Enviro–Maniacs continue to

rely upon lies, fear–mongering,

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

They concoct fraudulent

and non–existent
alarmist issues such as
the supposed danger of
global warming, as well as
the alleged threat of
pest control products !

These Enviro–Basterds
cannot be trusted !
 T HE M YTH OF
G LOBAL W ARMING
AND
C LIMATE –G ATE !

P ROFESSOR P HIL J ONES

COULD FACE TEN YEARS

ON FRAUD CHARGES

January 28 t h , 2010

John O’Sullivan

www.climategate.com
Yesterday, the London Times broke the latest
news on the fate of D I S G R A C E D British clima-
tologist Phil Jones, of the University of East
Anglia ( University of East Anglia ). Jones
breached the Freedom of Information Act
( FOIA ) by R E F U S I N G T O C O M P L Y with re-
quests for data concerning claims by its scien-
tists that man–made emissions were causing
G L O B A L W A R M I N G . The Times reports that the
UK Information Commissioner’s 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-
missioner’s Office, is responsible for announcing the results of the
police investigation into the C L I M A T E G A T E S C A N D A L . The Informa-
tion Commissioner’s Office is merely a non–departmental public
body 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 communications
regulations and environmental regulations.

What is not being intelligently reported is that Jones is still liable

as lead conspirator in the UK’s Climatic Research Unit ( CRU ) and
may face prosecution under the United Kingdom Fraud Act
( 2006 ). If convicted of the offense of F R A U D by either false repre-
sentation, failing to disclose information or F R A U D by abuse of his
position, he stands liable to a maximum penalty of T E N Y E A R S I M -
P RIS O N ME NT.
In this article, I shall demonstrate that the fuss over the Freedom
of Information Act infringement, although in itself succeeding in
achieving no conviction, does demonstrate that the Information
Commissioner’s Office has acted improperly and may have preju-
diced the outcome of any prosecution Jones may face for far more
serious offenses for false representation ( section 2 ) and f ail-
ing to disclose infor mation ( section 3 ) under the Fraud Act
( 2006 ).

Although the offense of fraud may be committed in three ways, we

shall only need to apply two in finding reasonable grounds to bring
a prosecution in this case. All three forms of the offense require
proof of dishonesty and an intention ( i ) to make a gain for himself
or another, or ( ii ) to cause loss to another or to expose another to
a risk of loss. “ Gain ” and “ loss ” are limited to gains or losses
in terms of money or other property.

The forms of FRAUD directly relating to Phil Jones are ―

F RAUD BY FAL SE REPRE SENTAT ION ( SECT ION 2 )

A F R A U D U L E N T R E P R E S E N T A T I O N 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 a
representation may be express or implied. There are no restrictions
or limitations in the way in which a representation is communi-
cated. It may be written or spoken and may be transmitted by e–
mail or by way of website.
F RAUD BY FAIL ING TO DISCLOSE INFORMAT ION ( SEC T ION 3 )

This form of the offense applies where a person dishonestly fails to

disclose to another person information that he is under a legal duty
to disclose. The Information Commissioner’s Office admits Jones
is G U I L T Y O F F A I L I N G T O D I S C L O S E C L I M A T E D A T A . The question
whether a legal duty exists is a matter of the general law. A legal
duty may arise by virtue of a fiduciary relationship between the par-
ties ( fiduciary duty is a legal or ethical relationship of confidence or
trust between two or more parties ).

T HE C LIM AT IC R ESEARCH U NIT E– M AIL E VIDENCE

From a full examination of excerpts from leaked Climatic Research

Unit e–mails cited below, it is readily demonstrable that the police
and Crown Prosecution Service currently possess sufficient evi-
dence to charge Phil Jones under both sections 2 & 3 of the Fraud
Act ( 2006 ). I shall cite liberally from Jones’ own e–mail admis-
sions, in conjunction with also citing liberally the much–acclaimed
analysis of all the leaked University of East Anglia e–mails by Aus-
tralian physicist, John Costella.

