Andrew Weaver Sues Tim Ball for Libel

Fri, 2011-02-04 11:53Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Andrew Weaver Sues Tim Ball for Libel

University of Victoria Professor Andrew Weaver, the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis, has filed suit for libel against freelance climate change denier Tim Ball.

The suit (attached below) arises from an article that Ball penned for the right-wingy Canada Free Press website, which has since apologized to Weaver for its numerous inaccuracies and stripped from its publicly available pages pretty much everything that Ball has ever written.

In the article, Ball, a former geography professor at the University of Winnipeg with an indifferent academic record and a lifetime peer-reviewed literature output of just four articles (none of them in atmospheric physics), assailed Weaver as uninformed about climate, unqualified to teach and compromised by his lavish funding, accusations for which he offered no proof whatever.

Weaver, a member of the Royal Society of Canada who has authored more than 190 papers, was also a lead author on three of the four reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climage Change (IPCC), and is lined up as a lead author on the fifth. He’s also won pretty much all the academic and teaching awards that are available to a Canadian professor who has not yet had his 50th birthday. Ball, famously slow to notice the obvious, apparently didn’t realize that he was overmatched.

Of course, it’s not the first time. Ball sued University of Lethbridge Professor Dan Johnson in October 2006 over imagined slights in a letter to the editor that Johnson had written to the Calgary Herald. When both Johnson and the Herald filed a devastating Statements of Defence, Ball turned tail and ran.

But regardless that the suit had exposed the numerous falsehoods that once coloured Balls resume - and regardless that a University of Calgary audit confirmed that Ball had been accepting money that had been sluiced through a university slush fund that had been set up to conceal the money’s oil industry origins, Ball has continued to write and speak, claiming some higher knowledge of the workings of climate change - actually, of the lack of climate change.

Suddenly, however, he appears to have gone quiet.

Weaver-Ball lawsuit.pdf820.57 KB


"Climatologist Tim Ball's star on the rise."

Canada Free Press
By Judi McLeod
Tuesday, March 6, 2007

Money quote:

"A Canadian climatologist, Dr. Ball, was one of the first scientists to state, "Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist."

"The thousands of people from all walks of life who wrote letters of support to Dr. Ball through CFP, must be thrilled to know that the Gore-led Global Warming Scorched Earth Society have been unable to silence him."

Let us know if you have any comments!

It is long past the time that the courts should have been involved in the climate "debate". Especially as the deniers are always threatening to sue. Monckton seems to think such a threat is a magic bullet, no matter how often he fails to follow through.
I wish Professor Weaver the best of luck.'s my sage advice:

"Grab him by the ankles and shake the pennies loose!"

Tim Ball appeared in Jesse Ventura Conspiracy Theory program on climate change (you can guess the way that went) as an "anonymous scientist", shown in shadow only, but Im 99 sure it was him, since I know the way he speaks.

From Mother Jones:

One of Ventura's hard-hitting investigators—June Sarpong, formerly a reporter on a British youth entertainment show—travels by what appears to be a passenger ferry to an undisclosed location (that will be Victoria BC) to meet Dr. X, a scientist who is "hiding for his life." June frets that someone is following her (presumably someone other than Ventura's camera crew). In order to protect Dr. X from the climate change mafia, he is never named and nor are his credentials revealed. Sitting in deep shadow, he reveals that while he believes the planet is warming, the culprit isn't carbon dioxide. It's the sun. "There's absolutely no question the sun is virtually ignored by the authorities," he says. (Tim Balls standard line)

"If global warming isn't man-made, why are they telling us it is?" asks June. "Because they're using it as a vehicle for political control," Dr. X replies. "Control every aspect of people's lives, the number of children you can have, the number of people on the planet, where they live, what they can drive. Everything."

The Mother Jones article mentions a Russian Tabloid (Pravda) that carried an article claiming that a new Ice Age was coming.

The Pravda article was written by Gregory Fegel, an American 9-11 Truther (they believe that President Bush masterminded 9-11). He's not a Russian scientist. I read he was a nurse, but I don't know. I do know a lot of the Truthers have attacked our climate scientists who say there is global warming.

The Russians are watching their permafrost melt, and last summer they had those terrible fires.

Russian scientists know there is global warming, but Gazprom owns a lot of the newspapers. Virginia's Attorney General Cucinelli cited Russia's official press agency RIA Novosti in his suit to the EPA. The article claimed that British scientists were not including all the data from Russian weather stations.

It seems that some American "conservatives" like Attorney General Cuccinelli cite the Russian political line as "science."

The RIA Novosti article Cuccinelli cited was an edited English-language version of an article in the Kremlin-friendly business daily Kommersant. That newspaper is owned by Alisher Usmanov, a Gazprom operative with an education and career that suggest he has a relationship with the KGB. A lot of old KGB guys work for Gazprom now.

The "expert" Kommersant cited was Andrei Illarionov, formerly a Putin adviser who also worked for Chernomyrdin, the head of the Soviet gas ministry and its post-Soviet reincarnation Gazprom. Illarionov was also an expert for the Cato Institute. It strange how the Libertarians and Gazprom are on the same page.

Libertarians are all about "free enterprise," but they seem to follow the Gazprom line, and Gazprom is majority owned by the Russian government.

