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

Error message

  • Warning: require_once(): Unable to allocate memory for pool. in _drupal_bootstrap_variables() (line 2481 of /mnt/www/desmogblog_2012/includes/bootstrap.inc).
  • Warning: require_once(): Unable to allocate memory for pool. in Database::openConnection() (line 1690 of /mnt/www/desmogblog_2012/includes/database/database.inc).
Thu, 2012-07-26 11:52Brendan Demelle and Richard Littlemore
Brendan Demelle and Richard Littlemore's picture

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 [12] 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:

  • that he was an attorney with more than a decade of successful litigation in New York State and Federal courts;
  • that he was employed by a major Victoria, B.C.(Canada) law firm that is representing Ball in the libel action;
  • that he is a widely published writer, with credits in Forbes and the National Review;
  • 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);
  • 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 DriessenPaul 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.

Previous Comments

John O’Sullivan, made some pretty outrageous claims about Michael Mann over at Climate Crocks.

One of them was shown to be suspect, and then this. This man is full of ordure.

We need more like him!

http://climatecrocks.com/2012/07/22/mike-mann-calls-out-slime-vending-conservatives-at-national-review/comment-page-3/#comment-12424

What can I say? Liars and deniers for hire.

 

Dr. Mann is accusing Tim Ball of libel as well as a “John Doe.” Please let us know when they say who “John Doe” really is.

Hi Brendan & Richard,

 

Not a bad summary but you haven’t presented anything like the full picture. There is much much more behind what Greg Laden calls “Strangest AGW Denialist Story So Far This Year” (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/07/24/strangest-agw-denialist-story-so-far-this-year/#comment-90604) .

 

According to my records two of the main players in the Principia Scietific International saga John O’Sullivan and Tim Ball were exchanging E-mails since the middle of 2010. That’s when John was collecting together his team of “Dragon Slayers” in preparation for releasing their book “Slaying the Sky Dragon”, which in my humble opinion is simply a hodge-podge of blog articles hurriedly thrown together behind a colourful cover. I’m not a scientist (neither are many of the PSI founding members) but after giving careful consideration to the arguments since March 2007 I am sceptical of the Catatrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis. Although I’m a sceptic I have to agree with CACC supporters and many other sceptics that “Slaying the Sky Dragon” has little if any scientific merit.

 

The E-mail exchanges that took place during Dec. 2010/Jan 2011 indicate that John’s big plan was to form an international publishing company Principia Scientific International (PSI) with thousands of subscribing members. PSI would have an executive with Tim Ball as Chairman, John  O’S as CEO, Johannes (Hans) Cornelis Schreuder as CFO, Rev. Philip Foster as Complaince Offier and the rest of the executive chosen from the other co-authors.

 

John’s teaching career (in art and possible some sports?), which extended over a period of about 18 years but seems to have been somewhat intermittent, appeared to come to a rather abrupt end in 2003 when those charges were brought by his step-daughter’s one-time friend Rebecca. He was acquitted of all charges after his step daughter flew over from the US on the eve of the final day of the hearing and took the blame for sending the text messages. Since then John has tried a variety of other means of earning a living before his PSI venture.

 

When he failed to raise the start-up funds from within his group of “Slayers” (as I recall less than a measly £200 each) he then made a public appeal for £15000 (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s). Since 17th Jan 2011 it has attracted £450, with John claiming that the £350 received within the first hour coming from a family member in the USA (although, as with most things that John claims, that is questionable). The next appeal that I am aware of John making was for donations to pay Tim Ball’s legal fees. You have to hand it to John, he is persistent.

 

It’s a long, complicated but fascinating story with many unexpected tsists and turns. Anyone interested can find out more at GlobalPoliticalShenanigans (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/) in articles and postings made since May.

 

Enjoy the read.

 

Best regards, Pete Ridley  

John O’Sullivan has posted a response to this article. http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/07/29/desmogblog-fail-with-pop-gun-character-assassination-ploy/

He keeps saying that Dr. Mann hid his meta-data. I think this is a reference to the computer code for the hockey stick graph. Actually, Dr. Mann released that code some years ago even though he didn’t have to. See page 6 of his letter to Congressman Barton.

http://www.realclimate.org/Mann_response_to_Barton.pdf



 

John O’Sullivan has posted a response to this article. http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/07/29/desmogblog-fail-with-pop-gun-character-assassination-ploy/

He keeps saying that Dr. Mann hid his meta-data. I think this is a reference to the computer code for the hockey stick graph. Actually, Dr. Mann released that code some years ago even though he didn’t have to. See page 6 of his letter to Congressman Barton.

http://www.realclimate.org/Mann_response_to_Barton.pdf



 

Tim Ball keeps changing what he says about climate change without giving any evidence for his contradictory arguments. How can the earth be warming in 2006 but cooling at an increasing rate since 2000?

http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2012/07/tim-ball-cant-decide-whether-earth-is.html

I very much doubt that this comment will see the light of day, but here’s hoping this forum is open to healthy debate and is willing to consider counter-argument:

I’m not here to defend Mr. O’Sullivan, but as Mr. Skolnick has chosen to very publicly attack his credentials, I think his own credentials now become ‘fair game’ and open to scrutiny.

I hope he can directly address the following question:

Do you continue to believe it is wholly accurate (and not misleading) to describe yourself as ‘nominated for a Pulitzer prize”? (see http://aaskolnick.com/new/mybio.htm)…as stated in your bio, resume and sworn court affidavits?

My understanding is that, at best, a piece you once co-wrote may have been entered into the Pulitzer competition by a newspaper. But, as you know, you were never nominated by the Pulitzer committee. Your co-reporters (Bill Allen and Kim Bell) don’t make such claims to be ‘nominees’, despite the obvious prestige of such an honorific (see http://journalism.missouri.edu/staff/bill-allen/).

It seems patently clear to me that merely being an entrant, yet implying being a ‘nominee’, is disingenuous and misleading, at best. But I also base my opinion on such sources as the Pulitzer committee and respected ‘investigative reporters’ such as NBC’s Bill Dedman:

See: http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/26/12405234-bloomberg-tvs-ads-make-false-claim-to-pulitzer-nomination-for-anchor-liu?lite and http://www.pulitzer.org/faq#q20

Under normal circumstances, such a padding of a resume could be overlooked and seen as rather inconsequential boasting. But as you’ve chosen to attack the credentials of another person, I think it’s wholly acceptable to question the accuracy of your own claimed credentials (especially since you have made affidavits in the case, where your own veracity is clearly relevant).

