BREAKING!! Michael Mann.....climate criminal?

[Kosh]

The AGW cultists have stolen trillions of dollars for their war on Climate and millions have died for their farce. When will they be held accountable?

 

[IanC]

Still parroting the strange fables of kiddie-fiddler O'Sullivan, I see.

Go on, stick with him to the end. After all, he is party-approved, so you don't have much choice.

So, you have some evidence that the piece in the OP is false?

The case wasn't thrown out because Mann refused to supply the required data?

The whole legal case in Canada has been a hoax?

mmmmmmkay.

Affidavits in Michael Mann Libel Suit Reveal Astonishing Facts About Tim Ball Associate John O'Sullivan

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 of his own.

The affidavits also reveal that Tim Ball was "aware of the charges against John O'Sullivan almost from the start" and has tried to distance himself from his erstwhile advisor and writing partner.

The affidavits [1, 2] come from research of science and medical writer Andrew Skolnick, who documents O'Sullivan's misrepresentations, backtracking and questionable behavior.

Tim Ball and John O'Sullivan had a close working relationship, even before Mann sued Ball for libel in March 2011. For example, they co-authored the climate science denial book Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory, which was published in 2010.

Skolnick's evidence shows that O'Sullivan made a series of false claims, including:

o that he was an attorney with more than a decade of successful litigation in New York State and Federal courts;
o that he was employed by a major Victoria, B.C. (Canada) law firm that is representing Ball in the libel action;
o that he is a widely published writer, with credits in Forbes and the National Review;
o that he had received his law degree from the University College, Cork, Ireland and/or from the University of Surrey (O'Sullivan's actual legal accreditation, apparently obtained after the Mann-Ball action commenced, comes from an online degree mill, Hill University, which promises delivery in two weeks);
o that he is a member of the American Bar Association.

One affidavit includes an online comment in which O'Sullivan says, "For your information, I am a retired academic and I have litigated personally or assisted others in pro se litigation at every level of court there is in New York State as well as Federal level, for over a decade and never lost."

Although O'Sullivan admits in this particular comment that he is not, in fact, licensed to practice law, in the U.S. or the U.K., he adds, "I'm just some Brit with a brain who can go live with his American wife in her country and kick ass big time around a courtroom."

Certainly, O'Sullivan was successful in winning an acquittal when he was personally charged in England as a high school teacher accused of sending lewd text messages and assaulting a 16-year-old female. Given the acquittal, it would not generally be appropriate to bring up this sordid and unproven bit of history, except that O'Sullivan himself went on to write an "erotic" "novel" with a startlingly similar storyline: Vanilla Girl: a Fact-Based Crime Story of a Teacher's Struggle to Control His Erotic Obsession with a Schoolgirl.

Although eager to present himself as a science researcher of accomplishment - certainly Tim Ball's equal - Skolnick's research found that O'Sullivan is highly prone to error, whether intentional or not.

For example, O'Sullivan provided bogus contact information when registering as a member* with the New York County Lawyers' Association, an organization that apparently does not vet its members' qualifications (and does not, in any case, bestow the right to practice law). While O'Sullivan claimed to be with a firm named "Principia Scientific International," he provided the address of a construction company called Second Nature Construction; the phone number and fax number didn't belong to O'Sullivan or anyone connected to "Principia," either.

Principia certainly exists in some form. According to its website, O'Sullivan is its CEO, and Tim Ball is Chairman. Other members include climate deniers Paul Driessen, Paul Reiter and more. Principia notes that it operates as a "private association rather than a charitable foundation. This is because PSI chooses to operate with the relative freedom of any start up association that has yet to determine whether it may fulfil its long term purpose as either a business with the private profit motive or a charity."

This information emerged, and became relevant to this most recent libel action against Tim Ball, in part because Ball himself, in his Response to Civil Claim, stated that his communications with O'Sullivan were subject to solicitor-client privilege.

Mann then filed a reply, pointing out the facts documented in Skolnick's affidavits. As Mann's lawsuit proceeds, the court will inevitably rule on Ball's claim for "solicitor-client" privilege.

In the meantime, Ball has not submitted any affidavit from O'Sullivan attesting to his qualifications as Ball's legal advisor. If he did, O'Sullivan would be subject to cross-examination by Michael Mann's lawyer.


