Force of Nature -- Global Warming -- 2010 01 28 -- Climate-Gate -- MODIFIED -- PDF -- 300 Dpi

8/9/2019 Force of Nature -- Global Warming -- 2010 01 28 -- Climate-Gate -- MODIFIED -- PDF -- 300 Dpi

1/27


2/27

EnviroManiacs continue torely upon lies, fearmongering,

misconceptions, coercion,threats, deceptions, terror,and paranoid conspiracies.

They concoct fraudulentand nonexistent

alarmist issues such asthe supposed danger of

global warming, as well asthe alleged threat of

pest control products !

These EnviroBasterds

cannot be trusted !


3/27

THE MYTH OF

GLOBAL WARMING

ANDCLIMATEGATE !

PROFESSORPHIL JONES

COULD FACE TEN YEARS

ON FRAUD CHARGES

January 28 th, 2010

John OSull ivan

www.climategate.com


4/27

Yesterday, the London Times broke the latestnews on the fate of DISGRACED British clima-tologistPhil Jones, of the University of EastAnglia ( University of East Anglia ). Jones breached the Freedom of Information Act ( FOIA ) by REFUSING TO COMPLY with re-

quests for data concerning claims by its scien-tists that manmade emissions were causingGL OBAL W ARMING . The Times reports that theUK Information Commissioners Office( ICO ) decided that the University of East Anglia failed in its du-ties under the Act, but said that it could not prosecute those in-volved because the complaint was made too late.

What the Times and the rest of the media are overlooking is that

the Crown Prosecution Service ( CPS ), not the Information Com-missioners Office, is responsible for announcing the results of thepolice investigation into the CL IMATEGATE SCANDAL . The Informa-tion Commissioners Office is merely a nondepartmental publicbody which reports directly to Parliament, sponsored by the Minis-try of Justice and deals solely with data protection, Freedom of In-formation Act regulations, privacy, electronic communicationsregulations and environmental regulations.

What is not being intelligently reported is thatJones is still liable

as lead conspirator in the UK s Climatic Research Unit ( CRU ) andmay face prosecution under the United Kingdom Fraud Act( 2006 ). If convicted of the offense ofFRAUD by either false repre-sentation, failing to disclose information orFRAUD by abuse of hisposition, he stands liable to a maximum penalty of TEN YEARS IM-PRISONMENT .


5/27

In this article, I shall demonstrate that the fuss over the Freedomof Information Act infringement, although in itself succeeding inachieving no conviction, does demonstrate that the InformationCommissioners Office has acted improperly and may have preju-diced the outcome of any prosecution Jones may face for far moreserious offenses for false representation ( section 2 ) and fail-

ing to disclose information ( section 3 ) under the Fraud Act( 2006 ).

Although the offense of fraud may be committed in three ways, weshall only need to apply two in finding reasonable grounds to bringa prosecution in this case. All three forms of the offense requireproof of dishonesty and an intention ( i ) to make a gain for himselfor another, or( i i ) to cause loss to another or to expose another toa risk of loss. Gain and loss are limited to gains or losses

in terms of money or other property.

The forms ofFRAUD directly relating to Phil Jones are

FRAUD BY FALSE REPRESENTATION ( SECTION 2)

AFRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION is an assertion which is untrue or

misleading and which the person making it knows is, or might be,untrue or misleading. ( s2( 2 ) ). Subsection ( 4 ) provides that arepresentation may be express or implied. There are no restrictionsor limitations in the way in which a representation is communi-cated. It may be written or spoken and may be transmitted by email or by way of website.


6/27

FRAUD BY FAILING TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION ( SECTION 3)

This form of the offense applies where a person dishonestly fails todisclose to another person information that he is under a legal dutyto disclose. The Information Commissioners Office admits Jonesis GUILTY OF FAIL ING TO DISCLOSE CLIMATE DATA . The questionwhether a legal duty exists is a matter of the general law. A legalduty may arise by virtue of a fiduciary relationship between the par-ties ( fiduciary duty is a legal or ethical relationship of confidence ortrust between two or more parties ).