Care to respond DIRECTLY to the question?  Without any more personal insults?

P.S. I happen to believe Professor Mann is justifiably well-respected in his field.  I don’t have the knowledge to comment on the facts in the case….so I have deliberately never taken a stance on who is right and who is wrong.  But I do feel Mr. Skolnick’s personal insults of Mr. O’Sullivan merely dilute the prosecution case….comments such as ‘humbug’ lawyer merely exacerbate the already libelous environment…global warming is emotionally charged enough…such potentially defamatory comments don’t help, in my opinion. As Mr. O’Sullivan is somewhat involved in this case (albeit in the past?), good on you Mr. Skolnick…but just be aware that your own credentials, prior terminations et al. are not beyond scrutiny either.

Hi folks,

 

Although Andrew Skolnick and I are poles apart regarding the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis I still have a lot of respect for his courage and tenacity regarding searching for the truth and his transparency. Unlike others who throw insults from behind false names, Andrew has no qualms about disclosing who he is. He also puts his money where his mouth is.

 

Hundreds of comments and E-mail exchanges took place in 2011 between Andrew, members of John O’Sullivan’s group of climate science “slayers”/Principia Scientific International (PSI) members and other parties and many have been posted on the Global Political Shenanigans blog since May.

 

The veracity of claims made by both John O’Sullivan and Andrew Skolnick were debated ad nauseum (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/professor-judith-currys-letter-to.html and http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/selected-e-mails-with-slayerspsi.html) including the matter of Andrew’s claim to have been nominated for a Pulitzer prize (a minor matter of semantics?). Much more significant claims were discussed, such as qualifications earned and employment record.

 

One example is John O’Sullivan’s claim to having earned a degree in Law/Fine Art from University of Surrey in 1984 (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/19/6b4/84a) and to have “ .. earned my law degree from University of Surrey in 1982 .. ” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/selected-e-mails-with-slayerspsi.html - see my comment of Dec 19 2011, 06:28 PM). After repeated requests for evidence to support those claims John responded with “ .. I prefer not to give out more information than I have already because dirt diggers like you and Skolnick are merely out to unjustly invade my privacy, inflict stress and anxiety on myself and my family, not in the pursuit of the truth but to merely to further your own agenda .. ” (12 Dec 2011 15:02).

 

On the other hand, when challenged by John “ .. Among Skolnick’s bogus assertions are that he possesses a master’s degree .. ” (8 Dec 2011 23:39) Andrew came straight back with “ .. I’d be happy to mail a request to Columbia University’s registrar to send an official certification* to the first 3 people who email me their snail mail address.  .. Let’s see if John O’Sullivan will ask the University of Surrey registrar to send any of us certification that he attended law school there and earned a degree. ..  I’ve been asking .. for proof for the past 6 months .. ” (9 Dec 2011 0:41).

 

I was the only one to ask Andrew (see my E-mail of 11 Dec 2011 9:55) and true to his word, on 4th January I received the certified evidence from Columbia University’s Office of the Registrar “ .. Skolnick, Andrew A. .. Attendance: Sept. 1980-May 1981 Degrees .. Earned .. Master of Science May 13, 1981 .. ”.

 

In my humble opinion the scales of transparency are heavily loaded on Andrew Skolnick’s side, despite the claims made by John O’Sullivan in the PSI promotional material “ .. advocates of transparency and accountability .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/about/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc).

 

I recommend that anyone looking for balance, like Mark (who? what? where?) G in this discussion have a very careful read of the May, June July posts at Global Political Shenanigans (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/) – but then, perhaps I’m biased!

 

Best regards, Pete Ridley  

Thanks Pete

I’ve no doubt that, if proved, Mr Skolnick’s claims expose some serious misgivings about O’Sullivan’s claimed credentials.  Totally agree.

But I just had one question about Skolnick’s claimed credentials. Not relating to degrees from Columbia, just the claim that he was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.

Nothing more, nothing less.



 

Mark G, you seem to have problems with the use of the word “nominate” and the procedures used in awarding Pulitzer Prizes.

Firstly, let’s look at the word “nominate”.  A quick check of your Thesaurus shows the words “put forward”. This is exactly what the St. Louis Post-Dispatch did, they put forward (nominated) Andrew to be considered by the Pulitzer Prize committee. The PPC then made a short list of candidates and from that list chose who was to be awarded a Pulitzer Prize. It would have been wrong to call himself  “nominated finalist” but that is not what he said.

Mark G, be very careful when you decide to use an ad hominem attack on some one, it might just backfire in your face.

 

Ian,

Please read the nbc article I referenced:

“It’s not uncommon for Pulitzer entrants to make a false claim to be nominees. Here’s how it works: Though there are only three nominees, known as nominated finalists, in each Pulitzer category each year, there are more than 2,000 entrants. One could say that all of them were “nominated” by someone. If all Pulitzer entrants could be called nominees, any publisher could give all its authors that honorific by submitting an entry form and a check for $50.

The Pulitzer rules make clear that the only people to be known as nominees are those finalists chosen by the Pulitzer juries. From those nominated finalists, the Pulitzer board chooses the winners. Everyone else is just an entrant. As the Pulitzer board’s online list of frequently asked questions explains politely, “Work that has been submitted for Prize consideration but not chosen as either a nominated finalist or a winner is termed an entry or submission. … We discourage someone saying he or she was ‘nominated’ for a Pulitzer simply because an entry was sent to us.”

Are you saying that the only time someone can use the word “nominate” is if they are a Pulitzer Prize “nominated finalist”? That is just nonsense, it is perfectly correct to say that such and such organization nominated you (put forward your name) for a prize by XYZ organization.

Why do you bring your ad hominem rubbish to this blog?

Actually Ian,

The following claim was made by Mr. Skolnick on his bio: ““The Post-Dispatch series earned my colleagues Bill Allen and Kim Bell and me a nomination for a Pulitzer Prize. in Investigative Journalism”.