During the fires last summer, RIA Novosti carried an article quoting a Russian PhD named Andrei Areshev, a scholar connected with the Foreign Ministry. He claimed that American scientists were CAUSING global warming by beaming secret climate weapons at certain countries. This was in a publication that often floats the new party line. In this case, the trial balloon was a big flop.

President Medvedev soon characterized Foreign Ministry analysts as "insufficiently analytical."

Suddenly, RIA Novosti was quoting NASA's data about the fires, because NASA was helping the Russians pinpoint the fires. Many articles appeared about global warming.

When he was in Tomsk, I think shortly before Climategate, President Medvedev called global warming a "Trick." I think this was in Time Magazine. After the fires, President Medvedev said global warming was real.

President Medvedev is the former Chairman of Gazprom, so that was quite a change.

Cuccinelli cited RIA Novosti when they trashed the British scientists. Will Cuccinelli now quote RIA Novosti's new party line?

He should listen to Western scientists, not Gazprom and Russian government mouthpieces who change with Russia's political winds.

The Russians are spending 250 billion to shore up areas vulnerable to flooding caused by global warming. I don't think they would do this if they believed that global warming was a "trick."

I voted for Cuccinelli, so I am not criticizing him because I am a big Democrat. Since Climategate, I see that the Republicans I voted for are very dishonest radicals who don't care at all about what will happen to civilization as a result of global warming. They aren't conservatives at all.

Cuccinelli is supposed to uphold the law, but he is using stolen emails to persecute our scientists. That's subversive, not conservative.

He is quoting lies from a Russian gangster's newspaper. That's not conservative.

Cuccinelli's dad was a career lobbyist for the American Gas Association. Later he had his own companies. One of them has "European clients." Who are these clients?

I am concerned that the "European clients" may be Russian gas companies or their fronts. I have often written Cuccinelli's deputy W. Russell and asked about this, but he has never responded.

Cuccinelli's dad's company gave 96,000 to his son's campaign, I read on the Internet.

I am extremely furious with most Republicans, now that I see how they don't care about the future of our country at all. Last November, I voted for Democrats.

I am really sorry that I voted for Cuccinelli, but I didn't know he was going to persecute our great scientists and subvert our legal and educational institutions.

This is the same conspiracy theory as the Russians had until the fires. President Medvedev saidin early 2010 that global warming was a "trick." Here is a quote from Time Magazine:

"Broadly speaking, the Russian position has always been that climate change is an invention of the West to try to bring Russia to its knees," says Vladimir Chuprov, director of the Greenpeace energy department in Moscow. Case in point: when Medvedev visited Tomsk last winter [early 2010], he called the global-warming debate "some kind of tricky campaign made up by some commercial structures to promote their business projects." That was two months after the Copenhagen talks. But Medvedev's climate-sensitive comments on Friday, Chuprov says, could finally mark the start of a policy shift. "You don't just throw comments like that around when you are the leader of the nation, and if you look at what is happening with this heat wave, it's horrible. It's clearly enough to shake people out of their delusions about global warming.",8599,2008081,00.html

Hi “Snapple”, (ref. 2011-02-17 22:04 on please don’t get too cocky while hiding behind a false name. Using a false name in order to hurl insults at people is a cowardly thing to do. It is even more cowardly to hurl insults from behind a false name behind the back of the person that you are insulting. Why don’t you make your comments about Kent Klizbe to his face ( and insult him in the open using your real name? Alternatively, I can give you his E-mail address and you can exchange opinions on a one-to-one basis – or is that asking too much of a coward?

I was exchanging opinions on Australian Senator Steve Fielding’s blog during 2009/2010 and three very nasty individuals were involved. They not only hid behind numerous false names (Digitaladvisor/ConcernedCitizen, Cooloola, Spatch/Phoenix/Guess-who/etc.etc.etc.) but also impersonated me and others who were sceptical of the CACC doctrine. They refused to give any details about themselves, but over the months let little bits of general information slip out. From these snippits we now know who two of them are and have renewed exchanges with them on blogs where they were commenting under their real names. The third has this to look forward to.

Another person involved there hid behind the false name Stormboy because he had previously been threatened with violence against him and his family. He and I are now exchanging friendly E-mails under our real names.

The same happened with a moderator on Mike Kaulbars Greenfyre blog who was very upset when I started using his real name. There are others too.

Please don’t take this as a threat because it is not meant that way. I am simply warning you that it is often very easy to put little pieces of the jigsaw together and develop a full picture so if you wish to stay anonymous be very careful what you say about yourself or associates. In particular, Facebook and the like are places to avoid. The police keep warning people not to give out so much detail but they are ignored and people wonder why they have their identities stolen and houses broken into.

The ferret is well able to sniff out a rat once he’s put into the hole. Trust me, my daddy demonstrated this to me 65 years ago.

(When trying to find Kent’s blog using Google I found your “Dynamic Duo Debunked: Why Aren't Kent Clizbe and Ken Cuccinelli Out Looking for the Fugitive from Justice "Bobby Thompson"? thread ( Your cowardly reference to me as “A blogger-moron” set the ferret in me stirring and I remebered that I had Kent’s details in my “ferret’s nest”).