THE CLIMATIC RESEARCH UNIT EMAIL EVIDENCE

From a full examination of excerpts from leaked Climatic ResearchUnit emails cited below, it is readily demonstrable that the policeand Crown Prosecution Service currently possess sufficient evi-dence to charge Phil Jones under both sections 2 & 3 of the FraudAct ( 2006 ). I shall cite liberally from Jones own email admis-sions, in conjunction with also citing liberally the muchacclaimed

analysis of all the leaked University of East Anglia emails by Aus-tralian physicist, John Costella.

I have used my own judgment to assess which ofJones emails arethe most damning. Bear in mind that a defendant incriminateshimself by any admission he may make.


7/27

>

On January 16, 2004, in leaked Climatic Re-search Unit email 1074277559 exchange,Jones frantically urges Penn State Universityclimatologist, Michael Mann [ Professor ofMeteorology at Pennsylvania State Univer-sity ], to delete data

Subject

Climatic Change needs youradvice YOUR EYES ONLY !!!!!

Mike,

This is for YOUR EYES ONLY. Delete after reading please ! Im trying to redress the balance. One reply fromChristian Pfister said you should make all available ! Potcalling the kettle black Christian doesnt make his

methods available. I told Steve separately, and told himto get more advice from a few others, as well as Kluwer( publishers ), and the legal department.

PLEASE DELETE just for you, not even for Ray Bradleyand Malcolm Hughes.


8/27

>

Dr. John Costella s commentary on the above is

Joness blind panic in private to Mann speaks vol-umes. He is so scared of the ramifications that he evenasks that Mann destroy the email immediately. Are thesethe actions of scientists with nothing to hide ?

In the leaked emails of February 4, 2004, email 1076083097 exchange, we read that ALARGE NUMBER OF CLIMATE CON COLLABORA-

TORS are discussing ways to avoid providingindependent Canadian climate analyst, SteveMcIntyre, with enough of the computer pro-grams to actually check their results. LindaMearns, Senior Scientist at the Institute for

the Study of Society and Environment at theNational Center for Atmospheric Research,writes

My point about the computer programs is still that pro-viding the programs can be interpreted a lot of ways.


9/27

I have thought about this, and imagined if in one of mylarger and more complex projects, I was asked to provideall the programs. I could do that just by sending thepieces with a summary file explaining what each piece wasused for. It still theoretically allows someone to see how

the programming was done. And I do think that is a farsight easier than providing stuff that can be run, etc. I amsuggesting that one could do the minimum. Then the pointis, one isnt faced with garish headlines about refusal toprovide programs . I think it is harder to come up with a garish headline about refusal to provide completelydocumented programs with appropriate instructions filesand handholding for running it.

Mearns argument is effectively this I F WEARE FORCED TO PROVIDE THE COMPUTER

PROGRAMS , THEN LET S BREAK THEM UP INTOTHE SMALLEST POSSIBLE P IECES , SO THATMC INTYRE CAN SEE ROUGHL Y WHAT WE HAVEDONE , BUT WOULD HAVE AN ALMOST IMPOSSI -BLE TASK PUTTING THE P IECES BACK TO-

GETHER AGAIN SO THAT IT COULD BE USED SORT OF A Humpty Dumpty.

Phil Jones realizes that this wont fool many if they had donethe science properly, then the computer programs and supportingdocumentation would be readily available for anyone to use, with-out any further work.


10/27

>

Jones then replies

So now it seems that were separating providing the programs from runningthe programs .

I cant see the purpose of one without theother. Even if Mike Mann complies, I sus-pect there will need to be several sessionsof interaction to explain how to run the programs, which neither side will be verykeen on.

Jones is savvy enough to understand that providing unrunnable

programs will lead to an immediate request or demand for assis-tance in actually getting them to run.

Jones then admits that, even with possession of the programs andthe data, a lot of fiddling is needed to get to their claimed re-sults


11/27

As I said before, I know that running the programs will in-volve lots of combinations ( for different time periods withdifferent temperature proxies ).