If that clearly connotes that the publisher ‘nominated’ him, then clearly I’m stupid.

Tellingly, Mr. Skolnick has subsequently changed his bio:

FROM “The Post-Dispatch series earned my colleagues Bill Allen and Kim Bell and me a nomination for a Pulitzer Prize in Investigative Journalism” TO “The Post-Dispatch nominated my colleagues Bill Allen and Kim Bell for a Pulitzer Prize in Investigative Journalism…”

 

I’ll repost the PPC directive again:

 

“We discourage someone saying he or she was ‘nominated’ for a Pulitzer simply because an entry was sent to us.” Source: PPC website FAQ

 

As well as an excerpt from Bill Dedman’s piece on an expose of self-proclaimed ‘nominees.’

 

“When Liu was a reporter for The Financial Times in Atlanta in 2000, Bloomberg said, the newspaper submitted her work to the Pulitzer committee. To call that submission a Pulitzer “nomination” is like saying that Adam Sandler is an Oscar nominee if Columbia Pictures enters “That’s My Boy” in the Academy Awards….one could say that all of them were “nominated” by someone. If all Pulitzer entrants could be called nominees, any publisher could give all its authors that honorific by submitting an entry form and a check for $50.

The Pulitzer rules make clear that the only people to be known as nominees are those finalists chosen by the Pulitzer juries. From those nominated finalists, the Pulitzer board chooses the winners. Everyone else is just an entrant. As the Pulitzer board’s online list of frequently asked questions explains politely, “Work that has been submitted for Prize consideration but not chosen as either a nominated finalist or a winner is termed an entry or submission. … we discourage someone saying he or she was ‘NOMINATED’ for a Pulitzer simply because an entry was sent to us.” [emphasis added].

What isn’t clear Ian? 

Per PPC, “We discourage someone saying he or she was ‘nominated’ for a Pulitzer simply because an entry was sent to us.” Yet, Mr. Skolnick claimed in his bio that  “The Post-Dispatch series earned my colleagues Bill Allen, Kim Bell and me a nomination for a Pulitzer Prize in Investigative Jornalism.” 

Changing his bio to “The Post-Dispatch nominated my colleague…” is clearly more accurate, but still disingeneous, per PPC and Dedman.

But I’ll leave you with a final thought.  Why did Mr. Skolknick choose to rewrite his bio, amending the Pulitzer blurb, if my allegation was so ‘stupid’?

  

You must be Humpty Dumpty:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.

The rest of us do not have to live by your or Pulitzers’ narrow definition of words.

Ian

You’re perfectly right. You can choose to ignore whatever you like.

I’m obviously a Mad Hatter in disagreeing that the Pulitzer Prize Committee are misguided and narrow-minded in suggesting how their OWN entrants, nominees and winners are described.

And NBC reporter Bill Dedman clearly also lives in a Lewis Carroll story.

But thanks for your ‘substantive’ response.

Good luck in your career, Mark

P.S. Sorry for being so Alice-in-Wonderland, but again “why do you think Mr. Skolknick chose to rewrite his bio, amending the Pulitzer blurb et. al, if my allegation was so ‘stupid’?” 

I didn’t catch your reply to this one question I asked of you…but probably a Humpty-Dumpty moment.


 

Hi Mark,

 

Your ” .. I just had one question about Skolnick’s claimed credentials .. the claim that he was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. Nothing more, nothing less .. ” required 400 words??!!

 

It doesn’t wash - you were doing more than that, as clearly stated in ” .. I think it’s wholly acceptable to question the accuracy of your own claimed credentials (especially since you have made affidavits in the case, where your own veracity is clearly relevant) .. “.

 

Don’t you agree that it is rather impertinent for someone who does not have the courage of their convictions to challenge the veracity of someone like Andrew who has demonstrated that he is prepared to be transparent and substantiate his claims. As I understand it Andrew Skolnick undertook very careful research before challenging John O’Sulivan’s claims. I speculate that you have done little before challenging Andrew’s claims.

 

May I suggest that before you dig yourself deeper into that hole you visit and read the articles that I linked to earlier. Also, you should perhaps consider whether or not you should apologise to Andrew – just a thought.

 

Best Regards, Pete Ridley  

Mark Thompson’s personal attacks here and on John O’Sullivan’s web site might be relevant if the documents described in Brendan DeMelle and Richard Littlemore’s article were based on my opinion. They clearly are not.

The documents described in their report are public records, most with links for readers to verify for themselves. 

Mr. Thompson is a marketing consultant who has recently joined John O’Sullivan in attacking me by throwing anything they can find, from the Pulitzer Prize nomination my colleagues Kim Bell, Bill Allen and I received from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch to being “just a pet photographer.”

I confess, I took most of the photographs for my latest article in AKC Family Dog. http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/68587367#/68587367/37  Now that they let the dog out of the bag, I’ll count myself lucky they didn’t find pictures of me washing my own dishes.

Whether I’m a dish washer, pet photographer, or science reporter, my credentials are an irrelvant smokescreen regarding this matter.  What is relevant are the public documents I found and entered as sworn evidence in the affidavitts submitted to the Supreme Court of British Columbia in the matter of Michael Mann vs. Tim Ball, et al.

Readers should ignore all the smoke and smear and examine for themselves the evidence DeMelle and Littlemore cite in their report.

Hi Andrew,

 

You seem to be suggesting that Mark G is that Mark Thompson who is making those “personal attacks” (Come on Mark, show that you have the courage of your convictions and disclose who you are, where you’re located and what is your area of expertise).  Can you provide a link to the John O’Sullivan blog thread where those attacks are being made? I’m tempted to do a “due diligence” exercise on Mark G, as I did on John O’sullivan and his “Slayer”/PSI group (see http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/psi-due-diligence-20102011-selected-e.html). 

 

I had just been searching for Mark Thompson and came across a blog “Greenie Watch” (http://jonjayray.6te.net/green.html) run by John O’Sullivan’s psychologist buddy John J Ray (http://jonjayray.tripod.com/main.html). It linked to John O’Sullivan’s 16th Dec.  article “Desperate Climate Campaigner Stoops to Criminality to Smear Skeptics” (http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/43274.html) in which he made a ridiculous attack on your integrity.  You’ll recall John claiming in his E-mail to the “Slayers”/PSI members and others that “ .. Mr. Skolnick is actively engaged in criminally fabricating web pages to use against me to bolster his bogus claims .. ” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/selected-e-mails-with-slayerspsi.html on 15 Dec 2011 16:27. See also the comment under UPDATE: 2012-07-25).