You say “It is funny to see Pete Ridley so worked up about who I really am” but coward s always get me “worked up” and you are a top-rank coward.

On top of that you obviously have no understanding of the processes and drivers of those different global climates. All that you are capable of is parroting what others tell you. You appear to be not merely a coward but a mindless coward to boot.

On a minor minor point, there is a difference between a “boast” and a “comment”. I have no reasn to boast about Kent Klizbe.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

In response to my last comment, which I had also posted on her "Pete Ridley's Big Fat Double Standard" thread ( Snapper "Snapple said... You stupid, twisted, hypocritical non-entity. You love the annonymous criminals who hacked the CRU. You don't think they are cowards.
Cuccinelli and O'Sullivan know who I am. If you want to know, ask them.
I am giving the National Academies line, the CIA line, and the Vatican line about global warming.
Denialists are giving the Kremlin line. It's hard to keep up with because it keeps changing".

Hoping to get a decent dialogue going I responded with QUOTE: Hi again Snapple. You do have a lovely turn of phrase – for a lady. Why are you so antagonistic towards me – or is it just all men, or maybe only white men? You’re a mother, a Christian, so where is your “milk of human kindness”?

Would you be kind enough to tell me who those criminals were who “hacked” the CRU. Better still, tell the Suffolk police. I am not aware that they have made any suggestion that it was hackers, rather believing that it was a whistle-blower on the inside who leaked those files. If you have some evidence about hackers then, being a law-abiding Christian person, don’t you think that you should pass it on?

John O’Sullivan said recently that he has no knowledge of you and I’m sure that Cuccinelli will say the same. Seems that you are not only a coward but also a liar – and you a devout Catholic. You’d better pop into the Confessional.

Talking about CACC, I wasn’t aware that the Vatican undertook research into the processes and drivers of those different global climates. Please would you provide me with links to any significant scientific papers that they have had published in recognised journals.

I’ve read quite a lot of your comments, going back to 2005, and see that you have a thing about Ward Churchill,

Maximilian Forte seems to have summed you up perfectly on 23 February 2009: QUOTE: Then there is “Snapple,” an anonymous blogger whose big claim to infamy is a psychotic conspiracy theory that Churchill is responsible for the murder of Jon Benet Ramsey. Should “Snapple” ever be unmasked, a severe lawsuit on the grounds of libel awaits him/her — either that, or one long overdue appointment with a mental health institution. With opposition like this, one hopes that Churchill will have an easier day in court than we already expect UNQUOTE (

Talking of being “unmasked”, be careful which sites you comment on, because a lot of them attach gravatars to each contributor and E-mail addresses can be decoded from the gravatar discription – but it mat be too late for you, because there is a gravatar against your comment on Max’s blog.

I see that you love America, the FBI, CIA, COINTELPRO , American Indians and Jamie O’Brian but hate Ward Churchill, Communism, the Kremlin, the KGB, the American Indian Movement (AIM), CACC “deniers”, “the Cornwall Alliance”, Monckton, terrorists. Boy, what a mix.

But that is enough nonsense. My interest is purely in finding out as much as I can about those climate processes and drivers, with a particular interest at the moment in the questionable validity of the attempted reconstruction of past atmospheric CO2 content from air “trapped” in ice for hundreds and thousands of years. As I said to you on my Global Political Shenanigans blog “ .. if you can get back to me with some science relating to preferential fractionation of CO2 in ice I’d love to hear from you (or are you also a bit “foggy” about that?)” (
Best regards, Pete Ridley UNQUOTE.

True to form, Snapper quipped "You are such an idiot. If you want to know what I say on my site, read my site, not what someone else claims I say. As for the AIM, several of them have gone to prison recently”.

I wasn't very impressed by another insult, considering that she purports to be a very religious Roman Catholic Christian, so I pointed that out to her with QUOTE: More brilliant prose and revealing insights from you I see. Keep trying – you can only improve. Hadn’t you noticed, I have been reading a lot of what you have posted on your blog and most of it is a rant about Ward Churchill. Now you are starting to rant about global climate change but you know nothing about the subject.
At one time you were into posting cartoons and other clips in with your comments. Here’s an appropriate “zazzle” for you

I did a Google for charm schools in Boulder but couldn’t find any, so I’ll try to make allowances. Maybe you should chat with your family or friends (if you have any) about it, or try your psychiatrist. It is also possible that the Prozac is having nasty side-effects ( All of these seem to fit “ .. an undesirable emotion like fear but can’t seem to shake off the irrational feeling. For example, feeling like one is going crazy but rationally knowing that it is not true. The quality of this side effect resembles being in a bad dream and not being able to wake up. .. Abnormally annoyed in response to a stimulus .. A sudden, overpowering, chaotic and confused mental state of terror resulting in being doubt ridden often accompanied with hyperventilation, and extreme anxiety .. Very jumpy, shaky, and uneasy while feeling fearful and timid. The condition is characterized by thoughts of dreading the future, involuntary quivering, trembling, and feeling distressed and suddenly upset. .. ”.
Have a chat with your doctor. I’m sure that you are not beyond help.
Best regards, Pete Ridley UNQUOTE.