Jones further realizes that validating their programs would requirevalidating their mathematical numbercrunching programs often shared between different programs, and hence called libraryroutines

Also I would expect, knowing the nature of the mathemati-cal approach that we use, that there will be library rou-tines. We dont want McIntyre ( and McKitrick ) to comeout and say that he cant get it to work after a few days.

Jones continues

So, it is far from simple. Im still against the computer programs being given out. Mike has made the data avail-

able. That is all they should need. The method of calcula-tions is detailed in the original paper and also in sev-eral other papers Mike has written. In other words, theskeptics have a description of what was done which shouldbe enough.


12/27

Then this BOMBSHELL

As an aside, Mike Mann is now using a different methodfrom the paper of Mann, Bradley, and Hughes of 1998.

So even ifMcIntyre and colleagues follow the method described inthe 1998 paper, they still wont obtain agreement with whatMannis now doing ! Could there be any clearer argument for providingthe exact computer programs and methodology used for each andevery published paper ? Jones apparently cant fathom the ridicu-lousness of his own words.

He continues

It might appear that they want the programs to checkwhether their version works properly. If this is the case,then there are issues of Intellectual Property Rights. So,if they get the programs, how do we stop them using it foranything other than this review ?

GOD FORBID THAT ANY OTHER SCIENTISTS SHOULD BE GIVEN AS-SISTANCE IN RESEARCHING THIS ISSUE OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE

TO HUMANITY ! Jones s treatment of their data and research asprivate property , for them to exploit and profit from to theexclusion of all other scientists is OBNOXIOUS AND UNLAWFUL ,particularly as it is PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS and subject to fullFreedom of Information Act disclosure !


13/27

Phil Jones replies to an email from another climatologist, VanOmmen, on February 9, 2004, in email 1076336623 exchange,copying in Mike Mann

Thanks for the email. Steve McIntyre hasnt contacted me

directly about the Antarctic data ( yet ), nor about any ofthe data used in the 1998 Holocene paper or the 2003 Geo-physical Research Letters one with Mike. I suspect ( hope )that he wont. I had some emails with him a few yearsago when he wanted to get all the station temperaturedata we use here in Climatic Research Unit. At that time, Ihid behind the fact that some of the data had been re-ceived from individuals and not directly from Met( eorological ) Services through the Global Tele

communications Service ( GTS ) or through the Global Cli-mate Observing System.

We here start to learn about the tricks thatJones and colleagueshave used to thwart attempts to get access to the dodgy data thattheir published claims are based on. In this case, Jones is trying toargue that data provided by individuals does not need to be provided for independent scrutiny anotherINTENT TO CONCEALFRAUD .

Jones continues

Emails have also been sent to some other paleoclimatology people asking for data sets used in 1998 or 2003. Keith


14/27

Briffa here got a request, for example. Here, they havealso been in contact with some of Keiths Russian contacts. All seem to relate to trying to get data that weve used.In the Russian case, issues relate to the Russian ( RashitHantemirov ) having a paper out with the same data thatKeith used The data are different for two reasons. One

reason is that Keith used ( a mathematical method on thedata ); and, secondly, Rashit has added some data sinceKeith got the data a couple of years ago.

>

Jones is here giving yet more reasons why the original data shouldbe made available. So what will he do ?

Ill just sit tight here and do nothing. Mike will likely dothe same, but well expect another publication in the near-ish future.

This is clearly the GUILTY MIND LEGAL COMPONENT, or mens rea intent to COVER THE FRAUD by sitting tight REFUSING TOCOMPLY with Freedom of Information Act disclosure and im-plies JonesCONSPIRED to do so with Michael Mann.


15/27

So not only will theyIGNORE ALL REQUESTS FOR THE DATA andHIDE BEHIND DUBIOUS LOOPHOLES to do so but they are more-over planning to continue publishing papers based on all this pri-vate ( FRAUDULENT ) data, ADJUSTED by their own private ma-thematical methods !

>

On January 21, 2005 Jones corresponds again in email1106338806 exchange.