 

This was another of John’s many ludicrous claims which was quickly refuted.

 

I wonder if Mark is managing to get his scales to balance yet.

 

It is very rarely that I agree with Cathy (AKA Snapple) or Ian Forrester but for once there is no argument.

 

Best regard, Pete Ridley  

Whether for pay or out of the goodness of his heart I do not know. But I would like to find out.

Mr. Thompson popped up some months ago in LinkedIn Science Writers Group and began to engage me in heated discussions after I pointed out that he is a self-employed marketing consultant with a masters degree in Marketing – not a science writer nor someone with a graduate degee in science as he was claiming.

He used that heated discussion to get me banned from the Science Writers Group and pressed moderators of other LinkedIn Groups to ban me, without success.  Meanwhile, he peppered me with unwelcome messages accusing me of being a “a sad old fuck living with animals for company,” being “a pet photographer,” and similar crimes.

On July 29, Mr. Thompson sent another harrassing LinkedIn message accusing me of lying for claiming in one of my bios that I had received a settlement from Correctional Medical Services when I sued them for libel and tortuous interference in 2000.

Two days later, “Mark G” published the very same false charges on John O’Sullivan’s blog, in which he accused me of lying and falsely claimed that CMS probably paid $1 for me to go away and not file an appeal. The fact, which is a matter of public record, is CMS offered a settlement for thousands of times more dollars than Thompson smirked, and I agreed to ask the judge for a “dismissal with prejudice” upon settlment – which is legalese for vini vidi vici.

http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/07/29/desmogblog-fail-with-pop-gun-character-assassination-ploy/#comment-686

So I have absolutely no doubt Mark G and Mark G. Thompson are the same.

Mr. Skolnick

A heated discussion doesn’t get people banned from a LinkedIn group…continued personal, unprofessional insults get people banned.  And not just against one person, but against many, as I recall my email from the group owner.

Being a sad f**k isn’t a crime…just a sad reality and personal opinion. Being a ‘pet photographer”, of which you admit to being, isn’t a crime either.

Not sure which ‘CMS’ message you’re referencing.  But if my comment was so baseless, why amend your bio recently with respect to your CMS claim (and also alleged Pulitzer nomination?).  Pray tell, how were these comments totally baseless, given your hasty rewriting of your bio?

RE:”The fact, which is a matter of public record, is CMS offered a settlement for thousands of times more dollars than Thompson smirked .” 

I’m not aware of such a public record of Mr. Skolnick’s settlement implying ‘thousands’.  Indeed, most settlements specifically include a confidentiality clause that prohibits either plaintiff or defendant from discussing the details of a settlement.

If Mr. Skolnick is indeed subject to such a confidentiality clause, suggestions of ‘thousands of more dollars…’ seems to be a clear breach of such an agreement. 

I intend to pursue with CMS, given his defamatory comments and insults towards me.

 

Mark G thanks for showing everyone what sort of a slime ball you are. Tim Ball must be really thankful that he has people like you and O’Sullivan in his corner.

By the way, have you seen how O’Sullivan showed is ignorance of the legal system in the New Zealand case where he may have compromised the whole case?

Seems like you two, err three, deserve each other.

Thanks for your kind comments Ian.

Any chance you can actually respond to my question, rather than devolving into cheap ‘slime ball’ personal insults?  If not , I’ll assume you can’t respond to my argument without a weak ‘ad hominem’ attack. 

What’s the problem in responding to a very direct question?  A failure to do so just exposes your immaturity and/or lack of intellect IMO.

By way of reminder (yet again):

“Why do you think Mr. Skolknick chose to rewrite his bio, amending the Pulitzer blurb et. al, if my allegation was so ‘stupid’?”

 

Just forget my other comments.  Let’s forget the other comments about PPC’s clear directions…and Bill Dedman’s article…they’re obviously both Mad Hatters.

 

All the best, Mark
 

 

Ian

I still don’t expect a direct reply to my question.

But if you’re going to throw out irrelevant comments about Mr. O’Sullivan, please try and be grammatically correct:

RE: By the way, have you seen how O’Sullivan showed is ignorance of the legal system….”

I assume you meant HIS ignorance?  If so, fine.  But hardly germane to the question I asked of you…any chance you can answer the question I posed, without resorting to personal insults or throwing out non sequiturs?

But here goes again, for one last time:

“Why do you think Mr. Skolknick chose to rewrite his bio, amending the Pulitzer blurb et. al, if my allegation was so ‘stupid’?”

No response or just further personal insults? Then I think our conversation is over. 

I have a life…I don’t have time for pointless debate.

What makes you think that you have any right to demand an answer from me. Stop your ad hominem comments and people may respond in a civil way, keep up the nonsense and we wont, it’s very simple. You started off with ad hominem comments and have continued to do so. I take it that you do know what ad hominem means.

Neither you nor Pulitzer have any right to hijack the meaning and use of words which are well established in the English language. Why do you find that so hard to grasp? Ooh wait, you cannot make ad hominem and insulting comments without resorting to redefining the meaning of some simple words.

Ok Ian

You’re perfectly right, as always.

Asking repeatedly for an answer to a question is an arrogant  ‘Mad Hatter’ request.  I guess i should just put up with irrelevant comments and an inability to engage in constructive debate.

In terms of ‘Ad Hominem’ comments, I believe it was you who made ‘Humpty-Dumpty’ and ‘slime ball’ comments, rather than respond constructively to my comments.  I don’t recall making such juvenile comments myself.

And, you’re probably right, the Pulitzer folks are idiots as well, having the audacity to suggest how their own entrants describe their entries. Though we seem to have have moved from ‘misinterpretation’ of PPC to the  ‘narrow-minded Pulitzer folks’, though I suspect you missed that.

Bye Ian. 

Probably time to finish your homework.  I really don’t have the time to waste with non-players or intellectual pygmies. But take care.

