the money they chucked into BrightHeart's collection buckets disappear in costs and wages is another matter. They are likely to be even more unhappy to learn that not a penny reaches disabled children ..

There are now more than 5,000 CICs in the UK, a spokesman for the regulator telling us: "I would agree that generally the public are still unaware of community interest companies.

"For the most part, CICs operate the same as other businesses but with social and community aims. Very few of our community interest companies are engaged in direct fundraising, but we would expect as best practice that the CIC would make clear that they are a community interest company and not a charity. "It is intended that the regulatory regime for CICs should be light touch. "But we are keen to 'protect the brand' and if it appears substantiated we will further investigate any complaint against a CIC."

I haven't heard from any of you recently so please let me know how things are progressing, including how the books are doing.

Best regards, Pete

=====================

=====================

From: Pete Ridley ...
To: john0sullivan@...
Cc: hanssch@...
Sent: Friday, 21 January, 2011 17:54:18
Subject: RE: Amendment to PSI website

Hi John, it was my pleasure. It's reassuring that at long last I have been able to make a contribution that you both appreciated. Looks as though that Paypal glitch hasn't been fixed yet. That should be sorted as soon as possible because it could give out the wrong signals to potential donors.

Best regards, Pete.
===========================

Message Received: Jan 21 2011, 03:52 PM
From: "JOHN OSULLIVAN" ...
To: peter.ridley@...
Cc:
Subject: Amendment to PSI website

Hi Pete,
Hans has asked me to address your valid point that PSI hasn't yet been registered as a CIC despite the website appearing to say otherwise. This is an error that I've asked our webmaster to correct. Many thanks for pointing that out to us.
Regards,
John
www.slayingtheskydragon.com

******************
Message Received: Jan 21 2011, 02:05 PM
From: "Hans Schreuder" ...
To: peter.ridley@...
Cc:
Subject: Copy of: PSI Status

Copy of:

This is an enquiry e-mail via http://principia-scientific.org/pso/ from:
Pete Ridley

Hi Hans, just a point that may need clarification. The PSI WEB-site appears to claim (both here and @ http://principia-scientific.org/pso/about-us/why-psi-is-a-cic) that from 30th September Principia Scientific International(PSI) has been " .. a legal entity under British law serving charitable interests for the benefit of the broader community. Principia Scientific International is mandated under law to serve the community PSI is a Community Interest Company (CIC). .. Thus PSI is a business trading with a social purpose (“social enterprises”) carrying out projects supportive of good science involving activities for the benefit of the community and not for private profit.

PSI .. operates under UK law as per our Articles of Association in accordance with The Companies (Model Articles) Regulations 2008 (see our ‘About US page for more info). Our legally binding structure permits us to hold assets on behalf of our trustees".

Today I checked with Companies House and was advised that there is no company having the name Principia Scientific International on its register. I was also advised that any such claim should by law be accompanied by the Registration Number.

If PSI has registered as a CIC then Companies House should be asked to correct its records. If PSI has not yet been registered as a CIC it might be sensible to make that clear on this Web-site and anywhere else that suggests otherwise.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

Type of inquiry: Compliment

========================

Message Received: Jan 20 2011, 08:10 PM
From: "Claes Johnson" ...
To: "JOHN OSULLIVAN" ...
Cc: peter.ridley@..., timothyball@..., hanssch@..., PF.SMP@..., Charles.R.Anderson@..., houston2000@..., ruthhertzberg@..., alan618034@...
Subject: Re: PSI and Due Diligence

It is a problem that our book is not read by our fellow skeptics and of course not by alarmists. Curry states that
she has read it but that it is "too overwhelming", which of course is a good sign but the effect is delayed. My impression is that the book essentially is ignored. So far.

In science like in war and love, "overwhelming" means that the battle is won, but too much is too much and thus we somehow need to make it less "overwhelming" in order to open for debate.

My proposal to put together a video/lecture presentation of our message that we can agree on and any of us can deliver, has not met any noticable support. Neither has my suggestion to activate the slayers website. I wonder what is upholding these, what I would consider, constructive actions?

Claes
========================================

Message Received: Jan 20 2011, 07:04 PM
From: "JOHN OSULLIVAN" ...
To: peter.ridley@...
Cc: "Claes Johnson" ..., timothyball@..., hanssch@..., PF.SMP@..., Charles.R.Anderson@..., houston2000@..., ruthhertzberg@..., alan618034@...
Subject: Re: PSI and Due Diligence

Pete,
I strongly suggest you go visit the site www.slayingtheskydragon.com where you will find that there are in fact 2 volumes for the publication. Sadly, you've not read the books so I don't see any in point in seeking to defend the science they contain. It is for our detractors to read the books and disprove our claims.

That you make an appeal to authority helps you not when you state, "I believe that the claim to have refuted it leaves PSI wide open to ridicule from our opponents but I’m no scientist so it might help if we took advice from those with appropriate specialist understanding, like Roger and John Nicol."

I'd dearly love to take on all comers who, after reading the books, think they can ridicule our debunk. As I say, we have comprehensively refuted the GHE and if you doubt otherwise then first (a) do a Google for any debunk of our debunk (b) invite Roger and John Nicol to debate us. I'd very much look forward to that.

Thanks,
John www.slayingtheskydragon.com

=======================

From: Pete Ridley ...
To: JOHN OSULLIVAN ...
Sent: Thursday, 20 January, 2011 18:35:55
Subject: Re: PSI and Due Diligence
Businesses are not democracies

Hi John, thanks for the clarification. Please see my my final comment on PSI & Due Diligence attached.

COPY OF ATTACHMENT:

Hi John, thanks for the clarification. I obviously did misunderstand the set-up here and had painted a picture in my mind that all of us who have been drawn into this group and are included in these E-mails were part of one growing team (at my last count 22), preparing to fight a noble cause about what we see as suspect policy-making based upon flawed science. I had (mistakenly?) thought that the invitation that you made in July “Friends, Co-author with me on my new book project .. ” (Jul 03 2010, 01:35 PM) included me and still stood. Thanks for the clarification but let me state what I now understand to be the set-up, but please correct me if I have it wrong again.

There is a team of authors (the Slayers) which comprises “ .. a group of 36 respected international scientists and related professionals. Mostly we are the authors of 'Slaying the Sky Dragon,' the world's first full volume refutation of the greenhouse gas theory .. ” (http://funds.gofundme.com/1v39s). As well as the authors of the first book, others included in that 36 could be Geraldo Lino and Fred Goldberg (but are you at liberty to say who are the 36?).

I further understand that this team of 36 authors, which is preparing its second book for publication in the Spring is planning to set up a publishing company, PSI, run by an Executive chosen by those 36. From experienced gained from this first book the team of authors considers that the income from the first and subsequent book sales will be inadequate. The details of “ .. the book sales monies and expenses are being sent only to the book authors directly” held by Hans. (The way you worded it could be misinterpreted by our opponents as meaning that this team of authors retains income from the sale of its books, rather than the monies.) Insufficient funds will be generated for paying authors’ expenses, Executive salaries and expenses and all of the back-office contributors for their efforts in marketing the team’s books and any other activities that the Executive decides to approve. In order to achieve its objectives, as defined in the draft PSI Articles of Association, the team of authors has realised that it needs more funds than can be expected from book sales and membership fees and is already seeking “charitable” donations. In other words, the team does not consider that PSI is viable as a commercial publishing company but will depend upon charitable income, hence the desire to set up PSI as a CIC in the UK or its equivalent elsewhere.

Separate from but associated with that team is a group of individuals, who have been invited to assist in promoting PSI, at this stage particularly in this fund-raising activity. It is not clear to me who this group is but it may be some or all of John Droz, Oliver Manuel, Ken Coffman, Phili Foster, Jerry Oliver, Vincent Gray, Piers Corbyn, Kent Kilzbe, Miso Alkalaj and me. Then there are the three that I suggested to you might be able to contribute, Roger Taguchi and John Nicol (both because of their scientific expertise in a discipline that is highly relevant to “ .. that junk science construct .. ” (http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/) the greenhouse theory that the authors of the first book claim to have refuted (http://funds.gofundme.com/1v39s) and Val Majcus (for her legal expertise).
It is not clear to me how the role of this other group of individuals is perceived by the team of authors or even by each individual member of that group.

Of course, once again I may be misunderstanding the situation so I’d appreciate any further clarification that you consider necessary. I suspect that it may help others also.

Now for a bit more soothsaying – oops, sorry, doomsaying.

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.

Has the team taken much notice of anything from the exchanges that have taken place since – it appears to this naysayer that it has not, if the current fund-raising efforts are anything to go by. Let’s first look at PSI’s poster at http://funds.gofundme.com/1v39s. QUOTE: .. we are 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. “To refute” has been defined as “To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/refute). From what I understand of the science, the “greenhouse theory” (although misleadingly named) is valid, but has been subjected to abuse by supporters of the CACC doctrine. I believe that the claim to have refuted it leaves PSI wide open to ridicule from our opponents but I’m no scientist so it might help if we took advice from those with appropriate specialist understanding, like Roger and John Nicol.

I may have mentioned that I was disappointed that Vincent Gray had not made any comments during these exchanges about due diligence. When reviewing earlier E-mail exchanges with you I came across one from Vincent regarding the science that was being promoted in your June 2010 article “X-Factor Hid Fakery in the Greenhouse Gas Theory” (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5850&linkbox=true&position=1). In response to your “Any feedback is most welcome” (June 11, 2010 7:21 AM) Vincent simply said “Dear John Poppycock Cheers”. That was from someone who I understand to have scientific qualifications and expertise who is highly sceptical about the CACC doctrine.
As you acknowledged then “Let’s address the problem mathematically and scientifically, as it has been suggested I may have ‘over-simplified’ the science for the purposes of my article” (Jun 11 2010, 12:13 PM).

Then during the second half of June there were those exchanges over “A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?” in which Richard Morris totally rejected the hypothesis of Alan, Martin and Hans, saying QUOTE: .. Siddons, Schreuder, and Hertzberg are grasping, not just at straws, but at cobwebs .. Perhaps the proper question is not "Are you serious?", but, rather, "Are you out of your mind?" UNQUOTE. Vincent’s reply was “You are absolutely right .. ” and Jeffrey Glassman agreed with Richard. Again , both of these are sceptical of the CACC doctrine.

These exchanges suggest to me that a somewhat more cautious attitude towards announcing the death of the greenhouse theory would be prudent, otherwise our opponents may find something to attack us with.

When Googling - Cancun “Slaying the Sky Dragon" – I could not find any substantiation of that claim about it being the “ .. talk of the .. Conference”. I found none of the mainstream media reporting this hot topic, not even that part of the media which supports the sceptics. Of course I may have missed those reports so if there are any please would someone provide a link (but not to “promotional” or sceptics’ web-pages).

Now lets look at one of those links provided on the fund-raising advert, the “Slaying the Sky Dragon” Web-page (http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/). Again there is that unsubstantiated claim to “ .. debunk of the greenhouse gas theory .. ”. There is also a claim that it “ .. brings together some of the planet’s most powerful critics .. ”. I’ve been researching this issue for about four years now and during that time have repeatedly read or heard critical comments about CACC by Christopher Monkton. Richard Lindzen, Tim Ball, Roy Spencer, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Andrew Montford, Jack Barrat, Earnst Geog Beck, Steve McIntyre, Ross McKittrick, Vincent Gray, Anthony Watts, Willie Soon, John Nichol , Roger Taguchi, Bob Carter, Piers Corbyn, Ian Plimer, Jeffrey Glassman, etc. etc. etc. but only one of those names is one of those authors and it is only relatively recently that I became aware of your involvement as a sceptic. With all due respect to Claes, Martin, Alan, Charles and Hans, I only became aware of their existence four weeks ago.

Next there is that unsubstantiated claim to being “..the most important science publication of the year .. ”.

Our opponents will have a field day about those unsubstantiated, extravagant claims for the science, but what about other claims made?

Linking from the “begging-bowl” site takes us to the Web-site of “Principia Scientific Intl. (PSI)” where there is the 15th December message “ .. PSI is a legal entity under British law serving charitable interests for the benefit of the broader community .. Principia Scientific International is mandated under law to serve the community. PSI is a Community Interest Company (CIC) .. ”. That’s a bit puzzling, because it is now 19th January and I had the obviously mistaken impression that PSI was not registered in the UK as a charity, or a CIC or even as a private limited company. When questioned about present or proposed company names the UK’s Companies House “Webcheck” facility or (http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/cda30945e94a0475a2581f618ceba95c/wcframe?name=accessCompanyInfo) lists over 20 companies starting with Principia but not one “Principia Scientific International”. This discrepancy may provide our opponents with further ammunition to undermine PSI’s credibility, e.g. by drawing distroted comparisons with “ .. an association that shares your beliefs in the universal principle that good science should be free of propaganda, subterfuge and corruption .. ”. I’m sure that many of us have experienced such distortions by those supporters of the doctrine that we have dared to challenge. More importantly it might also dissuade potential donors, especially cautious wealthy businesspeople like Bill Gates, from dropping anything into the bowl. The sooner the marketing hype is toned down and the discrepancy between the Companies House records and the PSI claims are corrected the better.

This same message about PSI being a CIC appears on the “About Us” page - http://principia-scientific.org/pso/about-us/why-psi-is-a-cic – which gives the impression that all of these plans for PSI were solidly in place on 30th September. Also on that page is the statement “ .. The permanent shareholders and directors of PSI are drawn from the founding stakeholders of those 22 original authors of the ‘Slayers’ books .. ”. Are you at liberty to advise who are these 22 original authors and if so please would you do it, along with the additional 14?

Next a Google of – Principia Ball O’Sullivan – takes us to the Decoding Swifthack blog (http://ijish.livejournal.com/) that I have mentioned previously. Second in its bullets of 18th January is “Another front group is born: inactivist John O'Sullivan announces the founding of the self-styled Principia Scientific International (PSI). Its chairman is pro-oil shill Dr. Tim Ball. [1, 2, 3]”. Two of those links take us to more of the numerous PSI begging-bowls splattered across the Internet and there’s another one on the LiveJournal site (http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/28963.html). The third takes us to a site that talks about a lawsuit involving Tim and the Calgary Herald. Around that time Tim was challenged by our opponents at Desmogblog, another blog that believes in self-praise, with ots “the world’s number one source for accurate, fact based information regarding Global Warming misinformation campaigns”. In the article “Dr. Tim Ball: The Lie that Just Won't Die” (http://www.desmogblog.com/dr-tim-ball-the-lie-that-just-wont-die) Tim is challenged over several claims. “His claim to be the first Climatology Ph.D. in Canada is a total falsehood; his degree was in historical geography - not climatology - and it was nowhere near the first ever granted to someone writing vaguely in the field. It also was granted by the university as a doctor of philosophy, not the more prestigious "doctor of science" that Ball claims in these articles”. Then there are challenges over payments QUOTE: Dr. Ball claims never to have been paid by oil and gas interests, but if you look here, you'll find a Globe and Mail story in which Dr. Barry Cooper, the man behind Ball's former industry front group, the Friends of Science, offers this clumsy admission: "[The money's] not exclusively from the oil and gas industry," says Prof. Cooper. "It's also from foundations and individuals. I can't tell you the names of those companies, or the foundations for that matter, or the individuals." UNQUOTE.

If our opponents ever perceive PSI as a threat they will resurrect challenges like this and invent others in order to discredit PSI and all associated with it. On that Decoding Swifthack site another member of the group, Kent, is given the treatment we have become used to from our opponents. Comment “22. At 11:11pm on 08 Dec 2010, xavier_r ” on the BBC’s “Yes it's cold... and it's still getting warmer” article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/susanwatts/2010/12/yes_it_is_cold_and_its_still_g.html) provides a mild example of the reaction to be expected from our opponents but can we anticipate worse? Tim, Claes and Martin all get a mention. Tim is reported as having received death threats over his opinions (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545134/Scientists-threatened-for-climate-denial.html) but our opponents have attacked that. It will only get worse if they ever see PSI as a threat and identify unsubstantiated claims. That is why I keep repeating that PSI must be seen to be “squeaky clean”. No matter the degree of truth behind any such challenges, mud not only sticks when thrown but also splashes whatever is next to the target.

In my opinion one essential ingredient missing from the PSI recipe for success is an appropriate flavouring of humility.

I’d be somewhat surprised if your fellow authors objected to any of the group seeing the accounts for the embryonic PSI. Since we are all working together on this noble cause I expect that they will all wish to be as open with everyone in the group as they possibly can be. Would you be good enough to ask for their views. After all it can only help us all to understand how viable PSI is.

On the matter of differences between PSI and other organisations, could you explain in a little more detail how it differs from CRG? I can’t see anything significant.

BTW, although “ .. As you can see, we have already secured our first donation of $350 within less than an hour. http://funds.gofundme.com/1v39s” (Jan 18, 2011 at 2:01 PM) there have been no further donations since that one two days ago. Let’s hope that it is just that Paypal technical hitch (any news on that it yet?) and not a general lack of interest in funding this noble cause.

Best regards, Pete

PS:
There’s an interesting article “Now libel laws are used to silence pig farm protesters” in the Daily Mail today (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348812/Libel-laws-used-silence-pig-farm-protesters.html) which reminded me of your comments under “3. PERSONAL SLURS ARE ACTIONABLE UNDER LIBEL LAWS” (Jan 15 2011, 12:28 PM). As I said in my response (Jan 15 2011, 10:16 PM) “ .. I deliberately took on the roll of devils advocate on this issue. .. ” as I felt that there was a need for open debate within the group to understand how our opponents are likely to respond if PSI ever became perceived as a threat. This is the conclusion of my involvement in that roll since I would much rather concentrate on molecular dynamics of air within ice. I send it to you alone because as I understand it you are the one in this group with the most legal expertise and I leave it you to decide who else you wish to see it. My comments have been made in order to help this noble cause but if there is nothing here that you weren’t already aware of then fine – bin it.

Please note that I have not intentionally directly or implicitly maligned or accused anyone of being disreputable, racist, sexist, dishonourable or any other undesirable 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. As I said in my attachment on Jan 11 2011, 06:25 PM " .. I have a lot of respect for what John and associates like Hans and Jo have done and are doing as far as challenging the doctrine and propaganda that our continuing use of fossil fuels is leading to catastrophic changes to those different global climates. I simply am convinced that this wish to proceed down the path of forming a CIC is wrong. Differences are permitted in debate and if conducted in an open and honest manner can lead to a better outcome. No matter how enthusiastic we might be and how loud we boast about this “noble cause” that we are pursuing, we must be realistic. There is a long, hard battle ahead for this embryonic climate activist movement (and any similar) before justifiable claims can be made about having any significant impact on the CACC scam .. ".

ONLY SENT TO YOU.
I leave it to you to pass on to others as you see fit. i.e. to any or all of:
claesjohnson@...; aaprjohn@...; OMATUMR@...; timothyball@...; ruthhertzberg@...; hanssch@...; alan618034@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; geraldo@...; ken@...; PF.SMP@...; jerry_oliver@...; rtaguchi@...; j.nicol1@...; vinmary.gray@...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; Miso.Alkalaj@...; houston2000@...

Best regards, Pete

=====================

Message Received: Jan 19 2011, 12:18 AM
From: "JOHN OSULLIVAN" ...
To: peter.ridley@...
Cc: "Claes Johnson" ..., timothyball@..., hanssch@..., PF.SMP@..., Charles.R.Anderson@..., houston2000@..., ruthhertzberg@..., alan618034@...
Subject: Re: PSI and Due Diligence

Hi Peter,
There is some misunderstanding here. For clarification the book sales monies and expenses are being sent only to the book authors directly. Unless or until I receive written authorization from all the authors I will respectfully have to decline sharing with you or any other third party our detailed book sales accounts.
As for the donations so far, I can reveal the first donation of $350 is from a member of my family in the US. I have been advised by gofundme.com who are running our site and handling the Paypal system that there occured a technical hitch in processing donations which has been reported to Paypal for help.
Hopefully, this will be remedied asap.

As for your comparisons of PSI with organizations such as ICSC, CRG and GWPF, I see very substantial differences as I've already pointed out. Moreover, I would conceive of PSI not competing with them at all but coordinating with them whenever practicable.
John
www.slayingtheskydragon.com
=============

From: "Pete Ridley"...
To: "Claes Johnson" ...; "JOHN OSULLIVAN" ...
CC: timothyball@...; hanssch@...; PF.SMP@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; houston2000...; ruthhertzberg@...; alan618034@...
THEN TO: aaprjohn@...; OMATUMR@...; geraldo@...; ken@...; jerry_oliver@...; rtaguchi@...; j.nicol1@...; vinmary.gray@...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; Miso.Alkalaj@...
Date: Jan 18 2011, 08:02 & )8:04 PM
Subject: Re: PSI and Due Diligence

NB: I'm also forwarding this to the rest of the team.

John, thanks for the update about what has been done on behalf of the group. I would like to take up the offer of “Hans has a full record of the costs so far inccured and available for all the team to view” as it may fill in some of the gaps in my understanding due to my late arrival in the team.

It will be interesting to see what reaction there is to PSI’s attempt to raise those start-up funds through gofundme. Also it would be very interesting to know who is that anonymous donor of the first $350 received within the first hour. Let’s see if the pace of donations picks up again, because according to the gofundme site its been a little quiet since. I suppose that those of us in the group who previously offered donations could jump in to try to attract others.

Claes, I don’t think that your “ .. if you ask for money then somehow you get in debt and somehow will owe something to somebody .. “ is just your “ .. Swedish blue-eyed view on things .. ”. When people give money to a charity I think that usually there is an expectation that it will be put to good use. When money is given to a beggar I think there is more hope than expectation. (One of the reasons that I decided to drop my involvement as treasurer with the local charity was an expectation that I would undertake major fund-raising activities. I have an aversion to begging and there was no satisfaction for me going with bowl in hand again and again to the different major potential donors.)

As for your “ .. Maybe people really want to belong to a scientific academy and are willing to pay for it .. ”, there are numerous scientific associations around the globe of which scientists and others can be members. Established international organisations already exist, e.g. the International Climate Science Coalition (http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=280&Itemid=86). Geraldo is associated with The Centre for Research on Globalisation (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=section&sectionName=about) which “ .. is an independent research and media organization based in Montreal. The CRG is a registered non profit organization in the province of Quebec, Canada. In addition to the Global Research website, the Centre is involved in book publishing, support to humanitarian projects as well as educational outreach activities including the organization of public conferences and lectures. The Centre also acts as a think tank on crucial economic and geopolitical issues. “Global Research” claims that “In addition to the Global Research website, the Centre is involved in book publishing, support to humanitarian projects as well as educational outreach activities including the organization of public conferences and lectures” in North America.

Geraldo, am I correct in thinking that CRG, registered as a not-for profit private foundation, is not allowed to “ .. espouse, promote, support or seek to achieve any political agenda, party, purpose or doctrine, nor may your organization seek to persuade the public to adopt a particular social view or attempt to bring about or oppose changes in the law or government policy. .. ”
(https://www.cua.com/Home/PlanningAndAdvice/StagesInYourBusiness/NonProfitOrganizations/RegisterNonProfit/). This appears to me as being similar to what is proposed for PSI but perhaps not.

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.

What advice do people like Geraldo, Vincent and John Nicol have to offer this fledgling group? I’m disappointed that they have chosen not to comment. From their active involvement for years with organisations of sceptical scientists with the International Climate Science Coalition (http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/) through the Australian Climate Science Coalition (http://www.auscsc.org.au/about_us.html), the NZ Climate Science Coalition (http://nzclimatescience.net/) and CRG I’d expect their advice would be very beneficial for an embryonic organisation like PSI. Maybe they see some “conflict of interest” issue.

You previously asked “What would be the basic difference between PSI and ICSC or GWPF?” (Jan 13 2011, 07:02 AM) and I ask the same question with regard to CRG and similar organisations. What special qualities does PSI have that would make it stand out in front of these others when the collection box is presented to attract the attention of potential charitable donors? At present I can see nothing that might attract many of them to PSI. Despite the hype, the Slayers have in my opinion done nothing as yet that sets PSI ahead of organisations like ICSC, CRG and GWPF.

But then again, I’m a doomsayer and maybe Apollo has cursed me as he did Cassandra. Hopefully for PSI I’ll be proven wrong, because I still fully support what all of us are trying to achieve, retraction by politicians of this nonsense about our continuing use of fossil fuels causing CACC all over the globe.

Best regards, Pete

===============

From: "JOHN OSULLIVAN" ...

To: "houston2000" ...

CC: peter.ridley@...

Date: Jan 18 2011, 02:46 PM

Subject: Re: Bless you fine gentlemen.... Show full header

Thanks, Joe. Hopefully we can now put to the test once and for all whether PSI has a viable future. If we raise the $20k or get it near then we can all talk more meaningfully on how we move this organisation forward.

John

www.slayingtheskydragon.com

=================

From: houston2000 ...

To: JOHN OSULLIVAN ...

Cc: "peter.ridley@...

Sent: Tuesday, 18 January, 2011 14:04:03

Subject: Bless you fine gentlemen....

J and P

this research & debate has clarified one side of our proposed operation....i applaud you both for your dedication.... J

==============

From: "Claes Johnson" ...

To: "JOHN OSULLIVAN"...

CC: peter.ridley@...; timothyball@...; hanssch@...; PF.SMP@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; houston2000@...; ruthhertzberg@...; alan618034@...

Date: Jan 18 2011, 01:19 PM

Subject: Re: PSI and Due Diligence

I understand that money is needed, and maybe it so simple to just open an account and donors will come flooding. OK, so let's see how much will flow in, and then once we have a heap, let´s decide how to share and use it.

My idealistic impression is that if you ask for money then somehow you get in debt and somehow will owe something to somebody, but maybe this is just my Swedish blue-eyed view on things. Maybe people really want to belong to a scientific academy and are willing to pay for it.

So let's see what happens. As I use to say when I buy something overpriced: No big deal, it is just money.

Claes

============

Message Received: Jan 18 2011, 01:01 PM

From: "JOHN OSULLIVAN" ...

To: "Claes Johnson" ...

Cc: peter.ridley@..., timothyball@..., hanssch@..., PF.SMP@..., Charles.R.Anderson@..., houston2000@..., ruthhertzberg@..., alan618034@..., ruthhertzberg@..., hanssch@...

Subject: Re: PSI and Due Diligence

Claes,

To set up any such organisation there must be some funds for start up costs. So far Hans and I have been investigating setting up PSI at our own expense which we cannot continue to do own expense. The website costs for the PSI site are ongoing and we will need to pay Tom, our webmaster. Hans has a full record of the costs so far inccured and available for all the team to view.

As Hans has indicated we are in a 'catch22' situation as until we set up professionally as an entity we will not attract large donors ( especially in the US where most charitable foundations will not give grants to such commmunity causes unless they are registered as a 'not for profit' as per Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. For us to register as a 'not for profit' requires us to pay the IRS $400 as an application fee. Once we have gotten that tax exemption we can then be able to apply to donor foundations for contributions as a charitable concern under US law.

If we cannot raise sufficient funds by this crowdfunding strategy then we know we cannot move forward in any capacity. Thus this fund raising drive is the test of whether we should continue to explore the charitable functionality of PSI or merely restrict ourselves to a book publishing concern for the benefit of the slayers authors. We have taken the liberty in using a third party crowdfunding service that is recognised and suggested to us earlier in the thread as our starting point. As you can see, we have already secured our first donation of $350 within less than an hour.

http://funds.gofundme.com/1v39s

www.slayingtheskydragon.com

=================

Message Received: Jan 18 2011, 02:36 PM

From: "Pete Ridley" ...

To: "GoFundMe"

Cc:

Subject: RE: John O'Sullivan needs your help

Woukd you like to tell me something about what I'm being asked to contribute money towards and what the money will be spent on?

Best regards, Pete Ridley

=============

Message Received: Jan 18 2011, 11:17 AM

From: "GoFundMe"

To: peter.ridley@...

Cc:

Subject: John O'Sullivan needs your help

Dear peter.ridley@...

John needs your help with: PSI: Politics-free Science Association

Help John by showing your support at: http://funds.gofundme.com/1v39s

Know friends that can help John too? Forward this email to a friend now!

---

Sent by GoFundMe

"The easy way to raise money online."

You are receiving this email because your contact has shared their page with you.

To unsubscribe from emails like these, please click this link: http://funds.gofundme.com/index.php?route=unsubscribe/settings&email=gd%2BHzCj9Y6ry1sLNlzgBM0bNTGVQLxh%2Fy70k5XlqjcE%3D&t=10_7748

Sent from GoFundMe, 2445 Morena Blvd, San Diego, CA 92110

=================

From: Claes Johnson...

To: JOHN OSULLIVAN...

Cc: peter.ridley@...; timothyball@...; hanssch@...; PF.SMP@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; houston2000@...; ruthhertzberg@...; alan618034@...

Sent: Tuesday, 18 January, 2011 9:13:51

Subject: Re: PSI and Due Diligence

Hi John:

I see that you are already asking for money to PS, 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?

Claes

==========

Message Received: Jan 15 2011, 10:16 PM

From: "Pete Ridley" ...

To: john0sullivan@..., claesjohnson@..., timothyball@..., OMATUMR@..., vinmary.gray@..., Fred@..., piers@..., kent@..., Miso.Alkalaj@..., houston2000@...

Cc:

Subject: FW: Re: PSI & Due Diligence

NB: This has been sent to the whole group in two separate E-mails due to restrictions by my E-mail service provider.

Some of you may not have seen these E-mails from John and Claes. I am preparing a more detailed response to Jon’s but in the meantime I take this opportunity of responding briefly to some of his points.

I started this discussion about PSI & Due Diligence on 30th December for two main reasons, to:

- better understand the objectives and motivations of the individuals and organisation that I had been invited to get involved with,

- make sure that everyone understood the challenges ahead of us in pursuing this “noble cause”.

It has been suggested that I am a spy, doom/nay-sayer, suffer from paranoia, a defeatist, fatalistic to the extreme, when in fact I deliberately took on the roll of devils advocate on this issue. I have achieved my first objective but I don’t know about the second.

I leave others to consider the merits or otherwise of the “counter arguments” 1, 2 & 4 that John presented in his E-mail of Jan 15 2011, 12:28 PM as I have already expressed mine and agree with Claes (Jan 15 2011, 02:42 PM ) as far as argument 1 goes.

Here is my initial response to John’s argument 3. PERSONAL SLURS ARE ACTIONABLE UNDER LIBEL LAWS.

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. As I said in my attachment on Jan 11 2011, 06:25 PM " .. I have a lot of respect for what John and associates like Hans and Jo have done and are doing as far as challenging the doctrine and propaganda that our continuing use of fossil fuels is leading to catastrophic changes to those different global climates. I simply am convinced that this wish to proceed down the path of forming a CIC is wrong. Differences are permitted in debate and if conducted in an open and honest manner can lead to a better outcome. No matter how enthusiastic we might be and how loud we boast about this “noble cause” that we are pursuing, we must be realistic. There is a long, hard battle ahead for this embryonic climate activist movement (and any similar) before justifiable claims can be made about having any significant impact on the CACC scam .. ".

I am not aware that I have suggested that any member of the group would be barred from being a director of PSI. Again, if anyone considers that I have then please point to where and I’ll be happy to reword what was said in order to clarify and will apologise if necessary.

I have not deliberately insinuated that any member of this group was a member of any racist organisation but simply drew attention to an implied connection which would be used by our opponents. (John, thanks for confirming, as I expected, that you are “ .. not the ‘John O’Sullivan’ associated with the BNP .. ”). If anyone considers that I have being defammatory about them then it was not my intent to imply that any of this group is or was a member of the BNP or any other racist organisation and I apologise unreservedly if I gave that impression. I do not know what political parties any of you are associated with but have no doubt that our opponents will be keen to find out if we are perceived as a threat.

I agree that none of us needs to fear personal verbal attacks (“sticks and stones .. ”) but regardless of whether or not any such attack against one of us is justified or “ .. constitutes defamation and is thus actionable under law .. ” they can have a damaging effect on those with whom we are associated, including PSI. Such attacks can influence those who might otherwise give their support and PSI, whatever its final form, will need all of the support that it can get.

If anyone is upset by what I have said in my E-mails then I’m sorry, however, as I said in my E-mail of Jan 08 2011, 07:24 PM “ .. I am simply a cautious (“once bitten twice shy”) individual who believes in telling it as I see it. There are too many in this group who are not prepared to put what they think on record .. ”.

Let’s not forget that we are all on the same side here and should thrash out our differences before entering into this very challenging venture. As I said to Jon, Jo and Val on Jan 09 2011, 01:44 PM “We’re not talking about a friendly game of football. We’re talking about challenging the most powerful individuals and organisations in the world .. ”.

On reflection, maybe the answer to the different opinions within the team over the status of PSI would be best resolved by subjecting the arguments to the “acid test” of scrutiny by the CIC Regulator. I am spending far too much of my time trying to debate the issue and John is convinced that he has it all sorted so let the CIC Regulator decide. How do others feel about that?

I’d rather be researching the validity of attempts to reconstruct past atmospheric composition from air “trapped” in ice for thousands of years, which is where I came in (December 23, 2010, 07:17 PM).

Best regards, Pete

========================================

Message Received: Jan 15 2011, 02:42 PM

From: "Class Johnson,"...

To: "JOHN OSULLIVAN" ...

Cc: "peter.ridley@..., "timothyball@s..., "john0sullivan@..., "hanssch@..., "PF.SMP@..., "Charles.R.Anderson@..., "houston2000@..., "ruthhertzberg@..., "alan618034@...

