Feb 20

As a result of a recent inquiry I made to John O’Sullivan concerning whether or not Al Gore could be legally liable for perpetrating a fraud on the public, O’Sullivan has graciously offered the following guest post:

Prosecuting climate fraud: The international dimension

Guest post by John O’Sullivan

Many international readers have asked where we, the people who oppose carbon legislation, stand in mounting our own legal challenges against policy implementation based on discredited junk climate science. In this article I shall outline the general legal strategies for challenging what is fast becoming recognised as the greatest criminal fraud of all time.


What has struck me and many other commentators is the astounding extent and pervasiveness of this climate data fraud. Effectively we are confronting an international Ponzi scheme that has festered within five English-speaking nations; the UK, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. All these nations operate under independent legal systems premised on English common law. The basic rights of citizens under common law are explained here.

I argue it is no coincidence that it is these five common law nations that have been targeted for attack from stringent and repressive climate regulations. But investigating that issue would take up a whole article in itself. Being that these five common law nations share a vastly similar judicial system makes matters far easier in elucidating the various avenues that sceptical opponents of these climate capers may pursue.

Common law tells us that governments cannot impose climate regulations on their citizens by regarding similar facts 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).  I’ve examined two of the recently filed climate skeptic petitions filed by U.S. corporations. In both there is the common argument that ‘arbitrary and capricious’ governmental climate-related decisions have been imposed upon the people. These EPA regulations, they argue, must be over turned because the science that underpins them has been proven to be fraudulent and significantly based on subjective elements. Thus, the basis of the EPA’s decision to determine that carbon dioxide is a pollutant is unlawful due to the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ components within the EPA’s fact finding process.

Before anyone may file a legal proceeding they must have a ‘cause of action’ that is explained here.

As litigious-minded skeptics, we are mostly concerned to target our local, regional and national governments as well as hoping to make those errant climatologists individually culpable for their alleged fraudulent conduct. Legal action limits itself to those who can substantiate a personal or class ‘cause of action’ thus you may only sue agencies and individuals that have directly caused you to suffer, or potentially suffer, a future loss, financially, material or in terms of your civil rights.

Below readers can follow the links and examine in greater depth how corporate lawyers have used the evidence gleaned since Climategate and applied it judiciously to make their cases against what they argue is the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ application of EPA policy, which, if proved under the principles of common law would be unlawful.

Thus, to counter the unlawful hubris of a deceitful and amoral minority we may bust this scam in our respective courts in one of two ways:

  1. Class action lawsuits
  2. Judicial review and mandamus petition


This is a good time to investigate this issue now that 16 ‘Endangerment’ lawsuits were filed against the EPA before the February 17, 2010 deadline.

Some legal experts say the courts are unlikely to block the endangerment finding during any legal challenge. While Patrick Traylor, a partner at the Washington office of Hogan & Hartson says:

“The EPA is on a tightwire without a net with this tailoring rule. There’s a very real risk a court could vacate the rule and a higher-than- normal risk they could stay it.”

In particular, the EPA is using an obscure legal doctrine that basically gives the agency flexibility to craft new rules under existing law. If the agency were to draft new greenhouse-gas rules at the much lower thresholds as stated in the law, the EPA says there would be “absurd” results in terms of the bureaucratic process and potential economic impact.

Under existing case law, particularly the Chevron vs Natural Resources Defense Council decision, federal agencies are subjected to a two-part test, however. The first step is determining whether the statutes are unambiguous.

I strongly recommend anyone contemplating filing their own civil suit to study carefully the evidence and arguments presented in the Peabody Energy Company (PEC) petition and apply the points to their own individual locale and circumstances.

The full 240-page petition can be found here.

Each citizen has the right to challenge an unlawful government agency determination if it can be shown to be ‘arbitrary and capricious’ i.e. not based on fact but on subjective criteria.

I made my own study of PEC the legal challenge earlier this week over at Climategate.com and it is a gold mine  for litigants looking for a ready template for a detailed lawsuit to defeat climate regulations.

