John O'Sullivan, master manipulator - A Closer Look

Brendan Demelle and Richard Littlemore  at DesmogBlog.com have revealed more information regarding the serial liar John O'Sullivan.  The following is a repost of their interesting July 26, 2012 article.

Guess I'm trying to figure out how people choose to believe such obvious frauds rather than dedicated scientists.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Desmog Video Affidavits in Michael Mann Libel Suit Reveal Astonishing Facts About Tim Ball Associate John O'Sullivan (via Desmogblog)

Affidavits filed in the British Columbia Supreme Court libel litigation brought by climate scientist Michael Mann against climate science denier Timothy Ball reveal that Ball's collaborator and self-styled "legal advisor" has misrepresented his credentials and endured some significant legal embarrassments…

Principia Scientific Int'l versus Dr. Michael Mann

John O'Sullivan is a principle founder and pusher of "Principia Scientific International" a group of AGW deniers intent on spreading misinformation and furthering the echo-chamber's crazy-making regarding the scientific knowledge surrounding our planet's climate.

And since I don't have the time to devote to helping expose the various nonsense around this group I can at least share the efforts of others.

At http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/  Pete Ridley is doing a fine job of examining the details of PSI's beautifully worded 'mission statement' compared to the reality of what they do.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

" .. advocates of transparency and accountability .. "

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In the spirit of the quotation above this article aims to provide as much transparency as possible about Principia Scientific International (PSI)’s origins as well as the motives, methods and ambitions of those whose vision PSI was. Anyone having little or no knowledge of PSI should find it worthwhile initially referring to the promotional material published on various pages on the PSI Web-site (http://principia-scientific.org/). It presents a picture of what PSI purports to be and relevant quotes will be made in this article as necessary when considering whether or not PSI lives up to those praiseworthy claims.

Comments in this article are based upon the facts collected since my first involvement during 2010 with the significant participants in PSI. I will concentrate initially on those individuals who played a major role in founding the organisation. " .. British legal analyst and science writer, John O’Sullivan pursued a vision to form a large body of experts united in opposing the worst excesses of government-funded science. .. From the outset PSI was driven by retired Dutch Analytical Chemist, Hans Schreuder, Texan engineer and science writer, Joseph A. Olson and Canada's most popular climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball .. Tom Richard .. the driving force behind Neveu Design .. has made the PSI website .. adaptive to the growing demands of an ambitious and globally-expanding science publishing and communications hub .. " (http://principia-scientific.org/about/principles-of-association). After that I propose to take a look at each of the other individuals involved.

Read on it gets quite interesting . . . 

 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

 As for Dr. Michael Mann and all the claims of the data he is supposedly hiding please consider this post over at Legend of Pine Ridge.

http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2011/11/dr-michael-manns-data-is-available-on.html

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Dr. Michael Mann's Data is Available on the Internet

"My research is all based on data sets regarding the Earth’s climate that are freely and widely available to all researchers.  Whether I make available my computer programs is irrelevant to whether our results can be reproduced...


My computer program is a piece of private, intellectual property, as the National Science Foundation and its lawyers recognize. It is a bedrock principle of American law that the government may not take private property “without [a] public use,” and “without just compensation.”"---Dr. Michael Mann's letter to Congressman Joe Barton (7-15-05)


Mendacious people who spread falsehoods on the Internet about the alleged fabrications of climate scientists often claim that the famous Penn State climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann has kept his data secret. Actually, as Dr. Mann's 1995 letter to Congressman Barton states, Dr. Mann's data is available on Internet at government and university sites.


Dr. Mann's computer programs are a secret because they are his private intellectual property; still, researchers can develop their own computer codes and use Mann's data to verify his results. Scholars have replicated Dr. Mann's results by using his data with their own computer programs.