Mark

Mark G, once again you have problems in understanding simple English usage and logical fallacies. The first comments you made on this blog posting were not to offer any evidence that AS was untruthful or making things up. Instead you stated a number of slurs and insults to demean him and therefore hopefully make people doubt his statements concerning JOS. That is what ad hominem is, you attack the person to try and show he is wrong rather than present evidence of his wrong doing.

My comments about you (e.g. Humpty Dumpty) was an analogy showing that you were trying to change the meaning of words to suit your position. That is not ad hominem but is just a description of the tactics you used.

Your more recent comments just show that my opinion of you as a “slime ball” are justified. Why anyone would actually try and defend JOS’s actions is, to be honest, just astonishing. At the time JOS was accused of his completely inappropriate sexual attentions on a young girl I had a daughter of approximately the same age. I have been aware of JOS for some time but if I had known about these episodes earlier I can assure you I would be using much more derogatory remarks in describing his personage than “slime ball”.

 

Pete, Ian, Andrew et al,

Of course I’m Mark G….and Mark Thompson…I have no qualms about admitting that. 

I realize I’ve entered the lion’s den by having the ‘audacity’ to question Mr. Skolnick’s own credentials on this forum. 

But I’ll re-iterate.  If Mr. Skolnick chooses to attack Mr. O’Sullivan’s credentials, then his own credentials become fair game…both morally and legally (questioning his credibility as a witness is a basic legal tenet and right when he makes sworn court affidavits).  If you can’t understand that basic logic or right, further discussion seems futile.

So, I’ll repost my latest entry on Mr. O’Sullivan’s blog:

Rewriting history….

Had my above allegations against Mr. Skolnick’s own credentials been baseless, would he have taken the time to quickly rewrite his own bio?

I think not. Clearly, he now realizes his own credentials are not beyond criticism.

Two key changes have been made to his bio, as of August 4th…which directly relate to comments previously made (c.f. Pulitzer nomination and CMS libel suit).

The changes are as follows (August 4th vs. July 23rd 2012, screenshots of both available):

FROM “The Post-Dispatch series earned my colleagues Bill Allen and Kim Bell and me a nomination for a Pulitzer Prize in Investigative Journalism” TO “The Post-Dispatch nominated my colleagues Bill Allen and Kim Bell for a Pulitzer Prize in Investigative Journalism…”

Still disingenuous and misleading, per clear PPC guidelines, but at least the pet photographer has recognized his own puffery.

FROM “I later sued Correctional Medical Services for libel and tortuous interference and obtained an out-of-court settlement” TO “I later sued Correctional Medical Services for libel and tortuous interference, which I withdrew following receipt of a settlement offer.”

Still no mention of the fact that CMS obtained a summary judgment against his libel claim, but being economical with the truth seems par for the course with Mr. Skolnick.

Again, one has to wonder why such changes were made if the allegations surrounding his own credentials were so baseless?

Mark

P.S. I just noticed. Mr. Skolnick was a little hasty in his rewrite…he didn’t mention himself in the revised and still disingenuous Pulitzer ‘nomination’ blurb!…or maybe the Post-Dispatch didn’t include him as an entrant? Thankfully, his fellow co-reporters never made such misleading claims to be ‘nominated’ (by either the Post-Dispatch or the Pulitzer Prize Committee), so they can never be accused of rewriting history.

END

Again, if these charges were unwarranted, why rewrite a bio?  And attack my own credentials or motives as much as you like.  I’m not party to a high-profile lawsuit, so personal attacks are irrelevant…and meaningless to me.  My motive is to expose the hypocrisy….believe that or not….I don’t really care.

 

Hi Mark G Thompson,

The points that you make are very very similar to those made by John O’Sullivan back in Dec. 2011 (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/selected-e-mails-with-slayerspsi.html). 

As for the suspected puppet-master, there’s trumpet blowing and very very very loud trumpet blowing, which John excels at - but it has been said that empty tin cans make the most noise.

BTW, you should enjoy the latest update (#4) to “Professor Judith Curry threatened with blog closure attempt” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/professor-judith-curry-threatened-with.html#more).

Best regards, Pete Ridley

Ok Pete,

I think the Tim Ball camp has been guilty of trumpet-blowing.  Fair point. 

But I think the same charge can be levelled at the Mann camp….many comments on forums such as this  and Prof. Mann’s own Facebook page would evidence this, in my opinion (not sure if you participate in Mann’s FB comments anymore?).  But I’ve never known a high-profile, politically charged case where the non-litigant ‘supporters’, on both sides, don’t get involved in trumpet-blowing.

I feel BOTH sides have also come very close, if not guilty, of making further defamatory comments.  Which seems politically and legally naive, given that we’re dealing with a libel suit.

But any thoughts as to why Mr. Skolnick rewrote his bio recently with respect to the Pulitzer Prize ‘nomination’ blurb or CMS libel suit?  That was the point of my comment, not a defense of Tim Ball’s or John O’Sullivan’s behavior.

If my allegations were baseless and/or mere ‘trumpet-blowing’, why change?

Regards, Mark

P.S. I already stated that I have no stance on the trial per se…I don’t have your knowledge of the global warming ‘facts’…my sole focus has been on Mr. Skolnick’s credentials.  In the same way he doesn’t appear to take a position on the trial per se…but merely focuses on Mr. O’Sullivan’s credentials.

 

Hi Mark G Thompson,

If you had been involved in the hundreds of E-mails with the “Slayers”/PSI members and others since 2010 you might have a different opinion. Try reading what is available at GlobalPoliticalShenanigans (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/) then get back to me (unless, as I suspect, your strings are being pulled).

Best regards, Pete Ridley

 

I’ve got back to you Pete.

To substantiate your allegation of defamatory trumpet blowing, can you please respond directly to my question?

Namely:

“Any thoughts as to why Mr. Skolnick rewrote his bio recently with respect to the Pulitzer Prize ‘nomination’ blurb or CMS libel suit?  That was the point of my comment, not a defense of Tim Ball’s or John O’Sullivan’s behavior.

If my allegations were baseless and/or mere ‘trumpet-blowing’, why change?

To reiterate, a direct response to my direct question would be much appreciated.  Without one, I think this discussion is going nowhere.