Subject: Re: PSI & Due Diligence

If not a doomssayer I still feel that the vision of PSI as presented is inflated beyond my comprehension. All my experience tells me that it is very difficult to get people to cooperate.

As a test of the Slayers capability I would suggest deciding to put together a joint presentation as slides and video, which would summarize our message and could be presented to the media by anyone of us.

Claes

=============

From: "JOHN OSULLIVAN"...

To: peter.ridley@...

Cc: timothyball@..., ...hanssch@..., PF.SMP@..., claesjohnson@..., Charles.R.Anderson@..., houston2000@..., ruthhertzberg@..., alan618034@...

Sent: Jan 15 2011, 12:28 PM

Subject: Re: PSI and Due Diligence

Pete is our group’s self appointed doomsayer which is fine if he acts even-handedly but lately, from my skimming of his submissions, he is fatalistic to the extreme. For example, Pete is not only defeatist about PSI as a CIC - he has now capitulated on his own argument to form a charity when he admits, “in my humble opinion Principia Scientific International will never be allowed to set up in the UK as a CIC or a Charity but may manage private limited company status.”

Below I set out under four headings my counter argument to Pete’s naysing:

1. PSI AS A LEARNED SOCIETY OF FRIENDS explains how we currently stand;

2. PSI AS A PRIVATE COMPANY RUN AS A CIC MODEL provides a bullet proof incorporation strategy;

3. PERSONAL SLURS ARE ACTIONABLE UNDER LIBEL LAWS explains why we need not fear our enemies’ slurs;

4. PSI IS NOT A LITIGATION MACHINE outlines why what we say we will do is what we will do.

1. PSI AS A LEARNED SOCIETY OF FRIENDS

As we currently stand, PSI is proposed to be formed from a known nucleus - an unofficial learned society currently known as the ‘Slayers.’ This is a group of authors who have joined to extol a principled message of open scientific enquiry in climate change science. This means it is an organization that exists to promote academic discipline and empirical values in research and publication.

The Slayers group wishes to form a larger, more formal membership to become PSI- open to all who have a passionate interest in science. Although we would prefer our members to possess some scientific qualification or work in a profession concerend with scientific applications or procedures.

PSI, as a learned societies strives to be a non-profit organizations. Our proposed activities would typically include holding regular conferences for the presentation and discussion of new research results and publishing academic journals, ebooks, paperbacks and other multi-media that helps us to advocate the scientific method.

Our business is to give members the kind of services they can enjoy as part of any such similar professional bodies. PSI, as a condition of membership, will regulate the activities of our members in the public interest or the collective interest of the membership. As a learned society we are also interested in the sociology of science monitoring the emergence of a new discipline or sub-discipline ( e.g. climate science).

We are a generalist group such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, but unlike AAAS we are internationally focused and not tied to national borders. We are somewhat like the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA). But we so intend to set up local branches in many countries. We are conspicuously unlike those, such as the Royal Society of New Zealand or Royal Society of England that have been refounded by legislation to form quasi non-governmental organizations because PSI is strictly unattached to government or party political ideology.

2. PSI AS A PRIVATE COMPANY RUN AS A CIC MODEL

Pete concedes he has no legal training so we need to keep the matter in perspective. As I see it we have no chance of forming PSI as a charity; a good chance of forming as a CIC and a terrific opportunity in becoming incorporated as a limited company running as if it were a CIC.

Yes, you read that right- PSI can lawfully become incorporated as a private company but obligating itself to be run as a ‘not for profit’ as per the CIC statutory model with full transparency and an asset lock. Thus PSI is a quasi-CIC company not accountable to the regulators per se but to our stakeholders who are our own regulators. They may hire or fire the directorship at each AGM or by EGM based on our performance in adhering to the CIC model.

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.

4. 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.

Our primary goal is to assist scientists, governments and regulators in upholding the law. It is the duty of all such entities to promote compliance, in the first instance, and failing that intentional wrongdoing or illegal activity becomes actionable as per law. PSI does not make or subvert the law; it merely assists governments and regulators in ensuring compliance amongst our members and the wider science community.

Frankly, if we agreed with Pete we’d give up forming any kind of association as in his world PSI can only pursue a “noble cause” by disavowing itself of any right to recourse to common law and equity.

By Pete’s perverse application of the rules of equity, professional associations would be neutered and become defunct. He doesn’t seem to comprehend that no such organization can be barred from recourse to law to protect their common law and employment rights under the UK Employment Act 1996.

I fear it is time for Pete to seek proper legal advice. I have expended a great deal of time already on this matter and have addressed all concerns raised. We cannot proceed meaningfully from this point as a group until all of us understand the legal technicalities of what is being proposed.

www.slayingtheskydragon.com

===================

Message Received: Jan 14 2011, 06:49 PM

From: "Class Johnson,"...

To: "peter.ridley@...

Cc: "timothyball@..., "john0sullivan@..., "hanssch@..., "PF.SMP@..., "Charles.R.Anderson@..., "houston2000@..., "ruthhertzberg@..., "alan618034@...

Subject: Re: PSI and Due Diligence

As before I essentially agree with Pete.

Claes

=============

From: Pete Ridley ...

To: timothyball@...; john0sullivan@...; hanssch@...; PF.SMP@...; claesjohnson@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; houston2000@...; ruthhertzberg@...; alan618034@..., aaprjohn@...; OMATUMR@...; geraldo@...; ken@...; jerry_oliver@...; rtaguchi@...; j.nicol1@...; vinmary.gray@...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; Miso.Alkalaj@...

Sent: Friday, 14 January, 2011 18:20:37 & 18:21 PM

Subject: PSI and Due Diligence

NB: This has also been sent to the rest of the group, who should be kept in the loop with any follow-up E-mails.

Please see the attached document.

Best regards, Pete

SENT AS ATTACHMENT TO E-MAIL (MSWord):

Claes, in my opinion you are making a sensible proposal with your “ .. What about reducing the mission of PSI to something like: * critical analysis of science, in particular climate science? I don't see that PSI as of now can live up to anything near Be the leading voice for best practice and principled science as per the traditional English Scientific Method (ESM);” (Jan 13 2011, 06:38 PM). You are looking rationally at what is possible instead of getting carried away on a wave of euphoria. As Roger Taguchi has said “ .. Eventually you will be proved right, but we must ensure that we ourselves correct any errors that can be attacked and proven wrong.” (12 Jan 2011 15:11).

I think that ideally PSI should be a scientific association set up as a charity and have nothing to do with legal action other than being available to provide expert witnesses if requested by others to give testimony in court actions. Is there any reason why a quite separate private company couldn’t be set up to pursue legal action against any party using flawed science in a fraudulent manner? Such a company would be funded in the normal manner, with shareholders subscribing what they consider appropriate to their particular circumstances.

I believe that trying to set up PSI as a CIC would fail and here’s why.

Since I joined the group on 23rd December there have been numerous pertinent statements made by and in response to the PSI Executive elect relating to the “political campaigning” aspect of PSI’s objectives. In the Appendix I present some significant extracts which, despite what is said in the draft Articles, in my opinion clearly show that the primary objective for PSI is to pursue legal actions against Governments/Agencies internationally. I see this as a campaign to change political policies, with the publication of science being a secondary supporting objective and cannot see how anyone can reasonably argue that these do not show that PSI is being set up as “A political campaigning organisation ”, but perhaps I can be persuaded.

Taking all of this into consideration, it seems that the primary objective of PSI is not properly disclosed in the draft Articles and may not appear in “community interest statement" either. Some might suggest that it is being deliberately kept hidden from the CIC Regulator. Certainly our opponents would claim this to be the case. Once again I ask please can we see the latest “community interest statement" and Memorandum so that we can satisfy ourselves on this?

Taking all of this into consideration, along with the fact that all seven authors of “Slaying the Sky Dragon are among the nine on the PSI Board elect, in my opinion PSI cannot honestly claim not to be a “political campaigning organisation”, “political” – small “p” - being defined as “Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/political) . I have asked the CIC Regulator’s office for an opinion on this and will advise as soon as I get a response.

In my E-mail attachment of Jan 08 2011, 07:24 PM I said QUOTE: During a debate about “PSI & Due Diligence”:

- I would expect every member of the Executive to want to understand the intricacies of the debate, not to say “This is the main reason I haven’t been commenting. The subject is intricate and very unfamiliar to me. I’m just along for the ride -- I wouldn't TOUCH the steering wheel!” (Alan Siddons on Jan 04 2011, 11:20 PM).

- “Due Diligence” and “Regulatory Compliance”, like Siamese twins, are inseparable, yet the member of the proposed Executive nominated as Compliance Officer, Philip Foster, has said NOTHING AT ALL. – UNQUOTE.

It amazes me that PSI’s Compliance Officer elect, through his persistent silence during this debate, continues to give the impression of having “ .. zero (0), zip, zilch, nada, NO interest in .. “ (Kent on Jan 02 2011, 03:26 PM) this vital issue. Any company’s compliance officer can reasonably be expected to be leading a debate involving Due Diligence, not hiding from it. The qualifications for being a successful Compliance Officer go beyond being “ .. a committed skeptic, a scientist and respected in the religious community as a man of principle .. ” (Dec 29 2010, 06:59 PM). It is also essential that any Compliance Officer takes an interest in and understands Regulatory Compliance. I remind you of the powers that the CIC Regulator has regarding “ .. 45 Appointment of director .. ” (Jan 11 2011, 06:25 PM E-mail attachment).

As you are aware, on Jan 10 2011, 09:45 AM the CIC Reguator’s office advised that “ .. it appears from the information you provide that the proposed activities may not fit the remit for a CIC .. “ and that was only from a general enquiry about the granting of CIC status. For what it is worth, in my humble opinion Principia Scientific International will never be allowed to set up in the UK as a CIC or a Charity but may manage private limited company status, although I’m sure there are those in this group who will try to prove me wrong.

Whatever form it eventually takes, if PSI is ever perceived by disciples and followers of the CACC doctrine as a threat to their cause not only PSI but everyone associated with it will be attacked with whatever can be used or invented. Each of us will be carefully researched and any skeletons in cupboards will be dragged out into the open. Any suggestion of past dishonesty or irrationality will be exploited (remember the treatment that Lord Monckton has received, e.g. over his claims to being a member of the Upper House). Several of us have already experienced this sort of treatment but it may be new to some. It can get very unpleasant, even for those who stick to the science. Not that such activity should deter us in pursuing this “noble cause” but what is there about any of us that could seriously undermine PSI’s standing? As I’ve said before, we have to be seen to be squeaky clean. Are we all happy that we can achieve this?

You may recall how Professor Stephen Scheider’s words "To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have.

Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest" were used against him by sceptics (http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm) were turned against him. I doubt if Executive member elect Alan Siddons words “ .. I’m just along for the ride .. ” are the only ones that can be turned against us by our opponents, whether in the blogosphere or in court. What do others see as PSI’s Achilles Heel and how do we protect it?

Another question of course is can PSI the publisher compete against Reed Elsevier, Springer Science+Business Media, John Wiley & Sons, etc. etc. etc. when even established publishers like Bloomsbury and McFarland & Co. are struggling to attract recognised scientists (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/). Will the vision for PSI be matched by reality? I doubt it because there already is a well-established sceptical publisher that is spurned by recognised specialists in climate research, Lyndon LaRouche’s “21st Century Science and Technology”.

I had been wondering if disciples and followers of the CACC doctrine might be able to attack PSI because of a possible link, through several members of the group, to the doctrine of creationism. As an example, on Jan 02 2011, 02:43 PM Oliver commented “ .. Today the Cornwall Alliance is more scientific than the US National Academy of Sciences, the UK Royal Society, the once distinguished research journals - Nature, Science, & PNAS - and the UN's IPCC .. ”. I wasn’t sure whether or not that was a “tongue-in-cheek” comment and was somewhat reassured by “Jan 02 2011, 04:50 PM, .. If there were moderate organisations we could align with I'm ok with that but would we all want to be so conspicuously allied to organisations more religously zealous? .. John”.

Then today for the first time I noticed on the “slayingtheskydragon” site what could be interpreted by our opponents as showing PSI “conspicuously allied to” at least one of those “organisations more religiously zealous” than Evangelicals. The other book prominently advertised along with “Slaying the Sky Dragon” is “Resisting the Green Dragon” sponsored by none other than “ .. AMERICA’S LEADING VOICE OF FAITH ON STEWARDSHIP ISSUES .. ” the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation (http://www.cornwallalliance.org/docs/americas-leading-voice-of-faith-on-stewardship-issues-announces-new-initiative-to-expose-serious-dangers-of-green-dragon-environmentalism.pdf?), not considered by everyone to be a moderate religious organisation. This is another highly “political campaigning organisation” (small “p”) with which significant members of PSI appear to be closely associated.

Further investigation reveals an even closer link, with two prominent members of the PSI Executive elect linked with Cornwall Alliance Founder and National Spokesman Dr. E. Calvin Beisner through the Cornwall Alliance Newsletter, October 11, 2010 and June 10, 2009 (http://www.cornwallalliance.org/newsletter/issue/newsletter-october-11-2010/ and http://www.cornwallalliance.org/newsletter/issue/newsletter-june-10-2009/ ).

There are many disciples and followers of the CACC doctrine who regard the Cornwall Alliance as a extremist right-wing religious organisation. Our opponents will try to use PSI’s relationship with and involvement of creationists against us, just as was done against CACC sceptic Australian Senator Steve Fielding. During a March, 2010 televised debate “God, Science and Sanity” (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2831712.htm) involving Richard Dawkins he was questioned on this and, being totally unprepared, was made to look foolish (see @ 4:00 – 5:45 mins, 18:27 – 21:00, 32:40 – 33:27), however, I do agree with Steve the “ .. religion and science should be separated . ” (20:30 – 20:40). That’s another angle of attack that the group needs to be prepared to defend.

I have just been watching UK Prime Minister David Cameron talking to is audience in Newcastle-upon-Tyne during one of his PM Direct shows. One questioner expressed his concern about climate change and we had the standard politicians response:

- is it worth takng the risk,

- if your house had a 75% chance of being burned down wouldn’t you insure against it,

- we must act to keep temperature rise down to 2C, it’s bad but acceptable,

- we’re building wind farms,

- it will bring job opportunities

- etc. etc. etc.

There was not a hint of any scepticism about “the consensus”. That’s what PSI is up against around the globe. There is almost 100% support among UK politicians for the doctrine that our continuing use of fossil fuels will lead to catastrophic global climate change. Just before the last election I asked the local Conservative MP James Clappison his views and he came back with “I don’t understand it but that’s what the experts tell us”. May I suggest that the group’s energies should be concentrated on convincing our Government representatives and the voters who elect them that “the consensus” is flawed, the science is highly uncertain, the risk is unknown and all that humans can do is prepare to adapt to whatever nature throws at us. Until that is achieved there will bbe no change in Government policies. But we all know that already, don’t we.

Appendix; E-mail Extracts

December 22, 2010 1:17 PM “ .. Subject: Here's why we need to push our book at Congress .. If we were in any doubt, here's an urgent case for applying our book judiciously via our political contacts in Congress: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/22/obama-epa-to-expand-regulatory-regime-for-climate-change/”.

December 23, 2010, 3:43 AM “ .. Subject: Re: Here's why we need to push our book at Congress .. We must urgently forge direct lines of communication with sympathizers in Congress. .. Kent Clizbe .. may be able to exert some influence to progress this via his connection to Va.'s Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli. .. Hans, Joe and I are progressing well with the development of a new independent international science association that we intend to launch in early 2011. http://principia-scientific.org/pso/ .. I think the most effective way of getting our message across would be through Senators such as Rockerfeller and Manchin from W. Va. or others from coal producing states. .. Marty”.

Dec 25 2010, 02:48 PM “ .. One of PSI's key objectives must be to challenge this ubiquitous global warming fraud in international courts. For a year now I've posted popular articles highlighting how the common law instrument of mandamus petition is the most appropriate weapon in a lawyer's legal toolbox for common law nations citizens ( UK, US, Canada, NZ, Australia) to bring down the AGW fraud. Thankfully, I've been listened to. The NZ Climate Skeptic coalition brought such a mandamus petition against NIWA and now the NZ govt has conceded NZ has no 'official' temperature record. At a stroke a court has proven that there has been no warming in NZ since 1960. This is the most monumental legal victory that non-lawyers are still absorbing. I now need to apply the same legal strategy in other common law nation's courts. .. If we are to advance this cause meaningfully, with passion and focus then I humbly suggest we accept the essential premise that those best qualified and experienced to take this organization forward are already in place. I have the necessary talents to finish off the job by exploiting a wealth of international legal contacts. I have the time, the commitment and know how to coordinate such a global courtroom strategy. Be advised that it was my earnest hard work and foresight that brought together 22 world leading skeptics to compile the best seller 'Slaying the Sky Dragon'. The book provides the most compelling scientific argument to advance a legal one. This was all my innovation and it succeed only with the invaluable support of my cooauthors. We made it reality just as we are doing now by creating Principia Scientific International. The basics are already formed and I wish to continue leading such a terrific team. We are poised to deliver a robust, financially strong charitable organization with a remit to use member subscription to file lawsuits on their behalf. I want to complete the job I started and we now need you to help recruit the thousands of paid up members necessary to turn noble words into actions. John”.

Dec 26 2010, 01:11 PM “ .. we have enough evidence to force NOAA to either substantiate their claim or retract, just as did the NZ skeptics when they filed their mandamus .. 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. .. If we can raise $3,000 I can set the legal wheels in motion. .. This is as cheap a way to score a legal victory as I can suggest. John”

Dec 28 2010, 05:53 PM “I am in support of this proposal and will make a contribution. One must think of the impact of the British father (Dimmock) who challenged the scientific validity of Gore's Inconvenient Truth. It was only equalled by the person who exposed Gore's carbon footprint. Tim B”.

Dec 28 2010, 07:18 PM “ .. I've costed this matter .. based on ten year's legal experience of handling similar such proceedings both in the New York State and federal courts. .. On the legal detail please refer to my chapter in ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’ in which I wrote:

Under common law our respective governments cannot impose climate regulations on us by regarding similar facts and circumstances differently on different occasions. This principle is known among legal practitioners as stare decisis (i.e. judges are obliged to obey the set-up precedents established by prior decisions).

We have been given our perfect precedent in new Zealand by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) . .. we are going to challenge NOAA/GISS/GHCN – .. Similarly, our argument, in the US federal court, will be that US govt agencies have acted ‘arbitrarily and capriciously’ (precise technical wording) in publishing temp records filled with subjective interpolations that are no more than guess work.

As I have explained in many articles on this issue over the past year, common law jurisdictions must apply the stare decisis principle now given to us in NZ by Barry Brill’s brilliant lawyering. .. Barry will be more than happy to advise us on any such similar case filed in Washington D.C. (my preferred venue for this). .. $3,000 and less than 12 month’s work will win us this important victory and I strongly urge you and all our most influential scientists and advocates to back Principia Scientific International (launching January 2011) to win subscribers, build the necessary fighting find and finally nail these warmist fraudsters misappropriating tax payer monies. John”.

28 December, 2010 18:13:55 “ .. John O'S. surely has a great plan for taking a legal strategy against the AGW scam. However, starting up a non-profit to run such a strategy is a huge undertaking. .. The organization has to have a full corporate staff--CEO, CFO, fund-raising staff, sales, marketing, advertising, operations. This is NOT an insignificant undertaking. .. Setting up and running a non-profit (or a for profit, for that matter) organization is a hugely resource-intensive effort that sucks up more money and manpower than you can imagine (if you've never done it before). .. Kent”.

Dec 28 2010, 09:20 PM “ .. starting up a new independent international science association. .. the strategy here is based on sound legal analysis to create a bespoke worldwide legal arm .. Our key purpose is to fight climate fraud globally in all English speaking common law nations. We have targeted .. a mandamus petition against NASA GISS/NOAA in the federal court in Washington DC. .. a mandamus petition is a most compelling legal force. .. A seperate and unique association MUST be formed because it limits liability solely to me and my dedicated team. .. Hans Schreuder as Treasurer (CFO) working directly with me (CEO). .. The added benefits to members is that we operate as a book publisher for disgrurntled scientists unable to bypass the gatekeepers who now run the shill science journals. .. See the developing prototype here: http://principia-scientific.org/pso/ We already have the " full corporate staff--CEO, CFO, fund-raising staff, sales, marketing, advertising, operations" .. Our staff's 'trial run' was to produce a body of 'evidence' to use in all such court actions. .. the book 'Slaying the Sky Dragon' forming a legal entity in England for this purpose; a new publishing business .. we have the infrastructure to make this thing work. .. We anticipate many others will follow once they understand the beauty of the legal strategy involved. By creating our bespoke and seperate association to fight these climate lawsuits no liability whatsoever extends to any of our affiliate supporters. .. I heartily recommened PSI to you .. John”.

Dec 28 2010, 09:38 PM “ .. 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 John”.

29 December, 2010 8:01:55 “I am really glad that this is moving on, with a good chance that something may actually result from this legal action. .. So I'd really like to see NOAA's ass kicked .. miso”.

Dec 29 2010, 06:59 PM “ .. a viable method to raise the monies we need to be able to fund test cases in the courts. .. Beyond the climate science scam, which is our first target, our future intentions are to also provide member services to pursue other noble causes identified by the membership; any area of public concern where unscientific wrong needs to be righted-by legal means if necessary. .. considerable scope for PSI to be a publishing and promotions antidote to censorship .. the peer review process is corrupt and needs a radical overhaul. This is an issue PSI can and will confront forcefully by weight of member numbers. PSI already has in place a publishing sub-division that has successfully launched two climate science books with 3 more in the pipeline for publication in 2011. .. The Royal Society is another prominent case in point where member interests have been sold out to promote a political agenda .. John”.

Dec 30 2010, 05:54 PM “Subject: Advancing Principia Scientific International as a Community Interest Company: .. A Proposal for the Foundation of a Community Interest Company to Fund Legal Challenges Against Fraudulent Climate Science.. we have come up with the following additional proposals to ensure the integrity of our fledgling organization, Principia Scientific International (PSI). Prototype website here: http://principia-scientific.org/pso/ PSI's function is to apply the law ( in .. US, UK, Canada etc.) to defeat junk science e.g. by exposing fraudulent government funded temperature records in the courts .. http://www.suite101.com/content/legal-defeat-for-global-warming-in-kiwigate-scandal-a294157 by the application of a legal strategy I proposed last year: http://algorelied.com/?tag=fraud (*). The legal strategy .. has thus proven itself in one common law jurisdiction. We now need to apply it again around the globe. .. our next objective: defeating NASA GISS, GHCN and NOAA in the federal court in Washington D.C. .. what is needed is an effective fund raising strategy. .. In this regard we are persuaded of the need to set up a formalized entity recognized under UK law. We agree this formal step is necessary so as not to provide our detractors with needless ammunition to impugn our integrity. We recommend to you that the most suitable formation for our organization would be as a Community interest company (CIC) registered in England with Companies House. .. Principia Scientific International will thus ostensibly be comprised of science professionals ("Members"/donors) and public persons ( "Affiliates" and/or "Donors") expressly concerned to assist in financially upholding the best standards of science applied by governments and in our communities (via media, public and private businesses). .. John”.

1 January, 2011 17:19:20 “ .. (PSI) is planning to take legal action against organisations that are protected by the most powerful political machinery in the world. I recognise that there is no restriction on the CICs range of operation however, I still consider that charitable status provides better protection for all concerned, I recommend that we set up PSI as a charity and review this status after successfully completing the first legal action. .. Pete”.

Jan 01 2011, 07:48 PM “ .. we are discussing the setting up of a new international science association, Principia Scientific International, to counter the corrupt science pervading not just climatology but other government-funded sciences. The website prototype is here: http://principia-scientific.org/pso/ .. we first need to determine whether PSI should beset up as a charity or a CIC ..As a charity we will not be permitted to operate as a commercial book publishing and promotions entity which is a key function that our group of authors wishes to pursue .. Our core authoring team is now 26 international experts strong .. 'Slaying the Dragon' was published (December, 2010) www.slayingtheskydragon.com .. Our authors would be our expert witnesses at trial with a vested interest to be proved right if PSI is permitted to fully exploit that arm of our work. .. We realize that the UK govt will not permit us to set up a charity for the express purpose of suing government agencies. .. 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. So as not to fall foul of the regulations we need to serve that community with complete financial transparency in a multitude of functions. .. we see a niche market for science books that do not conform to the gatekeeping views of what we perceive as a corrupt science establishment. .. John. As a CIC PSI cannot be used .. for political purposes .. PSI will not carry on certain political activities .. PSI will make a declaration that it will not be an excluded company (which briefly means we shall not be owned or controlled by a .. political campaigning organisation.

1 January, 2011 22:48:14 “ .. I doubt very much that the UK govt will be any more eager to allow CIC Regulator to grant the group CIR status than it would be allow the Charity Commissioner to grant the group charity status for the express purpose of suing government agencies. Trying to hide behind the front of a publishing company does not strike me as a sound strategy. Surely as soon as the first case is taken to court the cover is exposed and action would quickly be taken to curtail the group’s activities. .. Pete”.

Jan 2, 2011, at 4:28 PM “ .. Setting up a charitable organization that looks to file lawsuits will be barred under UK law (US law, too, as far as I know). .. So what I propose does appear to work, despite the negative odds, because there are already approx. 2,000 CIC's in existence. They all combine the ethos of charitable works while also paying key staff. .. Claes further suggests that we can obtain revenue from government grants .. I suspect that once any such govt suspects that an organisation it is funding is also contemplating lawsuits against it, then the funding will quickly stop. In effect, if we accept the argument that neither charitable status nor the CIC format will work, then there is no practicable means of advancing our goals. .. I don't know of any lawyers willing to bring lawsuits against corrupt govt science agencies without some form of payment for their time and hard work. If the proposal for a CIC won't fly then it's time we accept that the legal decisions will exclusively be determined by the richer elite. John”.

Jan 4, 2011, at 11:20 AM “ .. I agree with Pete that legal action without (a lot of) money may be fruitless. Which are the first actions to be taken? Do they concern science and scientific truth per se? Or scientific fraud with the truth aspect irrelevant? .. What finally matters is to get media attention and political impact, by presenting convincing scientific arguments as we do, e g to the Republicans now able to define the truth in the Congress. .. Claes

Jan 4, 2011, at 12:06 PM “ .. can you really bring someone to court and ask that person to prove correctness (or innocense)? Isn't it necessary to sue/accuse someone for being incorrect, and get a conviction if a proof of incorrectness can be given? Isn't that the basis of our legal system? .. Claes”.

Jan 04 2011, 02:56 PM “Subject: RE: PSI & Due Diligence .. We will either work together to prevent the use of government science for government propaganda, or we will all be living together under tyrannical world government like that described by George Orwell in the novel, “1984″. .. Oliver”.

Jan 4, 2011 at 5:26 PM “ .. the burden of proof is 100% on their shoulders. That would be the basis of a court claim: to demand to see their "proof". It would be relatively easy to show that their "proof" is not scientifically sound, and is rather based on political agendas and beliefs. .. john droz”.

Jan 04 2011, 10:47 PM “Subject: Re: PSI & Due Diligence LEGAL POSITION: .. here is how the law will need to be used by our lawyers in English common law nations to win climate cases: The legal actions proposed are not a trial in the form you suggest but an 'Order to Show Cause' ( mandamus) .. a judge will rule the government cannot impose climate regulations based on 'unofficial' and unverfiable data. That is the legal strategy. .. common law nations ( ie all English speaking countries) operate the mandamus petition system of permitting tax payers to challenge the decisions of government in the courts if the government is not applying its own rules properly to make decisions. The govt agency allegedly involved in the nonfeasance/malfeasance/misfeasance must come to court to explain why they have not acted in the manner in which their own rules require them. Lack of due diligence is the key here. For example, a key issue is collection, retention, collation and publication of temperature records which we suspect have been destroyed, or cherry-picked sometimes fraudulently. The govt agency must prove all such records have been dealt with by applying the mandatory due diligence procedures set out in applicable govt regulations. Thus climatologists must show that their homogenized temp data is robust. If it is not it must be stricken and a new record provided which we know means going back to the raw data and starting from the beginning again. Until such time no climate regulations imposed on taxpayers would be lawful. .. John”.

Jan 05 2011, 01:23 PM “ .. We're not after the EPA .. the EPA has a plausible affirmative defense insofar as they can rightly shift the responsibility over the data handling and collection agencies that made the original global temp data. Just like the NZ skeptics who beat NIWA when attacking the validity of the original temp record-this is a more straightforward legal line of attack and we may cite the NZ case as our precedent which the court will have to accept insofar as the temp record is a homogenized globally from such shared metadata. Thus we are going after those who created the false data e.g. NASA GISS and NOAA which is a far more straightforward and less convoluted line of attack on fraud. John”.

Jan 05 2011, 01:56 AM “ Subject: Re: PSI & Due Diligence: .. the US Constitution has a prohibition against the government promoting any religion. The fact is that the whole environmental movement has become a "religion," not a science-based agenda. Therefore, for the government to adopt laws that promote this religion (e.g. CO2 restrictions) should be constitutionally challenged. The only recourse that the government would have to contest the claim that they are promoting a religion, would be to prove that their energy and environmental policies are truly science-based. .. In my view we need to transform how government works so that when it gets into technical areas, that they understand and genuinely apply scientific principals. .. john droz”.

Jan 06 2011, 08:45 PM “Subject: News story: Court Orders University to Surrender Global Warming Records: My latest article giving delight to climate skeptics seeking courtroom victory against doomsaying professor, Michael Mann http://www.suite101.com/content/court-orders-university-to-surrender-global-warming-records-a328888 ”.

Jan 07 2011, 10:41 AM “ .. John, how's the suit against NOAA going? I know that the following suggestions are legally impossible, but I really wish we could demand stricter punishment for this fraud: I'd like to se the likes of Hansen, Trenberth, Mann and Jay Lawrimore (the author of "hottest June") drawn and quartered! .. miso”.

Jan 11 2011, 08:30 PM “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? Claes”.

Jan 11 2011, 10:53 PM “ .. For the avoidance of doubt I have made very subtle changes to the mission statement so that it cannot be misconstrued by anyone to suggest PSI has political ambitions or seeks to undermine the law as per the CIC section you cited .. ”.

Jan 12 2011, 08:16 AM “ .. my question on the apparent conflict between PSI, with possible scientific/political impact, and CIC status, has not been answered, I think. Claes”.

Jan 12 2011, 05:44 PM “Well, I am still not convinced that PSI can be fully non-political, or that science can be fully neutral or non-political. To me this is fiction .. Clearly, science and politics are very much intermingled

in particular anything with climate. .. Claes”.

Jan 12, 2011, at 2:55 PM “ .. Do you want PSI to be political or non-political. If you assume the premise that all science is political and we submit to the CIC regulator that politics is part of science do you think they will ban us or not? And what of almost every science association that has signed up to the global warming scam and eco-politics? Perhaps they should be banned,too? John”.

Jan 12, 2011 at 10:01 PM “ .. science is ideally apolitical and amoral. This never occurs in reality because everything is political to different degrees. The problem with climate science is that it was hijacked and deliberately made political. No matter what we say or do that is the reality. Everyone is categorized as 'left' or 'right' depending on their scientific position. .. the best option is to stick as much with the science as possible and let others play their political games. We provide the best service to society by staying with the science. The challenge is to explain the science in a way the public can understand. .. Tim”.

Jan 13 2011, 12:04 PM “ .. PSI= general science association a science union campaigning for strict adherence to scientific method ( non political) .. ”.

In many of those E-mails there is a link to the “Slaying the Sky Dragon .. (http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/) web-site which states “ .. Seven independent authors, powerfully expressing their unpaid views, unhindered by ‘big oil’ backers and with no affiliaion to any political party have joined forces out of disgust for the way politicians have lied to us for years. .. ”.

(*) I see this article as being one of several that can be used against PSI by our opponents, but perhaps its just my paranoia again, or even dementia seting in (as I acknowledged in my latest E-mail to the CIC Regulator).

==============

From: alan618034@...
To: Claes Johnson; Oliver Manuel
Cc: JOHN OSULLIVAN; peter.ridley@...; aaprjohn@...; timothyball@..., ruthhertzberg@..., hanssch@..., alan618034@..., Charles.R.Anderson@..., geraldo@..., ken@..., PF.SMP@..., jerry_oliver@..., rtaguchi@..., j.nicol1@..., vinmary.gray@..., Fred@..., piers@..., kent@..., Miso.Alkalaj@..., .houston2000@...Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 13:38Subject: Re: PSI and Due Diligence

Yes, I agree on that. Climate science is obviously our focus, so this should be stated. Alan
================

From: Claes Johnson
To: Oliver ManuelCc: JOHN OSULLIVAN; peter.ridley@...; aaprjohn@...; timothyball@..., ruthhertzberg@..., hanssch@..., alan618034@..., Charles.R.Anderson@..., geraldo@..., ken@..., PF.SMP@..., jerry_oliver@..., rtaguchi@..., j.nicol1@..., vinmary.gray@..., Fred@..., piers@..., kent@..., Miso.Alkalaj@..., .houston2000@...Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 13:38Subject: Re: and Due Diligence

What about reducing the mission of PSI to something like: critical analysis of science, in particular climate science?I don't see that PSI as of now can live up to anything near "Be the leading voice for best practice and principled science as per the traditional English Scientific Method (ESM)" Claes
=============================

Message Received: Jan 13 2011, 12:04 PM
From: "JOHN OSULLIVAN" ...
To: "Class Johnson," ...
Cc: peter.ridley@..., aaprjohn@..., OMATUMR@..., timothyball@..., ruthhertzberg@..., hanssch@..., alan618034@..., Charles.R.Anderson@..., geraldo@..., ken@..., PF.SMP@..., jerry_oliver@..., rtaguchi@..., j.nicol1@..., vinmary.gray@..., Fred@..., piers@..., kent@..., Miso.Alkalaj@..., .houston2000@...
Subject: Re: PSI and Due Diligence

GWPF = global warming skepticism advocacy group (politically focused but non political)

ICSC=global warming skepticism advocacy group

PSI= general science association a science union campaigning for strict adherence to scientific method (non political)

www.slayingtheskydragon.com

==============

From: "Class Johnson," ...