* The original post mistakenly said O'Sullivan was registering as an 'associate' member; in fact he registered as a member and was granted membership, despite not having a valid law degree or Bar certification in New York. We regret the error.

Affidavits in Michael Mann Libel Suit Reveal Astonishing Facts About Tim Ball Associate John O'Sullivan | DeSmogBlog

typical deflection. what the f*** does a member of Ball's ragtag defence team have to do with Michael Mann and whether or not he should produce discovery evidence?

one thing we know for sure....Mann lied to the NAS panel. he denied calculating r2 scores for MBH98,99. r2 scores are the near universal method for checking correlation and significance but Mann used the obscure RE scores instead because they looked better. the SI for MBH98,99 included a graph which gave r2 significance spread and the partial release of the Mann's computer code included a subroutine for calculating r2 scores.

(an interesting sidebar- Wahl and Ammand claimed to have replicated MBH98,99 and when they were compelled to give r2 stats, one of the centuries (15th, 16th?) was so low that they had to go out to five decimal places just so they wouldnt be forced to say it was zero correlation)

that one public lie to a commission formed to get to the truth is more than enough to forever taint Mann. but please....ask me for some more examples! Mann does deserve to be in the State Pen, and the fact that he has not been ostracized by legitimate climate scientists is a black eye to science in general.

 

[Abraham3]

It actually has almost nothing to do with it - though O'Sullivan is a good friend of Tim Ball and claims to be some sort of legal counsel to the man.

The point is that the story which leads this thread and was published on Principia Scientific which claimed that Mann's case against Ball had been thrown out and that Mann was facing bankruptcy came solely from the pathological liar and possibly child molesting former school teacher John O'Sullivan and contains not one shred of truth. Scan through this thread Ian. Your side hoots and hollers and celebrates the disinformation for post after post after post until it finally gets exposed for the flagrant lie that it is by none other than Anthony Watts of WUWT. After a few days go by, however, Skooks decides to bring it back. Helen of Handbag apparently hadn't seen the first exposure and was buying into it. I was obliged to reprint the story about the simply amazing fellow that more than one of you have chosen to rely on for global warming information.

As far as the court cases Mann is involved in: I'll let the courts decide and I'll try to use better sources than the steaming pile of cow manure located under the name Principia Scientific, product of Mr John O'Sullivan, liar.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So where's Mann's data?

 

[IanC]

Or it's the crushing weight of the atmosphere of Venus swamps any "Global Warming"

Um, no. A denser atmosphere alone would have no effect on temps, if no greenhouse gases were involved.

Oh wait, I take that back. A denser atmosphere, if it had no greenhouse gases, and didn't make the atmosphere deeper, would have a cooling effect, since the denser gas would conduct heat outward faster.

And fer Glub's sake, don't embarrass yourself by citing the Ideal Gas Law, which only applies to a closed system and has jack to do with heat flow.

any type of atmosphere will make a planet's surface warmer. the denser the atmosphere, the great is its capacity as a heat sink, and the warmer the surface will be. adding GHGs only improves its ability to trap heat.

or perhaps you were thinking of the elusive polished chrome planet powered by internal nuclear reactions! hahahaha. (emissivity of chrome is very low, it cannot shed heat easily by radiation, conduction is no problem)

 

[Abraham3]

The greater the mass of an atmosphere, the greater its heat capacity. By itself, however, heat capacity has no effect on temperature whatsoever. I could take Mercury and Jupiter into interstellar space, light years from the nearest star, and once they had reached equilibrium with their surroundings, their temperatures would be VERY close (~2.7K). And since we should be assuming that any planet we're examining is in a state of equilibrium, the heat capacity becomes irrelevant; it would only affect warming or cooling.

Mamooth is correct. The rate of thermal conduction through an atmosphere is directly proportional to its density.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

So where's Mann's data?

​

 

[Abraham3]

Mann has already published all the data required for an open examination of his work. Ball, Steyn and the National Review are all going on the same fishing expedition that Cuccinellie tried (and blitheringly failed)

Recall you comment yesterday, based on the Volokh Conspiracy article I quoted, that the judge had "punted"; that Mann BARELY had a case. Read this additional quotation from her honor concerning Mann's libel suit against Steyn and the National Review.