I have used my own judgment to assess which of Jones’ e–mails are

the most damning. Bear in mind that a defendant incriminates
himself by any admission he may make.
 << Delete after reading — please !
I’m trying to redress the balance. >>

On January 16, 2004, in leaked Climatic Re-

search Unit e–mail 1074277559 exchange,
Jones frantically urges Penn State Universit y
climatologist, Michael Mann [ Professor of
Meteorolog y at Pennsylvania State Univer-
sity ], to delete data ―

Subject ― Climatic Change needs your

advice — YOUR EYES ONLY !!!!!

Mike,

This is for YOUR EYES ONLY. Delete after reading —

please ! I’m trying to redress the balance. One reply from
Christian Pfister said you should make all available ! Pot
calling the kettle black — Christian doesn’t make his
methods available. … I told Steve separately, and told him
to 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 Bradley
and Malcolm Hughes.
 << Are these the actions of scientists
with nothing to hide ? >>

Dr. John Costella’s commentary on the above is ―

Jones’s blind panic — in private to Mann — speaks vol-

umes. He is so scared of the ramifications that he even
asks that Mann destroy the e–mail immediately. Are these
the actions of scientists with nothing to hide ?

In the leaked e–mails of February 4, 2004, e–

mail 1076083097 exchange, we read that A
L A RG E NU MB E R O F CL I MA TE CO N CO L L A B O RA -
T O R S are discussing ways to avoid providing
independent Canadian climate analyst, Steve
McInt yre, with enough of the computer pro-
grams to actually check their results. Linda
Mearns, Senior Scientist at the Institute for
the Study of Societ y and Environment at the
National 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.
 I have thought about this, and imagined if in one of my
larger and more complex projects, I was asked to provide
all the programs. I could do that just by sending the
pieces with a summary file explaining what each piece was
used for. It still theoretically allows someone to see how
the programming was done. And I do think that is a far
sight easier than providing stuff that can be run, etc. I am
suggesting that one could do the minimum. Then the point
is, one isn’t faced with garish headlines about “ refusal to
provide programs ”. I think it is harder to come up with a
garish headline about “ refusal to provide completely
documented programs with appropriate instructions files
and hand–holding for running it.

Mearns’ argument is effectively this ― IF W E

A RE FO RCE D TO P RO V IDE THE CO MP UTE R
P RO G RA MS , THE N L E T’S B RE A K THE M UP I NTO
THE S MA L L E S T P O S S IB L E P IE CE S , S O THA T
MCINTYRE CAN SEE ROUGHL Y W HAT W E HAVE
DO NE , B UT W O UL D HA V E A N AL MO S T I MP O S S I -
BLE TASK PUTTING THE P IECES BACK TO-
GETHER AGAIN SO T HAT IT COULD BE USED —
S O R T O F A “ Hu mp ty Du mp ty ”.

Phil Jones realizes that this won’t fool many ― if they had done
the science properly, then the computer programs and supporting
documentation would be readily available for anyone to use, with-
out any further work.
 << So now it seems that we’re
separating “ providing the programs ”
from “ running the programs ” >>

Jones then replies ―

So now it seems that we’re separating

“ providing the programs ” from “ running
the programs “.

I can’t see the purpose of one without the

other. Even if Mike Mann complies, I sus-
pect there will need to be several session s
of interaction to explain how to run the
programs, which neither side will be very
keen on.

Jones is savvy enough to understand that providing un–runnable

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 and
the data, a lot of “ fiddling ” is needed to get to their claimed re-
sults ―
 As I said before, I know that running the programs will in-
volve lots of combinations ( for different time periods with
different temperature proxies ).

Jones further realizes that validating their programs would require

validating their mathematical “ number–crunching ” programs —
often shared between different programs, and hence called “ library
routines ” ―

Also I would expect, knowing the nature of the mathemati-

cal approach that we use, that there will be library rou-
tines. We don’t want McIntyre ( and McKitrick ) to come
out and say that he can’t get it to work after a few days.