To: JOHN OSULLIVAN...

Cc: ..peter.ridley@...; aaprjohn@...; OMATUMR@...; timothyball@...; ruthhertzberg@...; hanssch@...; alan618034@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; geraldo@...; "ken@...; PF.SMP@...; jerry_oliver@...;

Sent: Thursday, 13 January, 2011 7:04:55

Subject: Re: PSI and Due Diligence

What would be the basic difference between PSI and ICSC or GWPF?

Claes

==============

Message Received: Jan 12 2011, 05:44 PM
From: "Claes Johnson" ...
To: "JOHN OSULLIVAN" ...
Cc: peter.ridley@..., aaprjohn@..., OMATUMR@..., timothyball@..., ruthhertzberg@..., hanssch@..., alan618034@..., Charles.R.Anderson@..., geraldo@..., ken@..., PF.SMP@..., jerry_oliver@..., rtaguchi@..., j.nicol1@...
Subject: Re: PSI and “Due Diligence” - see attached document

Well, I am still not convinced that PSI can be fully non-political, or that science can be fully neutral or non-political. To me this is fiction, as much as backradiation. Clearly, science and politics are very much intermingled in particular anything with climate. Why should PSI be as neutral as zero? To me what is interesting is to say something scientific which is not zero, possibly with some political connection out of my control.

Claes
==============

Message Received: Jan 12 2011, 11:16 AM

From: "JOHN OSULLIVAN" ...

To: "Claes Johnson" ...

Cc: peter.ridley@..., aaprjohn@..., OMATUMR@..., timothyball@..., ruthhertzberg@..., hanssch@..., alan618034@..., Charles.R.Anderson@..., geraldo@..., ken@..., PF.SMP@..., jerry_oliver@..., rtaguchi@..., j.nicol1@...

Subject: Re: PSI and “Due Diligence” - see attached document

Friends,

In answer to Claes's questions, the book was only available in ebook format from November 28, 2010 and in the UK in paperback format from January 6, 2011. We are still awaiting the US paperback to be launched (next week we hope). We are currently progressing with a Spanish language version (via Prof. Nasif Nahle) and are in talks to publish Swedish (see below), Portuguese and Chinese versions. But already in such a short time a Google search (Jan. 12, 2011) using the term, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’ elicits 72,600 results:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=0h&oq=sla&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADRA_enGB411GB412&q=slaying+the+sky+dragon

There are many reviews that you can glean from that list. Amazon gives is ‘5 Stars.’ I have no idea how many copies have been sold. Indeed, the rate of sale is far more significant than numbers sold for a book that has only been on the market for such a short time. Amazon is today showing it as their #1 best seller in Earth Science:

Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Science > Earth Sciences

Indeed, on Amazon the book has been #1 in several science categories almost continuously since launch.

On Dec, 31, 2010 James Delingpole of the Daily Telegraph wrote an article, ‘The most important book of 2010?’ and cited a shortlist of six. What is remarkable is that the list included ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’ published only weeks earlier.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100069795/the-most-important-book-of-2010/

Claes suggests “At least in Sweden, the book does not seem to exist” yet we have been contacted by a Swedish publisher offering a $1,000 advance - keen to run a Swedish version as can be seen from this email:

From: "Peter Pettersson, Anarchos" ...

To: JOHN OSULLIVAN ...

Sent: Tuesday, 30 November, 2010 19:38:40

Subject: Re: Hans Schreuder: Review Copy

Hello John,

If it would be possible for you to send us a copy of the paperback version when it's out, it would be much appreciated. I personally prefer reading a physical book, since I feel I spend too many hours in front of my computers anyway.

When we have reviewed it, we could get back to you and continue our discussions .Does that sound reasonable?

Best, Peter

Anarchos Publishing

Pennygången 29

SE-414 82 Göteborg

SWEDEN

Meanwhile in another unsolicited email came this inquiry from Lord Monckton upon his return from the COP 16 Conference in Mexico:

Sent: Monday, 13 December, 2010 20:05:42

Subject: Re: Slaying the Sky Dragon / Lord Christopher Monckton

I'd very much like to have the Dragon book: it was the talk of Cancun - C

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Claes again asks for an explanation of the apparent political conflicts PSI may raise as a CIC which I answered by citing the revised Mission Statement that specifically points out that PSI is non-political and addresses strictly science-related matters. For those who haven’t seen it here it is again:

PSI MISSION STATEMENT

Principia Scientific International strives to:

* Be the leading voice for best practice and principled science as per the traditional English Scientific Method (ESM);

* Encourage scientists to shun conflicts of interest and in good conscience search for and reveal the truth without subjective taint or bias, acting strictly within the constraints of the law;

* Publish books, periodicals, give lectures and media interviews as part of a diverse programme of support of encouraging the application of the principles of ESM in the community;

* Collaborate with national scientific societies for the advancement of empiricism and higher standards in science education in the community;

* Cooperate with international science societies without regard to politics so as to promote transparency and accountability by applying verifiable methods that engender ethical science.

Can anyone determine anything from the above that appears to suggest PSI is unworthy of CIC status/is political/contrary to law?

Finally, I’d caution against reading too much into Pete’s straw poll seeking to discover how many people had heard of the book. For greater objectivity it may have been even more revealing to ask them to list ANY book published in the last two months.

Thanks,

John

www.slayingtheskydragon.com

====================

From: Claes Johnson ...

To: peter.ridley@...

Cc: john0sullivan@...; aaprjohn@...; OMATUMR@...; timothyball@...; ruthhertzberg@...; hanssch@t...; alan618034@...;

Charles.R.Anderson@...; geraldo@...; ken@...; PF.SMP@...;jerry_oliver@...; rtaguchi@s...; j.nicol1@...

Sent: Wednesday, 12 January, 2011 8:16:45

Subject: Re: PSI and “Due Diligence” - see attached document

I think the questions raised by Pete are relevant:

How many copies of the book have been sold? Who has noticed and commented? At least in Sweden, the book does not seem to exist, as if it has been eaten by the Dragon instead of killing him.

Further my question on the apparent conflict between PSI, with possible scientific/political impact, and CIC status, has not been answered, I think.
Claes
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 8:24 PM (Sweden time), Pete Ridley
================

Message Received: Jan 11 2011, 08:30 PM

From: "Claes Johnson" ...

To: "JOHN OSULLIVAN" ...

Subject: Re: PSI and Due Diligence

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?

Claes

============

Message Received: Jan 11 2011, 06:59 PM

From: "JOHN OSULLIVAN"...

To: peter.ridley@...

Cc: claesjohnson@..., aaprjohn@..., OMATUMR@..., timothyball@..., ruthhertzberg@..., hanssch@..., alan618034@..., Charles.R.Anderson@..., geraldo@..., ken@..., PF.SMP@..., jerry_oliver@..., rtaguchi@..., j.nicol1@..., vinmary.gray@..., Fred@..., piers@..., kent@..., Miso.Alkalaj@..., houston2000@...

Subject: Re: PSI and Due Diligence

Please find attached a copy of the latest draft for PSI's Articles of Association. Feedback may be sent to Joe Olson ( houston2000@peoplepc.com ) rather than to me.

Regards,

John

www.slayingtheskydragon.com

===============

Message Received: Jan 09 2011, 01:44 PM

From: "Pete Ridley" ...

To: v_majkus@...

Cc: john0sullivan@..., houston2000@...

Subject: PSI and Due Diligence

Hi Val, thanks for making the time to consider this issue. Shortly before contacting you on 3rd January and getting your speedy response indicating your willingness to assist I had sent an E-mail to the whole group (@ 10:10 AM). In it I said “ In my opinion it is time for advice, particularly legal, from outside this close-nit community of ours and I wonder how others feel about initially inviting Val Majkus to look at the content of the PSI & Due Diligence E-mails”.

You were then brought into the group by John on 3rd @ 02:29 PM so may not have had the benefit of seeing the previous “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails (unless John has passed some to you since). It appears not because you say “Peter Ridley says in his e mail of 4/1 as to not supporting setting up a CIC at this early stage because of potential limited funds”. The cost of setting up a CIC is not my concern. My overriding concern is that PSI must do its utmost to be open and honest during the whole legal “war” against Governments/Agencies that is being proposed. If not I believe that we’ll be crucified by the opposition. We’re not talking about a friendly game of football. We’re talking about challenging the most powerful individuals and organisations in the world and need to do our utmost to be “squeaky clean”. I’ve said this over and over again to the group but am getting little reaction, other than being accused of being a spy.

Everyone in the group who has been in receipt of the E-mails that I have seen since joining towards the end of November is fully aware of the primary objective of PSI. On the PSI Web-site this is merely alluded to in the penultimate objective of 7 with ‘Discouraging inappropriate or unconscionable scientific methods with the ability and willingness to mount legal challenges, as a last resort, to remedy willful noncompliance’. That “as a last resort” could well be interpreted as deliberately misleading, certainly by our opponents. I believe that our “community interest statement” must clearly state the primary objective because it is clearly stated in several E-mails and is already in the public domain. If legal action is given no mention at all in the “community interest statement” or even just buried behind a lot of other objectives I anticipate this being spotted very quickly by eager disciples and supporters of “the doctrine”. I have not seen what, if anything, has been submitted to the CIC Regulator on behalf of everyone in the group. I see it as being essential that all of us agree on this fundamental document before it is submitted because it affects us all.

I am getting “general” advice from the CIC Regulator around this issue and expect another response early next week and will pass it on to the group when the position is clear to me.

Regarding the difference between charitable and CIC status, a charity is under far greater scrutiny by the Charities Commission than the “light touch” control applied by the CIC regulator. It is much harder for a charity to be used for vested rather than community interest. The Executive of any limited company can be manipulated much more easily, regardless of the intentions of the founding membership. Even charities are not immune to this but it is much harder. I have asked the Regulator about what can happen to a CIC and its membership if, after successfully obtaining CIC status some individual or organisation brought an action against the CIC because it was not operating in accordance with its community interest statement or that statement was deliberately misleading. Maybe John is correct when suggesting that I’m being paranoid, but I doubt it.

If you haven’t seen “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails exchanged before 3rd Jan then let me know and I can send them to you, but I warn you, it’s heavy reading.

Best regards, Pete.

=================

From: "Pete Ridley"...
To: john0sullivan@..., claesjohnson@..., aaprjohn@..., OMATUMR@..., timothyball@..., ruthhertzberg@..., hanssch@..., alan618034@..., Charles.R.Anderson@..., geraldo@..., ken@..., PF.SMP@..., jerry_oliver@..., rtaguchi@..., j.nicol1@.... vinmary.gray@...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; Miso.Alkalaj@...; houston2000@...
Sent: Jan 08 2011, 07:24 & 31 PM
Subject: PSI and "Due diligence" - see attached document

ATTACHMENT: ..
John said on Jan 01 2011 @ 07:48 PM that “ .. I'm all for democracy and having everyone vote on this after a full and frank discussion of all the pros and cons .. ” and I’d expect that he’d wish the same regarding any new committees and responsibilities. Surprisingly there hasn’t been much of a response to my E-mail of January 06, 2011 9:05 AM, Subject: RE: Welcome to the PSI + CIC Committee or to Jo’s @ 12:55 AM taking of “ .. delegating new committees to split the work load”. I’ve come to the conclusion recently that the reason our Western democracies fail to live up to the principles underpinning “democracy” and turn out simply to be a different form of dictatorship is due to the apathy of the “silent majority”. The silence within this group regarding the “due diligence” issues that I have raised is almost deafening. I don’t think that the majority realise the implications for all of us of what is proposed for PSI. I know that John thinks that I’m being paranoid but, like Hans, I have a well-tuned 6th sense which has served me very well in the past (not perfectly – or almost so – as for Hans, but well enough).

Talking of Hans, his was one response that you may be interested in. It was only sent to John and me but I think that it should be of interest to you all because it shows how lofty plans based upon high ideals can start to crack and crumble. QUOTE: You are digging a trap into which we will all fall if you guys insist in keeping this pest in the fold. He is, IMHO, a spy who has so far very successfully infiltrated the hub of our undertakings.
His constant questioning, bordering on demanding to know, of what we are all doing is self-evident yet again below. Look at the mailing list he is brazenly using to demand to know what our "other pressing business" is - what the fuck has that got to do with him?! He has nothing to offer that we do not already possess.
If you insist on keeping this clown in the loop, than I am out of it, simple as that.
My sixth sense has yet to be proven wrong and I do not like this pest one bit. Cheers, Hans UNQUOTE.

Let me advise you all that if you have been thinking along the same lines as Hans then his 6th sense, which he seems to hold in high regard, has let him down badly this time. I am not in this group as a spy. I am simply a cautious (“once bitten twice shy”) individual who believes in telling it as I see it. There are too many in this group who are not prepared to put what they think on record.

Hans raised the issue of a spy and John mentioned earlier about the need for care, especially wrt what goes out on the Internet. Too much is out there already. There seems to either be a spy in the camp or someone has been very careless, otherwise how did Jeff Daley know that “John Osullivan is going to announce in Janaury the setting up a new science association called Principia Scientific International to sue all your criminal warmist buddies for fraud” (http://globalwarmingsuperheroes.com/osullivans-seletive-myopia/) or do you think that he was lucky and found it in his Xmas cracker? ? I always think very carefully before sending anything by E-mail or placing anything on record in case it gets thrown back in my face, but is everyone in this group as cautious as this venture warrants?

John invited me in to this group because he has known for some time now of my aversion to the dishonesty behind this CACC propaganda being vomited all over the globe by power-hungry individuals and organisations and believed (and hopefully still does) that I have something to contribute. The concerns that I express are genuine and the recommendations that I make are offered in the belief that they will improve our chances of success in this endeavour. I have come into the group without my eyes being closed to the outside world through having been deeply engrossed in the detail of helping to write and publish “Slaying the Sky Dragon .. ”. I am giving an opinion as a relative outsider to that worthy activity and perhaps the group can benefit from my wider perspective and realistic expectations.

John says that “Slaying the Sky Dragon: .. ” is a best seller but how many copies have been sold or even ordered? How many people have even heard of it? I’ve just sent out the following E-mail to 46 associates, most of whom are in agreement with us about this scam and have been actively debating the issue for many months. QUOTE: Hi all, I wonder if I might quickly pick your brains. Two questions about the book "Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory" (http://www.christopherengland.com/2010/11/slaying-sky-dragon.html). How many of you have:
1) heard of it,
2) read it,
3) discussed it?
I'd very much appreciate a response by return and thank you in anticipation of your help. Best regards, Pete. UNQUOTE.
5 responded almost immediately, four with “No” to all three. Only 1 had a “yes” to 1 & 3, that was John Droz, a recent addition to this group. It’ll be interesting to see the responses

In my E-mail of 30th Dec @ 08:52 PM I mentioned that I had been reflecting on when I was last involved with others in several businesses within the umbrella of private limited liability companies back to the 1970s. I concluded at that time that certain fundamental requirements needed to be satisfied in order to operate properly and effectively within the terms of its “articles of association” to the satisfaction of its sponsors (shareholders, fee-paying members), each of the executives appointed by the members must be fully aware of:
- responsibilities towards the members,
- their legal obligations.

I also concluded that a fundamental requirement is that the members fully trust each member of the executive that it appoints to only do what is in the best interests of the members and that the membership must be kept fully informed of all decisions made by the executive and the reasons for these decisions.

I came to these conclusions as a result of three of the four members (and executive) of the companies that I was involved with not satisfying those requirements. I, as the odd one out, took action to rectify the situation, with the co-operation of the UK and US customs authorities (I can’t remember who my UK contact was but the US’s Customs Attaché was Bill Underwood). The group subsequently disintegrated. I would hate to see the same thing happening with this group because we are all suppose to be supporting the “noble” cause of exposing the fraud behind the doctrine that our continuing use of fossil fuels is leading to catastrophic changes to the different global climates.

I do not see a CIC having any lesser requirements than those I mentioned above, rather, since it’s raison d’être is supposed to be for the benefit of the global population, not any single or group of individuals, perhaps even more stringent requirements need to be met. It appears to me that the members of this group are being encouraged to sponsor the establishment of such an organisation without it having been demonstrated that those requirements will be satisfied.

Let me give you examples of why I feel that PSI does not satisfy these requirements, During a debate about “PSI & Due Diligence”:
- I would expect every member of the Executive to want to understand the intricacies of the debate, not to say “This is the main reason I haven’t been commenting. The subject is intricate and very unfamiliar to me. I’m just along for the ride -- I wouldn't TOUCH the steering wheel!” (Alan Siddons on Jan 04 2011, 11:20 PM).
- “Due Diligence” and “Regulatory Compliance”, like Siamese twins, are inseparable, yet the member of the proposed Executive nominated as Compliance Officer, Philip Foster, has said NOTHING AT ALL.

During this important debate about PSI & Due Diligence I would expect to hear significant comments from each of the individuals involved, most particularly from all proposed members of the Executive. John made his position clear from the outset, closely followed by Hans, Jo and Claes. Alan stated his on 4th. Why is nothing forthcoming from Tim, Philip, Martin and Charles? What about the views of other memebers? Miso made his position clear on 31st December and Kent on 2nd but what about the remainder? I previously mentioned this deafening silence.

Jerry, it would also be helpful to hear something from you regarding your involvement with Great Point Energy, EWI and The Nuclear Fabrication Foundation. Is their any possibility of “conflict of interest” or other challenges from our opponents over this? (Maybe it’s just me showing further symptoms of creeping paranoia.)

John (Droz) have you any thoughts on that, because EWI seems to be enthusiastic about wind power (http://ewienergycenter.com/hydro/outlook-for-offshore-wind-energy-in-the-us/), about which you have had much to say of late elsewhere.

In my E-mail on 3rd Jan @ 11:30 AM I drew attention to the fact that PSI’s main objective of taking legal action against Governments was put into the public domain as a Xmas present and asked if anyone new Jeff Daley. Only John O’S offered anything on this so I did a further search and came across a comment of Jeff’s on Realclimate about QUOTE: ‘Slaying the Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.’ Might be something there you want to pick apart. … [Response: This is pretty far out. Might be amusing to have Lindezn and Spencer debunk it. - gavin] [Further Response: I had a closer look: definitely more Buffy than Beowulf. – gavin UNQUOTE. I have no doubt that Schmitt and his “hockey team” supporters club at Realclimate will sink their teeth into PSI at every opportunity if it becomes perceived as a sceptical organisation of substance. Is there a defence strategy in place for this? Claiming in promotional material to have relevant scientific expertise and publishing a book is not the same thing as providing convincing evidence through a peer-reviewed paper written by specialists in relevant disciplines in a recognised journal (despite the success of the IPCC’s ARs) or refuting attempts to undermine PSI. You will all know the trouble that McIntyre and McKittrick had in getting their arguments acknowledged as being valid (and they were both statistics specialists). As I said on 30th Dec. @ 08:52 PM “Self praise is no praise at all”.

You may recall me pointing to a web-site (http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/co2isplantfood/message/219) which “leaked” an E-mail of John’s sent on Saturday, May 8, 2010, 7:26 AM to numerous individuals, (including you JO, Alan, Hans, Philip, Kent, Vincent, John D, Piers, Ruth/Martin and me). This list has also caught the attention of (http://ijish.livejournal.com/19792.html) especially the owner of the E-mail address smalld@dganda.net. There are many names in the Ccs who can be recognised for their involvement in the CACC issue but several are new to me and I’m interested to know what if any involvement they have in PSI. Of particular interest are:
- Higgins, Roberts, Beyerl & Coan, P.C. lawyers (http://www.hrbcpclaw.com/) ,
- Derek Pilcher, (http://uk.linkedin.com/in/derekpilcher), The Ladders group, particularly the Law component,
- Bob Ashworth (http://renewablesbiz.com/author/bob-ashworth).
- Jim DeYong and Mark Fleming, of San Luis Obispo, California (co-founders of Hyperbole Media LLC and IHateTheMedia.com.
Please would someone advise on this, particularly a member of the proposed Executive.

What an incestuous business this is. If you look at IhateTheMedia’s 18th October “Global warming propagandist purged from the pages of Wikipedia” article (http://www.ihatethemedia.com/global-warming-william-connelley-purged-from-wikipedia-pages/comment-page-1#comment-52467) about the CACC doctrine disciple William Connolley you’ll see that three of the final four comments are mine. If anyone has any further information on DeYong or Flemming then I’d appreciate it so that I can improve my “details” documents. As I said to Jo I like to know as much as possible about those with whom I exchange opinions on this vexed issue.

I suspect that most of us have had strong words used against us by disciples and followers of “the doctrine”. I’ve certainly had my share. I also came across another blog that is not very complementary about John (http://ijish.livejournal.com/19792.html). Can the proposed PSI executive confirm that PSI have had no dealings with either? Also, have any of you had dealings with Professor Joel Hesch http://works.bepress.com/joel_hesch/) and Chris Horner (http://cei.org/expert/christopher-c-horner) and are they two of the legal experts advising (and possibly to be paid by) PSI on legal actions to be taken against US and other governments/agencies?

On January 02, 2011 7:32 AM John said “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, too despite our wanting to do good for the wider science community”.
It appears that most of these are either in good employed or comfortable retirement. Which of them do “not have time to devote unpaid”? I’m in comfortable retirement and have time to work unpaid in support of such a “noble cause” that John mentioned twice in that E-mail.

There seems to be a bit of a contradiction there, just as there is between his explicit claim in the same E-mail as well as implicitly on the PSI web-site (http://principia-scientific.org/pso/component/content/article/36-frontpage/44-principia-scientific-international-psi) that “ .. Benefiting the community is what PSI is all about .. ” and his statements in numerous E-mails and articles to the effect that, as stated in E-mail on Dec 25, 2010 2:44 am “ .. world governments know full well that the global warming juggernaut is founded on junk science and they still don't care that their green tax regimes have no logical foundation. However, I can advise you that plans are in place to take on the scam in international courtrooms by way of a new organization to be officially launched in January called Principia Scientific International .. ”.

John, the point of all of this is that you, as CEO, along with the rest of the Executive, will be the prime target of attacks by disciples and supporters of “the doctrine”. Without a well-prepared defence strategy PSI could be massacred. Let me give you a simple example of what to expect. PSI is likely to be accused of being a tool of the extreme right wing, racist, British National Party (The British Nazis - BNP), just as Anthony Wats was (http://climatesafety.org/watts-up-with-that-sppi-promoting-the-bnp/). That is not something that I wish to be accused of, but worse than that, it provides a strong legal argument for the opposition to take to the CIC Regulator to investigate PSI’s status. After all “ .. organisations whose purposes are support for a political party, or political campaigning, should be unable to become a CIC (see Chapter 2.7 of the Regulator’s guidance) .. ”. It hinges on how the CIC Regulator defines “political campaign”. I know that Wikepedia is not the gospel but it does provide a definition that fits with my own lay-understanding. QUOTE: A political campaign is an organized effort which seeks to influence the decision making process within a specific group UNQUOTE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_campaign). PSI is an organised effort and seeks to influence the decision-making process about “carbon taxes” within the government/agency group.

I know that you consider that I’m verging on paranoia but let’s wait to hear how the CIC Regulator responds to my latest set of questions. I think that it would be prudent for all of us to have another careful look at the sound advice offered by Kent on Jan 02 2011, 02:27 PM).

Best regards, Pete
=========

Message Received: Jan 06 2011, 09:26 AM
From: "Hans Schreuder"...
To: peter.ridley@...
Cc: "O'Sullivan"...
Subject: Re: Welcome to the PSI + CIC Committee....

J&J

You are digging a trap into which we will all fall if you guys insist in keeping this pest in the fold.

He is, IMHO, a spy who has so far very successfully infiltrated the hub of our undertakings.

His constant questioning, bordering on demanding to know, of what we are all doing is self-evident yet again below. Look at the mailing list he is brazenly using to demand to know what our "other pressing business" is - what the fuck has that got to do with him?! He has nothing to offer that we do not already possess.

If you insist on keeping this clown in the loop, than I am out of it, simple as that.

My sixth sense has yet to be proven wrong and I do not like this pest one bit.

Cheers,

Hans

========

Message Received: Jan 06 2011, 12:55 AM
From: "houston2000" ...
To: "JOHN OSULLIVAN" ..., "peter.ridley@...
Cc: v_majkus@...
Subject: Welcome to the PSI + CIC Committee....

Pete & Val

Slayer chores are adding up fast....we are delegating new commitees to split the work load....Pete seems most knowledgeable, so surprise....you are chairman...

we are charged with developing a position paper for full Slayer group approval....thanks

Joe Olson, New Committeeman
================

From: JOHN OSULLIVAN
Sent: Jan 5, 2011 5:59 PM
To: peter.ridley@...
Cc: v_majkus@..., houston2000@...
Subject: Re: PSI

Pete,
I'm out of this PSI thread due to other pressing business I need to attend to. My points are already clearly made and my mind is made up so I've asked Joe Olson to keep me updated and I've got every confidence he can fairly represent my views for now.
Thanks,
John

www.slayingtheskydragon.com
===========

Message Received: Jan 05 2011, 10:49 AM

From: "Pete Ridley"...

To: claesjohnson@..., AAPRJOHN@...

Cc: john0sullivan@..., OMATUMR@..., timothyball@..., ruthhertzberg@..., hanssch@..., houston2000@..., alan618034@..., Charles.R.Anderson@,,,, geraldo@,,,, ken@..., PF.SMP@..., jerry_oliver@..., vinmary.gray@..., Fred@..., piers@..., kent@..., Miso.Alkalaj@...

Subject: Re: PSI & Due Diligence

Claes (Jan 05 2011, 09:49 AM), what an excellent suggestion. It will take a while to get it through peer review in one of the major journals but there is no rush to make a decision on PSI’s CIC status. It could quickly be set up as a charity then the status reviewed after publication, which shouldn’t take as long as completing its first legal action and of course would be far cheaper. I would be most surprised if Roger Taguchi and John Nicol were not interested in assisting on that.

John (O’S), as you haven’t responded to my E-mail yesterday about involving John and Roger I assume that you’re happy for me to add them to the Ccs. Ref. your E-mail on Jan 04 2011, 11:25 PM, thanks for the suggestion but for the moment I’m quite content continuing as I have during the past couple of weeks.

Alan (E-mail Jan 04 2011, 11:20 PM), thanks for letting us all know why you are involved.

John (Droz), are you aware of the “unfair dismissal” case linking “green” with “religion”. “An employee who claimed his boss showed 'contempt' for his green beliefs has won the right to seek unlimited damages for unfair dismissal. In a landmark ruling, Mr Justice Barton found in favour of Tim Nicholson, who was made redundant by the property company he worked for. The judge argued that a 'philosophical belief which is based on science' should receive the same protection as religious beliefs” (Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1225358/Daniel-Johnson-Damn-false-God-How-sanity-green-religion.html).

Am I the only member of this group who is concerned about this deafening silence from significant participants in the PSI venture? It’s January, the month of the proposed launch of PSI as a CIC. Proposed Chairman Tim, Compliance Officer Philip, executives Martin and Charles, why are you keeping so quiet? Surely we are all entitled to know the expressed positions of the PSI’s prominent participants, especially as we are being invited to gamble money on the venture? I’m sure we all would love to hear where you stand in this.

BTW, is Professor Joel Hesch http://works.bepress.com/joel_hesch/) one of the legal experts advising (and possibly to be paid by) PSI on legal actions to be taken against US and other governments/agencies?

Best regards, Pete

========================================

Message Received: Jan 05 2011, 09:49 AM

From: "Claes Johnson"...

To: "John Droz, jr."...

Cc: peter.ridley@..., john0sullivan@..., OMATUMR@..., timothyball@..., ruthhertzberg@..., hanssch@..., houston2000@..., alan618034@..., Charles.R.Anderson@..., geraldo@..., ken@..., PF.SMP@..., jerry_oliver@..., vinmary.gray@..., Fred@..., piers@..., kent@..., Miso.Alkalaj@..., v_majkus@...

Subject: Re: PSI & Due Diligence

I suggest we write a joint slayers scientific article on our key subject of no-backradiation (and IR-instrument readings), which we submit to a major scientific journal. I could sketch such an article next week based on my blackbody chapter in the book, and send it around for discussion.

Claes

============

From: Claes Johnson...

To: "John Droz, jr....

Cc: peter.ridley@...; john0sullivan@...; OMATUMR@...; timothyball@s...; ruthhertzberg@...; hanssch@...; houston2000@...; alan618034@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; geraldo@...; ken@...; PF.SMP@...; jerry_oliver@...; vinmary.gray@...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; Miso.Alkalaj@...; v_majkus@...

Sent: Tuesday, 4 January, 2011 17:06:50

Subject: Re: PSI & Due Diligence

Well, but can you really bring someone to court and ask that person to prove correctness (or innocense)? Isn't it necessary to sue/accuse someone for being incorrect, and get a conviction if a proof of incorrectness can be given? Isn't that the basis of our legal system? That you don't have to prove your innocense, unless you have been accused of having done something wrong?

Is it because of my legal innocense that I pose these questions?

Claes

==================

Message Received: Jan 04 2011, 11:20 PM
From: "alan618034" ...
To: "JOHN OSULLIVAN"..., "Claes Johnson" ...
Cc: "John Droz jr." ..., peter.ridley@..., john0sullivan@..., OMATUMR@..., timothyball@..., ruthhertzberg@..., hanssch@..., houston2000@..., Charles.R.Anderson@..., geraldo@..., ken@..., PF.SMP@..., jerry_oliver@..., vinmary.gray@..., Fred@..., piers@..., kent@..., Miso.Alkalaj@..., v_majkus@...
Subject: Re: PSI and Due Diligence LEGAL POSITION

Note: This is the main reason I haven’t been commenting. The subject is intricate and very unfamiliar to me. I’m just along for the ride -- I wouldn't TOUCH the steering wheel!

Alan
=================

From: JOHN OSULLIVAN

To: Claes Johnson

Cc: John Droz jr. ; peter.ridley@...; ... OMATUMR@...; timothyball@...; ruthhertzberg@msn.com ; hanssch@...; houston2000@...; alan618034@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; geraldo@...; ken@...; PF.SMP@...; jerry_oliver@...; vinmary.gray@...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; Miso.Alkalaj@...; v_majkus@...

Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 17:47

Subject: Re: PSI & Due Diligence LEGAL POSITION

Claes,

Sorry, but you misunderstand how this will work. For clarification here is how the law will need to be used by our lawyers in English common law nations to win climate cases:

The legal actions proposed are not a trial in the form you suggest but an 'Order to Show Cause' ( mandamus) which is entirely different. Theories cannot be put on trial - only the due diligence of scientists. If they fail to prove they handled the temperature numbers in accordance with official government regulations then the records are not lawful and thus worthless and cannot be used. Thereby, a judge will rule the government cannot impose climate regulations based on 'unofficial' and unverfiable data. That is the legal strategy.

I set out our legal position in several articles in the past year-here is one: http://algorelied.com/?tag=law

As I have stated, common law nations ( ie all English speaking countries) operate the mandamus petition system of permitting tax payers to challenge the decisions of government in the courts if the government is not applying its own rules properly to make decisions. The govt agency allegedly involved in the nonfeasance/malfeasance/misfeasance must come to court to explain why they have not acted in the manner in which their own rules require them. Lack of due diligence is the key here. For example, a key issue is collection, retention, collation and publication of temperature records which we suspect have been destroyed, or cherry-picked sometimes fraudulently. The govt agency must prove all such records have been dealt with by applying the mandatory due diligence procedures set out in applicable govt regulations. Thus climatologists must show that their homogenized temp data is robust. If it is not it must be stricken and a new record provided which we know means going back to the raw data and starting from the beginning again. Until such time no climate regulations imposed on taxpayers would be lawful.

I trust that explains it.

John

www.slayingtheskydragon.com

======================

From: "Pete Ridley"...

To: "houston2000"..., john0sullivan@, hanssch@tech-know.eu..., claesjohnson@gmail.com..., alan618034@..., ruthhertzberg@..., charles.r.anderson@...

Cc: timothyball@..., omatumr2@..., ken@..., biologycabinet@...

Sent: Jan 04 2011, 06:40 PM

Subject: RE: "Rancor Within Reason"....a current battlefield assessment....

Joe, may I thank you for 798 well -considered words of vice to add to the others. The only few that I do not fully agree with are the last 6 “Our Victory will not be DENIED” to which I would add “but if we work together with only a single objective. That must be to present the facts unselfishly in an open and honest manner both between ourselves and with outside bodies, with absolutely no hint of dishonesty. If we don’t do that then the disciples and supporters of “the doctrine” will tear us to pieces.

Claus (@04:20 PM & 05:06 PM) & John (Droz @ 04:26 PM), in the UK a person is assumed by the courts to be innocent until proven to be guilty. I understand this principle to apply elsewhere too.