Phil Jones is confident that it wont be a problem in CONTINUINGTO DECLINE Freedom of Information Act requests

On the Freedom of Information Act, there is a little leafletwe have all been sent. It doesnt really clarify what we

might have to do regarding programs or data. Like allthings in Britain, we will only find out when the first per-son or organization asks. I wouldnt tell anybody about theFreedom of Information Act in Britain. I dont think theUniversity of East Anglia really knows whats involved.


16/27

However, he also starts the process of FINDING LOOPHOLES in thelegislation with fellow climate scientist conspirator, Tom Wigley

As youre no longer an employee, I would use this argumentif anything comes along.

Tom Wigley replies

Thanks for the quick reply. The leafletappeared so general, but it was preparedby the University of East Anglia so they

may have simplified things. From theirwording, computer programs would becovered by the Freedom of Information Act. My concern was if Sarah is/was stillemployed by the University of East Anglia.I guess she could claim that she had onlywritten one tenth of the programs, andtherefore only release every tenth line ofthe programs.

Another interesting attempt to conspire to FRAUDUL ENTL Y WRAN-GLE A LOOPHOLE , albeit unlikely to succeed. Phil Jones replies,REFINING THE LOOPHOLE EVEN FURTHER


17/27

As for the Freedom of Information Act, Sarah isnt techni-cally employed by the University of East Anglia and she willlikely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University.

Not that she wouldnt be covered by the Act MERELY THAT SHEWOULD BE PAID BY A DIFFERENT UNIVERSITY !

Jones continues

I wouldnt worry about the computer programs. If theFreedom of Information Act does ever get used by anyone,there is also Intellectual Property Rights to consider aswell. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with

people, so I will be hiding behind them. Ill be passing anyrequests onto the person at the University of East Angliawho has been given a post to deal with them.

On February 2, 2005, in email 1107454306 exchange, Phil Joneswrites to Mike Mann

Just sent loads of data to Scott Rutherford. Make surehe documents everything better this time !

So it isnt until 2005 that they decide it is time to document whatthey are doing ?


18/27

>

And dont leave stuff lying around onanonymous download sites you neverknow who is trawling them. McIntyre andMcKitrick have been after the Climatic Re-search Unit data for years. If they ever

hear there is a Freedom of InformationAct now in the United Kingdom, I think Illdelete the file rather than send it to any-one.

B INGO ! Proof of intention ( mens rea) to commit aCRIMINAL DE-STRUCTION OF EVIDENCE all we need now is proof of the de-struction/loss of data the ( actus reus ) to have the two requisitecomponents of a crime ( the guilty state of mind and the actualcommission of the crime ).

Jones then discusses ( CONSPIRES ) to find other way to unlawfullysubvert the Freedom of Information Act


19/27

We also have a Data Protection Act, which I will hide be-hind.

Again, hide behind reveals intent to conceal the original FRAUDOF FALSIFICATION OF CLIMATE DATA .

Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heardabout it he thought people could ask him for his com-puter programs. He has retired officially from the Univer-sity of East Anglia so he can hide behind that ... Intellec-tual Property Rights should be relevant here, but I can seeme getting into an argument with someone at the Univer-sity of East Anglia wholl say we must adhere to the Free-dom of Information Act !

Again, proofJones will argue against compliance BETRAYINGHIS GUILTY FRAME OF MIND , in seeking to pervert the law fur-ther deepening his admissions to commit a crime.

On February 21, 2005 in email 1109021312 exchange, Phil Jones writes to colleagues, Mike Mann, Ray Badley, and MalcolmHughes, regarding news reports thatMann will be forced to release

his data

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here !


20/27

Leave it to you to delete as appropriate ! PS, Im get-ting hassled by a couple of people to release the ClimaticResearch Unit temperature data. Dont any of youthree tell anybody that the United Kingdom has a Freedomof Information Act!

Again, we have Jones admitting to COERCION OF OTHERS to joinhim in and CONSPIRE to conceal the legal duty he has as ClimaticResearch Unit leader and hide his climate data fraud.