Here is the far shorter 43-page legal brief of the Coalition requests EPA convene a proceeding for reconsideration.

Coalition Petitioners:

  • Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc.
  • Industrial Minerals Association – North America
  • Great Northern Project Development, L.P.
  • National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
  • Rosebud Mining Company
  • Massey Energy Company, and
  • Alpha Natural Resources, Inc.


If you seek to overturn any climate-related regulation imposed on you by your local government authority then I recommend you investigate the most useful legal instrument known for this: the mandamus. The writ of mandamus has long been a prerogative writ in English common law. Individuals in most common law jurisdictions have the statutory right to challenge any decision made by a government agency by way of a mandamus petition. The purpose of mandamus is to remedy defects of justice. It lies in the cases where there is a specific right but no specific legal remedy for enforcing that right.

For a general explanation of mandamus applicable to all countries that base their legal code on English common law check here.

As someone who litigated for over a decade in New York State I am most familiar with the New York version of mandamus known as an ‘Article 78’ action.

In New York, for example, the filing fees to a court for a petition are around $300. You may also have to pay up to $2-3,000 for a good lawyer to draft one properly for you. Pertinent to this and for anyone looking to take legal action under New York law, you will be interested to know that New York is where NASA’s GISS is located.

In some U.S. states, such as California, the writ is now called mandate instead of mandamus, and may be issued by any level of the state court system to any lower court or to any government official.

But whichever English speaking common law state you live in you are highly likely to have something very similar at your disposal.

Under the Australian legal system, mandamus is available through section 75(v) of the Australian Constitution.


This is an alternative to a mandamus petition. Judicial review is the doctrine in democratic theory under which legislative and executive action is subject to invalidation by the judiciary. Specific courts with judicial review power must annul the acts of the state when it finds them incompatible with a higher authority, such as the terms of a written constitution.

In the United States:

The US Constitution is very robust and pre-empts all state-level laws if there are apparent conflicts in law. Judicial review under federal law may be brought under the Constitution as per Article III whereby a U.S. citizen may invoke an implied cause of action so that a court may determine that a law creates rights that allows private parties to bring a lawsuit against a specific climate regulation. An excellent analysis can be found here as well as here.

In Canada:

Judicial review may be sought via the Supreme Court of Canada that has the power to overturn acts of Parliament if those acts violate the division of powers between the federal and provincial levels of government. For more information see here.

In England and Wales:

A person wronged by an Act of Parliament cannot apply for judicial review except in cases where such regulations may infringe a person’s rights as per the European Law of Human Rights. A challenge against climate regulations will have to be argued on the grounds of Irrationality (i.e. Unreasonableness).

In Australia:

Kathleen E. Foley tells us that judicial review, “ has long been considered an “axiomatic” part of Australia’s legal system.” Foley advises that Australian judicial review is more like that of the England and Wales system rather than the U.S.


Certain climate scientists are clearly liable to face charges of ‘Noble Cause Corruption’ that is best explained here.

I examine the legal implications for fraud against Professor Phil Jones of the UK’s Climatic Research Unit under the Fraud Act (2006) here and here.

The unwillingness of the UK government to bring criminal charges against climate fraudsters says more about their own agenda rather than any loopholes in the law or weakness in the evidence. I suspect the governments of Australia, Canada, the US and New Zealand will be equally reticent in prosecuting climate fraudsters.

The pursuit of criminal convictions for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud cannot be fruitfully pursued by private citizens and effectively resides under the whim of governments. That no criminal charges have thus far been brought against climate science fraudsters at the UK’s Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, despite the British Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) conceding crimes had been committed, speaks volumes. The British Government have disingenuously stated that the statute of limitations had expired under FOI laws, yet they neglect to act under the Fraud Act (2006) for which no statute of limitations applies when acts of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud are identified.


Bryan A Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 980, 8th Ed., St. Paul, USA, 2004.