Friends, I do not find John’s “I suggest that the reason so few members of the group are responding to you is that they are exhibiting a measure of implied consent as per the proven success of the Slayers book venture” convincing. Ken (4th Jan @ 08:11 AM) and Oliver (@02:56 PM) have just made there positions clear so why don’t each of you make yours known to the group - or are you simply hedging your bets. During the past two weeks John has changed my opinion of what PSI is all about so may I respectfully suggest that PSI drops claims of pursuing a noble cause. Disciples and supporters of “the doctrine” will successfully exploit as nothing other than capitalist posturing and that will become viral far more quickly than any attempts to extract funding from wealthy capitalists or government agencies.

John says that “There are currently 32 experts signed up to the Slayers book project .. “ but expert in what? – I respectfully suggest that perhaps one or two have expertise in the processes and drivers of the different global climates but not 32. John for one has no significant expertise in that area. This is another aspect that will provide the opposition with fodder for their propaganda machine and is one of the reasons that I suggested that Roger Taguchi became involved, ideally along with John Nicol, both of whom have a sound understanding of scientific principles involved in the debate about “radiative forcing”. Why again has there been a deafening silence about that?

It is also noticeable that there are only 20 recipients of these E-mails so would someone like to tell me who are these 32 “experts” and the extent of their involvement in PSI. Is the “Slayers” group a quite separate group of individuals or are all of those receiving these E-mails included? I can’t understand all of the apparent secrecy and reluctance to share exchanges that have been taking place privately. This is a practice that does nothing other than undermine trust among members of a group.

If PSI is pushed in the direction that John is struggling for then I can see it being a still-born and I wouldn’t invest a penny in it if it becomes a limited company, whether a CIC or otherwise. It is one great big gamble and I suspect that is why so many of you are keeping quiet. I mentioned “hedging your bets” and two of the group have made reference to gambling, one directly and one by inference. On 31st December @ 08:52 PM Miso said “ .. I have not INVESTED anything. I have risked on PSI/NOAA the kind of money I might have spent gambling (which I don’t), meaning, the kind of money I can afford to waste. I have “invested” the 100 GBP on the odd chance that John’s effort might make a difference, not because I had expected that it will (sorry, John). I bought a lottery ticket and since I do not belong to the unfortunate 4% that are afflicted by Impulse Control Disorder, I do not really expect to win – but it would be fun if I did, so I’m willing to pay what I can afford to lose just for the hope of winning”.

John would seem to have placed a much more significant bet on this. He said on 28th December @ 09:20 PM “ .. I've willingly staked my own reputation and resources on the book project and PSI as CEO ..” then @ 1:38 PM “ .. I've staked my reputation, sweat and own money on beating the AGW fraud in the courts .. ”.

I believe that John will have a very hard and long slog trying to get his publishing company off the ground. The competition is fierce and even established publishing companies are struggling to exist. I’d be surprised if Ken and Philip haven’t advised him on that side of things. It might help if you all had a read of my “Death By Drowning” articles. Part 1 & 2 (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/) which touches on the vulnerability of two well-established publishers on both sides of the Atlantic.

John says “ .. we all need to make a living .. ” but when I did my “Due Diligence” search I found that most of the members of this group (as disclosed in the E-mail Ccs) already either have good jobs or are in comfortable retirement (although I couldn’t find anything about John’s employment other than “author” –but there were too many ”John O’Sullivan”s to follow them all up.

John asked if I had “ .. contacted the CIC regulator and obtained their advice .. ”. Yes, I have made an initial request for advice and have just received their response. I am now drafting my next submission. I see it as being vitally important for the protection of group integrity that there is nothing underhand about what we do. The CIC Regulator must fully understand the reason why PSI is being established. If there is anything that appears dishonest about PSI disciples and supporters of “the doctrine” will amplify it out of all proportion. I say that each if us must be squeaky clean in what we say and do and provide no ammunition for our opponents to support their inevitable claims that our motives are avaricious not altruistic but then again, maybe I’m being paranoid – put it down to my age).

Several of us have had exchanges with a wise old bird from Australia, Peggy Balfour. Her fallback whenever she has a puzzle about something or someone is to “follow the money”. I do this too and suspect that others in this group also. Certainly our opponents will be asking (and answering for us) the question “who is benefiting financially from the setting up of PSI?” We mustn’t give any hint that there are financial benefits for any individuals within PSI that are not to be enjoyed by the people who form the wider Community that it is set up to provide benefit to.

Best regards, Pete

==================

Message Received: Jan 04 2011, 05:34 PM

From: "houston2000" ...

To: "john0sullivan@btinternet.com"..., "hanssch@tech-know.eu" ... "claesjohnson@gmail.com" ..., "alan618034@earthlink.net"..., "ruthhertzberg@msn.com" ..., "charles.r.anderson@gmail.com"...

Cc: "timothyball@shaw.ca"..., "omatumr2@gmail.com" ..., "ken@stairwaypress.com" ..., "peter.ridley@fsmail.net" ..., "biologycabinet@hotmail.com" ...

Subject: "Rancor Within Reason"....a current battlefield assessment....

ATTACHMENT: Rancor Within Reason.doc

Fellow Slayers

my personal thoughts on what we have rather suddenly become....and hopefully point out the minefields ahead....

Joe 0

(if you notice anyone missing from the CC list please forward as needed, thanks)
NB: This 800 word document - rant? - from "Slayer" and PSI "Senior Fellow"Joe Olson can be seen at - TO BE ADVISED

==================

Message Received: Jan 04 2011, 01:36 PM
From: john0sullivan@...
To: peter.ridley@...
Cc: AAPRJOHN@..., CLAESJOHNSON@..., OMATUMR@..., timothyball@..., ruthhertzberg@..., hanssch@..., houston2000@..., alan618034@..., Charles.R.Anderson@..., geraldo@..., ken@..., PF.SMP@..., jerry_oliver@..., vinmary.gray@..., Fred@..., piers@..., kent@..., Miso.Alkalaj@..., v_majkus@...
Subject: Re: PSI & Due Diligence

Pete,

You say: "Of the remainder, only Kent Klizbe, Oliver Manuel, Clifford Saunders (now withdrawn from the group) and myself have expressed carefully considered opinions which appear to be largely ignored by most of the group. Why is this?" Cliff is too busy (not a Slayer author), Kent and I have done some work together pursuing Michael Mann for fraud but he's also not a Slayer author; Oliver is firmly committed to the advancing the book project but not as an author.

I suggest that the reason so few members of the group are responding to you is that they are exhibiting a measure of implied consent as per the proven success of the Slayers book venture. I correspond with alll the 'Slayers' as a group and as individuals beyond the contraints of this thread. The Slayers know we are a team operating a book authoring and publishing business and that I'm running this aspect for profit.

Businesses are not democracies but good business flourishes on the free exchange of ideas and the latest idea is PSI and expanding our book publishing into a recognised entity promoting good science practice and acquiring members willing to use their group voice to serve their personal and collective ends. Anyone not sympathetic to the methods being proposed and/or applied can walk away and tender their services elsewhere. But Hans, Joe and myself want to protect the green shoots with more formal contractual benefits as a bona fide business. There are currently 32 experts signed up to the Slayers book project and all such authors would benefit from the core leadership being formalized into a limited company such as PSI. So far my agreements with those authors has been on a one to one basis and so much has been achieved quickly by goodwill and trust. Have you contacted the CIC regulator and obtained their advice as to my proposals made to you?

You and I are coming at the problem from opposite directions. Your position is coming at this keenly for a charity, which we all support in principle but we all need to make a living, too and if any such proposals conflict with the core aims of the Slayers then I'm out, and so I suspect will most if not all of the other 32. Thus my concerns are for the book publishing core of the group, which can grow into a charitable arm via our establishment of a CIC - that gives us the added benefit of supporting a noble cause as a 'not for profit.' Thus authors and directors will get paid fairly for their efforts but will gain a significant boost publicly for aiding the noble intention of aiding the greater community via PSI's other functions as educators and protectors of member subscriber interests. As a business strategy, being a CIC is a good marketing took for us as we are thus proven to be constituted with a business structure offering a social benefit.

A group of scientists that speaks out against corruption and wishes to spread the concept of the ESM can best operate in the long term as the formal construct of a CIC that may, in extreme cases, bring court action against bodies that we perceive as corrupting the scientific method. This is something a charity cannot do but a CIC can.

John www.slayingtheskydragon.com

===============

From: .. peter.ridley@...

To: john0sullivan@...; AAPRJOHN@...; CLAESJOHNSON@...; OMATUMR@...; timothyball@...; ruthhertzberg@...; hanssch@...; houston2000@...; alan618034@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; geraldo@...; ken@...; PF.SMP@...; jerry_oliver@....; vinmary.gray@...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; Miso.Alkalaj@...; v_majkus@...

Sent: Tuesday, 4 January, 2011 12:29:40

Subject: PSI & Due Diligence

That SEPP article THIS WEEK by Ken Haapala (http://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/2011/TWTW%202011-1-1_2_.pdf ), to which John provided a link, makes for very interesting reading in relation to the proposals for PSI. What appears directly applicable is this, from Page 4: “The litigation is proceeding very slowly and the courts have denied the petitions that EPA’s rulemaking should not go into effect until after the courts have decided on the scientific merit of EPA’s EF. The weakness of this approach is that all too frequently the courts defer to the “expertise” of the bureaucracy and do not fully consider the merits of the statements by plaintiffs”.

This is a point that has been hinted at by several in this group (e.g Oliver Manuel on 28th December @ 9:24 AM, )who have recently offered well-considered thoughts on the proposed direction for PSI. What I find surprising is that so few within this group have joined in the debate about this vital issue, so that we only have the benefit of the considered opinions of the minority. Of the proposed executive and management team, comprising Dr. Timothy Ball (Chairman), John O’Sullivan (CEO)*, Hans Schreuder (CFO)*, Rev. Philip Foster (Compliance Officer), Dr. Martin Hertzberg, Dr. Claes Johnson*, Joseph A. Olson*, Alan Siddons, Dr. Charles Anderson we have only heard considered views from those marked with *.

Of the remainder, only Kent Klizbe, Oliver Manuel, Clifford Saunders (now withdrawn from the group) and myself have expressed carefully considered opinions which appear to be largely ignored by most of the group. Why is this?

According to John (25th December @ 02:48 PM) “ .. those best qualified and experienced to take this organization forward are already in place .. ”. Then he said on 29th December @ 06:59 PM “ .. To encourage enrolment to PSI the founding members are agreed .. I would like to propose we nominate a Compliance Officer asap to oversee the setting up and running of PSI by myself ( as CEO) and Treasurer, Hans Schreuder (CFO). The candidate .. is Reverend Philip Foster, .. ”. Have these significant decisions been agreed by the majority within this group? If so I don’t recall seeing any such.

the member shareholders. Members who pay subscriptions are shareholders. PSI has no guarantors.

John, ref. your E-mail of 3rd Jan @ 11:26 PM, I’ll be happy to put those points of yours to the Regulator at the same time as I raise my concerns. Thanks for asking for my help. I’m sure that all will agree that all relevant issues must be resolved as soon as possible so that PSI can get onto the right track without delay. This UN-inspired scam has been allowed to run for far too long without being effectively challenged. If this can only be done through the courts then of course everything undertaken by PSI and its supporters must be done in a manner that minimises the opportunity for disciples and supporters of “the doctrine” to destroy the credibility of PSI and anyone associated with it. I’m sure that you will agree that it would be helpful if we were all privy to any correspondence or documents that have already been sent or drafted for submission to the CIC Registrar or Charity Commission. All that I’ve seen so far is what is on the PSI Web-site and what you have provided in these E-mail exchanges.

Even if the Regulator, being aware of the full background and all objectives of PSI through its executive, considers it to be an acceptable structure, I still don’t support the proposal to set up a CIC at this early stage. As far as I am aware we have not even started drafting the first legal action. At this stage PSI is entirely dependent upon the charitable contributions of group members and any others that I (and perhaps others) am not aware of. Appart from the generous contribution of time and effort made by all so far. The pledges of that essential ingredient to success – money – would probably pay for an assistant clerk for one week. Raising the substantial fubnds required to sustain what is being proposed by the PSI executive is a long time away. Rushin ahead with an applicvation for CIR status is putting the cart before the horse.

If the considered opinion of the majority of members of this group favours the formation of a CIC then that’s fine with me. I’m only one individual out of many and that’s how a democracy works, but it only really works when every member understands the issues, has debated them and has given support in full recognition of the pros and cons of their decision. (I’m of the opinion that “Western Democracies” are really only forms of dictatorship which are allowed to exist through the apathy of the members of those “democracies”, but that’s for another debate. Whichever way the group’s decision goes, I am still happy to make whatever contribution I can legally make towards a successful outcome, the demise of “the doctrine”, the sooner the better.

To summarise, this group, through PSI, is proposing to challenge institutions that have the full support of the most powerful individuals in the Western “democracies” using the courts that have been set up by those same powerful individuals to administer the laws imposed by those same individuals. With all due respect to those within this group who regard the Holy Bible as being the truth, we are not talking about the story in 1 Samuel 17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Samuel%2017). What is PSI’s equivalent of a shepherd boy, five stones and a sling?

That’s enough for now as I need to get some chores done for she who must be obeyed, but I shall return

BTW, You may recall my asking on 3rd January @ 11:30:09 AM if anyone knows who Jeff Daley is. John responded @ 02:43 PM with “Having looked at the link I see it refers to another site here: http://ijish.livejournal.com/2829.html which is a spoof of my blog. There is a "Red Jeff' that posted other comments in that thread, perhaps Jeff Daly and Red Jeff are one and the same. otherwise this goes to show how quickly news can be leaked and spread online” but does anyone else have any ideas?

PS: On a ligthter note,are any of you any good at crosswords? On the last day of 2010 Oliver, John, Hans and I were involved in an E-mail exchange in which Oliver made reference to the Tea Party and the Chinese curse “We live in Interesting times”. My final comment was QUOTE: Yes, we certainly do live in “interesting times”. I get bored with crosswords (probably because I usually can’t finish them) but I spent a little time thinking about the significance of that “Te” Party as it relates to “interesting” and decided that more immediate “times” were perhaps less than “interesting” but still have that “sting” UNQUOTE. None of the others offered a solution to it –was it too trivial? (I hate Trivial Pursuits too).

Best regards, Pete

=====================

Message Received: Jan 03 2011, 10:21 PM
From: "Oliver Manuel" ...
To: peter.ridley@..., "JOHN OSULLIVAN"...
Cc: "John Droz jr." ..., "Claes Johnson" ..., timothyball@..., ruthhertzberg@..., hanssch@..., houston2000@..., alan618034@..., Charles.R.Anderson@..., geraldo@..., ken@..., PF.SMP@..., jerry_oliver@..., vinmary.gray@..., Fred@..., piers@... kent@..., Miso.Alkalaj@...
Subject: Re: PSI & Due Diligence

Thank you, John, for leadership.

You can't please everyone, or follow everyone's advise. We will accomplish nothing if we waste time trying to do so.

As my good Cliff might have commented, "No, we can't all be the last person to mash the potatoes."

Hang in there!

With kind regards,

Oliver

===================

Message Received: Jan 03 2011, 05:36 PM

From: "JOHN OSULLIVAN"

To: peter.ridley@...

Cc: "John Droz jr.""

Subject: Re: PSI & Due Diligence

Pete,

Im certain the regulators will grant CIC status to PSI. I see nothing in law to prevent this. Charitable status is a non-starter based on the proposition PSI is going to be set up to earn income on a 'not for profit' basis. If you're concerned about 'guilt by association' there's nothing unlawful about discussions to set up any such charitable endeavor. Your comments are bordering on the paranoid. I'm not entirely sure why Amazon chooses to drop prices on its books after the holiday - but I guess the peak book selling season is over and we are into the 'January sales' period.Frankly, the authors must all be delighted that the book is stubbornly maintaining its #1bestseller ranking in 2 science sections since launch. If you scroll down the link you sent its says:

#1 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Science > Environment

* #1 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Science > Earth Sciences

regards, John

www.slayingtheskydragon.com

========================================

From: Pete Ridley

To: JOHN OSULLIVAN

Sent: Monday, 3 January, 2011 17:08:08

Subject: Re: PSI & Due Diligence

John, as I said earlier “I think that we are approaching a cross-roads”.

Here’s another comment from “Jeff Daley says: November 25, 2010 at 5:38 pm, The climate hawks need to tear apart this new book the deniersphere is now hyping. They think they got something here. “Slaying the Sky Dragon Death of the Greenhouse gas Theory.” You have to buy it off Amazon. More like usual denier lies. .. ”.

Guess where I found that – on the blog of another self-important individual who makes extravagant claims about being the most read blog on climate change, friend Joe Romm’s Climate Progress (http://climateprogress.org/2010/11/25/thanksgiving-question/). Now wait for the attack on the integrity of any connected with Principia Scientific International.

John, do you really believe that the UK authorities will contemplate giving PSI even charitable status now, never mind CIC. How’s about a bet?

BTW, I’ve just noticed that Amazon have dropped the price of the Kindle edition of “Slaying the Dragon” considerably. Isn’t it selling as well as anticipated or is there some other reason? (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Slaying-Sky-Dragon-Greenhouse-Theory/dp/B004DNWJN6/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1294071748&sr=8-2) .

As for your comment of 3rd Jan @ 03:33 PM that “it is perhaps advisable that you now withdraw from further participation” 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”. I need to take legal advice but as you are knowledgeable of UK law perhaps you can comment on that.

Best regards, Pete

==================

Message Received: Jan 03 2011, 03:33 PM

From: "JOHN OSULLIVAN"

To: peter.ridley@...

Cc: "John Droz jr." , etc. etc. etc.

Subject: Re: PSI & Due Diligence

Pete,

Private emails between individuals are not your concern and I'm surprised you feel you have any entitlement to make such a request. Frankly, you are not a part of our 'Slayer's team and are only on the list as a courtesy to extend our contacts for meaningful exchange of ideas. You've raised some interesting points for discussion - your suggestion to invite Aussie lawyer, Val Majkus to give us some independent legal input is a good idea and I thank you for that. However, as you have never been directly involved in any past or future projects with members of the group it is perhaps advisable that you now withdraw from further participation.

John

www.slayingtheskydragon.com

=============

Message Received: Jan 03 2011, 03:14 PM
From: "JOHN OSULLIVAN"...
To: "John Droz, jr." ...
Cc: peter.ridley@..., "Claes Johnson"..., "JOHN OSULLIVAN" ..., "Oliver Manuel" ..., timothyball@..., ruthhertzberg@..., hanssch@..., houston2000@..., alan618034@..., Charles.R.Anderson@..., geraldo@..., ken@..., PF.SMP@..., jerry_oliver@..., vinmary.gray@..., Fred@..., piers@..., kent@..., Miso.Alkalaj@...
Subject: Re: PSI & Due Diligence

Pete, John Droz,
Yes John did email me privately on this - apologies for this belated reply. The issue of registering PSI in the UK rather than the US has never been addressed by the wider group but was discussed between Hans, Joe and me. For reasons we chose London - for example, we determined that PSI would be founded on the English Scientific Method and that London, the home of the world's first science association, the Royal Society would be an apt international HQ. Physical convenience is an issue - London is an international travel hub and Heathrow is the world's busiest airport. Also we hope we may be able to strike a deal with Piers Corbyn of WeatherAction.com who has offices in London. He holds monthly skeptic meetings and from there he organized the Climate Fools Day event in Parliament . The event proved most successful for media coverage. Piers, Philip Foster and I all gave tv interviews to the popular Moscow broadcaster, Russia Today, that has its studios nearby. This would be most useful to promote PSI especially during AGM's. In addition, as the only member of the group qualified in law and with experience of UK corporate law and setting having set up UK businesses in the past this seemed logical to me. America wasn't seriously considered because no single city could pull in as many group members as cheaply and effectiively as London (allowing for the fact that we agree terms with Piers Corbyn for shared office space).
John
www.slayingtheskydragon.com
============

Message Received: Jan 03 2011, 02:06 PM

From: "Pete Ridley"

To: "John Droz jr."

Cc: "Claes Johnson" , "Oliver Manuel" , timothyball@..., ruthhertzberg@..., hanssch@..., houston2000@...., alan618034@..., Charles.R.Anderson@..., geraldo@..., ken@..., PF.SMP@..., jerry_oliver@..., vinmary.gray@..., Fred@..., piers@..., kent@..., Miso.Alkalaj@...

Subject: Re: PSI & Due Diligence

John, have you had sight of the recent E-mails regarding "PSI & Due Diligence"? If not I suggest that you take a look. Can you provide us all with a copy of the "private" E-mail that you sent to John. If it was to do with PSUI then I think that we are all entitiled to see any such exchanges.

Best regards, Pete

========================================

Message Received: Jan 03 2011, 12:12 PM

From: "John Droz, jr."

To: peter.ridley@...

Cc: "Claes Johnson" , "JOHN OSULLIVAN" , etc. etc. etc.

Subject: Re: PSI & Due Diligence

Pete:

Indeed due diligence is a good thing.

The main reason I had no specific comments is that what was proposed appeared to be a European based organization, and I have no knowledge of the options or implications of such.

I did email John privately, and (among other things) recommended that the group develop a relationship with a competent attorney.

regards,

john droz, jr.

physicist & environmental advocate

================

Message Received: Jan 03 2011, 11:30 AM
From: "Pete Ridley"
To: "Claes Johnson"

Cc: "JOHN OSULLIVAN" , "Oliver Manuel" , timothyball@..., ruthhertzberg@..., hanssch@..., houston2000@..., alan618034@..., Charles.R.Anderson@..., geraldo@..., ken@..., PF.SMP@..., jerry_oliver@..., vinmary.gray@..., Fred@..., aaprjohn@..., piers@..., kent@..., Miso.Alkalaj@...

Subject: Re: PSI & Due Diligence

To All,

I have just come across this interesting snippet “I was told John Osullivan is going to announce in Janaury the setting up a new science association called Principia Scientific International to sue all your criminal warmist buddies for fraud … By, Jeff Daley | December 25, 2010 (http://globalwarmingsuperheroes.com/climate-change-deniers/osullivans-seletive-myopia/). Anyone know who Jeff Daley is and how he was privy to this news – I imagined that there was a degree of confidentiality about what this group is talking about!

Pete

================

Message Received: Jan 03 2011, 10:10 AM

From: "Pete Ridley"

To: "JOHN OSULLIVAN" , "Oliver Manuel" , "Claes Johnson" , timothyball@..., ruthhertzberg@..., hanssch@..., houston2000@..., alan618034@..., Charles.R.Anderson@..., geraldo@..., ken@..., PF.SMP@..., jerry_oliver@..., vinmary.gray@..., Fred@..., aaprjohn@..., piers@..., kent@..., Miso.Alkalaj@...

Cc:

Subject: PSI & Due Diligence

In his E-mail of 2nd Jan @ 02:27 PM Kent, offered this group what in my opinion was very sound advice worthy of serious consideration by all of us. Rather than getting the consideration that it deserves it seems to me that his excellent comments are falling on deaf ears (for the religious among us, Matthew 7.6 http://bible.cc/matthew/7-5.htm).

Who has paid any attention to what Kent said? From the 20 members of this group there have been responses from John on 2nd Jan @ 4:28 PM and 3rd @ 12:43 AM and Claes on 2nd January @ 14:45:33. “I understand very well what Kent is saying. I would rather go for government funding, which should be possible if we have some good science. If we don't have any good science, then we have a difficult case”. Apart from noticing the quick shift by Claes away from the direction of the main thrust of Kent’s E-mail back to the funding aspect, repeated by John, Hans, Oliver, Cliff and Miso in another 10 or so E-mails on 2nd no-one other than John has bothered to respond on Kent’s very valid points relating to my “due diligence” concerns.

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. The recent exchangesabout funding give me the impression that there are those within the group who think that there are wealthy people out there just dying to throw their money away. Apart from those who have been lucky and won the lottery most of the wealthy have obtained their money through graft and craft. They are not fools who will fall for rash and unsubstantiated claims about “changing the world”. They will carry out their own due diligence exercises to ensure that there is no risk to their own apparent integrity before donating a penny.

Only 3 of us out of 20 have addressed the main points made by Kent. I have seen nothing from the newcomers that John added to the group and wonder if they have been made aware of the concerns that I have expressed about the direction in which the group is being guided.

John (Droz) you have been running your own real-estate company for years and are aware from our exchanges earlier this year how seriously I view “due diligence” and the motivations of those with whom I am invited to work with. Don’t you have an opinion on the proposals for PSI?

John (O’S), although I have high regard for much of what you have done in recent months no-one can be in doubt about my concerns over the CIC that you are proposing as revealed to this group in your recent E-mails. Rather than simply being “ .. at cross purposes .. ” (your E-mail of 2nd January @ 7:32 AM) I think that we are approaching a cross-roads. In my opinion it is time for advice, particularly legal, from outside this close-nit community of ours and I wonder how others feel about initially inviting Val Maykus to look at the content of the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails. Several of us know and respect Val, who said on your “Mathematical Errors Overestimate Persistence of CO2 in Atmosphere” thread (http://www.suite101.com/content/royal-society-humiliated-by-global-warming-basic-math-error-a296746) on 14th Oct @ 6:03 PM “It's sad to think that once you could rely upon scientists but now you have to follow the money trail; money breeds corruption and unfortunately this has happened to a number of once august bodies”. How true, but it is not only true of scientists.

I started exchanging opinions with both you and Val in April and at that time you were enthusing about the action being taken against Michael Mann. In your E-mail of 3 May 2010 15:08, Ccd to several of us in this group, you said QUOTE: I have just published this article that shows how clever Virginia's Attorney General is being. He's onto a winner because his state's statutes on intentional evidence withholding WILL lead to the defeat of Michael Mann if Mann doesn't give full disclosure of the hidden data from the 'hockey stick' graph.

http://climatology.suite101.com/article.cfm/climate-scientist-faces-knockout-punch-in-virginia-court

This is a very important legal step in proving the whole GHG theory is premised on a statistical fraud. Whatever Mann does now- hides evidence or discloses - he's screwed as per the data audit by Steve McIntyre UNQUOTE.

What is the position 8 months later? – the last thing that I heard about this was QUOTE: .. judge, Paul M. Peatross Jr., said in his six-page ruling that Mr. Cuccinelli did not sufficiently explain what he believes the former University of Virginia professor, Michael E. Mann, may have done wrong. "The nature of the conduct is not stated so that any reasonable person could glean what Dr. Mann did to violate the statute, .. " UNQUOTE (http://chronicle.com/article/Judge-Sides-With-UVa-Over/124207/). I wonder when, if ever, your prediction that Cuccinelli’s action “ .. WILL lead to the defeat of Michael Mann .. ” will come to pass.

All, please let me know how you feel about getting Val Majkus to give his opinion on what is being proposed. Once we have those then we could decide on which other legal specialists to involve. I think that this external advice is essential before making any application to the UK’s Charity Commission or the CIC Regulator. I suggest that it is prudent to proceed with caution on this. Rushing ahead with an application for registration as a CIC without having prepared it from a position of full understanding of the consequences of getting it wrong could be damaging not only for the group as a whole but for each individual within it.

Best regards, Pete

================

Message Received: Jan 03 2011, 12:43 AM
From: "JOHN OSULLIVAN"
To: "Hans Schreuder"

Cc: timothyball@..., omatumr@..., ruthhertzberg@...., houston2000@..., alan618034@..., Charles.R.Anderson@..., geraldo@.., ken@..., PF.SMP@..., jerry_oliver@..., vinmary.gray@..., Fred@..., aaprjohn@..., piers@..., kent@..., peter.ridley@..., Miso.Alkalaj@..., "Claes Johnson"

Subject: Re: Business Issues, Considerations, Advice

Hans,

The likelihood of us being offered funding increases the longer we maintain our momentum as a credible think tank of constructive science. Long term success is assured on our current track as long as we avoid foolish mistakes. The AGW scam is unravelling and we've made it scientifically unsustainable by the rigor of our books. We now need to hone our skills to meet the economic, legal and political challenges. Getting our next book right will help resolve the legal and political arguments. Getting PSI right will resolve the economic position and ensure sustainability for our legal strategy. As Kent says we need to refine our business skills and must cut our cloth accordingly - keeping outgoings to a minimum and playing to our strengths.

To persuade others that we have the financial strategy to match our scientific, book publishing and marketing skills we'll need to present our fellow skeptics with a well considered business plan once you have had time to go thru the numbers more carefully. Only when the financial model is right can we then assure ourselves and our supporters that we can financially sustain a legal challenge in the courts.

John

www.slayingtheskydragon.com

==============

SEVERAL EXCHANGES ABOUT FUNDING HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED

=================

Message Received: Jan 02 2011, 04:19 PM

From: "Kent Clizbe"

To: "'JOHN OSULLIVAN'" , "'Class Johnson,'"

Cc: peter.ridley@..., etc. etc. etc.

Subject: RE: Business Issues, Considerations, Advice

John,

Forget the other CIC's. Forget other charities. Forget other businesses. The only thing that matters is your proposed business, and the potential market for your goods and services.

Assume you're doing it under the CIC model, as a business. The only thing that matters in your business plan is that you need to add in additional legal expenses to keep you within the CIC regulations.

The questions I raised are the basis for what is called the "Pro Forma" in a business plan. The Pro Forma statements help you to (hopefully realistically) lay out the fundamentals of the business--revenue vs expenses.

You really, really need to answer the questions. With clear, cold, hard business eyes, not looking through rose-colored glasses thinking of all the good you're doing in the world.

Project out the revenue and expenses for the next three years.

And the business model--how do you expect to earn revenue?

Book publishing? How many books would you have to sell to create the revenue needed to cover your projected expenses?

Donations? How many $20 donors will you have to capture to cover your projected expenses?

Only with those numbers in hand does it make sense to even begin considering other issues.

As you can see from a simplified pro forma below, in which the business expenses are simplified to just a single full-time employee at a modest salary, it requires a huge amount of activity, selling books or donations, to generate enough revenue for just one full-time employee.

How many books have you sold, to date? You have 20 co-authors, how does that revenue divide among the co-authors? Can the revenue pace you've been setting be doubled? Multiplied tenfold? A hundredfold?

It takes a hell of a lot of revenue to support the infrastructure of a business. That is what a profit margin is all about. Your product/service needs to have a big profit margin built in to support a business. Book-selling does NOT have such a profit margin built in. It is possible to supplement an individual's income by selling books, but you will not be able to support a business by selling niche market books (anti-AGW is a niche market, however right we are, there is NOT a mass market for such books).

--------------------------

As an example, here's a simplified pro forma, with just one full-time employee. Assumpitions are: total sales of 10,000 books, total of 25,000 donors.

Business Expenses

Full-time employee, salary and benefits............75,000

Adminstrative and general.....................................2,500

Taxes......................................................................10,000

Other.........................................................................1,500

Publishing expenses...........................................74,000

Donations expenses.............................................3,000

---------

Total expenses.....................................................166,000

Revenue

Book sales....................................................100,000

Donations...................................................... 5,000

----------

Total Revenue............................................... 105,000

Net Income.............................................................(61,000) LOSS

Details by business line

---------------------------------

Book sales (10,000 copies sold @ $10 per book)

Expenses

Production Cost (@5.00 per book).................................50,000

Commission to publisher/seller (@2.50 per book)........12,500

Marketing .......................................................................... 2,000

Administrative and general.............................................. 2, 500

Taxes................................................................................. 7,000

----------

Total expenses, publishing............................................... 74,000

Revenue, publishing

Gross income (@10.00 per book x 10,000 books)........100,000

Net Income, Publishing.......................................................26,000

------------------------------------------------

Donations

Expenses

Sales and marketing............................................................2,500

Paypal commission ............................................................ 500

Total expenses.................................................................... 3,000

Revenue ($20 per donor, 25,000 donors)..........................5,000

Net Income, Donations...........................................................2,000

Kent Clizbe

...

===============

From: "JOHN OSULLIVAN"
To: "Class Johnson,"
Cc: "Kent Clizbe"
Subject: Re: Business Issues, Considerations, Advice
Date: Jan 02 2011, 03:28 PM

Kent, Claes,

You raise important points that must be properly addressed. Above all I'm persuaded that the concept of developing a charitable cause is essentially incompatible with the overall goal of the 'Slayers' team which is defeating faux science via our book publishing, etc. Setting up a charitable organization that looks to file lawsuits will be barred under UK law (US law, too, as far as I know). Also, as Kent suspects, in America there is little evidence of people wanting to donate money to an organisation that seeks to pay its staff for devoting their time to such a cause. Everyone wants someone else to do the work gratis-such is human nature. However, despite all the obstacles to success you rightly list an increasing number of CIC's make it work for them in the UK. So what I propose does appear to work, despite the negative odds, because there are already approx. 2,000 CIC's in existence. They all combine the ethos of charitable works while also paying key staff.

Claes further suggests that we can obtain revenue from government grants if our science is good. In the current format as a commercial book publishing team of authors I can't see that happening and I suspect that once any such govt suspects that an organisation it is funding is also contemplating lawsuits against it, then the funding will quickly stop.

In effect, if we accept the argument that neither charitable status nor the CIC format will work, then there is no practicable means of advancing our goals. Bottom line: I don't know of any lawyers willing to bring lawsuits against corrupt govt science agencies without some form of payment for their time and hard work. If the proposal for a CIC won't fly then it's time we accept that the legal decisions will exclusively be determined by the richer elite.

John

www.slayingtheskydragon.com

=============

From: "Class Johnson,"
To: Kent Clizbe
Cc: JOHN OSULLIVAN ; etc. etc. etc.
Sent: Sunday, 2 January, 2011 14:45:33
Subject: Re: Business Issues, Considerations, Advice

I understand very well what Kent is saying. I would rather go for government funding, which should be possible if we have some good science. If we don't have any good science, then we have a difficult case.

