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?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So, you have some evidence that the piece in the OP is false?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.
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
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.
So where's Mann's data?
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.
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.
SSDD said: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.
SSDD said: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 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 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
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.
SSDD said: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...
SSDD said: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.
ssdd said: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?
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.
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.
SSDD said: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.
SSDD said: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?
so it was you mamooth, that said Venus surface temp was the same day or night. sorry 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".
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".