Envirocensors Hide Explosive Japanese Satellite Data
Scorching new evidence of the environmental left’s scientific obstruction has surfaced in the squelching of reports of Japanese satellite data, which suggest that the underdeveloped world emits far more carbon dioxide than previously imagined, even more than many Western nations! If the claim is substantiated, it could turn the entire meme that industrialized civilization is endangering the planet on its head.
When John O’Sullivan, a climate non-dogmatist, discovered the data and published an article on Suite 101, he was immediately fired and his posts removed for the last two years. Of course, the enviroleft is going to say that is because his article was so absurd. But isn’t it the point of the scientific method that if one can falsify a theory, one does so using transparent, replicable methods and publishes the findings in open, apolitical, peer-reviewed journals? In other words, if his findings are so ridiculous, isn’t it the job of the climate dogmatists to point out why?
Simply disagreeing with the results of a study doesn’t make the data, or the questions, go away. If the underdeveloped world is emitting more CO2 than the Western world, then what need would there be for global redistribution of wealth based on the presumption that carbon emissions are “destroying the planet” and causing catastrophic “climate change”? What would the findings tell us about the unfounded hysteria surrounding the argument that man’s activities are warming the planet? And furthermore, wouldn’t they also suggest that the environmentalist movement has thus far been politics first, science second?
There is no place for censorship in the scientific community, or in Western civilization as a whole. When the “consensus” wants to shut somebody up, that’s because it has something to hide. Fortunately for us, there are ways to get around censorship, but expect it to get even more heavy-handed as the manmade global warming fraud gets increasingly exposed.
The most important conclusion one could take away from the data, if proved accurate, is that the West’s better health and living standards are no accident, and the industry that makes it possible is no danger to mankind as a whole. Industrial society would rightfully be restored as an overall benefit to human health, rather than a supposed global scourge.
As posted on Political Crush. H/T to Barnaby is Right and JoNova.
Hate facts. Snark. Just a splash of derision.
Rogue Government 
I think a much more credible reason Mr. O’Sullivan was fired was because he had falsely passed himself off as an attorney representing fellow denier Tim Ball before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, that he is a member of the American Bar Association, and that that he was employed as a legal consultant for the Victoria, BC law firm Pearlman Lindholm.
Like most information web sites, Suite101.com has rules prohibiting writers from providing false academic and professional credentials. Most of academic and professional credentials Mr. O’Sullivan provided in his bio were either greatly exaggerated or entirely made up.
Compare the screen capture of Mr. O’Sullivan’s previous Suite101.com bio with the screen capture of his most recent Suite101.com bio prior to being terminated. They show how he deleted some of his bogus claims in response to the Law Society of British Columbia’s investigation of his claims to be practicing law in British Columbia courts and working as a “legal consultant for Pearlman Lindholm” — neither of which were true.
In an email reply I received from Mr. Michael Scherr — the Pearlman Lindholm attorney who is ACTUALLY representing Tim Ball — says Mr. O’Sullivan was never employed by his law firm.
I will be putting more of these records on my web site in order to document the mendacious history of one of the most audacious humbugs to ever pass himself off as a “science journalist.”
Well, why was the timing of his firing so incredibly coincidental? I find your Alinskyite ad hominem attack tiring and uncompelling, to say the least, but I won’t attempt to defend a person I don’t know. I will, however, question both the timing and the measures undertaken by Suite 101 to silence the author’s past work. His credentials are unconnected to the merits of the claims, but I suppose that has never mattered to envirostatists as far as public policy is concerned. But I do want my readers to have a chance to see an aspersion that is being cast at John O’Sullivan. It is a familiar tactic, and conservatives are wholly used to it. Its effectiveness, as it should become apparent, is diminishing with each use.
It is interesting that both bios go to a website that you control. You need to have an html in the screenshot to better substantiate your claims, just some advice.
You can call the timing of Mr. O’Sullivan’s firing “incredibly coincidental” just like you can call the earth flat.
The facts, I believe, show it’s more of a cause and effect. First, Mr. O’Sullivan had to remove some of the fraudulent credentials he claimed in his Suite101.com bio as a result of an investigation by the Law Society of British Columbia into his bogus claim to be defending Tim Ball in the Supreme Court of British Columbia and being employed as a “legal consultant” for the Victoria law firm Pearlman Lindholm. (The law firm is not in Vancouver, as O’Sullivan claimed.)
That occurred around the same time that I complained to Suite101.com editors that his bio was full of bogus professional and academic credentials.
#2, you really should look up what an ad hominem argument is. An ad hominem argument is an IRRELEVANT attack on a person rather than on the person’s argument.