Claes

================

From: "Kent Clizbe"

TO: "'JOHN OSULLIVAN'" ; peter.ridley@...

Cc: Miso.Alkalaj@...; cliff@...; timothyball@...; omatumr@...; ruthhertzberg@...; hanssch@...; houston2000@...; claesjohnson@...; alan618034@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; geraldo@...; ken@...; PF.SMP@...; jerry_oliver@...; vinmary.gray@...; Fred@..., aaprjohn@...; piers@...

Date: Jan 02 2011, 02:27 PM

Subject: Business Issues, Considerations, Advice

John, You've done a great job to date, and I applaud you for all your efforts.

As someone who has formed and closed several types of businesses, including absolute failures and fabulous successes, let me offer a few points of advice.

Objective: It seems pretty clear that the whole "business" idea springs from the need to provide you with a living. If that is the objective, I'd guess that there are not many people who are willing to "subscribe" for that end.

Revenue model: It appears that you plan to subsist off of donations and book profits. A few things to consider.

Projected Expenses: Once you are up and running, what do you expect your expenses to be? This would include salaries, benefits, taxes, administration, website, legal, accounting, operations, fund-raising, etc. Break these down monthly and annually.

Projected Staff: Publishing, writing, lawsuit filing, these seem to be the core businesses that you've mentioned. If taken up full-time as the business activities, how many staff will each activity require? Are there other activities that will require staff? Project out costs for the projected staff.

Profit Projections from Publishing: What is your expected profit margin from each book sold? What is your expense per book? What is your expected level of sales? Numbers of books? Revenue? Profit? What is the sales record of your book to date: number sold, expenses, profit?

Donations: If you plan to create revenue through donations, what is the marketing plan to capture donations? Are you focused on individuals, corporations, foundations, government grants, or other sources? What is your budget for fund-raising through each of these avenues?

Projected revenue: What are your projections, broken down by source, for revenue? In the first year? The second? The third?

Free Advice (for what it's worth): If my assumption is right, based on what you've said, that you plan to fund this business via revenue received from individual contributions (because if you had corporate sponsors, or other revenue streams, you would not be wasting your time talking to us), then you will have a very, very difficult time making it. It would take scores of thousands of donors, at $20 apiece, just to fund the infrastructure of the business--salaries, expenses, administration. And that does not even leave any money to carry out the actual mission of the business. The actual mission--you've mentioned loaning money to Corbin, taking on lawsuits, supporting others--would need on the order of 10 times more revenue to support. So you're looking at literally hundreds of thousands of regularly contributing subscribers. Unless you have experience in such a business model, I'll again say--you're underestimating the requirements of running this business.

If I'm right in assessing that the main goal in setting up this business, based on what you've said, is to find a way to enhance your income, I'd suggest that this project is a NOT a good way to go about doing that. You will NOT be able to create sufficient interest, support, revenue from individuals, or from selling books, to support the various expenses associated with a business, including your salary.

I'd suggest that you continue to build on the goodwill you've built up with various like-minded individuals around the country, who are all dedicated to the goal of ending the AGW scam. Promote your book on their websites, chat groups, etc. Create more intellectual property to create revenue. Cross-sell. Do speeches, appearances, interviews, always mentioning your book(s), website, etc.

For your own income, create a website that sells products, including your book, tshirts, hats, posters, coffee mugs, related to ending the AGW scam. Put your energies into promoting that website. Encourage those who agree with you to support you by buying those products. This will be a much better method to provide you with income (and also give you a taste of running a business) than trying to create a monstrous business that will only eat up your time with administration and fund-raising. In the meantime, get a part-time job.

While I may be wrong, I'd put my money on my being right.

All the best.

Kent

=================

From: JOHN OSULLIVAN [mailto:john0sullivan@...]

Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 7:32 AM

To: peter.ridley@...

Cc: Miso.Alkalaj@...; cliff@...; timothyball@...; omatumr@...; ruthhertzberg@...; hanssch@...; houston2000@...; claesjohnson@...; alan618034@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; geraldo@...; ken@...; PF.SMP@...; kent@...; jerry_oliver@...; vinmary.gray@...; Fred@...; aaprjohn@...; piers@...

Subject: Re: PSI & Due Diligence

Pete,

I fear we are at cross purposes. There are many good reasons to set up a charity. But charities are known to be so restricted in their operation that the Community Interest Company (CIC) model had to be set up in 2005 to accommodate those who are also compelled to make a living. We want to do some charitable work for the greater good of the community. As a CIC we can also operate a charitable function while pursuing our business operations. On this basis, as project leader of the ‘Slayers’ I cannot recommend to the team that we go forward as a charity.

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 more I look into this the more I am convinced that the ‘Slayers’ project would benefit best and evolve most advantageously as a Community Interest Company (CIC) because that allows us to operate as a business concern, paying ourselves for our services, while also fulfilling a ‘not for profit’ element to serve the wider science community. In essence, CIC gives us Kudos for our charitable intentions yet allows us to earn income from our hard work and also allows us to extend our ambitions to be a bona fide science association.

I had envisaged an organisation that is both a quasi-science union that advances member interests ( book publishing and legal services) and a charitable cause that uses some of its resources to help protect the interests of individual scientist or sub groups being coerced by unprincipled, unscientific practice. As book authors and with our publishers (Stairway Press, St.Matthew Publishing and ebookpartnership.com) we explicitly agree to serve a noble cause- to uphold the English Scientific Method and expose junk science and fraud.

This is a community benefit and worthy of reciprocal support from the wider science community, if they choose to patronize us. As a CIC we can operate as an association of concerned scientists responsibly receiving and applying capital in the various forms received, whether it be income, charitable donations and/or member subscriptions ( we propose £50 per year as PSI basic membership. Membership guarantees voting rights and preference in book purchasing and publishing with us). We can best serve our purpose by, for example, selling and promoting good science (published in our books) and giving loans and grants, when applicable, to beleagured member scientists who we feel are deserving of our advice, support and protection.

WEATHERACTION.COM and HOW PSI AS CIC CAN ASSIST OUR MEMBERS

One example, that I am going to propose to my team, if we set up as a CIC, is to assist Piers Corbyn of WeatherAction.com to advance his long-range weather forecasting business. But on such proposals we will naturally seek member approval so that they have a say in determining which scientists are deserving (e.g. a whistleblower, an innovators of a new theory who cannot get funding).

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.

From my own interpretation of all the legal elements we are less likely to fall foul of the CIC regulator's "light touch" than the UK Charities Commission's stringent rules.Charities are barred from bringing legal action against govt agencies.It is only with a CIC charter that we can protect the interests of our paid subscribers ( shareholders) and as a last resort, bring legal actions. Such actions both promote good science and protect maligned scientists who adhere to the ESM. Thereby we would not compromise our status as a CIC but we would if we were chartered as a registered charity.

Speaking as project leader, the ‘Slayers’ want to build on their success and publish more books to help advance a noble cause. We are precisely the kind of organization that the CIC concept was created to cater for. We want to increase the scope of our influence and grow our resources to better take on the megolithic government spin machine for the betterment of society. If you have the time to devote to setting up a charity then I'd be more than happy to work with you on behalf of the 'Slayers' group.

For clarification, Ken Coffman and Philip Foster have simply a commercial contractual agreement via myself as project leader of the 'Slayers' team of authors. I doubt either Ken or Philip would be publishing books with us if we were acting only as a charitable concern. A third arm of our publishing venture is ebookpartnership.com (Under Director, Matt Horner). They are responsible for our ebooks and I am determined to spend my time on progressing this business venture. The 'Slayers' project is first and foremost a commercial operation because, for all our hard work and endeavor, we wish to be paid, too despite our wanting to do good for the wider science community.

In short, I’m most willing to support your endeavor to create a charity and will work with you to advance our mutual goals, but I cannot afford to give up any of my time while so heavily committed to the ‘Slayers’ book-publishing project.

John

www.slayingtheskydragon.com

=================

From: Pete Ridley

To: JOHN OSULLIVAN

Cc: Miso.Alkalaj@...; cliff@...; timothyball@...; omatumr@...; ruthhertzberg@...; hanssch@...; houston2000@...; claesjohnson@...; alan618034@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; geraldo@...; ken@...; PF.SMP@...; kent@...; jerry_oliver@...; vinmary.gray@...; Fred@...; aaprjohn@...;

Sent: Saturday, 1 January, 2011 22:48:14

Subject: PSI & Due Diligence

Hi John (O’S), thanks for bringing me back into the loop again but please would you all stick with this E-mail address not my ... one. I’d like to welcome the newcomers to our group. I already know John (Droz) and his activism against the building of wind farms (as I mentioned in an earlier E-mail about PSI “due diligence”) and Vincent was a big help to me when I started out researching the CAGW scam. I don’t recall having had exchanges with Nasif or Fred so would appreciate a little background. I think that it is also important that they are made aware of the details of our debate during the past few days about the structure of PSI - has this been done John (O’S)?

Why is it beneficial for us to run our own publishing company? We already have access to the necessary facilities in the UK and USA through Philip Foster with St. Matthews Publishing and Ken Coffman with Stairway Press. These and probably others are already available to serve that “ .. niche market for science books that do not conform to the gatekeeping views of what we perceive as a corrupt science establishment”. What possible benefit can we derive from setting up a new publishing company. All that I see that doing is adding a further burden to an already hard-pushed executive. I have no objection to PSI expanding when the time is right but commerce and industry are littered with failed organisations who tried to grow faster than their resources and expertise warranted. What obstacles did our core authoring team encounter in getting “Slaying the Dragon” published that justify expending resources on setting up a new publishing company at a time when established publishing companies are struggling to survive? (see “Death By Drowning” Parts 1 & 2 at http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/).

Have I misunderstood your “Our authors would be our expert witnesses at trial with a vested interest to be proved right if PSI is permitted to fully exploit that arm of our work”? I would hope that our authors, when called upon to be expert witnesses at trial, would not need anything more than a desire to establish the true scientific facts rather than needing the vested interest of running a publishing company.

I doubt very much that the UK govt will be any more eager to allow CIC Regulator to grant the group CIR status than it would be allow the Charity Commissioner to grant the group charity status for the express purpose of suing government agencies. Trying to hide behind the front of a publishing company does not strike me as a sound strategy. Surely as soon as the first case is taken to court the cover is exposed and action would quickly be taken to curtail the group’s activities.

The CIC Regulator’s FAQ booklet says QUOTE: The basic principles are:

1 That CICs should not be formed for political purposes, or have engagement in political activities among their main objectives; and

2 That any political activities in which CICs do engage should be closely related to the non-political community benefit activities which they are set up to carry out.

The Community Interest Regulations 2005 provide that for the purposes of the community interest test (see chapter 2.7 & chapter 4) a wide range of political activities are to be regarded as

not being carried on for the benefit of the community. If you feel that there is any chance that your activities, or proposed activities, may fall within the prescribed activities you should take early professional advice or contact the Office of the Regulator before taking any decisive steps toward forming or becoming a CIC UNQUOTE.

Perhaps the best advice on this proposal should be obtained from the CIC Regulator. It looks more and more to me that as far as setting up a CIC “It's a non starter really”. I repeat my earlier recommendation – set PSI up as a charity then review after we have the experience of our first case behind us.

I think that we all need to think very hard about what structure the group should adopt and ponder carefully the implications of this most revealing E-mail.

We should each reflect very carefully on whether or not the proposed structure on offer here is compatible with “Benefiting the community is what PSI is all about”.

Best regards, Pete

=============

Message Received: Jan 01 2011, 07:48 PM
From: "JOHN OSULLIVAN"
To: peter.ridley@...
Cc: Miso.Alkalaj@..., cliff@..., timothyball@..., omatumr@..., ruthhertzberg@..., hanssch@..., houston2000@..., claesjohnson@..., alan618034@..., Charles.R.Anderson@..., geraldo@..., ken@..., PF.SMP@..., kent@..., jerry_oliver@..., vinmary.gray@..., Fred@..., aaprjohn@...,
Subject: Re: Examples of CIC associations for your guidance

Friends,

Please note: I'm taking the liberty of adding four new potential contributors to this discussion: Vincent Gray, Nasif Nahle, John Droz Jr. and Fred Goldberg, as they have a vested interest in the outcome insofar as they are newly signed up coauthors on our related project - the ' Dragon Slayers' book publishing project. For the benefit of our newest members I'll simply recap that we are discussing the setting up of a new international science association, Principia Scientific International, to counter the corrupt science pervading not just climatology but other government-funded sciences. The website prototype is here: http://principia-scientific.org/pso/

The crux of the matter is that we first need to determine whether PSI should be set up as a charity or a CIC (info on CIC here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_interest_company.

I agree with Pete that we must carefully weigh the pros and cons of PSI as either a charity or a CIC.

As a charity we will not be permitted to operate as a commercial book publishing and promotions entity which is a key function that our group of authors wishes to pursue - raising awareness of, and disseminating real science. Our core authoring team is now 26 international experts strong and we want to receive some financial compensation for our hard work in putting together our main body of scientific evidence into easily accessible book form.

'Slaying the Dragon' was published (December, 2010) www.slayingtheskydragon.com with the express intention of creating wider interest in skeptic science. The books proves skepticism isnt a fringe or crank element but a bona fide opposition in the debate. Our authors would be our expert witnesses at trial with a vested interest to be proved right if PSI is permitted to fully exploit that arm of our work.

Most of my conversations about a vision for PSI have been with Hans Schreuder and Joe Olson. 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. So as not to fall foul of the regulations we need to serve that community with complete financial transparency in a multitude of functions. For example, we see a niche market for science books that do not conform to the gatekeeping views of what we perceive as a corrupt science establishment.

Climate science is but one of many of our targets. We are also eyeing up re-evaluating the fossil fuel theory, the hydrogen gas sun theory, geonuclear Earth core theory, 'peak oil' and others. Serious discussion of these matters is suppressed by mainstream journals and the media. As ebook publishers we have proven that the blogosphere and ebooks are the way around the traditional skewed peer review process. We are taking science directly to the people and cutting out the 'middlemen' who would otherwise snuff out our message.

If we operate as a ' not for profit' business being completely transparent in our accounts, paying the hardest working members of PSI for their time it seems more likely that we'll get higher quality staff to get the job done. That's my opinion, but I'm all for democracy and having everyone vote on this after a full and frank discussion of all the pros and cons ( for more about how PSI is best served as a CIC see under 'KEY POINTS ABOUT PSI' below).

Thanks, John

WHY PSI SHOULD BE A CIC AND NOT A CHARITY:

Principia Scientific International (PSI) better serves its members and the wider community as a COMMUNITY INTEREST COMPANY (CIC). CIC's are a new type of limited company (since 2005 under UK law) for people wishing to establish businesses which trade with a social purpose (“social enterprises”), or to carry on other activities for the benefit of the community.

As a CIC we are limited by shares and are compelled to operate under UK law as per our Articles of Association in accordance with The Companies (Model Articles) Regulations 2008. In such form PSI operates a binding and formal legal structure with assets held as a CIC on behalf of our trustees.

PSI is designed to appeal those who wish to work within an association that draws on the most appropriate features of a charity and a business.

PSI operates as a charity when unpaid support is given freely to scientists and science focused groups seeking expert scientific guidance from our pool of qualified experts.

The legal requirement for such Articles is explained here.

WHY PSI SHOULD OPERATE AS A CIC AND NOT A CHARITY

As a CIC rather than a charity PSI can operate with the relative freedom of the familiar limited company framework without either the private profit motive or charity status.

As a CIC PSI is comprised in a useful legal form and free to hold local assets such as office space or a printing house, as well as for trading in a conventional sense through the provision of goods and services ( e.g. books,

science advice), either directly to the public and organisations or through contracts with service providers.

Although PSI cannot be both a CIC and a charity, as a CIC using PSI is a useful way of operating trading activity, such as, publishing and selling scientific papers and books. PSI members can pass some, or all, of their profits charitably to finance PSI’s charitable activities (see below and Chapters 2).

SERVING OUR MEMBERS, HELPING THE COMMUNITY

Benefiting the community is what PSI is all about. Under the UK government’s ‘Guidance’ notes PSI passes the community interest test (see below and Chapter 4) there are very few restrictions on how PSI members can operate for the benefit of the association, fellow members and the broader community.

The concept of community is important to understand (see Chapter 2) as it can have a wide range of meanings from a small group of science specialists to the wider concept of a population of a nation suffering from a particular disadvantage caused by poor scientific knowledge and/or misconduct. As a CIC PSI cannot be used solely for the financial advantage of a limited group of people, for political purposes or for the benefit of PSI employees, directors or members.

1.3.1. Basic legal structure of PSI and special features

The basic legal structure of PSI is modeled as a limited liability company but as a CIC we must use our assets, income and profits for the benefit of the community we have been formed to serve (scientists and related interest professions). In particular, we must embrace some special additional features to achieve this:

PSI is subject to an ‘asset lock’ (see Chapter 6) which ensures that assets are retained within the company to support its activities or otherwise used to benefit the community. The main elements of the asset lock are as follows:

PSI may not transfer assets at less than full market value unless they are transferred to another asset locked body (such as to another CIC or a charity).

PSI will only pay dividends by agreement of shareholders PSI operates a cap on interest payments on loans where the rate of interest is linked to the CIC’s performance (see Chapter 6).

On dissolution PSI shall transfer any surplus to another asset locked body.

1.3.2. To fulfill Eligibility as a CIC PSI Applies the following:

PSI has adopted a suitable constitution in the form of memorandum and articles of association that comply with the Act and Regulations.

PSI shall make a community interest statement declaring that its activities will be carried on for the benefit of the community and how this will be achieved.

Satisfy the Regulator that a reasonable person might consider that our CIC’s activities are or will be carried on for the benefit of the community. This is known as the “community interest test”.

PSI shall continue to meet this test throughout its life. As such PSI will not carry on certain political activities or give undue preference to any individual(s), such that if a reasonable person might consider that its activities are carried on only for the benefit of the members of a particular body or the employees of a particular employer.

PSI will make a declaration that it will not be an excluded company (which briefly means we shall not be owned or controlled by a political party or a political campaigning organisation.

1.3.3. Other things to consider

PSI will produce an annual CIC report, delivered with our accounts to Companies House and placed on the public record. The PSI report shall record what the association has done to pursue the community interest and involve our stakeholders during the year. This will ensure that the community served by PSI will have easy access to key information on our activities. Our reports shall also contain additional financial information such as payments to directors and declaration of dividends (see Chapter 9).

The CIC Regulator

Any changes made to the structure or organization of PSI shall meet the required standards set under law for individual CICs so that the Regulator may maintain public confidence in CICs by her regulatory role.

The Regulator has a range of investigation and enforcement powers to support her role and deal with CICs that are failing to comply with their CIC obligations.

The CIC will operate in the same way as any other company. They will have all the well understood characteristics of a limited company, such as, a separate legal identity; the ability to enter into contracts and own assets in its own name; and flexibility in borrowing and fund raising. The separate legal identity means that a CIC will continue to exist despite changes in ownership or management.

BENEFITS OF BEING A CIC

The directors can be paid and will have the same rights and duties as any other directors.

The members of PSI will have the same governance and decision-making role as in any other company, but they (and the directors) will be under a stronger obligation to have regard to the wider community which the company serves and involve stakeholders in its activities than might otherwise be the case.

People dealing with a CIC (such as banks and suppliers) are familiar with dealing with companies and therefore have confidence in doing so.

As a CIC PSI will produce accounts and annual returns just like any other company, which will be available on the public record. Further transparency will be achieved by our annual CIC report.

The asset lock and other features will give confidence to those funding PSI (particularly those not looking for any financial return) that the assets will be used for the benefit of the community and not unduly benefit the PSI’s members or employees.

KEY POINTS ABOUT PSI

The key activities we undertake are:

(1.) Promoting the use of the traditional English Scientific Method (ESM) in the broader community by encouraging individuals, corporations and governments to uphold transparency in all scientific research that impacts the community; applying due diligence in collecting, handling and publishing scientific data.

(2.) PSI shall encourage and promote discussion and dissemination of new scientific ideas, processes and theories for the wider benefit the community by means of book publishing, media broadcast and any other means deemed useful by our members.

By ‘community’ we mean, in the first instance all those who work in the sciences but also those who have an interest or concern for science as human achievement and its societal benefits.

The permanent shareholders and directors of PSI are drawn from the founding stakeholders of those 22 original authors of the ‘Slayers’ books. In the year of inception, 2011, PROPOSED chair is Dr. Timothy Ball; our PROPOSED managers are John O’Sullivan (CEO), Hans Schreuder (CFO) and Rev. Philip Foster (Compliance Officer). They will manage the day-to-day functions of PSI for the benefit of all the member shareholders. Members who pay subscriptions are shareholders. PSI has no guarantors.

Our PROPOSED Board of Directors is:

Dr. Martin Hertzberg

Dr. Claes Johnson

Joseph A. Olson

Alan Siddons

Dr. Charles Anderson

Rev. Philip Foster

John O’Sullivan

Hans Schreuder

PSI is funded by member subscriptions and voluntary donations. Any surpluses or profits shall be allocated as per the wishes of the shareholders expressed at the AGM. On dissolution of PSI remaining assets will be returned to stakeholders equitably.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

Members who subscribe to join PSI have full voting rights as shareholders. Membership fees are paid annually and as long as fees are up to date voting rights and other privileges will not lapse.

INTRODUCTORY OFFER

The annual fee for basic membership is £50 for the financial year 2011/12. As an introductory offer the first 2,000 members will receive a free copy of the best-selling climate science publication, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ and the companion volume, ‘Sky Dragon Slayers 2�� (retail value of both volumes is $19.85).

www.slayingtheskydragon.com

===============

From: Pete Ridley...

To: john0sullivan@...

Sent: Saturday, 1 January, 2011 17:19:20

Subject: Re: Examples of CIC associations for your guidance

Hi John, thanks for that link. That first CIC in the list, Allendale, was a pleasant surprise - it's my old stomping ground as a youth. As well as being a pleasant surprise it also makes a point that I was going to raise soon. The aspirations of Allendale Creative Artists, a group of local artists, musicians and food producers, are far far removed from those for [PSI]. As far as I could tell those case studies all target very local issues to benefit the local communities.

[PSI] is planning to take legal action against organisations that are protected by the most powerful political machinery in the world. I recognise that there is no restriction on the CICs range of operation however, I still consider that charitable status provides better protection for all concerned,

I recommend that we set up PSI as a charity and review this status after successfully completing the first legal action. Helpful information is given in the CIC Regulator's FAQ leaflet

(http://www.cicregulator.gov.uk/CICleaflets/FAQ%20-%20October%202009%20V7.00%20Final.pdf).

Best regards, Pete

===============

From: JOHN OSULLIVAN...

To: peter.ridley@...

CC: Miso Alkalaj ...; Cliff Saunders...; Tim Ball ...; Oliver Manuel ...; ruthhertzberg@...; hanssch@...; houston2000@...; claesjohnson@...; alan618034@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...;

geraldo@...; ken@...; PF.SMP@...; kent@...; jerry_oliver@...

Sent: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 0:54

Subject: Examples of CIC associations for your guidance

Friends,

Happy New Year to you all! May I recommend you read the following for links to UK government selected examples of CIC organizations to help assess the appropriateness of instituting PSI in such form:

http://www.cicregulator.gov.uk/news/Latest%20News/Case%20Studies.shtml

www.slayingtheskydragon.com

===============

Message Received: Dec 31 2010, 06:27 PM

From: "Pete Ridley"

To: "JOHN OSULLIVAN" , "Miso Alkalaj"

Cc: "Cliff Saunders" , "Tim Ball" , "Oliver Manuel" , ruthhertzberg@..., hanssch@..., houston2000@..., claesjohnson@..., alan618034@..., Charles.R.Anderson@..., geraldo@..., ken@..., PF.SMP@..., kent@..., jerry_oliver@...

Subject: PSI & “Due Diligence”

Hi all, although my “Due Diligence - Executive Summary” was sent after the PSI CEO’s E-mail recommending that rather than a charitable organisation a CIC should be set up I only read that E-mail afterwards. The setting up of a charity made me concerned enough but a CIC makes me cringe (it should be clear from my “PSI Due Diligence” E-mail why this should be so). I have consequently updated my “Due Diligence” report and this is the revised Executive Summary:

QUOTE:

“Self-praise is no praise at all”

Most comments quoted in this report are from E-mails circulated by PSI’s CEO John O’Sullivan during the period 23rd to 30th December 2010.

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. There is 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.

PSI appears to have been established by a select group of individuals with the original intention to establish it as a charitable organisation with the inherent protections provided by charitable status. This organisation has now been presented to a larger group of potential supporters and sponsors almost as a “coup d’etat” structure, not as a charity but as a Community Interest Company, where the Executive enjoy far greater control over its activities.

Under these circumstances it is considered imprudent at this stage to invest other than time in the organisation.

UNQUOTE.

On 23rd December @ 12:45 Oliver Manuel changed the wording of the E-mail subject to “What we need to push our book at Congress - Leadership!” and I supported his vote of thanks to John for the leadership shown so far, however, I was not giving support to any form of dictatorship. In his contribution @ 4:31 PM Cliff made the timely comment “ .. Hierarchies are brittle and do not fail gracefully. We do not want to emulate them. .. ”. On 24th @ 03:46 PM Oliver followed up with “ .. We must avoid "Us vs Them" mentality. The "ego cage" is a trap for Us and Them. .. ”. I see as most significant that word “EGO”, defined as “an inflated feeling of pride in your superiority to others” (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=GDi&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&defl=en&q=define:ego&sa=X&ei=Vv4dTZrDM8GDhQeA7cmyAQ&ved=0CB4QkAE” .

John stated his agreement on 25th @ 02:48 PM saying that he QUOTE: .. wholeheartedly agree that the "us and them" trap would be our undoing if we allow ego and elitism to taint this infant association at birth .. UNQUOTE. He then went on to say QUOTE: I humbly suggest we accept the essential premise that those best qualified and experienced to take this organization forward are already in place. I have the necessary talents to finish off the job by exploiting a wealth of international legal contacts. I have the time, the commitment and know how to coordinate such a global courtroom strategy. Be advised that it was my earnest hard work and foresight that brought together 22 world leading skeptics to compile the best seller 'Slaying the Sky Dragon'. The book provides the most compelling scientific argument to advance a legal one. This was all my innovation and it succeed only with the invaluable support of my cooauthors. We made it reality just as we are doing now by creating Principia Scientific International. The basics are already formed and I wish to continue leading such a terrific team. We are poised to deliver a robust, financially strong charitable organization with a remit to use member subscription to file lawsuits on their behalf. I want to complete the job I started and we now need you to help recruit the thousands of paid up members necessary to turn noble words into actions UNQUOTE.

“I” appears 6 times, “my” 3 times “we” appears 5 times and “our” nonce.

In response to Oliver on 23rd John talked @ 04:27 PM about “ .. When we launch in January .. It is my hope that every one of us will actively support PSI when it is launched .. ” then on 28th @ 07:18 PM “ . I strongly urge you and all our most influential scientists and advocates to back Principia Scientific International (launching January 2011) to win subscribers, build the necessary fighting find (sic) .. ”.

Only two hours later on 28th @ 09:20 PM, in response to Kent’s E-mail, John tells us that QUOTE: In recent months I have been strategizing with a group of legally trained experts and science-trained volunteers working on this behind the scenes. Our web designers are now building our site ready for launch in January. .. As CEO I coordinated 22 top international experts .. we have the infrastructure to make this thing work. .. I've willingly staked my own reputation and resources on the book project and PSI as CEO .. I heartily recommened PSI to you and encourage you to help lobby for donations and membership. Thanks for your faith and continued support UNQUOTE.

Then on 29th @ 06:59 PM QUOTE: .. To encourage enrolment to PSI the founding members are agreed .. I would like to propose we nominate a Compliance Officer asap to oversee the setting up and running of PSI by myself (as CEO) and Treasurer, Hans Schreuder (CFO). The candidate .. is Reverend Philip Foster, .. We are actively seeking a Spanish-speaking contingent that can recruit members in Hispanic nations. .. UNQUOTE.

From my perspective, in only six days PSI had jumped from being almost a headless chicken to being a fully structured organisation with CEO, Treasurer, a candidate for Compliance Officer, ready for launch as a charity in January. Then the latest bombshell, rather than being set up as a charity John recommends, on 30th December that it should instead be a Community Interest Company.

As I have said in a previous E-mail, these exchanges have given me cause for concern as I was not aware that such a structure had already been established. Perhaps my concern is ill-founded and arises from me being the only one among those involved in these E-mails who had no idea that this structure had already been established. I would appreciate knowing if anyone else was in that same position and will assume that if no-one else puts their hand up then my concern is exceptional and due to my own lack of involvement.

Despite that possibility, may I respectfully suggest that Charitable status brings with it important protections for all members of the organisation, whether founders, sponsors or beneficiaries. I was trustee and treasurer for a UK charity for several years and although such a structure is not perfect it does ensure as far as possible that those who control the organisation (the Executive Committee drawn from among the trustees) derive no financial benefit from executive decisions made. This is a very valuable protection which would be abandoned if moving to CIC status, as has been recommended by the existing Executive. In my humble opinion giving up such protection would be imprudent because it gives the executive far more power than it would enjoy as a charity, so I could not support it. Executives within organisations change over time and new executives bring with them their own agenda, sometimes not declared at the outset. This can bring about a complete change in the direction of the organisation. Wasn’t it the Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore who experienced difficulties in that organisations as it grew stronger? According to “Is greenpeace a charity?” (http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080115065824AAZzudX) Greenpeace is no longer considered to be a charity in Canada and “Patrick Moore who used to run the organization who says the organization isn't even about the environment anymore its all about power”. I understand that Bishop Hugh Montefiore, founder and director of Friends of the Earth, encountered similar problems.

I hope that no-one takes personally these comments of mine, which are made with due respect but I do think that it is important for each of us to openly express any concerns that we might have about PSI’s structure and direction.

I went through a similar “due diligence” exercise a few months ago after being invited to join wind-farm campaigner John Droz’s group of activists (http://www.windwahn.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62:some-recent-energy-news-83010&catid=43:energynews&Itemid=62). My comments were in a similar vein to these, were accepted as being offered constructively and my involvement with that group ended in October.

BTW, Have any of you bothered to take a look at Frank (Bi or Verismo?)’s “Decoding SwiftHack” blog (http://ijish.livejournal.com/tag/spam) to which I linked in my “Due Diligence” E-mail? Frank has plenty to say about you John. This is the sort of reaction that PSI and all of its memebrs can look forward to for as long as there are disciples and supporters of the doctrine that our continuing use of fossil fuels is leading to catastrophic changes to the different global climates.

Here’s wishing you all once again a very happy and successful 2011.

Pete Ridley

================

Message Received: Dec 30 2010, 10:54 PM

From: "houston2000"

To: peter.ridley@...

Cc: ...john0sullivan@...>

Subject: Re: PSI & "Due Diligence"...reply from Joe Olson....

Pete

i concur with your analysis of the current state of PSI....as one of the Principia 'conceptual founders' i based all my hopes on the historical origins of the Royal Society found in "The Curious Life of Robert Hooke" by Lisa Jardine and "Never at Rest", the Newton bio by Richard Westfall....for almost a year now i've struggled with HOW one could construct an 'inclusive and independent' organization that could represent the wide range of science now excluded from debate by government and corporate hegemony....this unresolved issue has me also offering more hope than support at present....have reviewed the bylaws of Amer Geophysical Union and can find no easy method of leadership exclusion that avoids the reason for PSI....to replace the 'rubber stamp' with honest, objective emperical data....

"trust ME" is only effective until ME becomes untrustworthy....i appoligize if your email was included in my CC list....

Joe Olson

==============

Message Received: Dec 30 2010, 08:52 PM

From: "Pete Ridley"

To: "Cliff Saunders" , "JOHN OSULLIVAN" , "Tim Ball" , "Oliver Manuel" , "Miso Alkalaj" , ruthhertzberg@..., hanssch@..., "houston2000" , claesjohnson@..., "alan618034" , Charles.R.Anderson@..., geraldo@..., ken@..., PF.SMP@..., kent@..., jerry_oliver@...

Cc:

Subject: PSI & "Due Diligence"

Hi John, sorry that I’ve taken a few days to consider the points that you made in your E-mails of 28th Dec.

Your comment of 28th @ 09:20 PM about having “ .. full corporate staff--CEO, CFO, fund-raising staff, sales, marketing, advertising, operations .. a legal entity in England .. a new publishing business .. the infrastructure to make this thing work. .. a private agreement with a prominent skeptic association .. willingly staked my own reputation and resources on .. PSI as CEO ... “ more than surprised me (and I suspect others too). Then your “ .. I heartily recommend PSI to you and encourage you to help lobby for donations and membership. Thanks for your faith and continued support .. ” made me more than a little uncomfortable.

Your comment of 28th @ 09:38 PM “ .. 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 .. ” reminded me of two other relevant saying “Fools rush in where wise men fear to go” and “look before you leap”. It also took me back to Friday 24th October 1975 at about 18.00 when I learned a big lesson about the need for “due diligence” before entering into any business/financial arrangement with people that you have put your faith and trust in without knowing much about them – it’s a mugs game! (I was a minor shareholder in and Director of two companies, one an electronic instrument design and manufacturing company, the other an international electrical/electronic component sales company. On that fateful day the major shareholder tried to pull a con. trick on a fellow director and me. So much for trust and faith in business.)