On July 5, 2005, Jones makes furtherDAMNING ADMISSIONS in email 1120593115 exchange, where Phil Jones sends an article anda blog entry to climate scientistJohn Christy

This quote is from an Australian at the Bureau of Meteor-ology Research Centre, Melbourne ( not Neville Nicholls ).It began from the attached article. What an idiot. Thescientific community would come down on me in no uncer-tain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK, ithas, but it is only 7 years of data and it isnt statisticallysignificant.

Again, Joness ability to concisely summarize the key facets of thisCLIMATE TEMPERATURE FRAUD is remarkable. While Jones is ad-mitting to the truth in private, he has the Climatic Research Unitmaking public statements that are KNOWINGLY FRAUDULENT underthe terms of the Fraud Act. Can you imagine how intimidated themore junior scientists would be ?


21/27

On August 4, 2005, email 1123163394 exchange, Jones nowmakes a remarkable comment, about something that is elementaryto even highschool science experiments

There is an issue coming up in the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change. Every graph needs uncertainty bars,and having them is all that matters. It seems irrelevantwhether they are right or how they are used.

In other words, he is only concerned that they GIVE THE APPEAR-ANCE OF ESTIMATING the uncertainties in their predictions, ratherthan actually getting those ( subtle and difficult ) vital calculations

right

an obvious DECEITFUL ACT and thus a further offence un-der the UK Fraud Act FRAUD BY FALSE REPRESENTATION ( Section 2 ).

On January 5, 2007, the email 1168022320 exchange from PhilJones to many

Ive added a few extra names in the cc of this email list tosee if we can definitively determine where Figure 7.1c

from the 1990 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeReport comes from. The background is that the skepticskeep referring back to it and Id like to prove that it is aschematic and it isnt based on real data, but on presumedknowledge at some point around the late 1980s.


22/27

W ONDERFUL ! Fake graphs presented in the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change Report but only disclose that oncethe skeptics take note of it ? More FRAUD BY FALSE REPRESENTA-TION ( see Fraud Act, Section 2 ).

ASCERTAINING PHIL JONESGUILT

The UK Crown Prosecution Service may fairly construe in theircase that Professor Jones et al. continued in theirCONCEALMENT( the act of the offense ) throughout the course of those Freedom ofInformation Act applications. Thus, this constitutes an offense ofCONTINUOUS UNLAWFUL CONDUCT that would, in turn constitutewhat is known in English criminal law as a compound allega-

tion.

The continuing act will continue for as long as the defendant setsabout the business of committing or covering up the crime. Joneswas covering up his criminal acts right up to November 19, 2009.His CONCEALING OF HIS CRIMES until that date keeps all such of-fenses live because the act of covering up the crime is, itself, acrime.

THE FRAUD ACT (2006)

The Fraud Act ( 2006 ) tells us we must ask the following questionsto ascertain the measure of the defendants guilt


23/27

Whether a defendants behaviour would be regarded as dis-honest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. If answered positively, the second question iswhether the defendant was aware that his conduct was dis-

honest and would be regarded as dishonest by reasonableand honest people.

Subsection ( 1 ) ( b ) requires that the person must make the rep-resentation with the intention of making a gain or causing loss orrisk of loss to another. The gain or loss does not actually have totake place. The same requirement applies to conduct criminalisedbysections 3 and 4.

Subsection ( 2 ) defines the meaning of false in this contextand subsection ( 3 ) defines the meaning of representation. Arepresentation is defined as false if it is untrue or misleading andthe person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or mis-leading.

Subsection ( 4 ) provides that a representation may be express or

implied. It can be stated in words or communicated by conduct.There is no limitation on the way in which the representation mustbe expressed. So it could be written or spoken or posted on a web-site.


24/27

SECTION 3 FRAUD BY FAILING TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION

Section 3 makes it an offence to commit fraud by failing to discloseinformation to another person where there is a legal duty to disclosethe information. A legal duty to disclose information may includeduties under oral contracts as well as written contracts. The con-cept of legal duty is explained in the Law Commissions Re-port on Fraud, which said atparagraphs 7.28 and 7.29

7.28 Such a duty may derive from statute [ e.g. obliga-tion to release data as per a Freedom of Information ( FOI )request ].