If a reporter is a documented liar and fraud, that IS RELEVANT and therefore not an ad hominem argument since it is ESSENTIAL for judging the veracity of what the person reports. It is the reason why all the testimony of any witness in a civil or criminal court can be impeached by showing he or she had lied under oath.
But don’t take my word for it: From the “Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: A Peer- Reviewed Academic Resource”:
“You commit [an ad hominem] fallacy if you make an IRRELEVANT attack on the arguer and suggest that this attack undermines the argument itself. … The major difficulty with labeling a piece of reasoning as an ad hominem fallacy is deciding whether the personal attack is RELEVANT.” [emphasis added]
http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Ad%20Hominem
Your assertion that the fact a reporter lies about his professional and academic credentials has no bearing on whether his reporting should be trusted is just too silly for words.
You choose to defend a now-notorious humbug, who has been falsely passing himself off as a practicing attorney with more a decade of successful litigation in NY and Federal 2nd District Courts and as a science journalist with articles published in National Review and Forbes magazines. It won’t speak well of your own integrity — which may be why you wish only to be known as #2.
You and others, who wish to get your information from such a humbug, deserve what you’ll get. Others should pay attention to how the great web of deception Mr. O’Sullivan has woven across the Internet over the past two years is now unraveling.
What I linked to are documents I copied from Mr. O’Sullivan’s Suite101.com bio, before and after he removed his fraudulent statements about working for Pearlman Lindholm. One of those is his current bio — which #2 could have easily verified if he or she wanted. The other, I would be happy to produce in court if Mr. O’Sullivan would like to take me there.
In the next week or so, I will be providing more of the documentation I’ve collected over the past 5 months. They’re the reason I doubt Mr. O’Sullivan will be accepting my challenge.
Sorry for not noticing Rogueoperator’s avatar on the right of his message and mistaking “#2” for his screen name. My bad.
Don’t lecture me on what an ad hominem attack is, genius. John O’Sullivan’s biography is irrelevant to the substance of the article: 1) Japanese data challenge the central assertions of manmade global warming. 2) John O’Sullivan publicized these data. 3) Sullivan was precipitously terminated in employment and all his articles for the last two years were erased.
I am not interested in his biography or in your epithets. I am interested in the publicity of the story, and the censorship of the article.
Thanks for the education on what an ad hominem attack is. I don’t know how I could have figured it out without you.
Sorry, it really doesn’t take a genius to understand that the honesty of a news reporter is NOT irrelevant to his credibility. And it is NOT irrelevant to the integrity of his reports.
Trust me about this, you really should to go back to school. You really don’t have a clue what ad hominem arguments are.
Your claim that he was fired to shut him up is nothing but bilge. I’ve documented the reasons he should have been fired — and they may well be the actual reason. I’ve queried both Suite101.com’s communications department and managing editor for a statement.
It’s clear you have little use for documented facts, or even for simple logic.
You say you have no interest in whether he was fired for fraudulently posting false credentials. It was censorship and that’s what you’re going to believe regardless of the facts.
Interesting perspective.
I may be wrong about you’re needing to go back to school. School can only help people who are willing to learn and who are willing to question their beliefs.
Oh, furthermore, genius, if you were interested in the facts of Mr. O’Sullivan’s article rather than whatever you mean by its “substance,” you might have noticed that he got nearly everything wrong — right down to the NAME of the satellite! It’s the “IBUKI” not “IBUKU” satellite:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8573&linkbox=true&position=7
Ibuku is Japanese for “bamboo,” but I doubt that was what Mr. O’Sullivan was smoking when he wrote that deliriously incorrect article.
Riiiiiight. Now here is what you said:
“I think a much more credible reason Mr. O’Sullivan was fired was because he had falsely passed himself off as an attorney representing fellow denier Tim Ball before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, that he is a member of the American Bar Association, and that that he was employed as a legal consultant for the Victoria, BC law firm Pearlman Lindholm.”
What is a denier? Someone who doesn’t believe in your dogma? That’s a very scientific point of view.
“I will be putting more of these records on my web site in order to document the mendacious history of one of the most audacious humbugs to ever pass himself off as a ‘science journalist.’ ”
I don’t know what being a “humbug” has to do with this story.
“You choose to defend a now-notorious humbug, who has been falsely passing himself off as a practicing attorney with more a decade of successful litigation in NY and Federal 2nd District Courts and as a science journalist with articles published in National Review and Forbes magazines. It won’t speak well of your own integrity — which may be why you wish only to be known as #2.”