What I saw was PSI, representing people that I have little knowledge of holding out the “begging bowl” in one hand and a carrot in the other, whilst conducting activities in the background about which I had little knowledge. Experience in industry has made me develop an instinctive cautious reaction to activities like this.

As a result of those two E-mails I have spent a couple of days doing “due diligence” research into PSI and its sponsors, including most of the people receiving these E-mails. I have completed my (10,000-word) report plus the attached profiles. I offer my “Executive Summary” here but am prepared to share selected extracts with anyone here who asks for them but on the understanding that I do so on a Private & Confidential basis.

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.

Sorry folks but I won’t be donating any of my hard-earned cash to PSI, but I do wish you all success in your endeavours, whatever they may be.

I hope that my refusal to give financial support to PSI does not mean that PSI and the Ccs to this E-mail no longer have an interest in my activities regarding the validity of attempts to reconstruct past atmospheric CO2 concentration from air “trapped” in ice. It should remain of interest to those who are involved with PSI purely for the reason of establishing and publicising the facts about the different scientific disciplines contributing to improving our poor understanding of climate processes and drivers. I am eager to exchange opinions with any of you on this, ideally as a group and invite anyone who is interested to let me know. John, can I assume that your comment of 24th Dec. @ 5:30 AM To: peter.ridley@… Cc: omatumr@…., ruthhertzberg@…, timothyball@.. , hanssch@… , houston2000@…., claesjohnson@…, alan618034@…, Charles.R.Anderson@…, geraldo@…, Miso.Alkalaj@…, ken@…, PF.SMP@…, kent@…, cliff@…, jerry_oliver@…

Subject: Re: What we need to push our book at Congress – Leadership

Pete, Your involvement with PSI is most welcome. Many thanks, too, for rightly drawing our attention to the often overlooked ice core fiasco that has stupidly been set as a "Gold Standard" of climate proxies. Your ongoing research is invaluable to the debate and I would certainly welcome your submission of a chapter on this key issue for our next 'Slayers' book scheduled for publication

for April/May 2011. To further advance the authority of your research I would heartily recommend that you speak with Hans Schreuder who I know is well placed in advising on the complex chemistry of atmospheric gases. UNQUOTE.

If not I’ll have a chat with Andrew Montford and Ken Coffman. to see if they’re interested in a sequel to “The Hockey Stick Illusion”. A title like “The Other Hockey Stick Illusion” or “Gold Standard or Fools Gold” might be to their liking.

BTW, you may have noticed that I have removed vital information from each of the E-mails. I am making a point when doing that. As a result of my “due diligence” activity I came across entries on several Web-sites that gave me cause for further concern. I think that this item from my report is worth letting you all see.

QUOTE:

While checking up on Joseph A Olsen I came across several E-mails between you, Joe, Piers Corbyn and Mike Morano on full display to the world, including the E-mail addresses of about 30 Ccs, mine included (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/co2isplantfood/message/279 and http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/co2isplantfood/message/277 but at least on http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/co2isplantfood/message/287 only part E-mail addresses appear). I can’t honestly say that I’m happy about the first two.

Then when checking up on Claes Johnson I came across another site with another set of your E-mails and more Ccs E-mail addresses on display to the world, including another of mine which I only allow out to “trusted” recipients. I was even less happy with that, especially as it was used by a supporter of the doctrine to contact sceptics (http://ijish.livejournal.com/tag/spam).

I suggest that everyone here takes a look at those links just in case, like me, they don’t like the idea of their E-mail addresses being available to all and sundry.

UNQUOTE.

May I take this opportunity of wishing you all a very happy and successful 2011.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

================

Message Received: Dec 30 2010, 05:54 PM
From: john0sullivan@----
To: Miso.Alkalaj@----
Cc: cliff@----, peter.ridley@----, timothyball@----, omatumr@----, ruthhertzberg@----, hanssch@----, houston2000@----, claesjohnson@----, alan618034@----, Charles.R.Anderson@----, geraldo@----, ken@----, PF.SMP@----, kent@----, jerry_oliver@----
Subject: Advancing Principia Scientific International as a Community Interest Company

Friends,

(Be advised, I'm further broadening the c.c. of this mailing list to include further interested parties- let me know if anyone wishes to be removed).

A Proposal for the Foundation of a Community Interest Company* to Fund Legal Challenges Against Fraudulent Climate Science *CIC's are registered legal entities under UK law

Friends,

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). Prototype website here: http://principia-scientific.org/pso/

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: http://www.suite101.com/content/legal-defeat-for-global-warming-in-kiwigate-scandal-a294157 by the application of a legal strategy I proposed last year: http://algorelied.com/?tag=fraud

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. Good ideas have put forward and are being addressed. In this regard we are persuaded of the need to set up a formalized entity recognized under UK law.

We agree this formal step is necessary so as not to provide our detractors with needless ammunition to impugn our integrity. We recommend to you that the most suitable formation for our organization would be as a Community interest company (CIC) registered in England with Companies House.Principia Scientific International will thus ostensibly be comprised of science professionals ("Members"/donors) and public persons ( "Affiliates" and/or "Donors") expressly concerned to assist in financially upholding the best standards of science applied by governments and in our communities (via media, public and private businesses).

( for more info see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_interest_company)

As a CIC there can be no charge of impropriety as we will be officially registered under law, having financial transparency, being accountable to our members and following our express directive- to act for the benefit of

the community.

The benefits of becoming a CIC are that PSI will be accountable under law to provide its chartered function as an advocacy group for the promotion of the application of transparent and principled scientific methodology across all professions, businesses and public organizations. CIC trust holders, unlike charity officials, may receive payment for their services ( eg we may make payments to our key administrators and those lawyers who act for us, plus other professional service providers e.g. web designers, film makers, marketing experts etc). Thus we will be free hire such professionals who may apply their particular skills to best achieve public good in our chosen endeavor.

More info here: http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1077476109〈=en&r.i=1077475743&r.l1=1073858805&r.l2=1073859137&r.l3=1077475650&r.t=RESOURCES&type=RESOURCES〈=en

CIC's were first formally set up in the UK in 2005 in response to public demand for halfway house between charitable organizations and philanthropic businesses that seek to apply their expertise to the public good in return for a nominal fee. Those who set up a CIC are expected to be philanthropic entrepreneurs who want to do good in a form other than charity because:

* CICs are specifically identified with social enterprise. Some organizations may feel that this is a more suitable than charitable status.

* Members of the board of a CIC can be paid for their work

* CIC's must work for community benefit but with the relative freedom of the non-charitable status so that it may adapt to circumstances, but with a clear assurance of not-for-profit distribution status.

* The definition of community interest that applies to CICs is wider than the public interest test for charity.

CICs cannot:

* be politically motivated (see regulation 3 of the Community Interest Company Regulations 2005 (“CIC Regs”))

* be set up to serve an unduly restrictive group (see regulations 4 & 5 of the CIC Regs)

* be a charity

* carry out unlawful activities

I recommend we consider setting up PSI formally as a CIC insofar as it will provide all associated with us a clear understanding of everyone's rights and responsibilities. I'm also very mindful that becoming a CIC will go far in averting any accusation of impropriety from our enemies. There are boilerplate procedures and bylaws we can incorporate from the best practice guidelines set out by Companies House (UK). To minimize unnecessary legal work (and expense) as far as practicable, we wish to stick to those recommended best practice guidelines. That way we can also ensure PSI is fit for purpose as a legal entity within weeks rather than months. All feedback on these proposals is most welcome from you all, as are any and all suggestions so as to better advance our broadest possible goals.

Thanks,

John

www.slayingtheskydragon.com

==============

Message Received: Dec 29 2010, 06:59 PM
From: "JOHN OSULLIVAN" ...
To: "Oliver Manuel"...
Cc: peter.ridley@..., "Tim Ball" ..., "Miso Alkalaj"..., ruthhertzberg@..., hanssch@..., houston2000@..., claesjohnson@..., alan618034@..., Charles.R.Anderson@..., geraldo@..., ken@..., PF.SMP@..., kent@..., jerry_oliver@..., "Cliff Saunders"...
Subject: Re: Haw abot the "hottest June on record"?

Friends,

I've been looking into 'Crowdfunding' as a viable method to raise the monies we need to be able to fund test cases in the courts. From what I have found so far it does appear to have merit. I welcome further guidance and input on this from all those that have direct experience with it. The fundraising aspect of the venture has to be finely tuned to ensure all involved are happy that we have a system that is going to meet the broadest spectrum of approval globally.

Beyond the climate science scam, which is our first target, our future intentions are to also provide member services to pursue other noble causes identified by the membership; any area of public concern where unscientific wrong needs to be righted-by legal means if necessary.

Moreover, there is also considerable scope for PSI to be a publishing and promotions antidote to censorship by many science journals that operate a politicized gatekeeping policy on suppression of inconvenient new developments in science ( not just climate science). The scale of the problem was patently illustrated by the leaked Climategate emails that appeared to prove that the peer review process is corrupt and needs a radical overhaul. This is an issue PSI can and will confront forcefully by weight of member numbers. PSI already has in place a publishing sub-division that has successfully launched two climate science books with 3 more in the pipeline for publication in 2011.

Our highly qualified authors are not confined to climate science but are actively exposing faux science in other disciplines. We currently have almost 30 committed experts on our books who will be published in 2011 despite the best efforts of others to hinder their important message. We have seen how censorship has already sought to gag one of our valued authors; Prof Claes Johnson has been victimized and his book banned by his employers, the Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden. It is honest and brilliant academics like Johnson that need their academic freedom protected from the ubiquitous whim of Establishment self interest.

To encourage enrolment to PSI the founding members are agreed that, as a bonus to the first 3,000 members we are happy to offer signing on inducements by way of free copies of our first 2 'Slayers' books (both books together valued at approx. $20).

We believe that PSI has the potential to be a powerful voice for all scientists disaffected by the conduct of numerous national science associations- well publicized recently by the Hal Lewis resignation from the APS.

The Royal Society is another prominent case in point where member interests have been sold out to promote a political agenda contrary to the traditional scientific principles embodied in the English Scientific Method. The ESM is what we seek to uphold and we intend to defend it across all the sciences.

I would like to propose we nominate a Compliance Officer asap to oversee the setting up and running of PSI by myself ( as CEO) and Treasurer, Hans Schreuder (CFO). The candidate who, in our opinion, is most qualified and likely to gain the confidence of members is Reverend Philip Foster, a committed skeptic, a scientist and respected in the religious community as a man of principle.

The main organizers of PSI are UK-based but we have already determined there are willing organizers of national and regional sub committees in the US, South America, Canada and Australia. We have skeptic friends in Brazil who have already offered to assist in the setting up of a Portuguese language section, plus we have had tentative discussions with third parties interested in helping to set up foreign language divisions in Sweden, South Africa, the Netherlands and South East Asia. We are actively seeking a Spanish-speaking contingent that can recruit members in Hispanic nations. If anyone is able to recommend suitable and willing Spanish speaking scientists for this role, please let me know.

John

www.slayingtheskydragon.com

==============

Message Received: Dec 29 2010, 08:14 AM
From: "Hans Schreuder"...
To: "Oliver Manuel"..., "JOHN OSULLIVAN" ..., "Cliff Saunders" ...
Cc: peter.ridley@..., "Tim Ball" ..., "Miso Alkalaj"..., ruthhertzberg@..., houston2000@..., claesjohnson@..., alan618034@..., Charles.R.Anderson@..., geraldo@..., ken@..., PF.SMP@..., kent@..., jerry_oliver@...
Subject: Re: Haw abot the "hottest June on record"?

Thanks Oliver, your contribution is most welcome and adds to the 100 euro already pledged by Miso.

In the interim period I am using a spare personal bank account for all our common financials.

Once we have the formal structure in place, a dedicated bank account will of course be created.

We had such an account, but it was not internet linked and no transfers into or out of the account could be made unless in person and over the counter at the bank ... clearly unworkable.

The details are as follows:

Bank: Halifax

...

sort code: ...

acc. nbr: ...

acc. name: JC Schreuder

Alternatively, a check (aka cheque) in any currency can be sent to the address below.

Thanks again for your contribution.

Best regards,

Hans Schreuder

Interim Treasurer

...

Ipswich ...

England

----- Original Message -----
From: Oliver Manuel
To: JOHN OSULLIVAN ; Cliff Saunders
Cc: peter.ridley@... ; Tim Ball ; Miso Alkalaj ; ruthhertzberg@... ; hanssch@... ; houston2000@... ; claesjohnson@... ; alan618034@... ; Charles.R.Anderson@... ; geraldo@... ; ken@...; PF.SMP@... ; kent@... ; jerry_oliver@...
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 12:41 AM
Subject: Re: Haw abot the "hottest June on record"?

Cliff,

"Crowdfunding" has a great appeal.

My experience raising funds for the Chemistry Department and for the Foundation for Chemical Research, Inc. (while chair of the chemistry department at UMR), followed the pyramid model of many professional fund-raisers.

1. Start at the top of the pyramid with a few big donors.
2. Ask others to make some form of matching gifts.

That is why I pledged $500 with the hope of getting the process going.

Oliver

--- On Tue, 12/28/10, Cliff Saunders ... wrote:

From: Cliff Saunders ...
Subject: Re: Haw abot the "hottest June on record"?
To: "JOHN OSULLIVAN" ...
Cc: peter.ridley@..., "Tim Ball" ..., "Oliver Manuel" ..., "Miso Alkalaj" ..., ruthhertzberg@..., hanssch@..., houston2000@..., claesjohnson@..., alan618034@..., Charles.R.Anderson@..., geraldo@..., ken@..., PF.SMP@..., kent@..., jerry_oliver@...
Date: Tuesday, December 28, 2010, 5:46 PM (10:46 PM UK time?)

John,

Ah! OK! I think I get it (and no I have not read all of the stuff you have posted)

Your plan is to use some very powerful and precise techniques of British Common Law to rapidly force the hand of "NOAA to either substantiate their claim or retract".

Legal leverage, Elegant. Clever.

I am not an expert in the methods you are advocating but ever since I got a 'good telling off' for being so 'ignorant and blase about the rights your forefathers have fought for for you', (from an American Senior Counsel who was 'manning the booth' at the Magna Carta Museum in Runnymead near Windsor Castle) (a gin and tonic story), I've been mindful of the power of the methods you propose.

Are you open to an enabling thought from left field. John? (I have to preface what I am going to say because I want you to really open your mind to what I am going to offer you. I guess I'm asking you to listen and ponder just as closely, just as you have designed your initial strategy.)

I suggest you use crowdfunding to get a big chunk of the money. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_funding At a stroke you will get the funding you need, you will educate your supporters into the methods you are using and by your actions teach them how to do it too themselves. Thus extending the lesson from Senior Counsel all those years ago.

Check out Kickstarter. www.kickstarter.com. Look at the projects that have gotten funding, what is currently being funded (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/kaylinmarie/terminally-illin-worlds-awesomest-cancer-comic-boo?ref=spotlight), what the rewards are like, the pitch video etc.

John ,perhaps from another perspective what you are doing is a form of performance art?

cheers,

Cliff

==============

From: Miso.Alkalaj@----
To: cliff@----
Cc: john0sullivan@----; peter.ridley@----; timothyball@----; omatumr@----; ruthhertzberg@----; hanssch@----; houston2000@----; claesjohnson@----; alan618034@----; Charles.R.Anderson@----;
geraldo@----; ken@----; PF.SMP@----; kent@----; jerry_oliver@----
Sent: Wednesday, 29 December, 2010 8:01:55
Subject: Re: How abot the "hottest June on record"?

I am really glad that this is moving on, with a good chance that something may actually result from this legal action.

Because I was one of the "victims" of "hottest June on the record": as I already mentioned, I was free-diving off Heron Island end June and freezing! I actually wore a T-shirt (under the windbreaker) with a slogan like on this one:

and local divers (who tend to be obsessively "green" and therefore AGW alarmists) frequently felt the need to explain that "yes, it seems that global warming has turned into cooling, and we are having the coldest winer since I remember - but it will warm up again!" Nothing like blind faith.

So I'd really like to see NOAA's ass kicked for the "hottest June" bullshit.

miso

===============

Message Received: Dec 29 2010, 01:06 PM
From: hanssch@
To: omatumr@----, john0sullivan@----
Cc: timothyball@----, Miso.Alkalaj@----, john0sullivan@----, cliff@----, ruthhertzberg@---, houston2000@----, claesjohnson@----, alan618034@----, Charles.R.Anderson@----, geraldo@----, ken@----, PF.SMP@----, kent@----, jerry_oliver@----, peter.ridley@----
Subject: Re: Haw abot the "hottest June on record"?

John, You can count me in for a $500 pledge..- Hans

====================

Message Received: Dec 28 2010, 10:08 PM
From: omatumr@----
To: peter.ridley@----, john0sullivan@----
Cc: timothyball@----, Miso.Alkalaj@----, john0sullivan@----, cliff@----, ruthhertzberg@----, hanssch@----, houston2000@----, claesjohnson@----, alan618034@----, Charles.R.Anderson@----, geraldo@----, ken@----, PF.SMP@----, kent@----, jerry_oliver@----
Subject: Re: Haw abot the "hottest June on record"?

Thanks, John. You can count me in for a $500 pledge. Oliver
=============

From: john0sullivan@----
Subject: Re: Haw abot the "hottest June on record"?
To: peter.ridley@----
Cc: timothyball@----, omatumr@----, Miso.Alkalaj@----, john0sullivan@----, cliff@----, ruthhertzberg@----, hanssch@----, houston2000@----, claesjohnson@----, alan618034@----, Charles.R.Anderson@----, geraldo@----, ken@----, PF.SMP@----, kent@----, jerry_oliver@----
Date: Tuesday, December 28, 2010, 9:38 PM

Peter,

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

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.

Thanks,

Johnwww.slayingtheskydragon.com

============

Message Received: Dec 28 2010, 09:20 PM
From: john0sullivan@----
To: kent@----
Cc: omatumr@----, cliff@----, Miso.Alkalaj@---- john0sullivan@----, peter.ridley@----, ruthhertzberg@----, timothyball@----, hanssch@----, houston2000@----, claesjohnson@----, alan618034@----, Charles.R.Anderson@----, geraldo@----, ken@----, PF.SMP@----, jerry_oliver@----
Subject: Re: Haw abot the "hottest June on record"?

Kent and friends,

There is "method in my madness" in starting up a new independent international science association. All becomes clearer once it is understood that the strategy here is based on sound legal analysis to create a bespoke worldwide legal arm seperate, yet affiliated to all other such skeptic associations. Our key purpose is to fight climate fraud globally in all English speaking common law nations.

We have targeted our first $3,000 'low cost option' - a mandamus petition against NASA GISS/NOAA in the federal court in Washington DC. Our farguments tie in neatly with the legal precedent set recently in New Zealand. NZ climate skeptics, applying the strategy I recommended, showed how a mandamus petition is a most compelling legal force. If anyone wishes to contact the skeptic lawyer who ran that show, then please drop a line to Barry Brill at the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) for confirmation.

A seperate and unique association MUST be formed because it limits liability solely to me and my dedicated team. We have applied stringent financial structure and appointed respected skeptic, Hans Schreuder as Treasurer ( CFO) working directly with me (CEO). All accounts are transparent open to members and our business plan is to recruit members as a charitable venture, paying association officers a moderate fee for services. The added benefits to members is that we operate as a book publisher for disgrurntled scientists unable to bypass the gatekeepers who now run the shill science journals. We can sell and promote innovative science papers cheaply and more effectively to overcome such self-serving gatekeepers who run the journals and the msm.

In recent months I have been strategizing with a group of legally trained experts and science-trained volunteers working on this behind the scenes. Our web designers are now building our site ready for launch in January. See the developing prototype here:

http://principia-scientific.org/pso/

We already have the " full corporate staff--CEO, CFO, fund-raising staff, sales, marketing, advertising, operations" you rightly identify as needed. Our staff's 'trial run' was to produce a body of 'evidence' to use in all such court actions. So we created and published the book 'Slaying the Sky Dragon' forming a legal entity in England for this purpose; a new publishing business which spawned the first of many anticipated successes. 'Slaying the Sky Dragon' is the world's first definitive full-length publication refuting the greenhouse gas effect. As CEO I coordinated 22 top international experts to author the 2-volume blockbuster. The book caused such a huge impact at Cancun, according to Lord Monckton that he reported back to me that it was " the talk of the climate conference."

Thus, we've shown we have the infrastructure to make this thing work. All those organization you cite are welcome to contribute in any shape or form as they see fit. Indeed, we've already made a private agreement with a prominent skeptic association for this purpose. We anticipate many others will follow once they understand the beauty of the legal strategy involved. By creating our bespoke and seperate association to fight these climate lawsuits no liability whatsoever extends to any of our affiliate supporters. I've willingly staked my own reputation and resources on the book project and PSI as CEO and we are already seeing incredible results.I heartily recommened PSI to you and encourage you to help lobby for donations and membership.

Thanks for your faith and continued support,

John

www.slayingtheskydragon.com

=================

Message Received: Dec 28 2010, 07:18 PM
From: john0sullivan@...
To: timothyball@...
Cc: omatumr@..., Miso.Alkalaj@..., cliff@..., peter.ridley@..., ruthhertzberg@..., hanssch@..., houston2000@..., claesjohnson@..., alan618034@..., Charles.R.Anderson@..., geraldo@..., ken@..., PF.SMP@..., kent@..., jerry_oliver@...
Subject: Re: Haw abot the "hottest June on record"?

Tim,

I've costed this matter to run to a maximum of $3,000 based on ten year's legal experience of handling similar such proceedings both in the New York State and federal courts. As for the time and costs involved in addressing these issues, what influences my opinion most is the legal precedent set recently in another common law country (New Zealand). On the legal detail please refer to my chapter in ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’ in which I wrote:

We have been given our perfect precedent in new Zealand by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) . Under the leadership of barrister, Barry Brill NZCSC succeeded in persuading the High Court to uphold their petition to invalidate NIWA’s official NZ temperature record for the very same reason we are going to challenge NOAA/GISS/GHCN – the numbers are chock full of subjective interpolations- guesswork to you and me. As a consequence, NIWA capitulated on their subjectively skewed numbers- a stunning legal victory effectively proving NZ has no official temp record.

Similarly, our argument, in the US federal court, will be that US govt agencies have acted ‘arbitrarily and capriciously’ (precise technical wording) in publishing temp records filled with subjective interpolations that are no more than guess work.

As I have explained in many articles on this issue over the past year, common law jurisdictions must apply the stare decisis principle now given to us in NZ by Barry Brill’s brilliant lawyering.

The law has thus shifted towards our position such that in these matters of climate ‘homogenization’ tax payer funded agency are not permitted to subjectively construe any incomplete temp records with an unsubstantiated

subjective element to create a warming bias which would not otherwise exist based on the empirically obtained facts (interpolations cannot be facts per se).

I am in direct contact with NZCSC and have been assured by them that Barry will be more than happy to advise us on any such similar case filed in Washington D.C. (my preferred venue for this). I do not anticipate the case dragging on now we have Brill’s superb precedent that cannot be refuted as per stare decisis.

Thus $3,000 and less than 12 month’s work will win us this important victory and I strongly urge you and all our most influential scientists and advocates to back Principia Scientific International (launching January 2011) to win subscribers, build the necessary fighting find and finally nail these warmist fraudsters misappropriating tax payer monies.

John

www.slayingtheskydragon.com
===============

From: peter.ridley@----
To: timothyball@----; omatumr@----
Cc: Miso.Alkalaj@----; john0sullivan@----; cliff@----; ruthhertzberg@----; hanssch@----; houston2000@----; claesjohnson@----; alan618034@----; Charles.R.Anderson@----,
geraldo@----; ken@----; PF.SMP@----; kent@----; jerry_oliver@----
Sent: Tuesday, 28 December, 2010 18:48:09
Subject: Re: Haw abot the "hottest June on record"?

I understand that there are 32 states who are preparing to sue the EPA in 2011. My opinion is that any legal action will fail to enjoy an open and fair hearing because of political vested interest and influence, but maybe I'm being too cynical. Perhaps the legal system in the US is less vulnerable to political pressure, but I somehow doubt it.

Although Dimmock brought a successful action against the UK government under the Education Act it made no impact upon the distribution of Al Gore's propaganda film throughput our schools. It was basically a waste of effort and money from that point of view.

The Governemnt wanted the propaganda distrubuted and it was not hindered on jot by the legal action.

Kent's proposal is in line with my own thoughts on that issue. My reaction was 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/). Have I grabbed the wrong end of the stick on this one?

Best regards, Pete

=====================

From: Kent Clizbe
To: omatumr@-----; cliff@-----
Cc: Miso.Alkalaj@-----; john0sullivan@-----; peter.ridley@-----; ruthhertzberg@-----; timothyball@-----; hanssch@-----; houston2000@-----; claesjohnson@-----; alan618034@-----; Charles.R.Anderson@-----; geraldo@-----; ken@-----; PF.SMP@-----; jerry_oliver@-----
Sent: Tuesday, 28 December, 2010 18:13:55
Subject: Re: Haw abot the "hottest June on record"?

Cliff and John,

John O'S. surely has a great plan for taking a legal strategy against the AGW scam.

However, starting up a non-profit to run such a strategy is a huge undertaking. It's like a corporate start-up. The organization has to have a full corporate staff--CEO, CFO, fund-raising staff, sales, marketing, advertising, operations. This is NOT an insignificant undertaking.

A more efficient, and likely more effective, tack might be to act as "shock troops" for an exisiting non-profit or government entitity that is already taking on the AGW scammers. Or for a like-minded entity that would take on the effort, but lacks expertise.

It seems that what we have in this group now are subject matter experts and legal expertise. It might be worthwhile to look into offering this group's expertise to existing efforts.

For example, a quick search reveals:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/global-warming-skeptic.html

http://weathereye.kgan.com/expert/warming/skeptic.html

http://www.globalwarming.org/

http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/

http://cei.org/

And of course, there's Marc Morano at ClimateDepot.com. He's plugged in to the realist world better than almost anyone.

Bottom line is that there is more bang-for-the-buck in teaming with an existing organization/effort to apply this group's expertise. Setting up and running a non-profit (or a for profit, for that matter) organization is a hugely resource-intensive effort that sucks up more money and manpower than you can imagine (if you've never done it before).

From the frozen tundra of Northern Virginia, emitting CO2 as fast as I can,

Kent

Kent Clizbe

kent@kentclizbe.com

571-217-0714

=================

Message Received: Dec 28 2010, 05:53 PM
From: timothyball@----
To: omatumr@----
Cc: Miso.Alkalaj@----, john0sullivan@----, cliff@----, peter.ridley@----, ruthhertzberg@----, hanssch@----, houston2000@----, claesjohnson@----, alan618034@----, Charles.R.Anderson@----, geraldo@- ----, ken@----, PF.SMP@----, kent@----, jerry_oliver@----
Subject: Re: Haw abot the "hottest June on record"?

I am in support of this proposal and will make a contribution. One must think of the impact of the British father (Dimmock) who challenged the scientific validity of Gore's Inconvenient Truth. It was only equalled by the person who exposed Gore's carbon footprint.

Tim B

--------------
On 2010-12-28, at 9:24 AM, Oliver Manuel wrote:

John,
I would probably be willing to contribute to this effort. But I am cautious, as others may well be, about investing in a legal process that may continue forever.

If you collect $3000 and file the motion, what are the chances that any decision in our favor would not be appealed ad infinitum with our government's almost infinite supply of money and a printing press?

Oliver

================

From: john0sullivan@----
Subject: Re: Haw abot the "hottest June on record"?
To: Miso.Alkalaj@----
Cc: omatumr@----, cliff@----, peter.ridley@----, ruthhertzberg@----, timothyball@----, hanssch@----, houston2000@----, claesjohnson@----, alan618034@----, Charles.R.Anderson@----, geraldo@---- ken@----, PF.SMP@----, kent@----, jerry_oliver@----
Date: Sunday, December 26, 2010, 7:11 AM

Miso and friends,
Yes, in my view the NOAA announcement that 2010 saw the “hottest June on record” is controvertible by evidence skeptic have to hand i.e. we have enough evidence to force NOAA to either substantiate their claim or retract, just as did the NZ skeptics when they filed their mandamus and got NIWA to abandon their ‘official’ temp record, To my mind this is precisely the same kind of issue and, in my opinion, we would succeed if we compile our evidence and file a mandamus petition to challenge NOAA.
NOAA is based in Washington DC. 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.
John
www.slayingtheskydragon.com

================

Message Received: Dec 25 2010, 02:48 PM

From: john0sullivan@----

To: omatumr@----

Cc: cliff@----, peter.ridley@----, john0sullivan@----, ruthhertzberg@----, timothyball@---, hanssch@----, houston2000@----, claesjohnson@----, alan618034@----, Charles.R.Anderson@----, geraldo@----, Miso.Alkalaj@----, ken@----, PF.SMP@----, kent@----, jerry_oliver@----

Subject: Re: "To find out why there is no food in the kitchen we must first get out of the kitchen."

Oliver, Cliff and friends,

I'm looking for more content for the PSI website and wholeheartedly agree that the "us and them" trap would be our undoing if we allow ego and elitism to taint this infant association at birth. This is why I want to emphasise that we explicitly demonstrate PSI is for all who love science willing to make a small financial contribution to defeat science corruption. Principled individuals need to be recruited en masse. We must not choose them on the basis of age or gender - we must not focus on the middle or working class - not left wing democrat/socialist or right wing, conservative/liberal/republican - but everyone - all who believe in saving the traditional English Scientific Method from agenda- driven post-normal scientific dystopia.

For such a science-loving organization to have real clout we must raise funds by charging a minimum annual subscription (£50 - or US $100). With this money we can afford to cover the expenses of dedicated and qualified professionals who can deliver to the membership not just words but ACTIONS!

One of PSI's key objectives must be to challenge this ubiquitous global warming fraud in international courts. For a year now I've posted popular articles highlighting how the common law instrument of mandamus petition is the most appropriate weapon in a lawyer's legal toolbox for common law nations citizens (UK, US, Canada, NZ, Australia) to bring down the AGW fraud. Thankfully, I've been listened to. The NZ Climate Skeptic coalition brought such a mandamus petition against NIWA and now the NZ govt has conceded NZ has no 'official' temperature record. At a stroke a court has proven that there has been no warming in NZ since 1960. This is the most monumental legal victory that non-lawyers are still absorbing. I now need to apply the same legal strategy in other common law nation's courts. But to do this effectively I must have your help.

Oliver has rightly stated this is a time for leadership. If we are to advance this cause meaningfully, with passion and focus then I humbly suggest we accept the essential premise that those best qualified and experienced to take this organization forward are already in place. I have the necessary talents to finish off the job by exploiting a wealth of international legal contacts. I have the time, the commitment and know how to coordinate such a global courtroom strategy. Be advised that it was my earnest hard work and foresight that brought together 22 world leading skeptics to compile the best seller 'Slaying the Sky Dragon'. The book provides the most compelling scientific argument to advance a legal one. This was all my innovation and it succeed only with the invaluable support of my cooauthors. We made it reality just as we are doing now by creating Principia Scientific International. The basics are already formed and I wish to continue leading such a terrific team. We are poised to deliver a robust, financially strong charitable organization with a remit to use member subscription to file lawsuits on their behalf. I want to complete the job I started and we now need you to help recruit the thousands of paid up members necessary to turn noble words into actions.

Johnwww.slayingtheskydragon.com

==========

Message Received: Dec 23 2010, 07:17 PM

From: "Pete Ridley" ...

To: john0sullivan@...

Cc: omatumr@..., ruthhertzberg@..., timothyball@..., hanssch@..., houston2000@..., claesjohnson@..., alan618034@..., Charles.R.Anderson@..., geraldo@..., Miso.Alkalaj@..., ken@..., PF.SMP@..., kent@..., cliff@..., jerry_oliver@...

Subject: Re: What we need to push our book at Congress - Leadership!

Hi John, may I add my support to Oliver's comment about leadership on this issue. Oliver also said "many government scientists followed the path of least resistance" but there is more to it that than. Governments make their appointments to QUANGOs so that their devious agenda will be supported .

Scientific QUANGOs are no exception. As you know I have started a thread (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/2010/12/uks-government-office-for-science.html) on my blog covering the (mis)information (I prefer propaganda) about climate science being offered by the UK's Government Office for Science on its "The science of climate change" pages (http://www.bis.gov.uk/go-science/climatescience).

I understand that the Chief Scientist, Sir John Beddington, appointed by the happily departed Labour government, has expertise in medicine, not a discipline involved in improving our poor understanding of the processes and drivers of the different global climates. In producing his "information" he has given no consideration to the arguments of sceptical scientists in appropriate disciplines.

Does this surprise me – NO. Sir John has made his totally biased position very clear. At Charlie’s September “Garden Party to Make a Difference” (http://www.startuk.org/events/the-garden-party.aspx) it is reported (http://www.startuk.org/events/in-conversation-with-sir-john-beddington.aspx) that QUOTE:

Sir John .. asserted that the fundamental science behind climate change was unequivocal. He said it provided overwhelming evidence that climate change was real and that our everyday actions were a contributing factor. .. Sir John then explained what he feels are the three basic global drivers important to sustainability and climate change:

1. Population growth. ..

2. The movement of people from rural areas to cities - ..

3. The increasing affluence of the world's population, ..

UNQUOTE.

If anyone would like to include some comments on the climate science “propaganda” at the Government’s “Climate Science” web-pages then please drop in at my blog or send them to me by E-mail and I’ll post them.

