Posted by Curt on 3 June, 2019 at 7:59 am. 2 comments already!


The prison gate is about to slam thunderously shut on the global warming fraudsters. It is time to report their profitable but murderous deception to the public investigating and prosecuting authorities.

To prove a fraud, though, is harder than to prove a murder. One has to demonstrate – beyond reasonable doubt – not one but two criminal intents.

The first is the intent to deceive by way of a false and dishonest representation. A representation is false if it is untrue or misleading and the person making it knows that it is, or may be, untrue or misleading. A representation is dishonest if what was done would be regarded as dishonest by the reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus, and if the perpetrator must have realized that the reasonable man would regard the deception as dishonest.

The second is the intent to cause a gain or loss in money or money’s worth by means of the deception – an intent either to gain by fraudulently getting what one does not have or by fraudulently keeping what one already has, or both, or an intent to cause a loss by depriving the victims of what they already possess, or by preventing them from gaining what they would otherwise have gotten, or both.

I recently visited a country house somewhere in Scotland to consult an eminent lawyer with close ties to the police. I described to him certain specific matters that appeared, prima facie, to be frauds. I told him exactly how the fraudulent claim of “97% consensus” had been fabricated. He got the point at once.

I went on to tell him how certain parties have wilfully and, as we see it, fraudulently thwarted our attempts to get one of the leading learned journals of climatology to publish our paper demonstrating that a single, elementary, catastrophic error of physics is the sole cause of the absurdly overblown predictions of warmer weather on the basis of which scientifically-illiterate governments have been panicked by downright evil lobby groups and profiteers of doom into causing untold death, disease, educational disadvantage, industrial destruction and financial ruin worldwide.

His eyes widened as the story unfolded. I said that, when we had submitted our paper to a journal, its editor had at first replied that he could not find anyone competent to review the paper. When we had persisted, the editor had spent six months garnering precisely two reviews. The first reviewer said he disagreed with the mathematics on a page that did not exist: whatever paper the reviewer was commenting upon, we were able to prove it was not the paper we had submitted to the journal.

The second reviewer had actually read the submitted paper, but he had commented that, because he had found the paper’s conclusion that global warming was not a problem uncongenial, he had not read the equations that justified the conclusion.

We pointed out that, since neither of the reviewers had actually reviewed our paper, the editor had received no indication that there was anything wrong with it, wherefore he should publish it without any further delay. He refused, saying that he would only publish the paper if the reviewers said it should be published. He added that he had telephoned a third party, who had told him not to publish the paper. We asked for that review in writing, so that we could comment on it and respond to any specific scientific points it made, but were refused.

The journal’s management then got in touch to invite us to submit further papers in future and to say they hoped we were happy with the review process. I wrote back to say that, unless we were given the opportunity to appeal against the editor’s decision, we proposed to report him as a participant in what Professor Mörner has justifiably described as “the biggest fraud in human history”.

Thereupon, the editor agreed to send out the paper for review again. For our part, we offered to expand the argument considerably, so as to forestall the usual attempts by politically and financially motivated academics to weasel out of allowing the paper to be published.

But when we submitted the much-extended paper, the editor did not reply. When we wrote a reminder email, again he did not reply.

We wrote to the IPCC, not once but twice, to activate the error-reporting protocol that the IPCC had been obliged to adopt after a series of acutely embarrassing errors, such as the laughable notion that all the ice in the Himalayas would melt by 2050. The IPCC, however, had failed even to acknowledge our report, let alone to activate the mandatory protocol that the Inter-Academy Council had obliged it to put in place.

The eminent lawyer’s eyebrows lifted. He pondered for a few moments, and then gave us the following advice:

First, he said, we should write to the Serious Fraud Office, with a copy to my local Chief Constable and a further copy to him, putting the authorities on notice that a fraud was suspected, providing the evidence of the “97% consensus” fraud (some of the perpetrators were in Britain) and providing the evidence of how we had been mistreated by the journal. At this stage, we should not request an investigation, but we should outline the widespread death, disease, damage and destruction caused by the suspected fraud.

Next, he advised us to submit our paper, in the normal way, to a second journal, this time within the jurisdiction of the British investigating authorities. We should keep meticulous records of the correspondence between us and the journal. If that second journal failed either to publish our paper or to provide a legitimate and robust scientific refutation of our argument, then we should copy that correspondence to the Serious Fraud Office and to the Chief Constable, again not requesting an investigation but merely putting them on notice that the fraud appeared to be continuing, and appeared to involve more than one journal.

Then, he said, assuming that no genuine fault had been found with our scientific argument, we should submit the paper to a third journal, again in the normal way, keeping a careful track of the correspondence. If the third journal did not handle the paper scientifically, we should write to the police again, this time to request investigation and prosecution of the connected frauds of the authors of the “97% consensus” claim, of the journal that had published that claim and had failed to publish a correction when requested, of the board of management of that journal, of the three journals that had refused to handle our paper scientifically, and of the IPCC secretariat that had fraudulently failed to activate its error-reporting protocol.

By that time, he said, the police would begin to be curious. They would check out certain easily-verifiable points, such as the fact that the list of almost 12,000 papers allegedly reviewed by the perpetrators of the “97% consensus” deception showed that the authors had themselves marked only 0.5% of the papers as explicitly stating their support for the “consensus” position as they had defined it. Once the police realized that we were telling the truth, they would begin to investigate, and he would support them in doing so.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x