For some reason she declined to post my comment. Some people are fine at giving it out but can't take what is thrown back at them - but that's cowards for you.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

Pete Pidley claims that I didn't allow his comments to be posted on my site, but then he reports my response.

I haven't deleted Pidley's posts because they show how ignorant and deranged the denialists are.

The hypocritical Mr. Pidley says he has a low opinion of people who don't use their real names on the Internet. He says I am a coward; however, he thinks those annonymous criminals who hacked into the CRU, stole those emails, posted them on the Internet, and called themselves "honest men" are big heroes.

If anyone wants to understand my opinions and what I actually say, he should visit my blog.

Pete Pidley is not a very unreliable source of information.

Mr. Pidley claims that an ex-CIA operative named Kent Clizbe may uncover my name with the help of his CIA friends. He told me all about the sneaky ways that some people do that. He told me all the bad things that might happen to me if I don't shut up.

I told Mr. Pidley to ask either Attorney General Cuccinelli's deputy W. Russell or that John O'Sullivan who I am. I emailed them and used my real name.

I am quite positive real CIA guys will not be trying to help Clizbe out "Snapple." Kent Clizbe is not telling what the real CIA says about global warming; I am.

This thread is about the “Chairman-elect” of a proposed new international association of truth-seeking scientists Principia Scientific International (PSI). This is the ambitious vision of “the Slayers” and you can find out a little about them and their dreams from their “Slaying the Sky Dragon” blog ( and their “begging bowl” page ( If anyone would like to know more then please ask.

You may have heard of them, a group numbering about 32 at the last count. The people associated with this group include Tim Ball, John O’Sullivan, Kent Klizbe and me and friend Snapple has a dislike of us all. I’m expecting her at any moment to start screaming that we are all “ .. financed by the fossil-fuel industry .. ” and “ .. appendages of the fake science organizations. .. ” (Note 2). I don’t think that it quite matches her dislike of Ward Churchill, communism, American Indian Movement (AIM), “deniers”, “Cornwall Alliance”, Lord Monckton or Islamic extremists but I get the impression that it is getting close.

She has expressed her opinions of Ball, O’Sullivan, Klizbe and me as follows:
Ball - “ .. unspectacular academic tenure ended with a fizzle .. a second career pretending to be a world-renowned climatologist .. ” (Note 1). “ .. the malignant denialist .. ” (Note 2)
O’Sullivan – “ .. John O'Sullivan's dishonest and propagandistic article .. ” (Note 1). “ .. has written a mendacious post .. a gullible, terminally-ignorant lawyer .. perhaps this not-very-sincere legal-beagle gets paid by the fossil fuel interests .. ” (Note 2). “ .. the self-promoting numbskull .. ” (Note 3).
Klizbe – “ .. risible emails to the scientists sound about as authentic as the spam people sometimes get from Nigeria .. ” (Note 1). “ .. exploits his apocryphal association with the CIA in order to discredit the science of global warming and climate change. .. O'Sullivan's bounty-hunting sidekick .. ” (Note 2). “ .. I wonder if Kent Clizbe is sending these emails to college professors solely on his own initiative, if he is working for a global warming denialist organization, .. might be some kind of "secret policeman" for the denialists or if he is just some ignorant, retired self-promoter .. ” (Note 4)
Ridley – “ .. The supremely overconfident Ridley .. ” (Note 4). “ .. The moronic global warming denialist .. You stupid, twisted, hypocritical non-entity .. You are such an idiot .. ” (Note 5).

(You get the drift)

I’m sure that Snapple thinks of us as amongst “All these confidence men exploit our trust in science, religion, and government analysts because they are trying to trick us; but Kent Clizbe really sucks at it” (Note 2).

Snapple does have a somewhat higher regard for herself “it is hard for ordinary people and even journalists to sort out the scientific authorities from the confidence men. I am smarter than the average bear, but it took me a while” (Note 2). I wonder if that is a common trait for long-serving school teachers stemming from always talking down to children.

If you visit her blog you’ll notice very quickly that she gets very lonely and talks to herself an awful lot. I feel sorry for her and try to keep her company but she either throws it back in my face or deletes them. Poor old girl might be suffering from the nasty side-effects of Prosac (see above @ 2011-02-20 14:47). Then again, she is a devout Roman Catholic and “The Vatican says that global warming is happening .. the Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, H.E. MSGR. Celestino Migliore .. said "The scientific evidence for global warming and for humanity’s role in the increase of greenhouse gasses becomes ever more unimpeachable,” (Note 6) so what is there to have doubts about?

Regardless of who says what about the tiny and very welcome amount of global warming that Nature has blessed us with during the past 150 years following the Little Ice Age, the area of significant doubt (arising from the significant scientific uncertainties about the processes and drivers of the different global climates) is what impact our use of fossil fuels has on global climates. Global warming is not the same thing as global climate change and the most important words for the scientists are not those of The Vatican or the Permanent Observer but simply “uncertainty” and “significance”.

1) see
2) see
3) see
4) see
5) see
6) see

Best regards, Pete Ridley

Pete Ridley writes me:

"Would you be kind enough to tell me who those criminals were who “hacked” the CRU. Better still, tell the Suffolk police. I am not aware that they have made any suggestion that it was hackers, rather believing that it was a whistle-blower on the inside who leaked those files. If you have some evidence about hackers then, being a law-abiding Christian person, don’t you think that you should pass it on?"