I must try to get my analysis finished and posted but I've been rather busy recently exchanging opinions with Professor Richard Alley on that other "hockey stick", changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the past thousands of years. Alley regards the attempts to reconstruct past concentrations from air "trapped" in ice for thousands of years to set the "Gold Standard" for such reconstructions. As I research this issue I am more and more convinced that this is another "Hockey Stick Delusion" just like Michael Mann's past temperature reconstructions.

I have a work-in-progress thread on this subject (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/2010/12/smogbound-on-molecular-fractionation-in.html) where I am gradually adding what I have unearthed from papers by specialists like Professor Oeschger, Professor Severinghaus, (UCSD), Dr. Jaworowski , etc. along with exchanges with Professor Alley, Dr. Jaworowski and Professor Hartfmut Frank (Chair of Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology, University of Bayreuth).

Professor Frank considers that the opinions of Jaworowski about the questionable validity of ice core reconstructions and the impact of diffusion within ice warrant careful attention. Jaworowski said on 25th June “I am also not versatile in diffusion, and writing my paper in 1994 I was advised and enlightened by a geologist from the Norwegian oil industry, who was specializing in diffusion, a subject of great importance for oil industry. This is a highly specialized field of science. My impression is that it is a terra incognita for glaciologists”.

Professor Frank is an internationally respected researcher in the field of separation science in analytical chemistry, including gas chromatography (http://teaching.shu.ac.uk/hwb/chemistry/tutorials/chrom/gaschrm.htm). As such and from what I have learnt so far, I am becoming more and more convinced that Professor Frank's comments (also on 25th June) are worthy of serious consideration. "As I have said before, if one would apply rigorous quality assurance/quality control standards as they are typical nowadays in analytical chemistry, the methods and results used and generated by these amateur ice-core analysts - who are mostly physicists - one would have to throw the whole data sets out. But since they are politically protected and have developed strong pressure groups including a former American Vice President, nothing can be done.

.. In my opinion it is best just to wait until the whole story falls apart, but it will still take a while, i.e. until Schellnhuber, Al Gore and the other protagonists are fully retired. Any energy invested into this collective stupidity is wasted".

I hope to update my thread on this about mid-January, meanwhile, if anyone involved with you is knowledgeable about the movement of gas molecules, particularly the different atmospheric gases, in nanoporous media (particularly firn) then I'd appreciate an introduction.

Best regards, Pete

===============

Message Received: Dec 23 2010, 04:27 PM

From: "JOHN OSULLIVAN"

To: "Oliver Manuel"

Cc:

Subject: Re: What we need to push our book at Congress - Leadership!

Oliver,

What is most gratifying is how the community has, in recent months begun to realize the need to do just as you suggest - get behind a common cause and find unity rather than spout off as individuals on myriad soapboxes. What we are all beginning to realize is the need to formalize ourselves into a distinctive new group given a mandate to speak for many.

When we launch in January we will be seeking to encourage as many scientists and associated professionals to sign up to our new independent association, Principia Scientific International (PSI). We will serve the interests of our members, responsive to their needs and expressive of their views.

Above all, those of us working hard to get this venture off the ground are also resolutely determined to put party politics away to one side and build the broadest possible consensus against scientific corruption.

Science professionals, until Climategate, were universally held in high regard among the public. But since then honest scientists feel mired by the few who advocate, some unlawfully, outside the bounds of the traditional scientific method, for their personal/ideological and/or financial gain.

Today we are all too keenly aware that scientists, like other professionals, can allow subjectivity to hamper their thinking and contaminate their findings. But even worse, what we have seen this past year is the fragmentation and creeping dissolution of certain discredited science institutions that, when challenged, cynically endorse a politicized agenda.

It is my hope that every one of us will actively support PSI when it is launched so that when the US Congressional Science Committee hearings are convened next Spring all our voices will be heard.

Thank you all,

Johnwww.slayingtheskydragon.com

=====================

From: john0sullivan@----

Subject: Re: Here's why we need to push our book at Congress

To: ruthhertzberg@-----

Cc: timothyball@-----, hanssch@-----, houston2000@----, claesjohnson@----, alan618034@----, omatumr@----, Charles.R.Anderson@----, geraldo@----, Miso.Alkalaj@----, ken@----, PF.SMP@----, kent@----

Date: Thursday, December 23, 2010, 3:43 AM

Marty,

That's a great suggestion. We must urgently forge direct lines of communication with sympathizers in Congress. Perhaps you and Tim, as our more widely esteemed team members, could make the necessary representations. Also, Kent Clizbe, a valued and trusted contact, may be able to exert some influence to progress this via his connection to Va.'s Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli. Moreover, to add clout to our growing skeptic science community Hans, Joe and I are progressing well with the development of a new independent international science association that we intend to launch in early 2011. http://principia-scientific.org/pso/

We are convinced such an organization will quickly garner worldwide membership and be ideally placed to act as an independent consultative body in these circumstances.

John

www.slayingtheskydragon.com

===============

========================================

Message Received: Aug 10 2010, 01:20 AM

From: "William Pratt"

To: ……..

Cc: ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ...... kent@..., ..., ..jamesdelingpole.., roger.harrabin@.., "Martin Hertzberg" ..., .., .., .., .., cfact@.., .., .., jsdaleo6331@.., "Dr Timothy Ball" .., …, "Hans Schreuder" .., .., .., AussieHonestClimate@.., "Joe Olson" .., .., .., .., john.costella@.., .., "alan618034siddons" .., .., .., jonjayray@.., ..DrRoySpencer.., co2isplantfood@.., dav1dosull1van2@.., piers@.., vinmary.gray@.., .., .., v_majkus@.., .. .., ..joannenova.., .., "JOHN OSULLIVAN" .., .., .., omatumr@.., .., Morano@.., .., .., .., .., .., .., .., .., .., awatts@.., .., Charles.R.Anderson@.., "Claes Johnson" .., peter.ridley@.., "Malcolm Roberts" .., .., .., .., .., "Nicol John" .., .., "Dunleavy Terry" .., .., "Carter Bob" .., "Evans David" .., ..

Subject: Re: EPA CO2 regulation, Fwd: Diurnal Atmospheric Bulge, incontrovertible evidence of top-down radiative heating.

To all concerned parties,

With respect to your latest action with the EPA regarding the regulation of Carbon Dioxide and other so called "greenhouse gases". In the forwarded email below is information you will find very useful in appealing any decision by the EPA. Unfortunately this information only became known to me on the 26th of July and I was unaware of your recent action until after this recent discovery. I can only apologise that I was unable to get this information to you sooner.

The following information as you will become aware, is incontrovertible proof that the atmosphere is not heated bottom-up from IR absorption by "greenhouse gases" as is required by the so called "greenhouse effect" hypothesis, but is in fact heated top-down by incoming full spectrum electromagnetic solar radiation. The link in the email I am forwarding to you below and repeated here, is to my recent article which offers this incontrovertible evidence that the "Greenhouse Effect" is a fraud.

Link: http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2_files/The_Diurnal_Bulge_and_the_Fallacies_of_the_Greenhouse_Effect.html

This information is the culmination of a two year independent investigation conducted and financed by myself. As you can see in the attached email, my work has put me in contact with some of the worlds leading climatologists and AGW sceptics. The reference to the "Team" in the forwarded email is in respect to my involvement with this group of seven individuals, for the production of a title, comprehensively debunking the so called "greenhouse effect". I was to be a key author on this project which was to incorporate my book "CO2 The Debate Is Not Over" with supporting articles from the other members of this group. During the incubation phase of this project, information became known to me with regards to what is called the Diurnal Atmospheric Bulge. This information is the result of a line of inquiry I have been following for last nine months. As you will see it spells the end of the "greenhouse effect" as it currently stands which requires that the atmosphere be practically transparent to all incoming electromagnetic energy. The "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis which, even after 200 years and billions in public funding has as yet to be experimentally demonstrated, is clearly falsified by what is called the Diurnal Atmospheric Bulge.

The phenomena of the Diurnal Atmospheric Bulge as you will appreciate, is a highly significant and fundamental process in atmospheric warming. Yet so far to date, this fundamental process has been deliberately hidden in plain view and completely omitted from all UN IPCC climate models.

If you have any questions regarding this matter please don't hesitate to contact me.

Regards

W. R. Pratt
http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2.html

Begin forwarded message:

From: William Pratt
Date: 28 July 2010 15:05:22 BDT
To: JOHN OSULLIVAN …, Joe Olson …, Claes Johnson …, Hans Schreuder…, Martin Hertzberg…, alan618034 siddons…, Dr Timothy Ball…
Cc: … … … … … … … …jamesdelingpole…, roger.harrabin@…, …. ……… ………
Message for the "Team" etc. etc. etc. (see E-mail below) .. Will
http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2.html

=================

From: William Pratt …
Date: 28 July 2010 15:05:22 BDT
To: JOHN OSULLIVAN …, Joe Olson …, Claes Johnson …, Hans Schreuder…, Martin Hertzberg…, alan618034 siddons…, Dr Timothy Ball…
Cc: … … … … … … … …jamesdelingpole…, roger.harrabin@…, … … … … … cfact@…, … ACaruba@…, jsdaleo6331@…, … … sr2@…, … … … … … john.costella@…, … … jonjayray@…, …DrRoySpencer…, co2isplantfood@…, dav1dosull1van2@…, piers@…, vinmary.gray@…, … … v_majkus@bigpond.com, … deputyjkeough@…, …joannenova…, … … … omatumr@…, … Morano@…, … … … … … … … … awatts@…, thomasmp@…, Charles.R.Anderson@…, peter.ridley@…

Message for the "Team"

I have decided to pull out due to the fact that I feel that there are major irreconcilable differences between myself and general message of the group. I cannot see that there will be any way to mesh my perspective on this issue with the general theme that has since become apparent to me.

I hereby offer a rough version of my most recent article which I hope will illuminate for the group, where I stand on the issue of atmospheric warming. I strongly feel back-radiation is yet another red-herring. It is another device designed to lend credence to the fallacy that the atmosphere is entirely heated from the bottom up.
I provide in the following link, what is undoubtedly, incontrovertible and substantiating evidence that the atmosphere is heated top down by incoming electromagnetic radiation. Any hypothesis or model that ignores the following evidence is less than worthless. Any scientist who happens to be aware of this top down atmospheric heating mechanism the Diurnal Atmospheric Bulge and has deliberately and willfully failed to incorporate this mechanism in their explanation of atmospheric warming, is to my knowledge, in the eyes of the law, implicated by their omission, in what has become the biggest scientific fraud in history.

When the general public learns that there is an area of incident sunlight with a circumference of approximately 25% of the entire surface of the atmosphere which is continuously, powerfully and most violently heated by incoming electromagnetic radiation, heating the atmosphere from the top down, 24 hours a day 7 days a week 365 days a year, to such intensities that it causes almost 1/4 of the entire atmosphere to bulge at an altitude of around 600 km with temperatures exceeding 1200º C, it will send shock waves around the world. A process which we have been told over and over by "scientists" for decades, simply does not happen.

Judging by John's luke warm response yesterday to this shocking discovery and the groups general obsession with the "back-radiation", a mechanism so elusive that it cannot even be shown to exist, I feel that my only course of action is to withdraw from the group and make my own findings public.

wish you all the best of luck,
http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2_files/The_Diurnal_Bulge_and_the_Fallacies_of_the_Greenhouse_Effect.html

Will
http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2.html
================

From: alan618034@…

To: Malcolm Roberts

Cc: Joe D'Aleo …; Dr Timothy Ball …; John Ray …; Ron Kitching …; JOHN OSULLIVAN …; Hans Schreuder …; Thomas Pearson …; Charles Anderson …; Mark Sawusch …; Marc Morano …; marc sheppard …; Claes Johnson …

Sent: Saturday, 17 July, 2010 21:41:11

Subject: Radiative equilibrium

Maybe this will stimulate some thought.

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6013#post_comments
I took a look at Bomber’s explanatory video. Unfortunately, it repeats the same error that most AGW skeptics fall into.

The radiation a body emits is a function of its temperature. The premise of “radiative equilibrium” in greenhouse theory says that if this radiation doesn’t escape to space then a planet’s temperature will rise until this radiation does escape to space. Yet radiative equilibrium has never even been shown to exist.

Indeed, its existence would render radiative insulation impossible. Pour hot coffee into a thermos: Since the inner reflective lining prevents the coffee from radiating to its surroundings, does the coffee get hotter until the outside of the thermos reaches the same temperature as the coffee? Of course not. So too, if a 5-watt lightbulb were shining inside that thermos, the outside would remain cool as well. This scenario would not create a “radiant bomb” wherein trapped light rays accumulate in a desperate effort to escape. If confined radiation generates compensatory heating, though, this dictates that the internal temperature rises until the outside of the thermos continuously emits as much as a 5-watt lightbulb! As to what this internal temperature would have to be in order to establish “equilibrium” with the outside, there are no equations to define it. Because this phenomenon does not exist. There’s no such thing as a radiant bomb.

“Radiative equilibrium” is devoid of physical meaning, then. One has no reason to believe that a planet must emit to space the thermal energy it has acquired from the sun or else heat up until it does. In fact, same as with a thermos, the insulation which ‘greenhouse gases’ allegedly confer necessitates radiative disequilibrium, making the earth emit less energy to space than it receives from the sun. You can restrict what a body radiates or you can release it. You can’t do both.

In sum, the radiation a body emits is a function of its temperature. Period. Greenhouse theorists attempt to reverse this rule and make temperature a function of how much radiation a body emits. It’s a bogus premise. It’d be nice if these theorists had an empirical leg to stand on. But they don’t.

===================

From: JOHN OSULLIVAN

Subject: Re: Another denunciation -- yawn

To: "alan618034"

Received: Monday, July 12, 2010, 2:43 AM

Friends,

I have my own response to the comment noted by Alan Siddons on my article at the Hockeyschtick site- the article is also now on Canada Free Press and other sites: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25240

Frankly, I accept that if a 'skeptic' like MostlyHarmless doesn't see the logic here then that shows this message is not likely to convince others less pre-disposed to skepticism. So let's try this:

What Siddons, Hertzberg, Schreuder, Gerlich, Tscheuschner, Anderson, Glassman, Novak, etc, etc. are proposing is a paradigm shift back to acceptance of general LAWS of thermodynamics that bats the unproven GHG HYPOTHESIS right out of the climate ball park.

First, see how climate science has managed to get away with skewing the laws of physics: no scientist, skeptic or warmist, has ever claimed there is such a thing as "back-convection" - likewise, no one claims there is such a thing as "back-conduction" - these concepts would be so preposterous as to be universally laughed at. Yet, somehow a clique of doomsaying climatologists gets given a 'free pass' with their "back-radiation" gambit. How can this be when all the methods of heat transport must conform to the laws of thermodynamics and rules of energy conservation? If you look at it more closely you will find radiation can be shown to provide no more of a double warming effect than can convection or conduction.

I ask that you apply some logical consistency here and see how the GHG fallacy falls apart:

K-T, NASA, Schmidt et al. unhelpfully fudge together 2-D with 3-D modeling which already obfuscates any sensible analysis. But they then go on to ‘forget’ that when calculating any transport of electro-magnetic energy (radiation) all such flow is to be determined by field vector calculus (i.e. Poynting's vector (see Poynting's theorem) which is an energy conservation law:

see John David Jackson (1998). Classical electrodynamics (Third ed.). New York:

Wiley. ISBN 047130932X. http://worldcat.org/isbn/047130932X).

Vectoring laws specifically require that when the direction of such energy flow is equal and in opposite motion (that spurious ‘up and down’) all such flows must be summed to zero. This is a law of science and not an option!

Thus, just like conduction and convection radiation can have no BACK FLOW.

Finally, as per the real world observed evidence from ERBE satellite data shown by Lindzen and Choi (2009), and admitted to by Trenberth, we cannot detect any signal for back radiation in nature. Thus, we clearly deliver the GHG hypothesis our very own double whammy.

P.S. Will Pratt is currently finalising additional debunking by applying analysis of dipole moments that will be presented in due course.

John

------------------------------------------------

From: alan618034

To: Thomas Pearson

Cc: D ALKER ; JOHN OSULLIVAN ; Hans Schreuder ; ... Joe D'Aleo ; ... John Ray ; Malcolm Roberts ; marc sheppard

Sent: Monday, 12 July, 2010 4:09:08

Subject: Another denunciation -- yawn

I don’t know why this guy despises me. Most people think that ‘greenhouse gases’ restrict the outward flow of heat from the earth. Roy Spencer compares GHGs to the lid on a cooking pot, for instance, or a blanket that reduces the amount of heat you're emitting. But try to explain to people no, this isn’t what the theory actually entails, and jerks like MostlyHarmless will go for your jugular. What the hell is wrong with him?

As far as this doubling business, O’Sullivan is right on the mark: A doubling of energy due to a "two-sided surface" (the atmosphere) is the conceptual foundation of greenhouse theory. If it wasn't taught and accepted as the first course in Climatology 101, Kiehl and Trenberth couldn't EXPLOIT this concept in their energy budget and GET AWAY WITH IT. (See The Greenhouse Hustle) This is STANDARD DOCTRINE, not Gavin Schmidt's personal delusion.

From the IPCC's Climate Change 2001:

Figure 1.2: The Earth's annual and global mean energy balance. Of the incoming solar radiation, 49% (168 Wm-2) is absorbed by the surface. That heat is returned to the atmosphere as sensible heat, as evapotranspiration (latent heat) and as thermal infrared radiation. Most of this radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, which in turn emits radiation both up and down.

Source: Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997: Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget, Bull. Am. Met. Soc. 78, 197-208.

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/041.htm

And if that's too subtle for you, the University of Arizona's Lunar and Planetary Laboratory spells it out plainly:

However, atmospheres radiate both up and down (just like a fire radiates heat in all directions). So although the atmosphere radiates 240 Watts/meter² to space, it also radiates 240 Watts/meter² toward the ground!

Therefore, the surface receives more energy than it would without an atmosphere:

it gets 240 Watts/meter² from sunlight and it gets another 240 Watts/meter² from the atmosphere -- for a total of 480 Watts/meter² in this simple model.

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~showman/greenhouse.html

MostlyHarmless is mostly an ignorant bastard, it seems.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/07/kitchen-colander-proves-greenhouse-gas.html

MostlyHarmless said...

"Kiehl and Trenberth had ignored Kirchoff’s law of thermal radiation and vector field calculus and wrongly determined that the upward and downward longwave radiation should be multiplied by two, thus falsely doubling the heating effect, when it ought to have been factored at zero, meaning extra heating."

They did not. The author is confusing what K&T wrote with the silly error Gavin Schmidt made on RealClimate. Has he read their 2009 paper (the diagram from which NASA uses, not the 1997 paper referred to here)?

I have read both papers, and they calculated the "back-radiation" using the temperature of the atmosphere, using Stefan-Boltzmann, and didn't double anything.

This blog continues its "straw man" nonsense accusing scientists of making statements and performing calculations that they have not. Before accusing anyone of anything scientists and bloggers should actually read the literature they claim contain the supposed "errors".

The "colander" analogy is just too silly for words. Do you think we're all so eager to destroy the warmist arguments we'll accept any old rubbish? This kind of bogus argument gives us sceptics a bad name.

================

The next several E-mails came from http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/co2isplantfood/message/253?var=1

Message Received: Jul 03 2010, 01:35 PM

From: "JOHN OSULLIVAN"...

To: catalyst@...

Cc:

Subject: Dipole Moments Incorrectly Considered by Chris Monckton

Friends,
Co-author with me on my new book project, Will Pratt, has been into a great deal of research lately on dipole moments. I forwarded to him Lord Monckton's recent comments on the matter I received from Malcolm Roberts and here is Will's reply. I thought this was worth sharing.
John

----- Forwarded Message ----

From: William Pratt ...
To: JOHN OSULLIVAN ...
Sent: Saturday, 3 July, 2010 12:40:23
Subject: Re: LM response to greenhouse effect

John

According to the official data CO2 is rising by 2 ppm per year. Apparently humans emit 30 billion tons of CO2 per year (15 billion tons = 1ppm), This inadvertent conclusion that humans are the only organism on Earth effecting CO2 levels is just ridiculous. If these figures are correct then they simply prove that humans arenot responsible for overall atmospheric CO2 levels.

Clearly Monckton knows as little about CO2 as he knows about dipole moments.

Dipole Moment Quote: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/diph2o.html

"Even though the total charge on a molecule is zero, the nature of chemical bonds is such that the positive and negative charges do not completely overlap in most molecules. Such molecules are said to be polar because they possess a permanent dipole moment. A good example is the dipole moment of the water molecule. Molecules with mirror symmetry like oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and carbon tetrachloride have no permanent dipole moments. Even if there is no permanent dipole moment, it is possible to induce a dipole moment by the application of an external electric field. This is called polarization and the magnitude of the dipole moment induced is a measure of the polarizability of the molecular species."

The fact is, all molecules can be caused to rotate and/or vibrate by thermal radiation. This is how substances assimilate the energy needed to undergo phase change and become gases in the first place. Rotation is not said to be determined by wavelength but the vibration in molecules is restricted to specific resonant wavelength bands. The rotation mode of gas molecules results from the interaction between the thermal energy and the dipole moment. Carbon dioxide molecules are formed from two oxygen atoms equidistant from a central carbon atom. All three atoms are arranged in a straight line. This particular configuration of mirror symmetry eliminates any dipole moment, limiting the CO2 molecules to vibration modes only. As is the case for O2 and N2.

The laboratory experiments Monckton refers to are John Tyndall's which are 150 years out of date. Quite frankly, Tyndall is the origin of AGW fraud in my opinion. He is responsible for the claim that O2 and N2 are "practically transparent to radiant heat". Yet a substance which is transparent to radiant heat would not be able to become a gas. Absorption of radiant heat is a prerequisite of phase change. Of course there are no substances which are transparent to radiant heat, again this is utter nonsense.

The above information about dipole moments is not difficult to find so why do people like Monckton think that they can get away with spouting such drivel? As I said before, with 'sceptics' like Monckton who needs warmists.

Will
http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2.html

On 2 Jul 2010, at 12:30, JOHN OSULLIVAN wrote:

wow-superb! Thanks for sharing.

John

==============================

From: Malcolm Roberts ...

To: Siddons Alan ...; Schreuder Hans

...; Powell Bruce ...; O'Sullivan John ...

Sent: Friday, 2 July, 2010 7:36:51

Subject: Fwd: LM response to greenhouse effect

Alan, Hans, Bruce, John:

CONFIDENTIAL ...

Please see Gregg's comments below.

He likely only sent the comments relevant to Lord Monckton.

A nice way to offer blunt comments to LM.

Lets see what, if anything, transpires.

Malcolm
============

From: "Gregg Thompson"
Date: 2 July 2010 4:28:35 PM
To: "Malcolm Roberts"
Subject: Re: LM response to greenhouse effect

Malcolm,

I've forwarded your comments below to LM as I couldn't have said it as well. I didn't say they were your comments at this stage in case he had some negativity to that and I thought it may open his mind the more he sees other people explaining this. Each statement you wrote is so obvious I don't see how these arguments could be resisted.

Gregg
==============

From: Malcolm Roberts
To: Gregg Thompson
Cc: Siddons Alan ; Schreuder Hans ; Powell Bruce
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: LM response to greenhouse effect

Gregg:

O2 and N2 absorb heat - as anyone who has walked under a ceiling fan or used an air-cooled motor can attest.

If O2 and N2 cannot radiate heat, then they are the 'greenhouse gases' through retaining heat.

Yet the GHG 'theory' relies on the assumption that greenhouses rely on back-radiation from glass roof. As you know, that's nonsense - they rely on preventing convection.

Fancy a climate realist debunking AGW using the term 'settled science'. Surely he knows what that actually means in discussing climate. It's a misnomer to hide behind, isn't it?

CO2 in a laboratory container absorbs heat in and the temperature of the contained CO2 is raised. In the atmosphere the situation is significantly different. CO2 molecules possibly warm more quickly than do O2 and N2 molecules. Yet the CO2 molecules immediately transfer their heat to the O2 and N2 molecules. The combined warmer atmosphere rises.

Even this effect due to CO2 is tiny for two reasons:
- conduction of heat from Earth's/oceans' surface heats O2 and N2 (and CO2, etc). Then through convection the warm air rises. Ask any eagle or glider pilot. Convection is known to be the overriding mechanism for transferring heat from Earth's/oceans' surface toward space. Some say as much as 99% of the heat transfer is due to convection. Then at the edge of space, surely all molecules radiate heat to space. Every 24 hours, Earth radiates as much heat as it receives. FACT.
- one molecule in 85,800 air molecules is CO2 produced by human activity. Another 32 molecules of CO2 are from Nature. That those 33 overcome the convection to warm the Earth is nonsense. That only one of those 32 has that effect is incredulous.

Proponents of the GHG 'theory' are not insane. But many are stupid and some are dishonest/incompetent.

It is almost beyond belief that humans - even the overwhelming majority without your understanding of physics - could be so stupid.

Yet, until I stopped to think about it, I initially assumed the greenhouse effect of an atmosphere kept the Earth's surface warm. After pausing to think, and with the assistance of Alan and Hans (confirmed by Bruce), realised the back-radiation warming is all nonsense.

Feel welcome to use any of the above with LM.

I'll copy this to Alan and Hans - and to Bruce Powell. They know what they're talking about and I think you'd enjoy Alan and Hans copying you on their material. If you request it they would likely add you to their list. We need to build momentum.

Caution though as Alan only wants us to share material once he has finished wordsmithing. He is a stickler for ensuring integrity.

Alan has been burned, vilified. Some 'experts' try to discredit him to protect their reputation and seize on anything he says to try to twist it. Yet not one that I've seen has been able to provide facts - just snarly ad hominem attacks. Yes, climate realist 'experts' too.

Alan - with Hans aggressive support - are inadvertently building a following. From initially being ostracised in the wilderness and ridiculed they are gaining critical mass without even trying to do so. Full credit to them for their sense, courage and persistence.

Referring to LM's correlation of CO2 and temperature. Ridiculous. One only has to know the huge quantities of carbon (and CO2) in Earth's oceans, near-surface rocks, soils and bio-mass to know that Nature's production CO2 dwarfs human production and renders our production insignificant. Regardless, Nature through the carbon cycle completely controls absorption of CO2 from atmosphere back to the four carbon sinks.

Accounting for almost all production of CO2 and completely controlling absorption from the atmosphere, Nature determines atmospheric CO2 levels - completely.

I have much regard for LM's effectiveness and passion in smashing the AGW gravy-train. His comments in response to you though are, in my opinion, clearly ridiculous.

His comments show he fails to understand the difference between causation and mere correlation. Worse, in working off partial measurements and corrupted temperature databases he claims apparent coincidence is causation.

Malcolm

PS: Alan, Hans: Gregg is a thinker and understands physics. He realises GHG back-radiation warming 'theory' is nonsense. He is active and has the courage to tackle 'experts' bluntly - and does so effectively. Very effectively.

On 02/07/2010, at 12:39 PM, Gregg Thompson wrote:

Dear Malcolm,

I sent LM your No. 20 comments and mine and this is his speedy reply.

Gregg

Dear Mr. Thompson, - Many thanks for your kind comments.

I have looked at your arguments against anthropogenic "global warming", and have the following comments:

You say CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, but CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas, and its warming effect can be - and has been - demonstrated in very simple laboratory experiments. The scientific debate is not about whether it is a greenhouse gas, but about how much warming it will cause.

You say CO2 cannot retain heat, but that is not how it works. CO2 mimics molecules with what are called a "dipole moment", so that when long-wave radiation in its principal absorption bands interacts with a molecule of CO2 it resonates at the quantum level, emitting heat. I am not an expert on this area, so I have probably explained it badly, but as far as I can see this is settled science and I can find no good reason to doubt it.

You say that before CO2 concentrations were regularly measured there was no recorded jump in CO2 concentration. In fact, the wet-chemical measurements that were used before the current mass-spectroscopy method did show great variability, possibly because the measurements were not as reliable as modern methods. Since the modern methods first came into use in March 1958 at Mauna Loa observatory, Hawaii, there has been a near-monotonic increase in CO2 concentration that corresponds quite closely to increases in CO2 emissions. Every 15 billion tons of CO2 we emit adds 1 part per million by volume to the atmospheric concentration. At present we are emitting about 30 billion tons a year and CO2 concentration in the past decade has risen in a straight line at around 2 parts per million by volume per year. The measured relationship between emissions and concentrations, at 1 ppmv/15 Gte, has remained broadly constant for 30 years. - Monckton of Brenchley

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Carie, Rannoch, Scotland, PH17 2QJ
+44 1882 632341; fax 632776; cell +44 7814 556423
monckton@...

End of E-mails from http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/co2isplantfood/message/253.

===================

Message Received: Jul 02 2010, 02:54 PM

From: "JOHN OSULLIVAN"

To: peter.ridley@...

Cc:

Subject: Re: new article: Climategate Inquiry Chairman Admits He Failed to Check the Science

Pete,

Thanks for getting in touch. Just read your link- you've done excellent research on this and you're spot on with the analysis over the woeful failure of the IPCC to appoint expert statisticians. There's scope here for a joint follow up article- I'd be delighted to collaborate with you and put both our names on a co-authored write up I'm hoping to run on Canada Free Press and Climate Realists. I'd suggest something kept to about 1,000 words- punchy and to the point for a mainstream audience. We can run hyperlinks back to our prior articles for readers seeking greater detail.

In fact, if we can get something together on this then I'd like to propose you consider coming in on a book project I'm currently developing with leading GHG skeptic scientists. Would this appeal?

John

==============

Message Received: Jun 30 2010, 10:42 AMFrom: "JOHN OSULLIVAN" …To: "Charles Anderson" …Cc:
Subject: Re: new article: 'Solar Ovens Prove Greenhouse Gas Theory is cooked'
Outstanding contribution. Many, many thanks. You are certainly causing a stir with this. Alan has been in contact and is naturally delighted. Frankly, the addition of your analysis alongside Alan's gives us a real tour de force of a debunk of GHG theory. I will eagerly be writing new articles on this exciting development and spreading the word with all my contacts.
Sadly, a closed-minded science editor on Suite101 withdrew my latest article on solar ovens - despite experiments from Brigham Young University that demonstrably prove atmospheric gases act as coolants-both day and night-thus there is no back radiation effect GHG effect in the real world. I will now be forwarding to her your latest analysis to enlighten her as to the sea-change in thinking on this issue. Nonetheless I'll persist in arguing our corner and keep you posted as to further developments.
Best wishes,
John

=================

From: Charles Anderson …
To: JOHN OSULLIVAN …
Sent: Wednesday, 30 June, 2010 8:40:48
Subject: Re: new article: 'Solar Ovens Prove Greenhouse Gas Theory is cooked'
http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2010/06/on-some-flaws-in-greenhouse-gas-global.html
I used a post by Alan Siddons called "The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory" posted at American Thinker on 25 Feb 2010 as the base for some additional simple calculations that show that greenhouse gases should have a net cooling, not a heating effect. If there are factors left out, the argument still makes mincemeat of the usual simple greenhouse gas alarmist model.
I would appreciate any comments.
Best wishes,
Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D.
(410) 740-8562
http://www.andersonmaterials.com
http://ObjectivistIndividualist.blogspot.com/
---------------------------
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 9:30 AM, JOHN OSULLIVAN …
wrote:
Friends, I have just published my latest article, 'Solar Ovens Prove Greenhouse Gas Theory is cooked.'
http://climatology.suite101.com/article.cfm/solar-ovens-prove-greenhouse-gas-theory-is-cooked As usual I welcome comment and widespread dissemination by repeat publication. So please use freely with attribution. Thanks, John
As usual I welcome comment and widespread dissemination by repeat publication.
So please use freely with attribution.
Thanks,
John






Hi Charles,



================= 






I believe you will find my last post of great interest.

=============

This comment was taken from a related thread at http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/co2isplantfood/message/239?unwrap=1&var=1

Re: A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?
Posted By: john0sulliva...
Sun Jun 20, 2010 10:41 pm

Hi Judy,

Many thanks for your input into this email debate. Please note that I'm now using B.C.C. for all recipients as per the request of two contributors. I've now removed Steve McIntyre as per his request. Certain UK Parliamentary members are also no longer active as per the recent general election. I've taken the liberty of adding Will Pratt (spinonthat@...), author of 'CO2: the Debate is Not Over,' but otherwise the list is as per your email (below).

My apologies for the slight delay in my replying to the points you made. As someone coming at this issue from a legal background I needed time to digest what is being presented here. As highlighted below, there is much to suggest that political advocacy has triumphed over scientific rigor.Frankly, Iâ€™m just staggered at the lack of even-handed fact-finding going on by the IPCC, climatologists and international governments. There is little evidence of due diligence and much ammunition for the litigator pursuing a malfeasance argument.

As you can see, I have controverted the website evidence you offered us in your last email as well as your inference that I was mistaken over NASA’s current high school teaching aids.

IPCC’s Dearth of Evidence

But first and most important of all, I am glad we all agree that there is not a single shred of scientifically measured real-world evidence linking human production of CO2 to causation of global warming as proven by thorough analysis of IPCC documents:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html

Malcolm Roberts is going to do more work for us on this incredible fact, which is not just devastating for the credibility of the IPCC, but also for any cap and trade taxation still being pursued by our respective governments.

Your scienceofdoom references

I have looked at your cited references at the scienceofdoom website and see a whole host of problems with it, specifically with regard to its undue focus on GHG radiative forcing and reliance on simplistic and inadequate one-dimensional modeling.