Best regards, Mark

P.S. I fully expect more ‘smoke’ about my motives.  That’s ok and that’s your prerogative to create such a smokescreen.  But kindly, respond to my direct question.  Thanks. 

P.P.S. And, to pre-empt any further questions, I DO have issues with Mr. Skolnick…he has personally insulted me on more than one forum…so I will expose what I see as hypocrisy from him (re: attacking someone else’s credentials).  You can google to your hearts content…you will see that I have never taken a stance on global warming…my motivations center solely around exposing hypocrisy and duplicity (much like Skolnicks, I assume).

 

Hi Marg G (Thompson),

 

You ask repeatedly of people here “Any thoughts as to why Mr. Skolnick rewrote his bio recently with respect to the Pulitzer Prize ‘nomination’ blurb or CMS libel suit?” but I speculate that you are not really interested in getting an answer. What I suspect you are trying to do is divert attention from what I consider to be the far more important questions about the founding members of the blogging group Principia Scientific International, driven by tim Ball (Chairman), John O’Sullivan (CEO and Legal Consultant), Johannes (Hans) Cornelis Schreuder (CFO) and Joe Olson.

 

You fail miserable so to do.

 

You make the laudable claim that your “ .. motivations center solely around exposing hypocrisy and duplicity .. ” and that too sounds very like the claims made in John o’Sullivan’s promotional material on the PSI web-site and his declarations during the “PSI & Due Diligence” debate in Dec. 2010/Jan.2011 (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/psi-due-diligence-20102011-selected-e.html).

 

Phrases such as “ .. turn noble words into actions .. “ .. to ensure the integrity of our fledgling organization .. ” and “ .. our future intentions are to also provide member services to pursue other noble causes .. ” spring to mind.

 

Mark, let me be blunt. I get the impression that you are full of BS.

 

Please answer me this question. Are you John O’Sullivan’s puppet?

 

Best regards, Pete Ridley  

Pete

Many thanks for the link going back to December 2011.  As you point out, Mr. O’Sullivan questioned the veracity of Mr. Skolnick’s claims to be ‘nominated’ for a Pulitzer Prize on December 11th.

Any thoughts as to why Mr. Skolnick didn’t reply back then? Or why he eventually chose to rewrite his bio in the last few days following my recent question on this forum? (perhaps because he subsequently made sworn court affidavits, attesting to his own credentials?).

I’m not in the employ of O’Sullivan, Ball or anyone else. Nor do I support any position on global warming.  But doubt that as you may…it doesn’t relieve you or Skolnick from responding to this charge of ‘puffery’ (at best).  A non-response…and the recent rewriting of a bio..merely demonstrates that such a charge was wholly warranted.

Though I doubt I’ll get a direct response to my question from you.  From what I’ve read, even the eminent Professor Mann wants to dissociate himself from you:

(From Professor Mann’s Facebook post, titled, “I have formally demanded a retraction of, and apology for, this defamatory piece about me by National Review. I have retained counsel to pursue my legal rights”, started July 20, 2012).

“Michael E. Mann ‎[Pete Ridley–you will no longer riddle these threads w/ your crass nonsense]

July 25 at 10:00pm”

I suspect this discussion with you is now over. 

Best regards, Mark

 

The Blinkered Gemini

 

Hi Mark G (Thompson) When I read Ian Forrester’s first comment here my immediate reaction was “that can’t be the same Ian Forrester that I’ve had exchanges with – this one sounds reasonable .. ”. It didn’t take long for Ian to show his true colours. “ .. Mark G thanks for showing everyone what sort of a slime ball you are .. ”.

 

Wait for it Mark, I anticipate that you’ll soon be getting a blast of Ian Forrester’s vile invective. Here’s a sample from my March 2010 comment on “An update to Kiehl and Trenberth 1997” ( http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/an-update-to-kiehl-and-trenberth-1997/#comment-2095) QUOTE: .. In Ian’s opinion any who challenge AGW are moronic, stupid, illiterate, dishonest, devious, ignorant, arrogant, extravagant, indecent, rude, pathetic, selfish, deniers, trolls, lying slime-balls, don’t know what they are talking about, haven’t a clue how science works, insult intelligent people, live in a fantasy world, are on an anti-science crusade or suffer from Dunning Kruger syndrome (all of these can be found in his numerous blog comments). It doesn’t matter who they are, even respected scientists are subjected to his invective. There are many examples, e.g. on desmogblog, scienceblogs or through Grist and of course here on Chris’s blogs .. ”.

 

You’ve had the “slime ball” insult but I wonder which of the others you (or I?) will be subjected to next.

 

BTW, you seem to have the impression that I was suggesting that you were a trumpet blower. I have seen no evidence of that and my comment was directed at the puppeteer. 

 

Best regards, Pete Ridley

 

PS:

 

If you are puzzled by my reference to “Gemini” see http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/richard-alley-at-agu-2009-the-biggest-control-knob/#comment-2014 

 

Pete  

“In Ian’s opinion any who challenge AGW are moronic, stupid, illiterate, dishonest, devious, ignorant, arrogant, extravagant, indecent, rude, pathetic, selfish, deniers, trolls, lying slime-balls, don’t know what they are talking about, haven’t a clue how science works, insult intelligent people, live in a fantasy world, are on an anti-science crusade or suffer from Dunning Kruger syndrome (all of these can be found in his numerous blog comments).”

In the years I have participated and seen Ian’s posts on various blogs, he seems like a pretty rational level headed guy. It’s usually when people post deliberately troll like comments that I see a change and I think he is right to do so.

Deniers like to post outlandish, baseless, blog referenced, ill thought out comments, usually followed with the obligatory warmist/alarmist/CAGW/socialist/fascist/communist or some such projective comment. Then feign outrage when they are attacked back, or are not given the courtesy of emotionless argument or criticism. It’s cheap and pathetic.

I’ve been called all the things you complain about and more on denier/right wing blogs, except “denier”. Roll with the punches and stop being so precious.

The denier position can be explained very simply. It’s either political (conservative,right wing or libertarian) or being funded by or in the employment of the fossil fuel industry or one of their front groups. They start from that position and work their backwards, looking for anything to support their fragile position. Usually a right wing blog that mentions Al Gore at least once a week, so as to convey to the casual drive by reader, what their angle is on the political spectrum. Always careful not to mention the conservative gov’s and politicians around the world that agree with the prevailing AGW theory. That would blow a hole in the denier meme that it’s a liberal conspiracy wouldn’t it?