Acording to media reports, the CRU investigation is being carried out by the Norfolk Constabulary, not the Suffolk Police.

I don't think "whistle blowers" inside the CRU leaked the emails because scientists would have understood the context of the email discussions. They would never have thought that "hide the decline" meant hide a decline in temperature.

According to the Financial Times: (4-15-10):

"There have been indications that the hackers could have been based in Russia, and some experts believe they may have been hired by sceptics based in the US."

I wrote to the Norfolk police and they answered me:

Pete Ridley alleges that the Ex-CIA operative Kent Clizbe and his CIA friends might use computer skills to track me down on the Internet. Since Ex-CIA operative Kent Clizbe is so good at catching people on the Internet, perhaps Pete Ridley should ask the Ex-CIA operative Kent Clizbe to tell who the "whistleblowers" were who posted those emails on the server of a "Tomsk Internet security company."

I don't think there are whistleblowers because insiders would have understood what those emails meant.

Ex-CIA operative Clizbe is an ignorant buffoon who writes incredibly crude, defamatory articles about climate experts. Kent Clizbe writes that Dr. Christopher Field has his "snout in the trough" and that Dr. Field is "sucking off the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, NOAA, and other government teats."

In some articles Clizbe disparages CIA analysts and claims that FBI agents should not be stationed abroad in war zones.

Ex-CIA operative Kent Clizbe sent out emails in 2010 and 2011 to college professors and asked them to be whistleblowers against Dr. Mann, but not one professor denounced Dr. Mann for fraud. I think the CRU people would also not have denounced their co-workers because---like the professors Clizbe emailed---they would have understood the issues discussed in the emails are not fraud.

Pete Ridley doesn't like that I hide behind an obvious pen-name, but he celebrates the anonymous hacker/criminals who hacked the CRU emails in order to discredit the climate scientists.

Why does Pete Ridley have so much confidence in anonymous criminals while he distains for an obscure blogger who uses the obvious nom-de-plume "Snapple"?

Kent Clizbe is dishonest to brag about his CIA history without telling his readers that the CIA has a Center on Climate Change and National Security. According to media reports, the head of the Center is Larry Kobayashi. They probably think Kent Clizbe is an embarrassment.

Perhaps you commented on two different posts and misplaced one of your tiresome tirades. How facinating that you are not only a totally undiscovered "genius" in the field of climate scientist, you are also qualified to offer unsolicited psychiatric advice. No doubt you studied under Andrei Vladimirovich Snezhnevsky.

I didn't delete you. I keep you on my site because you are living proof of how stupid denialists are.

When is your ex-CIA computer mastermind going to "out" me?

Oh dear Snapple, now you’re reduced to referring to me as “Pidley”. Methinks that during your 30-odd years teaching children you have heard too many of them calling each other names in the school yard and it’s brought you down to their level – or is it the side-effects of the Prozac?

Now, as I suggested on your blog, don’t you think that it is time we stopped these childish exchanges and start debating climate science like adults. Why do you believe that the doubling of CO2 from 300 to 600ppm will cause more than about 0.7C increase in global mean temperature. If you have no answer to that then why would such an increase lead to catastrophic changes to the different global climates rather than beneficial changes. Also, why would such an increase in atmospheric CO2 content not be beneficial to plant growth when greenhouse operators artifically raise their to 1000ppm because that is optimum?

When you have answered those then perhaps you can advise why paleo-climatologists prefer to consider moleculer collision diameter than kinetic diameter when debating the migration of atmospheric gases within ice sheets prior to close-off.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

I don't really understand climate science very well, but I accept the expertise of all the professional scientific associations; and I don't believe that American scientists are greedy liars. That's the Kremlin line, and I do follow that closely.

When Climategate happened denialists said "hide the decline" meant that the scientists were hiding a decline in temperature. Now the denialists have changed their line. They admit it is a little warmer but say this won't be harmful.

The denialist were wrong when they said "hide the decline" means the temperatures are declining. If they were scientists, they wouldn't keep changing what they say is true.

I notice that the denialists defame the climate scientists the same way that the Russian media does, and they are often owned by Gazprom and controlled by the Kremlin.

I see that Kent Clizbe has written an article attacking a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and an IPCC leader from Stanford, Christopher Field.

Clizbe calls the NAS a government agency. It's actually a federally-chartered non-profit corporation.

I wrote about Clizbe's ignorant views here. He is nothing but an arrogant jerk. He trashes the FBI in its foreign mission. He trashes the IA analysts. He brags about his clandestine CIA experiences to give himself credibility, but the real CIA appreciates the expertise of scientists who know aobut climate change.

I appreciate the real CIA, but I think Kent Clizbe is really off-message. I don't think he could have been a very good CIA officer if he just assumes that the National Acaemy of Sciences is a government agency. Good CIA officers check all their facts.

You sure do have a lack of insight into your own thuggish behavior. I have no interest in discussing science with a a bully who threatens me with some supposed rogue ex-CIA agent who uses his computer to intimidate law-abiding citizens who are exercizing their free speech and who incites people against our climate scientists with false information.

That's what the KGB does to people.