A.T. Markose: Judicial Control of Administrative Action in India, p.364.

RK Choudhary’s Law of Writs; Mandamus.

Erwin Chemerinsky, Federal Jurisdiction § 6.3 at 382 (4th ed. 2003).

Human rights and judicial review. 1994. http://books.google.com/books?id=N_UjZarvAwYC&pg=PA135&dq=comparative+%22constitutional+review%22&as_brr=3&ei=xI0wSsePE4qsywSNx6GjDg#PPP7,M1.  (a comparison of national judicial review doctrines)

The American doctrine of judicial supremacy. 1914. http://books.google.com/books?id=Kev8w1pfnaUC&pg=PA3&dq=judicial+review&ei=3IkwSqG5IZbozATtxNCvDg#PPR5,M1.  (this book traces the doctrine’s history in an international/comparative fashion)

“The Establishment of Judicial Review”. Findlaw.

John O’Sullivan is a legal advocate and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain. Visit his website. He offers his commentary for free and is not funded by any third party. Any opinions he expresses are his own and do not necessarily represent those of the site owner.

7 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


157 Responses to “Prosecuting climate fraud: The international dimension”

  1. Michael OConnor says:


    Thank you at last, the earth has been warmer in the past so the warming now could be a natural climate cycle. Bob you have to say it is possible.

    The question of life. I watch a very interesting documentry on astoride’s hitting the moon. A scientist said hit was hit by a sudden bombardment of astorise’s hit the moon and cause most of the moons creature’s and the reason for this was because all the rocks brought back from the moon are 3.9 billions year old. Other scientist wouldn’t believe but rocks from the were found on earth and they were 3,9 nillions years old proving him right. The moon rock let them date of life on earth and they found their was bacteria life on the earth 3,9 billions years ago and the earth was very much like it is today interupted by massive vulcanic eruptions or astroride hits.

    Seeing we are only looking back 3 or 4 thousand years to the bronze age when man walked the earth when temps were much much warmer than the medieval warm period which in turn was upto 3c warmer than today.

    What most of us who do not believe in global warming are saying the science is very young, there is going to be many mistakes on the way and the climate is too complex to for a group of scientist to claim mans the reason the earth is warmer.

    The hockey stick chart is widely exaggerated with the upward movement and is not like the almost straight line going up. The chart showing warming and cooling and warming is more gentle and the fact it does show the medieval warm period has made the chart more exaggerated.

    I still want to know why there was need to hide data and why it is standard practice.

    I will say it again if the scientist have nothing to fear why hide the data.

    I read most of your links and they are mainly by greens or green jounalist. Read the pre-release reviews on the book but I wasn’t inpressed because by what I could tell it challenged only 1 person. I see it as green fight back and to give the book more authority its buy yale press.

    The fact still remains the earth has been cooling for the last 8 years and has not got any warmer in the last 15 years. Artic sea ice has recovered to 1979 levels, can you explain that, antartica is cooling and sea ice is increasing which seeing sea water freezes at a lower temp than fresh water, how is the continetal ice being lost when its fresh water ice, wind maybe. If the trend continues won’t it be a sign the man made global alarm has been overdone and there was nothing to fear. To say temps have risen in the last 150 years the climate is changing is ludicrous.


    • Bob Ferris says:

      Of course, the Earth has been warmer than it is today. At one point it was literally a ball of fire and all natural. What is happening now is un-natural as it is happening faster than it has in the past and statistically linked to man’s activity.

      Your “moon” paragraph in addition to being almost incomprehensible and poorly written is just wrong. I assume that you are talking about asteroids? So do you really want to say that the earth was pretty much like it now 3.9 billion years ago? What about the fact that there was no free oxygen in the atmosphere until about 1.7 billion years ago? Sure there were some bacteria out there but they were largely anaerobic.