Am I defending the guy? I am pointing out that he was fired and his articles were expunged after publicizing data that climate dogmatists don’t want to become widely known.
Please stop and look at what you’re saying and try to follow the facts:
For two years he has been posting his attack pieces on Suite101.com many of which vilified and libeled individuals and research organizations.
Did anyone censor him? (Think hard now before answering.) NO. No one. He continued posting his malicious collections of disinformation for 2 years.
Then, after an investigation by the Law Society of British Columbia, he removed some of his fraudulent credentials from his Suite101.com bio. Around the same time, I filed a complaint with Suite101.com, informing the managing editor that most of the professional and academic credentials in his bio are bogus — which is a serious violation of Suite101.com’s rules for contributing writers.
Shortly after that, he was fired and his factually-challenged articles removed.
For you to make even a least plausible claim that he was fired in response to the last article he published, you need to explain why he was NOT fired after the publication of his first factually-challenged Suite101.com diatribe. Or his second, third, fourth, … or sixty-second. And why it was only after his lies finally began to be noticed by authorities that he was fired.
Your claim that he was fired to prevent him from reporting information harmful to climatologists is ridiculous since he’s was doing that for the past 2 years on Suite101.com. Only after the authorities began to investigate his bogus claims to be a practicing lawyer that he got canned.
So no one fact-checked his articles for two years? Ridiculous.
What is ridiculous, my claim that O’Sullivan’s articles were awash with inaccuracies and falsehoods? Or that no one really fact-checked his articles?
In her reply to my inquiry, the managing editor of Suite101.com said, “Suite101 doesn’t verify the details provided by writers in their profiles; however, as stated in our Terms and Conditions, Suite101 reserves the right to delete a writer’s content and take any other action deemed necessary in instances where a writer demonstrates ‘conduct inappropriate for the Suite101 community.'”
Oh I’m sure each article is passed by a “fact checker” for what ever that is worth. But, as the statement about never verifying the credentials of its writers shows, the practice of such online information publishers is to just put the stuff up and just correct or take it down if a problem arises. Plagiarism is rampant on sites like this — I’ve twice had to go after information publishing web sites when I discovered their writers had plagiarized large sections of my published articles (one of them even misstated the conclusion of the section he ripped off ).
What can you expect from online publishers who pay writers an average of $15 – 25 per article! Ya gets what ya pays for.
It’s not like O’Sulivan was writing for National Review or Forbes magazine, you know, where facts are checked and credentials verified.
Oh, I forgot! He claims his articles have been published in National Review and Forbes. LOL!
You’ve done nothing to debunk the substance of his claims. But thanks for stopping by! 🙂
And you provided NO evidence whatsoever that he was fired to punish him for publishing information embarrassing to climatologists and to prevent him from publishing more. None. You’ve got bupkiss. Just a malicious and ridiculous accusation without a whit to back it up.
Especially against the evidence that I have — evidence that O’Sullivan was caught fraudulently passing himself off as an attorney representing Tim Ball and claiming that he is working as a legal consultant for the Victoria law firm Pearlman Lindholm. That is more than a good reason for Suite101.com to fire him; had they not done so, they might find themselves facing litigation for O’Sullivan’s actions.
This evening, the Law Society of British Columbia gave me permission to publish their confidential letter. I’ve uploaded it to my web site:
Click to access BC_LawSociety_4-nov311_Skolnick.pdf
And your evidence that his termination was an act of censorship? Hmmmm, Rogue? This appears to be just your unsupported — and quite frankly, I think worthless — opinion.
You ask me for evidence to “debunk the substance” of O’Sullivan’s report. Where would I start? You want me to prove that he got the name of the Japanese satellite wrong? Or that he utterly misrepresented the scientists’ findings? I think I’ll just stick to correcting the public record about Mr. O’Sullivans bogus credentials. That in itself is going to be a time-consuming job considering how far and wide he posted those false claims.
Go for it, chief. It is quite apparent what your motivation is. Why else would you care what people think about John O’Sullivan?
My article is not about John O’Sullivan. You yourself admitted that for two years no one fact-checked his articles; and then all of a sudden, he brought wrath upon himself for publicizing a claim that “deniers” might find informative.
Interesting timing.
Now you’re in a full-on smear campaign, trying to bury the meaning of the results by conflating them with the character of the person who related them.
Well, nice try. We’ve all seen this play before. It’s going on with presidential candidate Herman Cain, and it goes with anyone the left wants to shut up.
Envirofascists of the world, unite! LMAO
“Go for it, chief. It is quite apparent what your motivation is.”
And what is that?