Jones continues ―

So, it is far from simple. I’m 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, the
skeptics have a description of what was done which should
be enough.
Then this B O MB S HE L L ―

As an aside, Mike Mann is now using a different method

from the paper of Mann, Bradley, and Hughes of 1998.

So even if McIntyre and colleagues follow the method described in

the 1998 paper, they still won’t obtain agreement with what Mann
is now doing ! Could there be any clearer argument for providing
the exact computer programs and methodology used for each and
every published paper ? Jones apparently can’t fathom the ridicu-
lousness of his own words.

He continues ―

It might appear that they want the programs to check

whether 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 for
anything other than this review ?

GOD FORB ID THAT AN Y OTHER SC IENT ISTS S HOULD BE G IVEN AS-

S IS TA NCE IN RE S E A RCH ING TH IS I S S UE O F C R IT ICA L I MP O RTA NCE
T O H U M A N I T Y ! Jones’s treatment of their data and research as
“ private property ” , for them to exploit and profit from — to the
exclusion of all other scientists — is O B N O X I O U S A N D U N L A W F U L ,
particularly as it is P A I D F O R B Y T A X P A Y E R S and subject to full
Freedom of Information Act disclosure !
Phil Jones replies to an e–mail from another climatologist, Van
Ommen, on February 9, 2004, in e–mail 1076336623 exchange,
copying in Mike Mann ―

Thanks for the e–mail. Steve McIntyre hasn’t contacted me

directly about the Antarctic data ( yet ), nor about any of
the data used in the 1998 Holocene paper or the 2003 Geo-
physical Research Letters one with Mike. I suspect ( hope )
that he won’t. I had some e–mails with him a few years
ago when he wanted to get all the station temperature
data we use here in Climatic Research Unit. At that time, I
hid 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 that Jones and colleagues
have used to thwart attempts to get access to the dodgy data that
their published claims are based on. In this case, Jones is trying to
argue that data provided by individuals does not need to be pro-
vided for independent scrutiny — another I N T E N T T O C O N C E A L
FRAUD.

Jones continues ―

E–mails have also been sent to some other paleoclimatology

people asking for data sets used in 1998 or 2003. Keith
 Briffa here got a request, for example. Here, they have
also been in contact with some of Keith’s Russian contacts.
All seem to relate to trying to get data that we’ve used.
In the Russian case, issues relate to the Russian ( Rashit
Hantemirov ) having a paper out with the same data that
Keith used … The data are different for two reasons. One
reason is that Keith used ( a mathematical method on the
data ); and, secondly, Rashit has added some data since
Keith got the data a couple of years ago.

<< I’ll just sit tight here and do nothing. >>

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

I’ll just sit tight here and do nothing. Mike will likely do
the same, but we’ll expect another publication in the near-
ish future.

This is clearly the G U I L T Y M I N D L E G A L C O M P O N E N T , or ‘ mens rea ’

― intent to C O V E R T H E F R A U D by ‘ sitting tight ’ ― R E F U S I N G T O
C O M P L Y with Freedom of Information Act disclosure ― and im-
plies Jones C O N S P I R E D to do so with Michael Mann.
So not only will they I G N O R E A L L R E Q U E S T S F O R T H E D A T A ― and
H I D E B E H I N D D U B I O U S L O O P H O L E S to do so ― but they are more-
over planning to continue publishing papers based on all this “ pri-
vate ” ( F R A U D U L E N T ) data, A D J U S T E D by their own private ma-
thematical methods !

<< I wouldn’t tell anybody about the Freedom

of Information Act in Britain. >>

On January 21, 2005 Jones corresponds again in e–mail

1106338806 exchange.