      You keep mentioning the Hockey Stick graph and the Bronze Age. You do know that the Bronze Age was more than a thousand years prior to time covered in the hockey stick? And you do know that this Age also suffered from climate change which decimated whole regions?

      As you comment on the age of the climate change science and characterize it as very young, do you have a point? Nano-technology, DNA fingerprinting, computer science, and electron-microscopy are much younger, does that mean we discard them? And what qualifies you to make statements like this, clearly not your experience or education.

      Please provide me with an unbiased source that indicates that data was hidden—or shut up about it. This could be a recognized scientific society or a peer-reviewed journal. Incidentally the University of Pennsylvania recently reviewed Dr. Mann’s work and found that he had done everything up to scientific standards.

      OK, let me get this straight. It is fine for you to publish links from any Yahoo you want but criticize me for not providing stronger references? Do you really want to go with that?

      You also keep repeating that the earth has been cooling for the last 8 years as if that is fact. Please provide me with a single peer-reviewed article that makes that claim on a global basis or just stop saying it.


  2. Michael OConnor says:


    I had wrote the moon rock post 2 times before and posts were lost, so a thrid time I couldn’t be bothered to go into details, I knew it was badly written but after a third time I didn’t really care

    When the apollo mission landed on the moon they gathered moon rocks what were all dated 3.9 billion years old and on examination the results showed the internal struture of the rock had been formed under massive pressures and an astoriod impacted or volcanic eruption could not of produced the pressure when the rocks were formed. A scientist believed the rock must come from rock further down from inside the moon.

    His theory was the moon suffered huge astoride bombardment and the bombardment was responsible for most of the creators on the moon. Other scientist dismissed his theory. He had no way to prove his theory until a piece of moon rock was found in antartica what was dated to be 3.9 billion years old. His proof.

    How did the moon rock get to earth and other moon rocks found. Through experiments he could show when an astoroid impacts the astoride breaks up and is scattered farthest from the creator and old moon rock from within the moon was scattered around the edges of the creator. The scientist proved the because of the moons low gravity and the velocity of the moon rocks, the rocks were able to escape from the moons gravity.

    Because scientist could date the rock as 3.9 billion years old it enabled to them date when a very hardy bacteria, can’t remember its name but it could live happily where no other life could and they said it could survive an astoriod impact. They said all life came from the bacteria.

    Because scientist could date the rock and it let them accuratly data rocks on earth what were 3.9 billion years old. The earth certainly didn’t have tree or grass or oxogen but they could tell the structure of the earth it would of looked similar to today. I am not talking about the plates of the earth were where they are today.

    I can only go by what the discovery history programme said and the scientist on the programme said.

    The bronze age period in time temps were natural and life survived, the medieval warm period was natural and there is no reason why this period of warmer temps now is not natural. The exaggerated charts have been deliberately produced to show the warming is different to any warming in the past. They are going by 150 years of data but what if the medieval warm period had the same rate of warming, you can’t disprove it because there are no accurate temp records going back that far in time. For co2 to raise the temps right now to me and scientist who say its not possible because even though its a green house gas its one out of lets say 100 other green house gases and its way down the scale is not a very efficient green house gas. Not only that co2 makes up a very small amount of the earth atmosphere.

    During in ice ages its been shown from ice core’s co2 concentrations to be upto double todays concentration and its been shown how co2 concentraion have been calculated was wrong and todays levels of co2 is no higher than in the the last 1000 years.

    The ipcc 1990 graph shows the warming today taken over a long period is not as rapid as the exaggerated charts showing the warming today and its no different than in the past. The charts showing exaggerated rapid warming today were produced to alarm policy makers and as well as the general public.

    There is no consensus on global warming amonst scientist and the issue is splite between scientist. Its easy to get carried away because a number of scientist say we are the experts and we have studied the climate for 25 year using ice core’s, rock core’s and tree ring’s. The trouble is the climate is billions of years old and scientist know practically nothing.

    You mention other young scientist, they are not as complex as climate. Other young sciences like DNA are not as accurate as scientist try and make people believe.