Mr. Clizbe a really bad example of a CIA officer. The real CIA gives climate scientists security clearances so they can help the government respond to global warming.
The real CIA helps people get their human rights.

I read what real scientists say, not thugs and bullies who lack credentials and who make threats and celebrate hackers.

If I needed a doctor, I wouldn't go to a hoodlum for medical advice.

I don't think you know anything. You can't even spell "molecular."

In a comment above, Pete Ridley claims that the ex-CIA spy Kent Clizbe is associated with the "truth-seeking scientists Principia Scientific International (PSI)."

Strangely, Pete Ridley keeps spelling Kent Clizbe's name as "Kent Klizbe" (with a K not a C).

If Kent Clizbe is really connected with this PSI group, shouldn't Pete Ridley know how to spell his name? He consistently misspells the name as Klizbe in his comments. Why is that?

Kent Clizbe does not claim on his blog that he is part of this group of "truth seeking scientists." Has he been hiding what Pete Ridley is revealing?

Perhaps Pete Ridley could clarify if if Kent Clizbe, the ex-CIA guy who spells his name Clizbe (not Klizbe), is associated with Principia Scientific International. Does Pete Ridley have any proof of Kent Clizbe's participation in this PSI group?

When it comes to climate change, Kent Clizbe is not exactly on the same page as the CIA.

If people want to know what a serving CIA officers say about climate change and global warming, they should ask Larry Kobayashi. He is the Director of the CIA's Center on Climate Change and National Security.

Perhaps Pete Ridley would like to document Kent Clizbe's participation in the PSI. Also, if Kent Clizbe is a member of the PSI, perhaps he should disclose to his readers that his views are his own and do not represent the official views of the CIA or any scientific agencies of the U.S. government.

It is not very honest to brag about one's CIA experience while at the same time attacking the study of climate change. The CIA gives many climate scientists security clearances so they can use the CIA data from the satellites. Maybe Kent Clizbe should take off his sunglasses so he can read some science books.

Since he is also writing a book about Soviet propaganda, Kent Clizbe might want to read about Operation Infektion, the KGB campaign to smear Pentagon scientists for making the AIDS virus to kill blacks.
Eventually, KGB chief Primakov admitted that this lie had been fabricated by the KGB.

These days, some people are smearing our scientists for the "hoax" of global warming. Kent Clizbe might want to read the Russian media and notice that the Russian media smeared the climate scientists. The Russian media sounded just like the so-called "conservative" and/or "Libertarian denialists. More recently, however, more accurate information about climate change is appearing in the Russian media. There is a bit of a debate in the media between powerful constituencies. Experts see what is happening and are trying to prepare, but they want to see their gas and oil.

Kent Clizbe claims he was defending America during his time in the CIA, but scientific experts believe that climate change is contributing to instability that the CIA needs to be prepared to confront.

Does Kent Clizbe think the CIA is wrong? The scientists that Mr. Clizbe denounces may have CIA security clearances. If Mr. Clizbe thinks that global warming is a hoax (which is what Russia's President Medvedev said in early 2010), he should honestly tell people that he has a different position than the CIA, which is studying how climate change will effect national security.

In the early post-communist years, the KGB even hired outside experts to study climate change. The Russians and Americans even traded satellite information so they could see how the ice has melted going back to perhaps the 1940s.

I think Mr. Clizbe should read what the young graduate students at the Medill Journalism School are writing about climate change. These young people make me really proud and hopeful.

These students even interviewed "Larry."

Later, his name was given in the media as Larry Kobayashi.

I think that Larry Kobayashi sounds very intelligent, and well-educated, and well-qualified. I sure am glad that this smart person is looking after the problem of climate change and national security.

Pete Ridley observes:

"I wasn’t aware that the Vatican undertook research into the processes and drivers of those different global climates. Please would you provide me with links to any significant scientific papers that they have had published in recognised journals."


Activities (lists publications--but link is called Activities)

In 2003, the Vatican issued a historical profile of the Academy. The Academy site lists its Academicians as well as Publications. The purpose of the Academy is to inform the Vatican on scientific issues so the Church can use this information in the development of its social doctrine. One recent publication is titled The Scientific Legacy of the 20th Century.

Some of the Academy's publications address the issue of climate change and global warming. The Academicians of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences do not accept the conspiracy theory that climate scientists are greedy liars who are trying to "trick" people. For the conspiracist perspective, see global warming denialists such as Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, Texas Congressman Joe Barton, Virginia's Attorney General Cucccinelli, Lord Christopher Monckton, the Cato Institute, or the masters of the Kremlin. In early 2010, Russia's President Medvedev also called global warming a tricky campaign, but he seems to have backtracked from that postion since the summer forest fires of 201o.

The Russian physicist Roald Sagdeev is a member of the Pontifical Academy of sciences. He is one of the scientists who signed the open letter in defense of the climate research. I have posted a number of articles about Dr. Sagdeev.

Virginia's Attorney General Cuccinelli, who persecutes the climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann, cites a news article from the Kremlin's official press agency RIA Novosti in his attack on the EPA; but he doesn't consider the perspective of one of Russia's greatest scientists, Roald Sagdeev, the first Soviet scientist to be a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

When Dr. Sagdeev lived in the former U.S.S.R., he bravely published a 1987 letter in Izvestia that distanced the Soviet Academy of Sciences from the KGB's campaign to spread the lie that the U.S. Army made AIDS to kill blacks.