SECTION 7 MAKING OR SUPPLYING ARTICLES FOR USE IN FRAUDS

Section 7 makes it an offence to make, adapt, supply or offer tosupply any article knowing that it is designed or adapted for use inthe course of or in connection with fraud, or intending it to be used

to commit or facilitate fraud. [ e.g. a computer model designed tofalsely represent warming global temperatures. ] Subsection ( 2 )provides that THE MAXIMUM CUSTODIAL SENTENCE FOR THIS OF-FENSE IS 10 YEARS .


25/27

SECTION 8 ARTICLE

Section 8 extends the meaning of article for the purposes of

sections 6 and 7 and certain other connected provisions so as toinclude any program or data held in electronic form.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we may determine that Professor Jones conductmay be found by a Crown prosecutor to be sufficient to obtain aCONVICTION against him for OBTAINING SERVICES DISHONESTLY ( government climate research grant funds ) and of POSSESSING , MAKING AND SUPPLYING ARTICLES FOR USE IN FRAUDS ( climatedata, graphs, computer models ).

The Fraud Act creates serious offenses of DISHONESTY and thestatute of limitations is six years. Unless the factors against prose-cution outweigh those in favour, a prosecution will normally takeplace. The offense is triable either way and carries maximum 10

YEAR SENTENCE OR A FINE ( OR BOTH ) ON INDICTMENT.

JOHN OSULLIVAN IS A LEGAL ADVOCATE AND WRITER WHO FOR SEVERAL YEARS HAS LITI-

GATED IN GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION AND CONSPIRACY CASES IN BOTH THE US AND BRITAIN.


26/27

FORCEOFNATURE WAS LAUNCHED FOR CONTINUOUS TRANSMISSION ON THEINTERNET ON JANUARY 1ST,2009. IT IS A SERIES OF E

NEWSLETTERS DESTINED FOR THE GREEN SPACE INDUSTRY, THE ENVIRONMENTALTERRORMOVEMENT, GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS,

AND THEMEDIA, NATIONWIDE ACROSS CANADA, THE UNITED STATES AND OVERSEAS.

FORCE OF NATURE IS THE BRAINCHILD OFWILLIAM H.GATHERCOLE AND HIS ENTOURAGE. NORAH G IS ACTUALLY AN ACRONYM FOR

THE STABLE OF ANONYMOUS PRODUCERS AND WRITERS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THIS ENEWSLETTER AND HAVE NOW REPLACED MR.

GATHERCOLE. THEY CONSIST OF PEOPLE FROM THE FOLLOWING INDUSTRIES:DISTRIBUTION,FERTILIZER,GOLF,LAWN CARE,MANU-

FACTURING,MUNICIPAL,NURSERY, AND ORCHARD. MANY OF THESE PEOPLE ARE LEADERS IN THEIR OWN INDUSTRIES. THE OPINIONS

EXPRESSED IN FORCE OF NATURE, EVEN THOUGH FROM ANINDEPENDENT PERSPECTIVE, MAY NOT REFLECT THOSE OF EVERYONE

IN THE GREENSPACEINDUSTRY, OR MR.GATHERCOLES MANY ASSOCIATES. BE WARNED ! FORCE OF NATURE MAY SOMETIMES

BE VERY IRREVERENT AND FEARLESS WITH THESE ENEWSLETTERS. MR.GATHERCOLE IS NOW RETIRED FROM FORCE OF NATURE, AL-

THOUGH HIS NAME CONTINUES TO APPEAR AS THE FOUNDER.