Researchers need not have access to exactly the same computer programs (or “code”) as Dr. Mann developed. Dr. Mann's results can be replicated using his underlying data and methodologies. See the letter (7-15-05) that Dr. Mann sent to the corrupt Congressman Joe Barton explaining the true facts and listing the Internet sites where his data was stored in 2005.


The MBH [Mann-Bradley-Hughes] data have been publicly available for more than a decade now! When Dr. Mann moved from U.Va, the same information and data were maintained through his Penn State research site.


Here are some links where the data can be found:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Paleo_data

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/research/MANNETAL98/


More generally, links to ALL the MBH research data, etc. from ALL of the MBH studies are here:

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/research/research.html

posted by Snapple

 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Dr. Michael Mann also has his own Facebook Page that is a valuable source of information coming from the man himself, along with many informative comments as proven in my previous post.

https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist

John O'Sullivan: My Hidden Muse

This recent spate of libelous slander against the dedicated scientist Dr. Michael Mann and the results of his work has taken a disgusting bizarre twist as the Denier Echo-chamber reaches new lows {as mentioned in my previous post}.

Well, it appears another example of projection on the part of deniers desperate to distract attention from the reality of what we are doing to our one and only planet.

Now thanks to the efforts of Andrew Skolnick we can get an insight into what may have spawned this latest attack strategy.  It seems that good'ol o'sullivan has an intimate acquaintance with the topic of pedophilia. 

I'll allow Andrew Skolnick to take it from here. 

The Other Scandal In Unhappy Valley vs. The Scientific Evidence

Over at Skepticforum I’ve just been introduced to the latest example of the ruthless depths the AGW “skeptic” community is happy to sink to, in order to distract attention from the scientific evidence of what society is doing to it’s one and only home planet.  The slander is so disgusting I will not discuss it, though the above link will take you to the post in question.

Suffice it to say the attacks against Michael Mann have reached new depths of sleaze in their desperate attempts to deny what Earth Observation evidence is showing us.  Namely, that Michael Mann’s pioneering paleoclimate reconstructions and the early so called Hockey Stick graph’s voracity continues to be supported by the evidence.  And that the basic outline has been repeated, well... repeatedly.  As illustrated within the evidence at the other side of the links provided below.

It is tragic that the contrarian skeptical community has managed to sell the notion that anything less than 100% accuracy should be shrugged off.  As for the constant refrain 'we want proof', well the lie in that is - we don’t even have proof the sun will rise tomorrow morning until after it happens.  So can we try to be realistic?  When will these folks start learning rather than dodging and ignoring every new piece of evidence?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Thus I share a slightly cleaned up version of my reply:

I'm still in a bit of shock at these new depths of brutality and ruthlessness that the denialist community and it's adherents feel comfortable promulgating.  {and some folks wonder why I'm so motivated - and frustrated at not being able to spend all my energy in trying to present the science and confront lying predators like osullivan et al.}



If there is anyone out there interested in learning something rather than clinging to the rear view mirror, here are some more hockey sticks to consider:

Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
19 October 2010 by John Cook

Climate and Sea Level: An Emerging Hockey Stick
12 January 2012 by Rob Honeycutt

Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years 

24 November 2011 by Rob Painting

Sea Level Hockey Stick
23 June 2011 by dana1981

Hockey Stick Own Goal
23 February 2011 by dana1981

More evidence than you can shake a hockey stick at
6 August 2010 by John Cook

A South American hockey stick 
18 September 2010 by John Cook

An underwater hockey stick 
1 October 2010 by John Cook

Hockey stick or hockey league?   

31 October 2010 by John Cook

 Can you make a hockey stick without tree rings?
2 December 2009 by John Cook

Ivar Giaever explains climate science = pseudoscience

There was a gent over at SkepticSociety forum who started a new thread with the title: "Ivar Giaever explains climate science = pseudoscience"

Giaever is one of the signies of the infamous Wall Street Journal letter, see here.  He's also a person who ignored a number of emails asking him for details regarding why he signed that letter.