"... The Court finds that there is sufficient evidence in the record to demonstrate that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. As the Court stated in its previous Order, the NR Defendants’ reference to Plaintiff “as the man behind the fraudulent climate change ‘hockey stick’ graph” was essentially an allegation of fraud by Plaintiff. ...

The Court clearly recognizes that some members involved in the climate-change discussions and debates employ harsh words. The NR Defendants are reputed to use this manner of speech; however there is a line between rhetorical hyperbole and defamation. In this case, the evidence before the Court demonstrates that something more than mere rhetorical hyperbole is, at least at this stage present. Accusations of fraud, especially where such accusations are made frequently through the continuous usage of words such as “whitewashed,” “intellectually bogus,” “ringmaster of the tree-ring circus” and “cover-up” amount to more than rhetorical hyperbole. ...

The evidence before the Court indicates the likelihood that “actual malice” is present in the NR Defendants’ conduct. ...

 

[SSDD]

The greater the mass of an atmosphere, the greater its heat capacity. By itself, however, heat capacity has no effect on temperature whatsoever. I could take Mercury and Jupiter into interstellar space, light years from the nearest star, and once they had reached equilibrium with their surroundings, their temperatures would be VERY close (~2.7K). And since we should be assuming that any planet we're examining is in a state of equilibrium, the heat capacity becomes irrelevant; it would only affect warming or cooling.

Mamooth is correct. The rate of thermal conduction through an atmosphere is directly proportional to its density.

Mamooth and you couldn't be more wrong. Explain using the greenhouse hypothesis why the dark side of Venus doesn't cool during the 2000 hour night.

Mass and pressure are responsible for temperature Refer to the ideal gas laws.

By the way. Why is the base of the troposphere on Uranus warmer than that of earth

 

[mamooth]

any type of atmosphere will make a planet's surface warmer. the denser the atmosphere, the great is its capacity as a heat sink, and the warmer the surface will be.

The big rock in my yard is also a big heat sink, but it's not making my yard any warmer. A large heat sink will smooth out temperature variations, but it will have no effect on average temperatures.

Mamooth and you couldn't be more wrong. Explain using the greenhouse hypothesis why the dark side of Venus doesn't cool during the 2000 hour night.

Like I said before, 200 mph winds and an extremely slow rate of energy exchange between Venus and space.

Mass and pressure are responsible for temperature Refer to the ideal gas laws

Again, PV=nRT only applies to closed systems, and in any case has jack to do with planetary heat exchange. Yes, a gas heats if you compress it. However, that atmosphere was compressed billions of years ago. There's no new compression happening now, hence no heating from compression.

By the way. Why is the base of the troposphere on Uranus warmer than that of earth

Because it's 200 miles down in a very dense atmosphere which has a large methane percentage. Why on earth would you think that a good illustration of the greenhouse effect disproves the greenhouse effect?

 

[skookerasbil]

The greater the mass of an atmosphere, the greater its heat capacity. By itself, however, heat capacity has no effect on temperature whatsoever. I could take Mercury and Jupiter into interstellar space, light years from the nearest star, and once they had reached equilibrium with their surroundings, their temperatures would be VERY close (~2.7K). And since we should be assuming that any planet we're examining is in a state of equilibrium, the heat capacity becomes irrelevant; it would only affect warming or cooling.

Mamooth is correct. The rate of thermal conduction through an atmosphere is directly proportional to its density.

Mamooth and you couldn't be more wrong. Explain using the greenhouse hypothesis why the dark side of Venus doesn't cool during the 2000 hour night.

Mass and pressure are responsible for temperature Refer to the ideal gas laws.

By the way. Why is the base of the troposphere on Uranus warmer than that of earth

The fascists have all this gobblygook science semantic play......its part of the agenda. Confuse the shit out of people so you sound like you know what you are talking about.

 

[Abraham3]

Mamooth is correct. The rate of thermal conduction through an atmosphere is directly proportional to its density.

Mamooth and you couldn't be more wrong.

Tell us why the vacuum in a thermos bottle makes such good insulation.

Explain using the greenhouse hypothesis why the dark side of Venus doesn't cool during the 2000 hour night.

You want to critique the Greenhouse EFFECT by pointing out that Venus retains its heat? Brilliant.

Mass and pressure are responsible for temperature Refer to the ideal gas laws.

Keep in mind that between the two of us, I'm apparently the only one that ever took Thermodynamics or Heat Transfer.