Acording to The New York Times (11-7-87):

Soviet scientists have disavowed charges in the Soviet-sponsored press that the AIDS virus was artificially cultivated at a secret American military base.

The scientists, Roald Sagdeyev and Vitali Goldansky, publicly distanced the Soviet Academy of Sciences from the accusations about American responsibility for acquired immune deficiency syndrome. They said they had protested the appearance of Soviet articles that repeated those contentions.

The disavowal was contained in Izvestia, the Soviet government newspaper...

Dr. Sagdeev is one of my heroes because he spoke on behalf of less powerful Soviet scientists who probably were afraid to challenge the KGB propaganda about AIDS. Dr. Sagdeev defended reason and science instead of pseudo-scientific propaganda that served the regime's political agenda instead of scientific progress. Indeed, the Soviet regime's official ideology, Marxism-Leninism, was a pseudo-scientific ideology that masqueraded as science.

In 1992, KGB chief Yevgeni Primakov finally admitted that the KGB had spread this propaganda:

The Russian newspaper Izvestiya (3-19-92) reported on March 19, 1992:

[Primakov] mentioned the well known articles printed a few years ago in our central newspapers about AIDS supposedly originating from secret Pentagon laboratories. According to Yevgeni Primakov, the articles exposing US scientists' 'crafty' plots were fabricated in KGB offices.

The homepage of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences has some interesting recent scientific articles. Wikipedia has a good description of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and identifies the current Academicians by country. I would not be surprised if some Nobel-winning climate scientist, who are constantly hounded by the Denialist Party, are someday invited to become members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences because they aren't just outstanding scientists, they are outstanding defenders of God's creation.

Wikipedia notes:

During its various decades of activity, the Academy has had a number of Nobel Prize winners amongst its members, many of whom were appointed Academicians before they received this prestigious international award.


One famous climate change expert who is a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is Veerabhadran Ramanathan. He writes about climate change, Asia's "brown cloud," and the retreat of the Himalayan glaciers.

His papers are on the Pontifical Academy site, Google Scholar, on the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and on the NAS site.

Here is his Wiki.

Do the despicible persecutors of science like Senator James Inhofe, Congressman Joe Barton, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, the CATO Institute, and the SPPI consider the Vatican greedy liars who are trying to trick people? It used to be the pseudo-scientific communists who spread this canard.

I think the greedy ones are the politicians, not the scientists. Cuccinelli's dad is a gas lobbyist. The father's company gave the son's campaign 96,000, I read on the Internet.

Cucinelli also got stolen money from the Florida criminal who stole the identity of someone named "Bobby Thompson."

Cuccinelli also gives aid and comfort to anonymous criminal hackers who steal scientists' emails and post them on a Russian server.

Despite the fact that the benighted Cuccinelli went to Catholic School in Washington D.C., he tells a bold-faced lie that fools nobody: he claims that his inquisition against Dr. Mann is not about climate change but about fraud.

Here are two recent papers on global warming by Dr. Ramanathan, a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences:

July 25, 2010
New Publication in Nature Geoscience:
Dr. Ramanathan's most recent publication, Warming influenced by the ratio of black carbon to sulphate and the black-carbon source, explores discoveries made during the Beijing Olympics.
Link: Full Article (.pdf)

May 2010
New Publication in PNAS:
Dr. Ramanathan and graduate student Yangyang Xu's The Copenhagen Accord for limiting global warming: Criteria, constraints, and available avenues is in press.
Link: Full Article (.pdf)

Somewhere, Pete Ridley bemoans the "fact" that that teachers indoctrinate their students about the "controversial" subject of climate change.

Pete Ridley claims incorrectly that I "indoctrinate" students on climate change. I don't teach science; I just know what is taught in school subjects.

The general facts about climate change are not controversial. Controversial information doesn't make it into textbooks, and controversial scientists don't get invited into the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. These Academicians are the top people in their fields in the world.

VEERABHADRAN RAMANATHAN is in the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and he is also cited in AP Environmental Science textbooks used in science courses.

The other day, I was helping out in an AP Environmental Science class, so I told the kids about the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and VEERABHADRAN RAMANATHAN.

I said, "Maybe he is in your book." They looked in the index and he was in the book!

The kids thought it was cool that VEERABHADRAN RAMANATHAN
advises the Vatican on the issue of climate change.

Hi Snapper, sorry about my misspelling of “molecular” and “Clizbe” - such serious errors are inexcusable I know. I did spell “molecular” correctly one here (see 2011-02-20 14:47; “Snapple the Snapper”) and you may recall our exchanges on Wattsupwiththat on January 23rd to 27th ( when we both talked about Kent Clizbe. Perhaps you can give me half marks! Surely you’d do that with your students at the Roman Catholic high school in Washington DC.