The gent who posted these YouTube links didn't offer any comments for what he thought we should learn from these video.  Although he does tend to sound like he actually believes AGW is a hoax.  I tell you, it is one disappointingly juvenile speech and I would have loved surveying the learned audience's opinion of it.  If I could get the audience list, I would send them all emails and try to find out... anyone out there know how to get that list?

I listened to the first video, it was awful and I couldn't help mading notes with time signatures that I posted over at SkepticalSociety.  If I had the free time I'd clean it those notes, endure the rest of his speech and post an unauthorized review of it.  But, that's not happening. 

Fortunately, those archivers of climate science for the lay public SkepticalScience.com are on top of it again with this recent review of the long retired superconductor and solid state physics expert's talking points.  

So with the permission of SkepticalScience.com I proudly reprint another one of Dana's excellent posts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist (via Skeptical Science)

Posted on 12 July 2012 by dana1981 We often see scientists from non-climate fields who believe they have sufficient expertise to understand climate science despite having done minimal research on the subject; William Happer, Fritz Vahrenholt, and Bob Carter, for example.  As he admits in his own words…

Anthony Watts proves Mt. Kilimanjaro escapes global warming

From the annals of Anthony’s WUWT blog:

"Al Gore’s global warming claims on Kilimanjaro glacier – finally dead and buried in the Climategate 2.0 emails – even Phil Jones and Lonnie Thompson don’t believe it"
Posted on November 22, 2011 by Anthony Watts

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

WUWT: Al Gore said in his AIT bag of BS that Mount Kilimanjaro was losing its snow/ice cover due to global warming.
{...}
I’ve said this many times, Kilimanjaro’s loss of ice cover has to do with sublimation, not warming. The picture of Thompson next to the sliver of ice proves it. Note there’s no meltwater near him. {cc notes: he's standing on a talus slope, it is porous and sloped downhill. We wouldn't see standing water if a fire hose were dousing that ice sliver!} That sliver is a symptom of sublimation – ice evaporating directly into the air, just like ice cubes shrink when left in the freezer too long.

Almost a year ago I wrote this:
OSU’s Dr. Lonnie Thompson pushes gloom and doom, still thinks the snows of Kilimanjaro are melting due to global warming

Then Anthony goes on to show some of those dastardly ClimateGate emails.  Reaching back to a 2004 email he producing this damning bit of evidence:

Anthony Watts 'If the past is indicative of the future...' The "Skeptic's" Illusion

 I do try to be patient and polite with "skeptic" questions and comments, but sometimes the dog-chasing-tail dialogue and obtuseness overwhelms.  The following comment came from someone who firmly believes there's nothing out of the ordinary with our climate patterns, and that we should do nothing that might impact our dedication to corporate free market principles.  Well it got under my skin, and I had time on my hands, so I let him have it.  The attitude reminded so much of Anthony that I've decided to adapt that post to this little note dedicated to Anthony Watts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is written:  "If the past is indicative, we'll have more and worse in the future, but we'll also have more and better, and more of the better will overwhelm more of the worse."

"If the past is indicative . . ."  Are you serious?

How is our planet... our biosphere equal to the one I inhabited in the early 1960s?

"If the past is indicative . . ."
would demand that the current situation is analogue to the past!
How would you justify that supposition?  Have any evidence?

At what point can we say there is no more global warming?

One of my personal learning tools is the SkepticSocietyForum’s Climate Change board.  I find it helpful to be confronted with contrary views and articles.  Also lately I only have limited windows of opportunity to write and it’s a good place to get in some quick practice.

In any event, I’ve long wanted to work some of those discussions into posts over here 

or at citizenschallenge.blogspot.com and I figure I might as well start doing so with this thread.

This is actually post #146 in the thread and is a simple presentation of current news.  Followed by some thoughts from a Class of '73 high school grad.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

At what point can we say there is no more global warming?