    • Bob Ferris says:


      Is this really your best attempt to communicate this idea? I am so sorry. The study you are referring to (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090520140403.htm) actually has to do with discussions about when life started on Earth. Some scientists believed that life could not have survived the asteroid bombardments of around 3.8-4.5 billion years ago. This research and hypothesis argues that they did. These hyperthermophilic bacteria are organisms that can withstand high temperatures much like the bacteria found in Yellowstone thermal features like Old Faithful that make DNA fingerprinting possible today, because they do not breakdown in 118F like most other life.

      And, yes, the earth was similar 3.9 billion years ago: It was round. And, yes I am being facetious, because it is clear from your grasp of this and other discussions that you are really not schooled in or understand basic physical science or the history of the earth. Essentially, you are ill equipped to have the discussion we are having. You simply do not have the intellect or the background.

      I have covered the other issues you raised before but here are my two challenges to you again:

      –Please find me a single ISI sanctioned, peer-reviewed article or approved statement by a reputable, independent scientific organization that claims that data was hidden in the manner that you describe.

      –Please show me a single ISI sanctioned, peer-reviewed article that states that climate change is not happening and that it is not in part caused by human activities.

      These should be fairly easy for you because you have stated that both these are facts repeatedly, but where is your real evidence?


  3. Michael OConnor says:


    The climate code models do not work in predicting future climate and all the climate models did not predict the presenting cooling happening while co2 rising.


    The lie about permfrost melting is debunked and methane leaking


    The global warming alarmist come out with lie after lie.


    Green jobs to cost america a fortune and the spanish show its an economic and employement disaster.


    • Bob Ferris says:

      I asked you for two easy things and you reply with a broken link, an article from the Heartland Institute (Exxon won’t even fund these clowns anymore) and an article touting a discredited study by an economist who got his ass handed to him when he testified in Congress–did not know his stuff…


  4. Michael OConnor says:

    For F Sake Bob I said I watched a documentary on discover history channel, I never said I was a expert, I can only say what was broadcast, they didn’t go into a hell of a lot of detail, maybe I should of said the caldera instead of creator, I did not say I researched what was broadcast, I could only go by what the scientist said on the programme. Get off your high horse, is that all you can attack me with. When the programme comes around again I will tell you the full title of the programme and you can search google for it or if its shown in the US you can watch it. If you want to point out it was not factually true, you can, I would not counter your theory.

    How far the programme stretched the truth I don’t know and by the way of me posting I watch a programme dicovery history I did not make any claims if it was true or not. I reported what they broadcast.

    I did not make out I am something I am not. So before you start throwing links at me and saying I am not well schooled in what ever please take the post in the context what it was meant to be, not an expert veiw. Better still I will get the names of the scientist in the programme and you can take it up with them. Are you a physicist, I doubt it.

    Flippin hell the mind boggles why you would do a reply like you did. I only said it was a interesting programme and seeing it was made for the average person in the street they didn’t go deep in to the physics and mathematical equations. Calm down or you might have a heart attack.

    Bob just think if I didn’t post on here how much you would miss me and how lonely you would be.


    • Bob Ferris says:

      So you are basically saying that you cannot produce solid, peer-reviewed evidence for your core statements about the earth cooling recently and scientists hiding the data?

      If you cannot do the above which I have not asked for three times, you are simply a pawn in all this and guilty of spreading untrue rumors.


  5. Michael OConnor says:


    Tell me where I can find peer reviewed papers. I have a reason for asking.


    • Bob Ferris says:

      The easiest place to find peer-reviewed papers is to go to a university that has a respected department in the discipline of interest and then go to the library and find out if they carry the relevant journal or can get it through inter-library loan. If you just want to do research, the librarians are generally pretty helpful and can direct you towards library data-bases or hard copy indices, though the latter are becoming rarer and rarer. Articles from peer-reviewed journals are generally not on the internet and while you can certainly read the articles in the library and photocopy them you will have to pay for reprints. Most journals are clear in what their editorial policies are and I would stick with journals on the ISI list. Good luck.