 

Hi Phil M (somebody),

I guess that you haven’t visited the Global Political Shenanigans blog (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/) - denier blog if ever I saw one.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

 

“I guess that you haven’t visited the Global Political Shenanigans blog (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/) - denier blog if ever I saw one.”

Oh, another poorly designed no flowing conspiracy blog….goody.

 

I speculate that Mark G (Thompson) may be upset that comments about his string-puller are permeating the bloggosphere. I’ve just come across this on the “With friends like these we need no enemies” thread of New Zealand blogger Richard Treadgold “ .. Neither Mr O’Sullivan nor “his” PSI front has any credibility. In recent months he has tried this rubbish on Monckton and then my good friend Rupert Wyndham. He simply confirmed that he is a fool .. ”.

 

The moderator’s response included “ .. Several people advise us kindly to have nothing to do with John O’Sullivan. My thanks to them, and a warning to John not to take the opportunity to fight it out again in these columns; I won’t publish it .. ” (http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/08/with-friends-like-these-we-need-no-enemies/#comment-109694).

 

Update #4 on “Professor Judith Curry threatened with blog closure attempt”   (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/professor-judith-curry-threatened-with.html) Section 3.0 provides further related information.

 

Best regards,  Pete Ridley  

On May 30th 2011, Pete Ridley writes:

(http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2011/05/tim-theyre-tranpling-on-truth.html

“DeSmoggians take the position that disagreeing with their cataclysmic views on global warming is a moral failing, and as such, that it is OK for DeSmogBlog to print vile and, amazingly often, false things about those people. .. If there is any one person that the DeSmoggians just can’t stand, it is Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball. Over and over again they attack him, using the same silly and fallacious arguments and sophomoric insults. .. I’d never met or otherwise been in touch with Tim Ball. I’d read his writing many times; I even wrote about him when silly lefties falsely reported that he was employed by the National Center for Public Policy Research, and again when the Long Beach Press-Telegram falsely reported that the National Center was “promoting him.” And, of course, I’d see the lefties go absolutely nutty over him, in the deranged meaning of the term.”

It seems to be that you, like Skolnick, just fill your long days with hurling juvenile slurs and insults at anyone who will indulge you.  Whether it be me, this own blog or others such as O’Sullivan.  I’m guessing that, like him, you’re now retired?  Honestly, I’d really find something else to occupy your time….these rants are really rather sad.

I don’t recall throwing out comments such as ‘slime ball’ or anything close, to you, Ian or anyone else. 

Please show some civility and professionalism. 

Your inability to engage in healthy debate means that I have no further intention of continuing this meaningless conversation with you.

I’ll leave the last word on Mr. Ridley to Mr. Skolnick:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andrew_A._Skolnick

“Well, I wondered when the first [opponents] would get here. The honor belongs to the global warming denier and cyberstalker Pete Ridley, who just popped up to edit this biographical article – after the moderator of Dr. Judith Curry’s web site repeatedly snipped and warmed him to stop posting malevolent personal and intimidating attacks. Pete Ridley is a global warming denier who argues that the “global warming hoax” is being perpetrated by the International Jewish Banking conspiracy led by the Rothschilds….I don’t think Wikipedia is in need of “scholars” like Pete Ridley. Askolnick (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Is Mr. Skolnick lying about you? Also a slime-ball for making such claims?

I found the “malevolent personal and intimidating attacks” particularly germane, albeit rather hypocritical.  You both seem as bad as each other in your desire for malevolent, personal and unprofessional insults and slurs.

Take care, Mark

Hi Mark G Thompson,

 

(Ref. your “Skolnick on Ridley” comment on 2012-08-05 19:04”)

 

You really are out of touch with what is going on, aren’t you. If you had bothered to follow the links that I gave you to Global Political Shenanigans and spent some time getting enlightenment from what is there you’d have seen that the link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andrew_A._Skolnick was provided to the “Slayers”/PSI group almost a year ago (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/selected-e-mails-with-slayerspsi.html  on 28 Sep 2011 @ 23:44 and on 18 Sep 2011 @ 19:07).

 

On that first occasion I said to John O’Sullivan and a fellow founding member of the PSI blogging group Joe Olson QUOTE: .. PSI’s “Principles of Association” page (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association) claims that PSI promotes scientists adhering to the Scientific Method and individuals wishing to expose corruption in science. Professor Curry’s “Slaying a greenhouse dragon” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/) was kicked back into activity on 4th June after a three month quiet period by one Andrew Skolnick, who questioned the self-promotional claims that John had made. I don’t recall John taking up the challenge from Andrew to provide convincing evidence supporting those claims. (Please Joe, don’t start mistakingly suggesting that Andrew Skolnick and I are allies – see “Beware” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andrew_A._Skolnick) .. ”.

 

If you have a comprehension problem then please try to get an educated friend to explain to you what that final sentence within parentheses means.

 

I brought Andrew into those E-mail exchanges with the “Slayers”/PSI group members et al. on 8 Dec 2011 when I said to John O “ .. Hi John, I see that Andrew Skolnick is still ferreting around for information about your background .. ” and challenged John with “ .. how about also making public your Surrey University and Hill University certificates so that Andrew can be put straight on this further questionable claim of his .. ”. 

 

True to form John tried diversionary tactics with “ .. I prefer not to give out more information than I have already because dirt diggers like you and Skolnick are merely out to unjustly invade my privacy, inflict stress and anxiety on myself and my family, not in the pursuit of the truth but to merely to further your own agenda .. ” (12 Dec 2011 @ 15:02)

 

As I said to Andrew on 16 Dec 2011 23:38 “ .. I don’t know where John dreamed up the idea that you were my “ .. dear friend .. ” (his comment on 12th Dec.). I think you’ll agree that the best way to look at our relationship is that we called an uneasy truce for a while .. ”. Note that in response to that E-mail John O’Sullivan made that unsubstantiated claim “ .. I earned my law degree from University of Surrey in 1982 .. ”.