Phil Jones is confident that it won’t be a problem in CO NT IN U ING

T O D E C L I N E Freedom of Information Act requests ―

On the Freedom of Information Act, there is a little leaflet

we have all been sent. It doesn’t really clarify what we
might have to do regarding programs or data. Like all
things in Britain, we will only find out when the first per-
son or organization asks. I wouldn’t tell anybody about the
Freedom of Information Act in Britain. I don’t think the
University of East Anglia really knows what’s involved.
However, he also starts the process of F I N D I N G L O O P H O L E S in the
legislation with fellow climate scientist conspirator, Tom W igley ―

As you’re no longer an employee, I would use this argument

if anything comes along.

Tom W igley replies ―

Thanks for the quick reply. The leafle t

appeared so general, but it was prepared
by the University of East Anglia so they
may have simplified things. From their
wording, computer programs would be
covered by the Freedom of Information
Act. My concern was if Sarah is/was still
employed by the University of East Anglia.
I guess she could claim that she had only
written one tenth of the programs, and
therefore only release every tenth line of
the programs.

Another interesting attempt to conspire to F R A U D U L E N T L Y W R A N -

G L E A L O O P H O L E , albeit unlikely to succeed. Phil Jones replies,
REFIN ING T HE LOOPHOLE EVEN FURTHER ―
 As for the Freedom of Information Act, Sarah isn’t techni-
cally employed by the University of East Anglia and she will
likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University.

Not that she wouldn’t be covered by the Act ― ME RE L Y THA T S HE

W OUL D B E P A ID B Y A D IF FE RE NT U NIV E RS IT Y !

Jones continues ―

I wouldn’t worry about the computer programs. If the

Freedom of Information Act does ever get used by anyone,
there is also Intellectual Property Rights to consider as
well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with
people, so I will be hiding behind them. I’ll be passing any
requests onto the person at the University of East Anglia
who has been given a post to deal with them.

On February 2, 2005, in e–mail 1107454306 exchange, Phil Jones

writes to Mike Mann ―

Just sent loads of … data to Scott Rutherford. Make sure

he documents everything better this time !

So it isn’t until 2005 that they decide it is time to document what

they are doing ?
 << And don’t leave stuff lying around on
anonymous download sites — you never
know who is trawling them. >>

And don’t leave stuff lying around on

anonymous download sites — you never
know who is trawling them. McIntyre and
McKitrick have been after the Climatic Re-
search Unit … data for years. If they ever
hear there is a Freedom of Information
Act now in the United Kingdom, I think I’ll
delete the file rather than send it to any-
one.

B I N G O ! Proof of intention ( mens rea ) to commit a C R I M I N A L D E -

S T R U C T I O N O F E V I D E N C E ― all we need now is proof of the de-
struction/loss of data the ( actus reus ) to have the two requisite
components of a crime ( the guilty state of mind and the actual
commission of the crime ).

Jones then discusses ( C O N S P I R E S ) to find other way to unlawfully

subvert the Freedom of Information Act ―
 We also have a Data Protection Act, which I will hide be-
hind.

Again, “ hide behind ” reveals intent to conceal the original FRAUD

O F FA L S IF ICA T IO N O F CL I MA TE DA T A .

Tom Wigley has sent me a worried e–mail when he heard

about 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 see
me getting into an argument with someone at the Univer-
sity of East Anglia who’ll say we must adhere to the Free-
dom of Information Act !

Again, proof Jones will “ argue ” against compliance B E T R A Y I N G

H I S G U I L T Y F R A M E O F M I N D , in seeking to pervert the law ― fur-
ther deepening his admissions to commit a crime.

On February 21, 2005 in e–mail 1109021312 exchange, Phil Jones

writes to colleagues, Mike Mann, Ray Badley, and Malcolm
Hughes, regarding news reports that Mann will be forced to release
his data ―

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

…
 Leave it to you to delete as appropriate ! … PS, I’m get-
ting hassled by a couple of people to release the Climatic
Research Unit … temperature data. Don’t any of you
three tell anybody that the United Kingdom has a Freedom
of Information Act!