By the way. Why is the base of the troposphere on Uranus warmer than that of earth

I already answered this, but I could understand it if you didn't catch it. Your contention that Uranus troposphere is nothing but helum and hydrogen is wrong. Her troposphere has methane and water clouds. It's also 300 km thick. Uranus' core is 5000K. Despite all that, Uranus is the coldest planet with an atmosphere in the solar system.

 

[SSDD]

any type of atmosphere will make a planet's surface warmer. the denser the atmosphere, the great is its capacity as a heat sink, and the warmer the surface will be.

The big rock in my yard is also a big heat sink, but it's not making my yard any warmer. A large heat sink will smooth out temperature variations, but it will have no effect on average temperatures.

Mamooth and you couldn't be more wrong. Explain using the greenhouse hypothesis why the dark side of Venus doesn't cool during the 2000 hour night.

I said before, 200 mph winds and an extremely slow rate of energy exchange between Venus and space.

200 mph winds should provide a cooling effect...hot wind isn't as hot as the surface that heated them. And the laws of physics are the same on Venus as on earth. Are you suggesting that if we looked at the ToA on Venus that little energy would be escaping....and again, the night is 2000 hours long and it doesn't cool...

Mass and pressure are responsible for temperature Refer to the ideal gas laws

, PV=nRT only applies to closed systems, and in any case has jack to do with planetary heat exchange. Yes, a gas heats if you compress it. However, that atmosphere was compressed billions of years ago. There's no new compression happening now, hence no heating from compression.

Laws of nature, not laws of systems. The ideal gas laws apply everywhere.

By the way. Why is the base of the troposphere on Uranus warmer than that of earth

Because it's 200 miles down in a very dense atmosphere which has a large methane percentage. Why on earth would you think that a good illustration of the greenhouse effect disproves the greenhouse effect?

Methane is what?....100 times the so called greenhouse gas that CO2 is...the amount of sunlight reaching Uranus is 400 times less than is reaching the earth and the amount that is not reflected and actually reaches down to the layers of methane is even less than that....the physics used to describe the so called greenhouse effect do not explain why the base of the troposphere on one of the coldest planets in the solar system is warmer than the base of the troposphere on earth.

The ideal gas laws, however, do explain it.

The greenhouse hypothesis is an ad hoc construct that only works here on earth as if the physics of energy exchange are somehow different here than everywhere else.

 

[skookerasbil]

SSDD......I laugh my balls off when you go into schoolage mode.......meanwhile, these people are taking bows posting up gobblygook and talking about the college courses they took. Ive always contended these science dweebs in here are social invalids.......the last picked for the team back in the day.....jumping out of their shorts to get their hand up first in class. HOLY MOTHER OF GOD.

 

[IanC]

The greater the mass of an atmosphere, the greater its heat capacity. By itself, however, heat capacity has no effect on temperature whatsoever. I could take Mercury and Jupiter into interstellar space, light years from the nearest star, and once they had reached equilibrium with their surroundings, their temperatures would be VERY close (~2.7K). And since we should be assuming that any planet we're examining is in a state of equilibrium, the heat capacity becomes irrelevant; it would only affect warming or cooling.

Mamooth is correct. The rate of thermal conduction through an atmosphere is directly proportional to its density.

???????

I thought we were talking about warming and cooling. anyways, if the Earth was put out in empty space the radioactivity of the core would still warm it above the temperature of its surroundings. the atmosphere would raise the surface temp because the atmosphere temperature would be intermediate between surface temp and space temp.

 

[IanC]

any type of atmosphere will make a planet's surface warmer. the denser the atmosphere, the great is its capacity as a heat sink, and the warmer the surface will be.

The big rock in my yard is also a big heat sink, but it's not making my yard any warmer. A large heat sink will smooth out temperature variations, but it will have no effect on average temperatures.

Mamooth and you couldn't be more wrong. Explain using the greenhouse hypothesis why the dark side of Venus doesn't cool during the 2000 hour night.

Like I said before, 200 mph winds and an extremely slow rate of energy exchange between Venus and space.

Mass and pressure are responsible for temperature Refer to the ideal gas laws

Again, PV=nRT only applies to closed systems, and in any case has jack to do with planetary heat exchange. Yes, a gas heats if you compress it. However, that atmosphere was compressed billions of years ago. There's no new compression happening now, hence no heating from compression.