 

You will recall that when I asked Andrew to substantiate his claim to having an MSc. he did so without any qualms. I ask you, why was John not prepared to respond in a similar transparent manner? After all, he claims repeatedly in his PSI promotional material that transparency is important to his blogging group PSI, e.g. “ .. OUR CORE VALUES EXPLAINED: Principia Scientific International about transparency and truth .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/). Actions speak louder than words!

 

Please Mark, try to make some time to read and understand what has been made available on Global Political Shenanigans (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/) since May about the PSI blogging group instead of risking making a fool of yourself. The article “Being Judged By The Company We Keep” (http://angelabininger.com/2010/03/28/being-judged-by-the-company-we-keep/) may help you to understand. 

 

Best regards, Pete Ridley  

Pete

I think you’re confusing me with someone who really cares about your views on PSI or John O’Sullivan. You clearly fell out with them/him at some point and now carry a big chip on your shoulder.  But that’s your problem, not mine.

I have neither the time nor the desire to trawl through the endless rants on your blog.  You’re clearly very proud of the fact that you have archived endless repetitive discussions about PSI and O’Sullivan.  Good on you for doing so and I hope it gets you the attention you clearly crave, but you’re missing the point of my original post.

My intent from the outset was to expose some dubious claimed credentials of Skolnick.  The fact that he has now chosen to amend his bio with respect to the points I raised, indicates to me that I was right to do so.  Had my allegations been baseless, why would he rewrite (and I very much doubt you will ever answer that question, much like Ian).

But I tend to agree with his August 7 views of you, especially with regard to “malevolent personal and intimidating attacks.”

And if Skolnick is accurate in his claim that “Pete Ridley is a global warming denier who argues that the ‘global warming hoax’ is being perpetrated by the International Jewish Banking conspiracy led by the Rothschilds”, then you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself…however politically charged this issue, such anti-Semite views are disgusting.

Rather than respond to charges centered around Skolnick’s credentials, all you’ve done is come back with an endless rant about PSI/O’Sullivan.  The best you’ve been able to muster up is something about him having an MS. I never challenged that.

So can you see why I feel you’re unable to engage in constructive debate?  And making personal ‘slime-ball’ slurs merely reinforces this view.  Like Professor Mann has commented about you, I think it’s just crass nonsense.

If you can’t respond directly to the charges I made against Skolnicks own credentials, please don’t bother responding.  Yet another link to your archive of Professor Curry forum conversations will be pointless.

  

Mark G proclaims:

My intent from the outset was to expose some dubious claimed credentials of Skolnick.

You tried to use your own definition of words to try and support your unjustifiable claim. You have shown a complete disregard for honest comment, not surprising for some one who would try and support such a despicable person as John O’Sullivan.

Your best bet now is to get back under the rock where you and JOS are hiding, it only befits such disgusting people that you hide under the same rock. You are a pitiful person but I feel no pity towards you only contempt.

Yes Ian, youre probably right, as always.

Though it’s strange why Mr. Skolnick would rewrite his bio, specifically changing claims that I challenged.  If it were mere word play, as you suggest, why bother?

 Of course it’s arrogant of me to suggest that you should ever answer that question (maybe because you can’t…better just to hurl out another personal insult?).

And where pray, have I ever sought to defend John O’Sullivan?  Whether in terms of his own credentials or his position on global warming?  I’ve even gone as far to state that Skolnick’s allegations, if proved,  highlight serious issues about O’Sullivan’s credentials.

From the outset, I have sought solely to challenge Skolnick’s claimed credentials. 

If you can’t understand the hypocrisy of someone attacking someone elses credentials when their own are far from squeaky clean, then I give up.  You seem to want to encourage full exposure of Skolnick’s allegations but totally suppress any discussion of his own credentials. Normally, the credentials of a semi-retired journalist would be totally irrelevant…but as he has chosen to make sworn statements in a court of law, then they become highly relevant.  What don’t you understand about that argument?

Maybe there’s some logic to your own argument and personal slurs.  But that logic totally escapes me.

So why not avoid the question yet again and hurl out another insult?

Mark G Thompson,

have a think about the topic of this article “Affidavits in Michael Mann Libel Suit Reveal Astonishing Facts About Tim Ball Associate John O’Sullivan”.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

And have a think about Skolnick’s criticism of you.  Professor Mann’s criticism of you.  Professor Curry’s comments about you.  And the allegation by Skolnick that you have made anti-Semite slurs.

By all means, disregard my own opinions of you.

This conversation is well and truly over. 

I can almost overlook the fact that you have persistently avoided addressing the claims I have made against Skolnick..or explained his hasty rewrite to correct his own claimed credentials.

But I have no desire to engage an alleged anti-Semite in further debate.

Thank you, Mark

Mark G Thompson,

Do you believe everything that you read in the blogosphere? Look fo revidence, not opinions.

As for anti-semite, the evidence wold seem to contradict that allegation - my lovely wife of 28 years and her loveley family are Jewish, but perhaps in your Universe they don’t classify as Semmite.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

I couldn’t resist replying to the irony of your comment.

Who do you think implied you were an anti-Semite?

“Pete Ridley is a global warming denier who argues that the “global warming hoax” is being perpetrated by the International Jewish Banking conspiracy led by the Rothschilds.”

 

The one and only Andrew Skolnick! Whose own claims to accuracy I am challenging, with respect to his credentials!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andrew_A._Skolnick

 

For once, the title of your post (Gullible) appears accurate, as it clearly applies to you.

 

So we’re to assume Skolnick’s slurs against you are totally inaccurate, but the accuracy of his own claimed credentials should be taken without a challenge?

If so, then you’re as gullible as you accuse me of.

Honestly, this latest ironic twist is really rather amusing as you tie yourself up in knots and fail, yet again, to respond directly to my challenge of Skolnick’s own credentials. 

But I have a life to live and don’t have the time to engage in these pointless, inane, evasive and illogical diatribes from you.

I’m sure there’s others who may be interested in yet another link to your blog…but I’m not one of them.  Sorry.

  

Hi Mark G Thompson.

Once again you are way behind. Andrew and I discussed that matter last year.

I think that you would benefit from a bit peace and quiet in the countriside. Moreau Lake’s only a short drive away so take a break and relax.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

 

Pages