WILLIAM H.GATHERCOLE IS A PRINCIPALFOUNDER OF THE MODERN PROFESSIONAL LAWN CARE INDUSTRY IN BOTHONTARIO AND

QUEBEC. HE HOLDS A DEGREE IN HORTICULTURE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OFGUELPH, AND ANOTHER PURE AND APPLIED SCIENCE

DEGREE FROM MCGILLUNIVERSITY. HE HAS WORKED IN VIRTUALLY ALL ASPECTS OF THEGREENSPACEINDUSTRY, INCLUD-

ING GOLF AND PROFESSIONAL LAWN CARE, AND HAS SERVED IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS, WORKPLACE SAFETY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL

COMPLIANCE. MR. GATHERCOLE HAS SUPERVISED, CONSULTED, PROGRAMMED, AND/OR OVERSEEN THE EXECUTION OF HUNDREDS

OFTHOUSANDS OF PEST CONTROL APPLICATIONS IN THE URBAN LANDSCAPE. HE HAS TRAINED, INSTRUCTED, AND CONSULTED WITH

THOUSANDS OF TURF MANAGERS AND TECHNICIANS. MR. GATHERCOLE HAS ALSO BEEN AN AGRICULTURAL AGRONOMIST. FOR

MANY YEARS, MR. GATHERCOLE WAS A CONTRIBUTING COLUMNIST FORTURF & RECREATION MAGAZINE, CANADAS TURF AND

GROUNDS MAINTENANCEAUTHORITY.

MR.GATHERCOLE HAS FOLLOWED THE EVOLUTION OFENVIRONMENTALTERRORISM FOR OVER A QUARTERCENTURY. HIS IN-

VOLVEMENT IN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES REACHED A FEVERED PITCH IN THE1990S, WHEN HE ORCHESTRATED, WITH HIS COLLEAGUES,

LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THE PROHIBITION OF PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS IN THETOWN OF HUDSON, QUEBEC. FOR FIFTEENYEARS,

THE STRATEGIES DESIGNED AND IMPLEMENTED BYMR. GATHERCOLE AND HIS COLLEAGUES GUARANTEED THE CONTROL OFENVIRO

TERROR FOR THE ENTIRE MODERN GREEN SPACE INDUSTRY ACROSS CANADA. ALTHOUGH HE CAN BE ACCUSED OF BEING ANTI

ENVIRONMENTMOVEMENT, HE IS, IN FACT, SIMPLY A STRONG ADVOCATE FOR THE MODERN GREEN SPACE INDUSTRY. HOWEVER,

THIS POSITION HAS NOT PRECLUDED HIM FROM CRITICIZING THEGREEN SPACE INDUSTRY ITSELF. NONETHELESS, HIS VAST KNOWLEDGE

OF OUR LONG JO URNEY WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ISUNDENIABLE. (HOPEFULLY !)

FORCE OF NATURE IS THE INSTRUMENT OF NATIONAL ORGANIZATION RESPONDING AGAINST HUJE THAT HARM THE GREEN SPACE IN-

DUSTRY (NORAHG) BY CONCOCTING STATEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES SEEKING TO PROHIBITFEDERALLYLEGAL,SCIENTIFICALLY

SAFE, AND TOTALLYIRREPLACEABLE CONVENTIONAL PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS. ENVIROMANIACCULPRITS ARE IDENTIFIED

ON THE BASIS OF THEIR STATEMENTS, ACTIVITIES, AFFILIATIONS, AND WHEREABOUTS. EVEN THOUGH EACHENVIROMANIACCULPRIT

IS A MISGUIDED ADVERSARY, EACH STILL DESERVES OUR RESPECT. THE TERMS MANIAC,CULPRIT,TERRORIST, OR BASTERD ARE NOT

ACCUSATIONS OF ANY LEGAL WRONGDOING. FORCE OF NATURE IS SIMPLY HOLDING CULPRITS ACCOUNTABLE FOR CONSPIRING TO

CHANGE PUBLIC POLICIES THATTERRORIZE AND THREATEN THE GREEN SPACE INDUSTRY. FORCE OF NATURE BELIEVES THAT THE

PRETENTIOUS PROHIBITIONIST POLICIES OF THEENVIRONMENTALTERRORMOVEMENT IS LEADING TO LOSSOFREVENUES,BUSI-

NESSFAILURES, BANKRUPTCY, AND UNEMPLOYMENT, INFLICTING DESPAIR AND DESTITUTION FOR THOUSANDS OF

VICTIMS THROUGHOUT THEGREEN SPACE INDUSTRY. THE ACTIONS OF MANIACCULPRITSTERRORISTSBASTERDS IN THE MOVEMENTARE VIEWED AS A FORM OFTERROR AGAINST THEGREEN SPACE INDUSTRY. THE INFORMATION PRESENTED INFORCE OF NATURE HAS