Clearly, the scienceofdoom site has chosen to focus on radiative forcing to the exclusion of other climatic factors as if the answers were pre-determined to fit a political agenda. Even the blog owner concedes the point when admitting his calculations, “only tells us the kind of impact from this level of radiative forcing. Not what actually happens in practice, because in practice we have so many other factors affecting our climate. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a very valuable result.” This website surely cannot be the best citation a professor of climatology with a Ph.D can muster.

But it gets worse; in it we read a litany of admissions that not enough is known of the complexity of all factors beyond GHG’s nor how to model in 3-D, which surely is essential for best understanding of the complex interactions of gasses in the atmosphere.

For example, the 1D-models don’t tell us much about the behavior of the atmosphere near Earth’s surface. Since rising air at one location must be accompanied by sinking air at another, convection can’t be explicitly included a 1D-model. Although 1D-models may be marginally useful at the tropopause, they don’t provide information relevant to the surface of Earth. These models merely promote the illusion that we have a deep understanding of how rising GHGs will impact surface climate.

In the interest of scientific objectivity, scienceofdoom should write a post about the limitations of 1D-models. (This is a difficult job because the IPCC and the global warming establishment prefer to ignore this subject.)

Significantly, what is also overlooked is that water vapor must also perform a negative feedback due to the reflection of solar radiation away from the Earth by clouds (albedo). Even the IPCC admits it doesn’t understand what water vapor does so it conveniently chooses to model it (arbitrarily) as a strictly positive feedback (misfeasance/malfeasance).

Again, plenty there to raise alarms for any prudent government contemplating trillion dollar 'remedial' energy policies.

NASA did Drop Kiehle-Trenberth Energy Diagram

Finally, as for the issue of the NASA’s dropping of the Kiehle-Trenberth energy budget diagram in its high school teachers’ aid, I’m puzzled as to why you would guess that this may somehow be a pre-1995 publication and thus outmoded, when the document is shown to have been first authored in 2003. Idle speculation merely plays into the hands of your detractors.We may just as reasonably infer it has been updated very recently to exclude K-T, as affirmed by this new NASA link I have found:

http://search.nasa.gov/search/search.jsp?nasaInclude=Investigating+the+Climate+System%3A+A+Balancing+Act%E2%80%99

From the facts as shown, NASA has dropped the K-T numbers. But for what reason we are not being told. All in all, the “evidence” supportive of mankind’s influence over the climate is tissue thin and now it has been put under the microscope it appears support for the greenhouse gas theory is also fast evaporating. Indeed, based on the facts it is more correctly a hypothesis and not a theory.

Thanks again for your refreshingly frank contributions,

John
===================

From: judith.curry@…
To: JOHN OSULLIVAN …
CC: alan618034@…; morano@…; spinonthat@…; … … … … … … … catalyst@…; … … co2isplantfood@…; … … … dav1dosull1van2@…; … … … … … … hanssch@…; … houston2000@…; … …Richard.Black-INTERNET@…; …jamesdelingpole…; … john costella …; jonjayray@…; jsdaleo6331@…; deputyjkeough@…; kent@…; … … … … cfact@…; v majkus …; Maurice Rich …; … … … … … peter ridley…; … … … … richard a morris…; roger harrabin…; …DrRoySpencer…; … … … … … … … … vinmary gray…
Sent: Thursday, 17 June, 2010 12:38:58
Subject: Re: A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?

Hi John, to follow up on our previous emails on this topic, I have a few things to add.

Re NASA's publication for K-12 diagram with the missing greenhouse effect. I did not receive a reply to the email I sent, and I have not pursued this further with anyone else at NASA. With regards the the publication itself, while it doesn't have a date, I think it had to be published sometime between about 1987 and 1995, given the affiliations at the time of the authors. John Theon left NASA in about 1995. So this is a rather old document, with an egregious error in it. It does not reflect any past or current opinion of NASA on the scientific evidence surrounding the greenhouse effect.

Re the lack of documentation in the IPCC for the direct sensitivity to doubling CO2 of 1.2C, I checked the IPCC also and was astonished to find that there aren't any references or anything (I hadn't previously spotted the climateaudit thread on this). In my submission to the IAC (the group reviewing the the IPCC), I mentioned this omission explicitly. With regards to the actual scientific literature, the most detailed reference on this is Myhre et al. (1998) http://folk.uio.no/gunnarmy/paper/myhre_grl98.pdf .

Once again, i refer you to the excellent series on CO2 by science of doom, that discusses the Myhre et al., Trenberth, etc papers in substantial detail and explains the basic physics, see especially parts 5 and 7. See
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/10/co2-–-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/10/co2-–-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-two/
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/10/co2-–-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-three/
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/10/co2-–-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-four/
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/10/co2-–-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-five/
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/10/co2-–-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-six/
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/10/co2-–-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-seven/
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/10/co2-–-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-eight/

Judy

------
Hi Judy,
I'm now including you in this email circular as I realise I have referred to your comments and you, rightly, should have the opportunity to correct or qualify all such statements.

There is an ongoing email debate concerning the recent publication 'A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon' that you and I have already touched on. I realise that you should never have been omitted from these circulars because your input on blogs lately has been most welcome and refreshing. We have sought to include forward-looking scientists we all acknowledge as key figures in the field including Tim Ball, Dick Lindzen, Roy Spencer and others, this is potentially a most interesting line of enquiry for us.

Below is a thread in which I refer to your comments on NASA's Earth Energy Budget diagram. You did advise me you'd speak to NASA about this confusing and apparent change in stance. Please feel free to add yourself to the email list and jump in as you see fit.

Kind regards,
John

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Malcolm Roberts To: JOHN OSULLIVAN …
Sent: Thursday, 17 June, 2010 8:43:42
Subject: Re: A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?

WOW, John. Powerful.

Secondly, in answer to your comment about source of UN IPCC's doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels causing 1.2C temp rise, there is a huge range of estimates in UN IPCC 2007 report, Chapter 9. Take your pick anything from 1 degree to infinite.

Here, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html

I've just finished reading it. There is not one piece of scientifically measured real-world evidence linking human production of CO2 to causation of GW. None.

I'm starting my analysis of the chapter.

The insanity is startling. Astounding.

Nonetheless, Steve McIntyre is correct. There is no source to be found in chapter 9 - the sole chapter discussing detection and attribution of climate change. None.

Malcolm
=============

From: Vincent Gray …
To: Morris, Richard A …; 'JOHN OSULLIVAN' …
CC: morano@…; … … … john.costella@…; jonjayray@…; jsdaleo6331@…; … … v_majkus@…; … … … peter.ridley@…; … … … ..DrRoySpencer…; … … … … … … smcintyre25@…; rlindzen@…; timothyball@…; … catalyst@…; alan618034@…
Sent: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 22:29
Subject: Re:

Dear Roger

You are absolutely right, except I would go further. No part of the earth, or the moon, is ever in equilibrium, even "in the long run". The Stefan/Boltzmann equation therefore only applies over an infinitesimal period, so I suppose it could be integrated for a longer period.. The madness you speak of has infected the entire climate science establishment.

Cheers

Vincent Gray
…….
===============

From: JOHN OSULLIVAN …
To: richard.a.morris@…
CC: alan618034@…; ruthhertzberg@…; Hans Schreuder …; catalyst@…; jhmover@…; timothyball@…; rlindzen@…; vinmary.gray@…; vforbes@…; tom@…; stuart.lugo@…; stacyinnyc@…; rabidsnot@…; …DrRoySpencer…; Morris, Richard A …; r.brooks842@…; treeman2@…; peter.ridley@…; … … Maurice.Rich@…; v_majkus@…; … … jsdaleo6331@…; jonjayray@…; john.costella@…; … morano@…; judith.curry@…
Sent: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:21
Subject: Re: A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?

Richard,

I'm delighted you have chosen to speak out and enter the debate on what is obviously a most contentious issue with potentially very serious ramifications. Apart from accusing me of hubris I see nothing in your email that particularly identifies my comments as incorrect.

Alan Siddons has replied specifically to you on your concerns over the 'Moon Paper.' I’d be grateful if you’d disentangle your criticisms of me from those aimed at him and his co-authors so that we may address them separately.

For the avoidance of doubt, in my recent articles I am accusing Schmidt and NASA (who use Kiehle-Trenberth's numbers) of fakery in concocting an energy budget based on K-T's superfluous incorporation of a perpetual motion back radiation machine-it is an absurd energy wheel within a wheel. This 'back radiation' effect elicits nothing new, empirically proven or helpful to our understanding in explaining Earth's energy budget. It is fudged pseudo-science.

According to Occam's Razor the energy wheel within a wheel K-T created simply cannot be justified for inclusion in any credible model of our planet's energy budget. This is because, as K-T shows, the energy budget is balanced with or without it. Indeed, so spurious is the K-T back radiation perpetual motion machine ( and contrary to laws of thermodynamics) that NASA has recently quietly dropped it from all its high-school textbook publications.

(see here: http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/images/Erb/components2.gif).

As revealed by me recently, I showed this latest news about NASA’s revised energy diagram to Dr. Judith Curry, a prominent warmist blog contributor and member of NASA's Advisory Board for Earth Science. Dr. Curry was most taken aback at the bombshell that NASA had, indeed, abandoned the K-T back radiation graph, as without it the entire greenhouse gas theory is busted. Are you now seriously going to defend an outdated NASA climate model that even NASA has now abandoned?

I guess if you are, then please specifically address my current concerns (first raised by Siddons et al.) that NASA's Dr. Gavin Schmidt (along with K-T) nonsensically arrive at their back radiation flux numbers by multiplying the 'up and down' effect of their perpetual energy machine, that 'wheel within a wheel,' by a 'factor of two.'

I was pleased IPCC author, Dr. Vincent Gray, chipped in earlier to remind us all that radiation radiates three-dimensionally in all directions-another reason to question the arbitrariness of the ‘up and down’ factoring of K-T and NASA’s Schmidt. You cannot mix two-dimensional models with three-dimensional analogies.

Dr. Jeffrey Glassman has also been most helpful to us on this point when he recently added his comment to my ‘X-factor’ article on 'Climate Realists' pinpointing the unnecessary confusion created by mixing 2-D and 3-D concepts in climate models (see his comment below my article here:

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5850&linkbox=true&position=1

As we know the Stefan-Boltzman equations specifically addresses black body radiation as electro-magnetic waves which, as 3-D vectors cannot be shoe-horned into a 2-D climate model.

As pointed out in my subsequent 'X-Factor' article (linked above) I have argued that any model that seeks to define the 'up and down' forces of electro-magnetic waves (parallel but in opposite motion) MUST apply field vector calculus that tells us that all such forces MUST sum to zero. Thus, K-T’s numbers are busted.

Climate alarmists then further muddy the waters by saying that doubling the amount of CO2 in the air will result in a temperature increase of 1.2°C. But what is the source of this guesswork? Steve McIntyre attempted to trace the source of the number in the IPCC reports. There is no source to be found. All citations lead to nothing. The discussion of this subject on his web site is found here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2570, January 7, 2008. Perhaps you know where this source is?

The bottom line is that the fakery is unraveling and the Stephan-Boltzmann Constant (SBC) is just not relevant in climatology and K-T and NASA should never have used it to begin with.

I argue, such faked circular logic has now fallen out of favor with NASA. But your take on this would be most welcome.

Thanks for contributing,
John
==============

From: ..alan618034@...
To: JOHN OSULLIVAN …; "Morris, Richard A" …
Cc: Martin Hertzberg...>; Hans Schreuder …; catalyst@...; jhmover@...; timothyball@...; rlindzen@...; smcintyre25@...;vinmary.gray@...; vforbes@...; tom@...; stuart.lugo@...; stacyinnyc@...; sirish_ashadc@...; rabidsnot@...; Roy@...; "Morris, Richard A" ; rborch@...; r.brooks842@...; treeman2@...; peter.ridley@...; newsdesk@...; mspiggy@...;msheppard@...; "Maurice.Rich@..." ; v_majkus@...; klockarman@...; kgreen@...; jsdaleo6331@...; jonjayray@...;john.costella@...; info@...; rhelbig@...; haguew@...; c3headlines@...; corkie.hgbgproductions@...; ceri.phipps@...; cboyle1090@...;aaprjohn@...; drrocket@...; avril_soleil@...; AussieHonestClimate@...; a.batty316@...; morano@...
Sent: Wednesday, 16 June, 2010 4:22:03
Subject: Re: A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?

Subject: A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?
Link: http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Greenhouse_Effect_on_the_Moon.pdf

So, Mr. Morris, I take it that you didn’t like our paper? John O’Sullivan can address his own claims for himself, so please try to disentangle our paper from his statements.

A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon? asserts that dividing irradiance by four and plugging that into the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is not a valid method for guessing a planet’s average temperature, and the temperature readings from the Apollo experiments back up this claim. Due to heat storage, a real body’s temperature will fall somewhat short of a blackbody calculation for solar noon and will more dramatically exceed the nighttime prediction for the same reason.

But if as you say a blackbody does conduct heat internally and thus takes time to fully emit 100% of the radiant intensity it is exposed to, could you please provide its conductivity coefficients and the time delay it suffers? Take a 3-hour rotating blackbody sphere exposed to 1000 W/m², for example: What will be its temperature at solar zenith? Certainly not 364 Kelvin, for that temperature assumes thermal equilibrium, which, you indicate, is a specious assumption. In point of fact, sir, there are no conductivity coefficients and temperature delay factors for a blackbody because it is a theoretical entity whose only function is always to be in equilibrium with the radiance it’s exposed to, in equilibrium at every point of its surface. Meaning that by definition it cannot store heat.

Like it or not, by the way, a "reflecting blackbody" is precisely how the earth is treated in energy budgets. For instance, having factored in albedo, Kiehl-Trenberth make back-radiation raise the earth’s surface to 390 W/m², corresponding to 15°C on a blackbody, the earth’s average temperature. But even if the average emissivity of the earth’s entire (reflective) surface were as high as 0.98, its emission at 15°C would be 382 W/m². That alone is an 8 W/m² disparity.

As another point, a blackbody temperature "average" is composed of no specific temperatures, you’ll notice, just the average itself. Granted, multiplying this "average" by the square root of two will give you the peak temperature, but that’s it: there are no other temperatures to go by. So a sun-angle calculation must be performed in order to deal with the temperatures to expect in any particular place. I thought our discussion of this was fairly clear. To my knowledge, no one has ever solved for irradiance over a half-lit sphere. Part of the problem has to do with the 4th root relationship between irradiance and temperature.

Say that two spots on your blackbody sphere are being exposed to 50 and 100 watts per square meter. (Due to curvature, remember, a light source gets spread out and becomes weaker.) The two temperatures will be about 172 and 205 Kelvin respectively, i.e., an average of 188.5 K. But the average irradiance is 75 W/m², which corresponds to 191 K. That's 2.5 degrees off the mark. In other words, average temperature does not agree with average irradiance, and vice versa.

Now take three spots at 100, 200, and 300 W/m². The average of course is 200 W/m². The temperatures are 205, 244, and 270 respectively, averaging about 240 K. But 200 W/m², the average, equals 244 K. Now you’re 4 degrees off the mark. And so on, as you proceed to compare irradiance with temperature on each and every angle of a half-lit sphere. It’s one hell of a problem to tackle. Throw in rotation (i.e., the irradiance is constantly changing) and the heat-retention of various three-dimensional substances, and the problem runs out of control.

As for things that I object to, here’s one:

“ .. Note that the Hermalyn paper, ref. [6], explicitly says that "the moon does not function as a black body", something that the authors conveniently overlooked .. ”.

Oh stop it. That "conveniently overlooked" bit is just a cute way of accusing us of dishonesty. In fuller context, Hermalyn says,

“ .. the moon does not function as a black body, but instead employs a more complex model .. ”.

And what he says right after that more than adequately describes what actually occurs, which I find enlightening rather than offensive in any way.

If a simple and inert body like the moon, though, does not conform to blackbody-based predictions, why do climatologists use a blackbody model for the earth?

Other of your rhetorical flourishes I’ll leave aside. Maybe Hertzberg and Schreuder will have something else to say. In closing, though, no, none of us disputes Stefan-Boltzmann’s applicability to a flat idealized absorber/emitter. We only conclude, quote, "It is the application of the predictive equation that is faulty." Nothing to get huffy about.

Alan
==============

From: Morris, Richard A
To: 'JOHN OSULLIVAN'
Cc: morano@... ; a.batty316@... ; AussieHonestClimate@... ; avril_soleil@... ; drrocket@... ; aaprjohn@... ;cboyle1090@... ; ceri.phipps@... ; corkie.hgbgproductions@... ; c3headlines@... ; haguew@... ; rhelbig@... ; info@...; john.costella@... ; jonjayray@... ; jsdaleo6331@... ; kgreen@... ; klockarman@... ; v_majkus@... ; Maurice.Rich@... ;msheppard@... ; mspiggy@... ; newsdesk@... ; peter.ridley@... ; treeman2@... ; r.brooks842@... ;rborch@... ; Morris, Richard A ; Roy@... ; rabidsnot@... ; sirish_ashadc@... ; stacyinnyc@... ; stuart.lugo@... ;tom@... ; vforbes@... ; vinmary.gray@... ; smcintyre25@... ; rlindzen@... ; timothyball@... ; jhmover@... ; catalyst@... ; alan618034@...
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 20:04
Subject: A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?

Are you serious? That article is based entirely on some of the most absurd misrepresentations of the laws of physics that I have ever seen. The referenced article, "A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon" makes the absurd claim that a black body cannot store energy, and must, therefore always radiate exactly as much energy as it receives.

In fact, there is nothing in the laws of physics that says that a black body cannot store energy. A black body, by definition, is simply a hypothetical object that absorbs 100% of all incident EM energy, neither reflecting nor transmitting any of it. The rate at which it emits energy, however, is strictly determined by it's temperature, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, independently of it's rate of energy absorption. If it receives more energy than is being emitted, it's temperature will go up - if it receives less, it's temperature will go down - until an equilibrium is established. Over time, the radiation emitted by a black body will equal the amount of radiation absorbed, but nothing requires that the two be equal at every instant. That really would violate the laws of physics.

Siddons, Schreuder, and Hertzberg then make the absurd statement (unreferenced) that NASA scientists working on the Apollo Program had to assume that the Moon was a black body in order to calculate lunar temperatures. In fact, it had long been known, even then, from telescopic studies using infrared radiometers and radio telescopes, that the temperature of the Moon's surface varied between approx. +250 and -250 degrees F over the course of a lunar day. NASA scientists knew quite accurately from actual measurements what the temperatures would be at the proposed landing sites at any time during the lunar day. The authors then contradict themselves by saying that the scientists took the Moon's albedo into account in their calculations, but a black body, by definition, has an albedo of exactly zero. Talking about the "albedo (reflectance)â€¦for a blackbody moon" is complete nonsense.

The "Sun Angle vs. Temperature" graph is also unreferenced, and I saw nothing like it in any of the listed references. I must conclude that it is simply a fabrication. The following graph, however, is indeed from reference [6], which the authors would have us believe was done by NASA during the Apollo Program. In fact, it is a student paper published in 2006. The graph compares the actual temperatures measured by the heat flow experiments on Apollos 15 and 17 with calculated temperatures based on the assumption that the Moon is in radiative equilibrium (which the author incorrectly identifies as a black body characteristic). The author then correctly concludes that the Moon is not in radiative equilibrium.

The quote from "NASA's analysis" is also from reference [6]. Siddons, Schreuder and Hertzberg claim to detect some enormous significance in the fact that the Moon's temperature behavior does not agree with the "predictions", and conclude that there must be something wrong with the Stefan-Boltzmann law itself. The problem, of course, is that it is the authors' absurd misrepresentation of the laws of physics which leads them to predict that the Moon's surface "should" be at absolute zero half of the time, as they claim a black body would be.

Nobody who has any brains at all has ever said that the Moon really is a black body. Note that the Hermalyn paper, ref. [6], explicitly says that "the moon does not function as a black body", something that the authors conveniently overlooked. Nor does anyone say that the Earth is a black body. Note that reference [3] simply says that the Earth's actual temperature can be expressed as the temperature that a hypothetical black body would have if it emitted the same amount of radiation. Anyone who says that the Earth is a black body would have to be considered insane: If the Earth were a black body, you would not be able to see the ground you walk upon. Likewise, if the Moon were a black body you would not be able to see it. The Moon has a low albedo, but look at the full Moon on a clear night and the word "silvery" does indeed come to mind.

Siddons, Schreuder, and Hertzberg are grasping, not just at straws, but at cobwebs. For you to call that article "excellent" speaks volumes about your total lack of qualifications for discussing any scientific subject, let alone one as complex as climatology. Contrary to your article, the "NASA" analysis was not done by NASA during the Apollo Program. That is based on a misrepresentation of a flawed student paper, which was published in 2006. Also, contrary to your constant assertion, the Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply just to black bodies, but to all physical objects. (The departure of a real object from the black-body ideal is handled by the "emissivity" factor - a number between zero and one).

The real "Giant Leap" is yours. You take the observed fact that the Moon is not a black body, assert that that proves that there is something wrong with the Stefan-Boltzmann law which invalidates all the greenhouse effect calculations based on it, then concoct a 40 year conspiracy by NASA to cover up the alleged deficiency. Now you are claiming that NASA is in "shock" that you have uncovered their "deception". The hubris is simply stunning. Perhaps the proper question is not "Are you serious?", but, rather, "Are you out of your mind?"

Richard A. Morris EBADM
…
richard.a.morris@...
====================

From: JOHN OSULLIVAN ...
To: hanssch@...
CC: morano@...; etc. etc. etc. ... john.costella@…; jonjayray@…; jsdaleo6331@…; etc. etc. v_majkus@…; etc. etc. etc. peter.ridley@…; etc. etc. etc. …DrRoySpencer…; etc. etc. etc. vinmary.gray@…; smcintyre25@…; rlindzen@…; timothyball@...; etc. etc. alan618034@...
Sent: Wed, 26 May 2010 22:00
Subject: Apollo Mission: a Giant Leap Discrediting Greenhouse Gas Theory
Friends and colleagues,

Here is my own take on the excellent paper, 'A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?' by Alan Siddons, Martin Hertzberg and Hans Schreuder.

Kind regards,

John >>

http://climatology.suite101.com/article.cfm/apollo-mission-a-giant-leap-to-discredit-greenhouse-gas-theory

=============

From: JOHN OSULLIVAN ...
To: judith.curry@...
CC: a.batty316@...; alan618034@...; allan.jackson@...; attorneys@...; ..... piers@...; ... dalker@...; ... PF.SMP@...; ... Gabrielrychert@...; .... ruthhertzberg@...; haguew@...; hanssch@...; houston2000@...; ... JDaleo6331@...; ... john.costella@...; jonjayray@...; ron.kitching@...; ... kent@...; ... v_majkus@...; ... morano@...; ... peter.ridley@...; etc. etc. etc.
Sent: Sat, 8 May 2010 12:26
Subject: My latest legal analysis upon discussions with Dr. Judith Curry

Friends and colleagues,

I am fortunate to currently be engaging in an email exchange with esteemed NASA scientist, Dr. Judith Curry. These are proving productive for us both although I am not yet at liberty to reveal their contents. Nonetheless. as a consequence I have fleshed out a legal analysis that may be helpful to our ongoing debate about scientific ethics surrounding the Michael Mann hockey stick scandal.

Please feel free to distribute the link freely as it should help eliminate some misapprehension many interested observers have:

http://co2insanity.com/2010/05/07/how-to-expose-post-normal-junk-climate-science-in-five-steps/

Regards,

John

==============

From: JOHN OSULLIVAN ...
To: morano@...
CC: a.batty316@.... etc. etc. houston2000@...; etc. etc. etc. wrighta@parliament.uk
Sent: Fri, 7 May 2010 9:58
Subject: My riposte to Dr. Judith Curry

Friends and colleagues,

In the wake of Dr. Judith Curry's latest diatribe against Virginia's Attorney General that he is on a 'witch hunt' using a 'fishing expedition' against Penn. State's global warmist, Michael Mann, I've written my riposte with analysis of the legal issues.

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5673

Please feel free to share as this requires a proper legal context beyond the emotional rants and sour grape ravings of the self-interested few.

Regards,

John

===============

From: JOHN OSULLIVAN ...
To: morano@...
CC: AussieHonestClimate@...; drrocket@...; aaprjohn@...; bakern@parliament.uk; bercowj@parliament.uk; camerond@parliament.uk; etc. etc. etc.
Sent: Mon, 3 May 2010 15:07
Subject: Important legal news: Knockout Blow Due Against Warmists

Friends and colleagues,

I have just published this article that shows how clever Virginia's Attorney General is being. He's onto a winner because his state's statutes on intentional evidence withholding WILL lead to the defeat of Michael Mann if Mann doesn't give full disclosure of the hidden data from the 'hockey stick' graph.

http://climatology.suite101.com/article.cfm/climate-scientist-faces-knockout-punch-in-virginia-court

Regards,

John

================

From: JOHN OSULLIVAN ...

To: milibandd@parliament.uk

CC: etc. etc. etc.

Sent: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:33

Subject: Climategate's Michael Mann faces dire legal consequences

Friends and colleagues,

If any global warmists were imagining that the IPCC's and Penn. State's dodgy professor, Michael 'hockey stick' Mann had somehow wriggled off Climategate's fraud hook then its time to think again. In my latest online article now going viral, I expose the legal ramifications for Mann's latest foot in the mouth gaffe of threatening to sue the makers of a Youtube video mocking him.

Read more here and please help spread the word:

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5634

Thanks for reading,

John O'Sullivan

=============

From: JOHN OSULLIVAN ...
To: Gabrielrychert@...
CC: peter.ridley@...; hanssch@...; alan618034@...; catalyst@...; bdp@...; jsdaleo6331@...; msheppard@...; jonjayray@...; ron.kitching@...; vinmary.gray@...; v_majkus@...; etc. etc.
Sent: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:59

Hi Gabriel,

Many thanks for the links. Great to see you and Climate Realist keeping up your excellent work. Momentum is picking up again despite the sad demise of climategate.com. As you can see, I've opened up a useful bridgehead for climate sceptic science over at Suite101 which seems to have built itself a reputation in the U.S. as an internet version of 'Readers Digest' - so a large middle of the road audience of voters to be had there.

In coming weeks I'll be continuing to lay the foundations for Alan's upcoming publication of his latest work with more of these kinds of articles . I'm as eager as anyone else to broadcast far and wide Alan's more credible ideas about climate than the AGW garbage.

Best wishes,

John

==============

From: Gabrielrychert@...; ..

To: john0sullivan@...; peter,ridley@...;
Cc: hanssch@...; alan618034@...; catalyst@...; bdp@...; jsdaleo6331@...; msheppard@...; jonjayray@...; ron.kitching@...; vinmary.gray@...; v_majkus@...; etc. etc.

Sent: Tuesday, 27 April, 2010 16:45:24

Subject: Re: latest climate controversy articles

In a message dated 27/04/2010 14:20:24 GMT Daylight Time, john0sullivan@...; writes:

http://climatology.suite101.com/article.cfm/kiwi-scientists-copy-data-trashing-technique-of-climategate

Hi John

I hope your are well and have recovered from ClimateGate.com

Great work(s)

Have posted extracts at ClimateRealists.com

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5621

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5620

Many Thanks

Gabriel

===============

From: JOHN OSULLIVAN ...

To: peter.ridley@...

CC: hanssch@...; alan618034@...; catalyst@..; bdp@...; jsdaleo@...; msheppard@...; jonjayray@...; ron.kitching@...; vinmary.gray@...; Gabrielrychert@...; v_majkus@...; etc. etc.

Sent: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:18 Subject: latest climate controversy articles

Friends,

I have this morning published these articles. I hope you find them of some use:

http://climate-change.suite101.com/article.cfm/laws-of-physics-ready-to-defeat--the-global-warming-theory

http://climatology.suite101.com/article.cfm/kiwi-scientists-copy-data-trashing-technique-of-climategate

Kind regards,

John

===============

From: Val Majkus

To: 'JOHN OSULLIVAN' ; 'Malcolm Roberts' ; peter.ridley@...; 'Peggy Balfour'

Sent: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:55

Subject: http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5609 (a Physics Prof) love those open letters

This E-mail carried the full article linked to by

http://climaterealists.com/?id=5609

=============

From: Val Majkus ...

To: 'Malcolm Roberts' ...; 'Maurice Rich' ...; 'Peggy Balfour' ...; 'JOHN OSULLIVAN' ...

Sent: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 1:18

Subject: Labor shelves emissions scheme

well this is worth a hand clap for all of us sceptics http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-04-27/labor-shelves-emissions-scheme/411638 Labour shelves emissions scheme By Alexandra Kirk Updated 23 minutes ago ETS on ice: Senator Wong says the Government remains committed to the scheme as the best way of reducing carbon pollution. (AAP Image: Dean Lewins) Audio: Rudd puts ETS on backburner (AM) Related Story:Government admits failing to sell ETS Related Story: Abbott's climate stancepure politics: Turnbull Related Story: Coalition pushes for ETS inquiry Related Story: Rudd rattled on climate change: Abbott Related Story: Government coy ondeeper ETS costing It was once a centrepiece of the Federal Government'selection strategy, but now the emissions trading scheme (ETS) has been relegated to the shelf until at least 2013. this news has made my daycheersval

=============

From: Val Majkus ...

To: 'Maurice Rich' ...; 'Peggy Balfour' ...;peter.ridley@...

Sent: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 6:17 Subject: FW: [JoNova] New Comment On: UK Parliamentary Report busts all climate scientists

Hi all; we should do something about this and maybe get John OSullivan and at least one other person I know involved; I posted a post about him to day on 'global warming'

What do you guys think;

Cheers

Val

==================

NB: This E-mail was copied from http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/co2isplantfood/message/208

From: JOHN OSULLIVAN

Subject: Re: [co2isplantfood] winding up of www.climategate.com

To: co2isplantfood@...

Date: Sunday, March 28, 2010, 9:36 AM

Hi Stephen,

Hope all is well with you. Just to let you know I'm back fighting hard for the skeptic cause once more. I've begun a new project over at www.Suite101. com. They have a lot of alarmists writing for them so they do need a good kick in the pants. If you can steer traffic my way that would be greatly appreciated - I earn from site traffic plus add revenues. Frankly, I need to make some income for all my efforts. Here's a link to give you an idea of what I've been doing there so far:

http://climate-change.suite101.com/article.cfm/global-warming-is-caused-by-our-sun

Regards,

John

===============

NB: This E-mail was copied from http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/co2isplantfood/message/208

From: JOHN OSULLIVAN ...

To: Barry Woods ...

Cc: co2isplantfood@...; etc. etc. ... jamesdelingpole ...; ... etc. etc. ... DrRoySpencer ...; ... etc, etc, Thomas Richard ...; .. etc. etc. ...; v_majkus@...

Sent: Wed, March 10, 2010 4:32:15 PM

Subject: [co2isplantfood] winding up of www.climategate. com

Dear friends,

Sadly, talks are ongoing among those of us involved with www.climategate.com to soon wind up the site on a yet undetermined date. This is due to the insane and ever-increasing amount of hours needed along with the low income generated. Despite (even perhaps because of) the considerable and fast growing readership, the venture is no longer sustainable by us on a voluntary basis.

If anyone knows of any business or individual interested in buying the site then an offer in the region of US$75,000-$100, 000 may be accepted, otherwise the domain name will be 'parked' until a future buyer can be found. .. ”.

He goes on to say “ .. March 28, 2010, 9:36 AM … Just to let you know I'm back fighting hard for the skeptic cause once more. I've begun a new project over at www.Suite101. com. They have a lot of alarmists writing for them so they do need a good kick in the pants. If you can steer traffic my way that would be greatly appreciated - I earn from site traffic plus add revenues. Frankly, I need to make some income for all my efforts. Here's a link to give you an idea of what I've been doing there so far:

http://climate-change.suite101.com/article.cfm/global-warming-is-caused-by-our-sun

Regards,

John .. ”.

===============

NB: This E-mail was copied from http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/co2isplantfood/message/190

Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:09 pm JOHN OSULLIVAN john0sullivan@...

guys, I can say from my UK perspective that the mainstream media here are gradually giving in to skeptic pressure. We are winning that battle. However, conversely it is the US civil courts that have seen the most promising developments with 16 major lawsuits filed against the EPA. I did a legal analysis of the Peabody Energy Co.'s 240-page petition and its a superb template for all prospective litigants looking to mount their own legal challenge.

So, although there are major battles ahead the momentum is still with the skeptics.

Appendix: Updates

30th June 2012 - added several E-mails sent during 14th - 18th Jan. 2011.

22nd June 2012 - added several E-mails sent during 4th - 8th Jan. 2011.

19th June 2012 - added several E-mails sent during 30th Dec. 2010 to 4th Jan. 2011.

11th July 2012 - added several E-mails sent on 29th Dec. 2010 relating to PSI funding.
17th July 2012 - added E-mail sent on 23rd Dec. 2010
12th August 2012 - added E-mails sent on 12th January 2011
15th August 2012 - added E-mails sent on 19th/20th/21st January 2011
22th August 2012 - added E-mails sent on 10th August, 28th July, 15th,16th &17th June 2010 and comment posted on 20th June 2010.
24th Nov. 2012 - added E-mails of 4th Jan. 2011 @ 18:40 and 5th Jan 2011 @ 10:49 about call for donations to PSI.

Global Political Shenanigans

Friday, 15 June 2012

"PSI & DUE Diligence" 2010/2011 - Selected E-mails

Appendix: Updates

No comments:

Post a Comment

Pages

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me