Again, we have Jones admitting to C O E R C I O N O F O T H E R S to join

him in and C O N S P I R E to conceal the legal duty he has as Climatic
Research Unit leader and hide his climate data fraud.

On July 5, 2005, Jones makes further D A M N I N G A D M I S S I O N S in e–

mail 1120593115 exchange, where Phil Jones sends an article and
a blog entry to climate scientist John Christ y ―

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. The
scientific community would come down on me in no uncer-
tain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK, it
has, but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically
significant.

Again, Jones’s ability to concisely summarize the key facets of this

C L I M A T E T E M P E R A T U R E F R A U D is remarkable. While Jones is ad-
mitting to the truth in private, he has the Climatic Research Unit
making public statements that are K N O W I N G L Y F R A U D U L E N T under
the terms of the Fraud Act. Can you imagine how intimidated the
more junior scientists would be ?
On August 4, 2005, e–mail 1123163394 exchange, Jones now
makes a remarkable comment, about something that is elementary
to even high–school science experiments ―

There is an issue coming up in the Intergovernmental Panel

on Climate Change. Every graph needs uncertainty bars,
and having them is all that matters. It seems irrelevant
whether they are right or how they are used.

In other words, he is only concerned that they G I V E T H E A P P E A R -

A N C E O F E S T I M A T I N G the uncertainties in their predictions, rather
than actually getting those ( subtle and difficult ) vital calculations
right ― an obvious D E C E I T F U L A C T and thus a further offence un-
der the UK Fraud Act ― FRAUD BY FALSE REPRESENTATIO N
( Section 2 ).

On January 5, 2007, the e–mail 1168022320 exchange from Phil

Jones to many ―

I’ve added a few extra names in the cc of this e–mail list to

see if we can definitively determine where Figure 7.1c
from the 1990 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Report comes from. The background is that the skeptics
keep referring back to it and I’d like to prove that it is a
schematic and it isn’t based on real data, but on presumed
knowledge at some point around the late 1980s.
W O N D E R F U L ! Fake graphs presented in the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change Report — but only disclose that once
the skeptics take note of it ? More F R A U D B Y F A L S E R E P R E S E N T A -
T I O N ( see ― Fraud Act, Section 2 ).

A SCERTAIN ING P H IL J ONES ’ G U ILT

The UK Crown Prosecution Service may fairly construe in their

case that Professor Jones et al. continued in their C O N C E A L M E N T
( the act of the offense ) throughout the course of those Freedom of
Information Act applications. Thus, this constitutes an offense of
C O N T I N U O U S U N L A W F U L C O N D U C T that would, in turn constitute
what is known in English criminal law as a “ compound allega-
tion ”.

The continuing act will continue for as long as the defendant sets
about the business of committing or covering up the crime. Jones
was covering up his criminal acts right up to November 19, 2009.
His C O N C E A L I N G O F H I S C R I M E S until that date keeps all such of-
fenses “ live ” because the act of covering up the crime is, itself, a
crime.

T HE F RAUD A CT ( 2006 )

The Fraud Act ( 2006 ) tells us we must ask the following questions
to ascertain the measure of the defendant’s guilt ―
 Whether a defendant’s behaviour would be regarded as dis-
honest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest
people. If answered positively, the second question is
whether the defendant was aware that his conduct was dis-
honest and would be regarded as dishonest by reasonable
and honest people.

Subsection ( 1 ) ( b ) requires that the person must make the rep-

resentation with the intention of making a gain or causing loss or
risk of loss to another. The gain or loss does not actually have to
take place. The same requirement applies to conduct criminalised
by sections 3 and 4.