Rogue, if you had bothered to check before shooting your mouth off, you’d know that I’ve been an investigative journalist and science writer exposing quacks and frauds for more than 20 years — and have numerous honors to show for it, from a Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch to an Amnesty International USA “Spotlight on Media” award. And you, Rogue? What do you have but a self-published blog from which you anonymously attack scientists and others with whom you disagree.
“My article is not about John O’Sullivan.”
And yet your article IS about John O’Sullivan: Right there in your lede: “When John O’Sullivan, a climate non-dogmatist, discovered the data and published an article on Suite 101, he was immediately fired.”
“You yourself admitted that for two years no one fact-checked his articles; …”
That’s NOT what I said.
“…and then all of a sudden, he brought wrath upon himself for publicizing a claim that ‘deniers’ might find informative.”
That’s also not what I said. I said he was fired after I filed a complaint with Suite101.com about his fraudulent credentials and an investigation by the Law Society of British Columbia led to Mr. O’Sullivan having to remove some of those fraudulent professional credentials from his Suite101.com bio.
You don’t want to believe in coincidence and yet you say that O’Sullivan getting fired right after his AFTER his fraud was exposed must be a coincidence.
By knowingly defending this humbug, who has been using fraudulent credentials to deceive readers, you’ve revealed a lot about your own integrity, or lack thereof. You sure picked an appropriate screen name.
This is what is known as “trolling.”
I don’t care about your Pulitzer Prize. I care about the substance of the claims.
Freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Blow it out your ass.
So you want to know who I am? Why? So you can harass me at home?
This is why I remain anonymous. Because eco-loons like yourself are unhinged.
I don’t care about your little crusade or make-believe manmade global warming and all the interminable apocalyptic claims, which fill the wallets of grifters around the world.
I reported what happened, and that’s that.
By the way, I’m a freelance writer, in case you haven’t noticed.
And my blog does just fine, thank you.
Any more details I leave to your imagination.
Sorry, I left word “nomination” out: The sentence should read:
“from a Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting NOMINATION from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch to an Amnesty International USA “Spotlight on Media” award.
Hey Rogue, you keep telling us you care only about the “substance” of O’Sullivan’s claims, — but you still haven’t explained what that means.
It certainly doesn’t mean “truth,” because you mock any effort to hold O’Sullivan accountable for his errors, falsehoods, and fraudulent claims.
You only care about “the substance,” you keep saying — which makes me wonder what substance you may be on.
That was funny, by the way. There at the end. I give you credit.
Listen, I’m not “just a blogger.” I know politics. And a lot of this is politics.
You need to stop this fanatical barrage. I understand you may be getting paid to do PR damage control.
Let me roll this out for you:
1. John O’Sullivan published articles for at least two years at Suite101, and as your posts imply, they weren’t fact-checked or otherwise edited.
2. O’Sullivan was precipitously fired after relating GOSAT data that raises questions in the climate science field.
3. You say that he was actually terminated because he was making fraudulent claims about his resume.
4. You say his articles were substandard (I agree that confusing Ibuka and Ibuki is a problem).
By the way, I like some of your work. I’m not persuaded of your case, but I’m not going to erase your points. I will let it stand unless you swear too much.
All I care about is the truth, not my ego. But I suspect he was terminated right after the article in question for a reason, and that it is not due to his apparently false bio.
You say “Let me roll this out for you.” I suspect you actually mean “Let me Troll this out for you.”: All you do is make false assertions and mischaracterize my statements, like this one:
“John O’Sullivan published articles for at least two years at Suite101, and as your posts imply, they weren’t fact-checked or otherwise edited.”
That’s not what I said or even implied.
“You say that he was actually terminated because he was making fraudulent claims about his resume.”
I never said he made fraudulent claims about his resume. I said his bios are full of false and even fraudulent credentials.
“You say his articles were substandard (I agree that confusing Ibuka and Ibuki is a problem.”
No, I said his articles are full of falsehoods, deception, and defamation. You have some way with words: calling falsehoods, deception, and defamation “substandard” is like calling the American Civil War “a dispute.”
“I understand you may be getting paid to do PR damage control.”
I understand you’ll say anything that comes to your mind in an effort to defend a fraud and disparage his accuser.
NO ONE has EVER paid me anything to investigate and write about John O’Sullivan and his fellow Sky Dragon Slayers. But if Rolling Stone or Harper’s want to offer me something, I promise you will be among the first to know.
You pretty much could have used a thesaurus and rewrote my claims. Really, not everyone is as stupid as you think. Get over yourself.
I can’t troll my own website, idiot.
You are wasting your time and mine. But maybe you have nothing better to do.
.