  6. Michael OConnor says:


    If you look at this chart from CRU it will show


    You will see it shows rising of temps from 1910 to fall in with major industrialisation what misrepresents the warm what started long before industrialisation. The other little trick used in the chart is to show temp rises of 1/10th of a Celsius rises, this exaggerates the temp rise to make it look like the temp has risen more shaprly than is true. The overall temp rise in the last 100 years is less than 1c and if the charts used had units of just one degree the chart would show a flat line. Nobody looks at the tiny rise in the temps but just see’s the run up from blue to red in the graphics.

    Can you see the topping of the chart just after 2000 and sign of cooling starting. A chart like that on a stock I would seriously be looking to short it, once a few technical signals confirmed my bet would be on. Its people like me who shorted the hell out of the banks and brought them to their knee’s, it was great fun, I would go to bed laughing and rubbing my hands because of all the lovely money I was making.

    A cheap con artist trick.

    Bob what does a zoologist know about the climate.

    MA in, Zoology , 1985 — 1989
    from San Jose State University in CA


    • Bob Ferris says:


      FYI–The industrial revolution started in the 1700s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution). As to the temperature rise, again we are talking about climate and not weather and we are looking at global and not local so 0.1 C average temperature change is a big deal. It takes one hell of a lot to raise the average temperatures across the board that much. There is nothing deceptive here, all the units are clearly marked for all the world to see. Your mischaracterization of it has everything to do with your lack of knowledge of the system and nothing else.

      As to my credentials, I have two undergraduate degrees and a masters as well as three years of work on a PhD until I ran out of money and had to go to work. Since then, I have taught Earth Science at the university level and held senior technical positions with non-profits for 20 years. I have also served as the CEO of four organizations–all dealing with environmental issues including climate change. And your credentials are???

      I am still waiting for the responses to my two requests.


  7. Michael OConnor says:


    I said I am not a scientist and thats that.

    What were undergraduate in and what subject was your unfinished phd in.

    As for the request of peer reviewed paper saying the earth is cooling I haven’t got a magic hat to pull it out in a few seconds.

    You still haven’t answered my question.

    Why the need to hide data and whi is it standard practice and a new question what was the reason to manipulate. I have asked you time and time again.


    • Bob Ferris says:

      I have addressed your question several times and also called you on asking it again and making it seem like I have not answered it. How can you continue to do that. Pretty dishonest technique.

      My requests to you were two-fold. Find a single ISI sanctioned peer-reviewed article that says that the earth’s climate is cooling and find a single peer-reviewed ISI article or respected scientific organization that says that data is being hidden in the manner that you discribe. This is my fourth request for this.

      My undergraduate degrees were in biology and environmental studies and my PhD studies focused on human impacts to biological systems.


  8. Michael OConnor says:

    God nobody else wants to post on here, it would make it interesting.


  9. Michael OConnor says:


    This is an interesting read.



  10. Michael OConnor says:

    Bob this guy is interesting with a phd in meteorology and works for NASA

    His profile


    Here bit of his research but there are plenty more.


    • Bob Ferris says:

      This is proxy data from 12 sites all in the Northern Hemisphere so not a lot of data and not global. The work is from a non-peer reviewed and biased journal that is not on the ISI list. Also the graph shows that temperatures are still rising at this point.


  11. Michael OConnor says:


    You have not answered my question.

    Why the need to hide data, why is standard practice and why did johns manipulate data.

    You gave a link to an article what was written just before copenhagen to back up man made global warming before the meeting.

    It was not an answer.

    It doesn’t matter what link I give there is something wrong with them. I could give you the top scientist in the world, and they would be either be working for the oil and mining co or belonging to some institute.

    Maybe the one who couldn’t get their published journal and set up their own were block by completely pro global warming journals.