By the way. Why is the base of the troposphere on Uranus warmer than that of earth

Because it's 200 miles down in a very dense atmosphere which has a large methane percentage. Why on earth would you think that a good illustration of the greenhouse effect disproves the greenhouse effect?

your rock example needs a little work. lay out an electric blanket in a cool room and put a rock (pillow, newspaper, 2x4, etc) on top of it. check back in a few hours and measure the temp of the exposed blanket and then the covered portion of the blanket. do you doubt that the covered area will be warmer?

so it was you mamooth, that said Venus surface temp was the same day or night. sorry SSDD.

everything is trying to get rid of its energy as fast as possible, an endless game of hot potato. input and output equals net change. daylight adds energy, nightime removes it. I am assuming that mamooth is stating that wind powered mixing and greenhouse gas reduction of radiation combines to make an insulating effect that smoothes the temperature gradient down to nothing by the time it reaches the surface. this cannot happen because the solar powered winds lose strength and heat as they move away from the energy source. the only exception I can think of is that the insulating effect may cause a time lag of roughly 1/2 of a Venusian day, in which case the average over time could be the same but there would still be a temperature differential. an exception that proves the rule.


I agree that original heat of compression is a non-factor for systems that have come to equilibrium, but it is a symptom. daytime warming of the atmosphere 'puffs' it out by a few kilometres I believe. it is another heat sink by storing or releasing potential energy.

 

[Abraham3]

Wow. A denier corrects SSDD. The world is changing - and in a good way for once.

That you people spend as much time as you do arguing against the Greenhouse Effect ought to tell you something. It would be something that sounds very much like "I don't actually have a case".

 

[SSDD]

so it was you mamooth, that said Venus surface temp was the same day or night. sorry SSDD.

No, it was me that said that the temperature on venus was the same day or night. I said it because in fact, it is the same day or night. One more example of why I say that the greenhouse hypothesis is no more than an ad hoc construct that only works here on earth because it was fabricated to do so while taking as few physical laws into consideration as possible.

Here have a look:

Temperature of Venus

Clip: "The temperature on Venus does not vary like it does on our home world. It is 460 degrees day or night, at the poles or at the equator. "

How Hot is Venus? | Space.com

Clip: Temperatures on Venus remain consistent over time. For one thing, the planet takes 243 Earth days to spin once on its axis (and it spins backwards, at that; on Venus, the sun rises in the west and sets in the east). The nights on Venus are as warm as the days.

There is no greenhouse effect at work on Venus...pressure rules there as it does here...and mamooths claim that the ideal gas laws are only at work in a closed system is the statement of someone who doesn't have a clue.

 

[SSDD]

Wow. A denier corrects SSDD. The world is changing - and in a good way for once.

That you people spend as much time as you do arguing against the Greenhouse Effect ought to tell you something. It would be something that sounds very much like "I don't actually have a case".

Unlike you cultist believers, we actually think for ourselves....no lock step here. Ian's correction was wrong however...the day time and night time temperatures on venus are the same. There is no greenhouse effect runaway or otherwise at work on venus...pressure is king there as it is here...the ideal gas laws, plus incoming solar accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...unlike the greenhouse hypothesis which only works on earth because it is an ad hoc construct that is supposed to do nothing but explain earth acknowledging as few physical laws as possible.

Temperature of Venus

Clip: "The temperature on Venus does not vary like it does on our home world. It is 460 degrees day or night, at the poles or at the equator. "

How Hot is Venus? | Space.com

Clip: Temperatures on Venus remain consistent over time. For one thing, the planet takes 243 Earth days to spin once on its axis (and it spins backwards, at that; on Venus, the sun rises in the west and sets in the east). The nights on Venus are as warm as the days.

Ian believes in the greenhouse hypothesis....he just doesn't think that CO2 is as magical as you do. He is mistaken....just not as badly mistaken as you.

 

[IanC]

Wow. A denier corrects SSDD. The world is changing - and in a good way for once.

That you people spend as much time as you do arguing against the Greenhouse Effect ought to tell you something. It would be something that sounds very much like "I don't actually have a case".

which denier corrected SSDD?

do you have some kind of definition for the label 'denier'? can you name a few prominent deniers? I only ask because I think your strawman conception of skeptics is massively distorted by your vision of the climate debate as an 'us-vs-them' scenario.