Regarding Kent and PSI, just because he doesn’t boast about it on his blog does not mean that he isn’t associated with “the Slayers” who are proposing to set it up (if they can raise the necessary funds - but they aren’t doing too well at the moment. Have a guess where that first £350 came from. Have you bothered to Google “Clizbe” and “PSI” together – or perhaps you don’t know how. I’ll make it easy for you – go to

I refer you to my comment “ .. 2011-02-21 14:19; Snapple the Snapper Snaps at The Slayers” and repeat “ .. The people associated with this group include Tim Ball, John O’Sullivan, Kent Klizbe .. ”. Kent is associate with “the Slayers” and has been involved in the E-mail exchanges where setting it up was vigorously discussed during December 2010 and January 2011 - trust me, so was I. If you send me an E-mail I might tell you more. I do find it very hard to follow your line of reasoning. Your “ .. It is not very honest to brag about one's CIA experience while at the same time attacking the study of climate change .. ” is nonsense.

Now, if we can get on with the rather more important matter of the processes and drivers of global climates, I respect you for admitting that you “ .. don't really understand climate science very well .. ” but don’t feel too bad about that – neither do the scientists researching the subject. You say that “ .. Maybe Kent Clizbe should take off his sunglasses so he can read some science books. .. ”. I suggest that you heed you own advice, take off your blinkers and do the same.

Once again in your rant you demonstrate how confused you are about the difference between the small amount of warming that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 could cause (1.5C if it was the only driver) and catastrophic change to global climates. I have a suggestion for you. If you are not prepared to learn anything about climate science then stop ranting about it and just concentrate on the area where you may have some expertise – Soviet Studies. You are making yourself look foolish with your rants.

As for your rant about “2011-02-26 06:13; Pete Ridley Asks About Pontifical Academy of Sciences”, I didn’t ask for a link to the Academy’s home page. I asked for links to “ .. any SIGNIFICANT scientific papers that they have had published in recognised journals" on the subject of “ .. research into the processes and drivers of those different global climates .. ”. As you might say to your students “must try harder”.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

I am delighted to hear that “ .. The kids thought it was cool that VEERABHADRAN RAMANATHAN advises the Vatican on the issue of climate change .. ” (see 2011-03-05 14:18) because apart from providing our vulnerable youngsters with an UNBIASED education, keeping students happy is part of the teacher’s job.

School kids being happy is hardly relevant to the state of scientific uncertainty about the processes and driver of the different global climates. Ramanathan seems to change his mind rather frequently, but this is not a criticism of him, simply a reflection of this state of uncertainty. I made the following comment about Ramanathan on the blog of staunch environmentalist Mark Lynas “Climate Change Explained” on 22the June 2009 QUOTE:

.. he appears to express conflicting arguments about the effects of aerosols (Note 2). I repeat what Professor Ramanathan is reported to have said in 2008 ““For the moment, global temperatures have not risen by that much because dust, dirt, smog and other particulate emissions in the atmosphere are casting a shadow over the earth and keeping temperatures down” and “Average temperatures had also risen far more quickly than ever recorded during the past 100 years”. (could he be talking about aerosols?)

Now here’s what he is recorded as having said in 2007 “The estimates of BC heating by this author’s group (Chung et al., 2005 and Ramanathan 2007), using observationally constrained data from satellites, ground stations and field observations is that the current BC radiative forcing at the top-of-the atmosphere (the so-called radiative forcing as per IPCC) effect is as much as 60% of the current radiative forcing due to CO2 greenhouse effect. Thus, next to Carbon Dioxide (CO2), black carbon (BC) in soot particles is potentially the second major contributor to the observed twentieth century global warming (also see Jacobson, 2002)” (aerosols again?)

Then in his paper in 2009 (definitely about aerosols): “Abstract: Globally, the surface cooling effect of ABCs may have masked as much 47% of the global warming by greenhouse gases, with an uncertainty range of 20–80%. This presents a dilemma since efforts to curb air pollution may unmask the ABC cooling effect and enhance the surface warming. Thus efforts to reduce GHGs and air pollution should be done under one common framework. The uncertainties in our understanding of the ABC effects are large, but we are discovering new ways in which human activities are changing the climate and the environment. Section 4 Essentially, aerosol concentrations increased in time along with greenhouse gases, and the cooling effect of the aerosols have masked some of the greenhouse warming” (aerosols!). “aerosol induced radiative changes (forcing) are an order of magnitude larger than that of the greenhouse gases” (aerosols!).

These apparently conflicting statements about the effects of aerosols (cooling – warming – cooling) suggest significant uncertainty about the impact of aerosols on global climates, substantiating the acknowledgement by Barry Brook, a professor/director of climate change at Adelaide University, that “ .. There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers .. ” *.

But the most significant statement in that entire paper is “Section 6.1 The primary conclusion is that without a proper treatment of the regional and global effects of ABCs in climate models, it is nearly impossible to reliably interpret or understand the causal factors for regional as well as global climate changes during the last century”. This substantiates the claims of the sceptics that it is impossible to rely upon the projections of today’s climate models. Climate science is too uncertain for dependable modelling.

* That comment by Brook can be seen in Para 5/6 of his criticism “Heaven & Earth” by geologist Professor Ian Plimer, Adelaide U. ( On that same thread you’ll find further comments of mine about Ramanathan (Pete Ridley, on 21 June 2009 at 12:09 AM). Membership of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences may be considered by some to impart religious sanction to their hypotheses but it does not change opinion into fact.

Best regards, Pete Ridley