    I think its pretty sad if the IPCC to of been using papers from an A level student, having the lead author who was manipulating data called hansen and he was peer reviewer. All the scientist selected by governments are all pro global warming so a total bias, governments can veto any scientist they don’t like, a complete stich up.

    The UN has asked for a review of the IPCC report by an independant body, the scientists who review the report need to have a open mind not to be biased for pro global warming or against global warming.

    I have feeling it will be a total white wash.


  12. Bob Ferris says:


    You asked what a zoologists might know about climate. Well actually quite a bit because the criters we work with and all life is being impacted by these weather and temperature regimes http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/abs/nature06937.html. And I cannot thnk of a single natural reserve or biologist looking a species or eco-type who is not trying to figure out how to manage their particular corner of the world or critter.

    And it is not just the stuff we want and love that are changing diseases such as cholera are spreading as a result of climate change http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090423133742.htm.

    To me, perhaps because of me field, the biological indicators are the most compelling. Statistic models and atmospheric physics give most folks headaches but they can understand it when a flower blooms earlier or swallows migrate earlier. I think they also understand to some extent that these systems evolved over evolutionary time-frames and that the systems co-evolved over time and when you change something too rapidly–as we are doing now–it can all fall apart.

    Something to think about….


  13. Michael OConnor says:

    This one had me stitches.


    What next flying cats down to you know what.


    • Bob Ferris says:

      So you actually can look at something that is based on peer-reviewed literature. That is a relief.

      Bergmans rule was certainly something that we looked at in ecology. Lots of stuff going on in the article. Birds are getting smaller, but they are not in as much risk because the can move north and south as well as change their elevation to cool or warm themselves. They also have relatively short generations and large populations so they can evolve quickly. The more vulnerable species are the trees and less mobile animals. They are kind of stuck where they are and have to take what comes their way. Trees in the Northeastern US are taking a beating particularly the sugar maple and butternut trees. Sugar maples are used in maple syrup production and climate pattern changes are dampening yeilds and putting folks out of business. It might put you in stitches but they are laughing a lot less.


  14. Bob Ferris says:

    It is interesting that the same scientists that you so like to malign are busy working overtime to develop alternatives that will work better, be cheaper, and pollute less http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/03/12/mit.research.electricity/index.html?hpt=T2

    Are you ever going to get something like that out of your contrarian scientists? Where are their inventions and where are their products that will make our lives better in the future? This completely aligns with Timothy Ferris’ view that science flourishes in a liberal environment where scientists are allowed to be more creative.


  15. Michael OConnor says:


    Nobody is saying its not warmer than 150 years but we don’t believe its down to man and co2.

    A new way to chart temps going a long long way back in the past. No doubt you will have something to poo poo the technique.



    • Bob Ferris says:

      Oh yeah, this was from an article on Benny Peiser’s site as in the gentleman who said: “I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous”.[18][19]

      This is an interesting technique but nothing in that blub has an impact on the climate change issue. First, 26 shells in a single area is not enough to determine anything. The attached chart was from something but it needed to be better labeled to mean anything and it looks like the standard deviations are so high that it is inconclusive.


  16. Bob Ferris says:


    Regarding the IOP letter that you posted above. IOPs position on climate change is: “there is no doubt that climate change is happening, that it is linked to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, and that we should be taking action to address it now”.

    And they were pretty soundly thrashed for sending that document because it was pushed by a small group and not the general membership.



  17. Michael O'Connor says:

    The whole Texas petition against the EPA and shows all the dirty tricks, deleting of data, refusial of request via FOI, IPCC mainly political full of bad science and bias towards AGW and not neutral. Its shows data the crooks for what they are, lying, scheming bunch of self serving crooks. The USA, UK and Australia, with a few other european countries as well.


    I am waiting for bob ferris to say they are all neo conservatives all the pocket of the big oil companies. Nothing new there.

    One green the UK’s daily express did an article on climate change what the green nutters didn’t like and said the paper is dodgy conservative paper. That sums up the arrogance of the green movement.