BEEN DEVELOPED FOR THE EDUCATION AND ENTERTAINMENT OF THE READER BY PROVIDING A SEQUENCE OF HISTORICAL EVENTS WITH

COMMENTARY. ADDITIONALLY, FORCE OF NATURE INSPIRES PEOPLE TO BELIEVE THAT ENVIRONMENTAL TERRORISM CAN BE

STOPPED! THE EVENTS, CHARACTERS, COMPANIES, AND ORGANIZATIONS, DEPICTED IN THIS DOCUMENT ARE NOT ALWAYS FICTITIOUS.

ANY SIMILARITY TO ACTUAL PERSONS, LIVING OR DEAD, MAY NOT BE COINCIDENTAL. ALL DOCUMENT EXCERPTS AND PICTURES CON-

TAINED IN FORCE OF NATURE WERE FOUND SOMEWHERE ON THEINTERNET. WE BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, SERV-

ING ONE OF THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES: ARCHIVE, EDUCATION, PROMOTION, PUBLICITY, OR PRESS RELEASE.

THE FOLLOWINGFORCE OF NATURE DOCUMENTS ARE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE ALOOK AT ALBERTA PROHIBITION BRITISH

COLUMBIA PROHIBITION CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICIANS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT MILLIONAIRECANCERSOCIETY

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION CONSEQUENCES DAVID SUZUKI FOUNDATION DDT AND POLITICIZED SCI-

ENCE DEATH AND THEENVIRONMENTALTERRORMOVEMENT ENVIROMONEY ENVIRONMENTALTERRORISTS UNMASKED

FERTILIZERTERROR IS NEXT JUNE IRWIN,THE CLOWN OF JUNKSCIENCE KAZIMIERA JEAN COTTAM LANDSCAPE TRADES CA-

PITULATE NEW BRUNSWICK PROHIBITION NOVA SCOTIA PROHIBITION ONTARIO PROHIBITION ORGANIC FERTILIZERS

PESTICIDE FREE BC PETS AND LAWN CARE CHEMICALS PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PROHIBITION QUEBEC PROHIBITION RA-

CHEL CARSON,THE QUEEN OF JUNK SCIENCE SALMON ARM BCPROHIBITION THE 9/11ERA OF THE GREEN SPACE INDUSTRY

THE FAILURE OF INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT THE LOOMING GOLF INDUSTRY SHIPWRECK THE INDUSTRY STRIKES BACK

THE MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT CANCER THE NATIONAL ANNIHILATION OF THEMODERN GREEN SPACE INDUSTRY THE WISDOM

OF BILL BELL THE WISDOM OF DRYSDALE THE WISDOM OF HEALTH CANADA THE WISDOM OF HOLLAND THE WISDOM OFLOWES THE WISDOM OF MAINS THE WISDOM OF THESOLOMONS ASK FOR A COPY OF ANY BACK ISSUE OF FORCE OF NATURE

TODAY. READ ALL ABOUT ENVIROMANIACS AND THEIR ENVIRONMENTALTERRORORGANIZATIONS IN FORCE OF NATURE ! THE

WHOLE TRUTH FROM AN INDEPENDENT PERSPECTIVE ! FORCE OF NATURE IS TOTALLYINDEPENDENT OF ANY TRADE ASSOCIA-

TION OR BUSINESS OPERATING WITHIN THEGREEN SPACE INDUSTRY. DONTTHANKUS. ITSA PUBLICSERVICE. ANDWE

AREGLADTODOIT.


27/27

Documents

Force of Nature -- Global Warming -- 2010 01 28 -- Climate-Gate -- MODIFIED -- PDF -- 300 Dpi