    Something I really liked recently how the green feel superior and its ok for them to cheat or steal, because they think they are superior. Greens are less moral than non greens, this shows up in the dirty tactics they use to inslave the world under their green umbrella.

    I believe any scientist who is a green is hard to trust when it comes to climate change or any environmetal issue. They will twist and distort data to what they see we should be doing and doesn’t matter about the truth, the truth is an inconvenience to the green scientist.


  18. Michael O'Connor says:

    Another dodgy UK conservative paper telling the truth, the greenies don’t like it up them. one by one their BS is falling around them as the truth is exposed. What the greenies do when their god global warming is dead. Go back to picking their noses I would imagine.



    • Bob Ferris says:


      You are so easily fooled by these folks. Here is a quote from the author of the study (Dr. Willis) that the Daily Mail is misinterpreting:

      Dr. Willis included a succinct description of how some people opposed to restrictions on greenhouse gases sometimes operate:

      “It is a well-established fact that human activities are heating up the planet and that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come. Climate change skeptics often highlight certain scientific results as a means of confusing this issue, and that appears to be the case with Mr. Gunter’s description of our recent results based on data from Argo buoys.

      Indeed, Argo data show no warming in the upper ocean over the past four years, but this does not contradict the climate models. In fact, many climate models simulate four to five year periods with no warming in the upper ocean from time to time. The same is true for the warming trend observed by NASA satellites; it too is in good agreement with climate model simulations. But more important than agreement with computer models is the fact that four years with no warming in the upper ocean does not erase the 50 years of warming we’ve seen since ocean temperature measurements became widespread….

      It is important to remember that climate science is not a public debate carried out on the opinion pages of newspapers. What we know about global warming comes from thousands of scientists pouring over countless data sets, conducting experiments to figure out how the climate works and scrutinizing every aspect of each other’s work.

      He added:

      It is easy to pick on computer climate models for not simulating certain things or point out the odd measurement that isn’t well understood. Despite this, models and data of all different types tell the same story about the past century: the oceans are warming, sea levels are rising, the temperature of the atmosphere is increasing and carbon dioxide levels continue to go up. Given that, you don’t need a fancy computer model or an Argo buoy to tell you that the future will be warmer.

      The real debate is not over whether global warming exists, but how we as a society will address it. The climate system is already committed to a certain amount of warming from carbon dioxide emissions of the past, but the worst effects of global warming can still be avoided. It only requires the will to look toward the future and to curb our addiction to fossil fuels. That’s not alarmist, it’s just common sense.”

      Source: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/ocean-cooling-and-global-warming/

      You continue to be led around by the nose by these folks who take legitimate science and twist it. As I have said before go to the source and not to folks interpreting the work of others.


  19. Michael O'Connor says:

    Another dodgy UK conservative paper telling the truth, the greenies don’t like it up them. one by one their BS is falling around them as the truth is exposed. What will the greenies do when their god global warming is dead. Go back to picking their noses I would imagine.



  20. Bob Ferris says:


    The Texas petition is from a conservative state expressing conservative views and not science. Also it looks like your government has mostly cleared the CRU folks and dismisses the “hide the decline” phrase http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/30/tech/main6347584.shtml. So that means that your government and our government as well as the majority of scientific institutions and societies have cleared these guys of any real wrong doing.


  21. Michael O'Connor says:


    I didn’t expect anything other than the committee clearing jones and the cru. Our government and mp’s believe in the AGW crap and will not budge from that position, not unless a bomb went off in their face.

    The Uk government have a hidden agenda on AGW and thats getting as much tax as possible. They vampires sucking the blood out of the citizens of the UK.

    And I expected nothing less from you saying texas is a conservative state. You must be a commonist and hate capitalism.


  22. I’m sure that the Global Warming Scientists can fabricate enough facts to attribute the more frequent & much larger solar flares to Global Warming.


preload preload preload