Subsection ( 2 ) defines the meaning of “ false ” in this context

and subsection ( 3 ) defines the meaning of “ representation ”. A
representation is defined as false if it is untrue or misleading and
the 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 must
be expressed. So it could be written or spoken or posted on a web-
site.
S ECT IO N 3 ― F RAUD BY FAIL ING TO DISCLOSE INFORM AT ION

Section 3 makes it an offence to commit fraud by failing to disclose

information to another person where there is a legal duty to disclose
the information. A legal duty to disclose information may include
duties under oral contracts as well as written contracts. The con-
cept of “ legal duty ” is explained in the Law Commission’s Re-
port on Fraud, which said at paragraphs 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 ].

S ECTION 7 ― M AK ING OR SUPPLYIN G ARTICLES FOR USE IN FRAUDS

Section 7 makes it an offence to make, adapt, supply or offer to

supply any article knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in
the course of or in connection with fraud, or intending it to be used
to commit or facilitate fraud. [ e.g. a computer model designed to
falsely represent warming global temperatures. ] Subsection ( 2 )
provides that T H E M A X I M U M C U S T O D I A L S E N T E N C E F O R T H I S O F -
FENSE IS 10 YEARS.
S ECT IO N 8 ― “ A RT ICLE ”

Section 8 extends the meaning of “ article ” for the purposes of

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

C ONCLUSIO N

In conclusion, we may determine that Professor Jones’ conduct

may be found by a Crown prosecutor to be sufficient to obtain a
C O N V I C T I O N against him for O B T A I N I N G S E R V I C E S D I S H O N E S T L Y
( government climate research grant funds ) and of P O S S E S S I N G ,
M A K I N G A N D S U P P L Y I N G A R T I C L E S F O R U S E I N F R A U D S ( climate
data, graphs, computer models ).

The Fraud Act creates serious offenses of D I S H O N E S T Y and the

statute of limitations is six years. Unless the factors against prose-
cution outweigh those in favour, a prosecution will normally take
place. The offense is triable either way and carries maximum 10 –
YE A R S E NTE NCE O R A F INE ( O R B O TH ) O N I ND IC T ME NT.

JOHN O’SULLIVAN 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.
FORCE OF NATURE WAS LAUNCHED FOR CONTINUOUS TRANSMISSION ON THE INTERNET ON JANUARY 1ST, 2009. IT IS A SERIES OF E–
NEWSLETTERS DESTINED FOR THE GREEN SPACE INDUSTRY, THE ENVIRONMENTAL–T ERROR–MOVEMENT, GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS,
AND THE M EDIA, NATION–WIDE ACROSS CANADA, THE UNITED STATES AND OVERSEAS.

FORCE OF N ATURE IS THE BRAINCHILD OF WILLIAM H. GATHERCOLE AND HIS ENTOURAGE. NORAH G IS ACTUALLY AN ACRONYM FOR
THE STABLE OF ANONYMOUS PRODUCERS AND WRITERS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THIS E– NEWSLETTER AND HAVE NOW REPLACED MR.
GATHERCOLE. T HEY CONSIST OF PEOPLE FROM THE FOLLOWING INDUSTRIES : DISTRIBUTION, F ERTILIZER, GOLF, LAWN CARE, M ANU-
FACTURING, M UNICIPAL, N URSERY, AND ORCHARD. M ANY OF THESE PEOPLE ARE LEADERS IN THEIR OWN INDUSTRIES. T HE OPINIONS
EXPRESSED IN FORCE OF NATURE, EVEN THOUGH FROM AN INDEPENDENT PERSPECTIVE, MAY NOT REFLECT THOSE OF EVERYONE
IN THE GREEN SPACE INDUSTRY, OR MR. GATHERCOLE’S MANY ASSOCIATES. B E WARNED ! FORCE OF NATURE MAY SOMETIMES
BE VERY IRREVERENT AND FEARLESS WITH THESE E–NEWSLETTERS. MR. GATHERCOLE IS NOW RETIRED FROM FORCE OF NATURE, AL-
THOUGH HIS NAME CONTINUES TO APPEAR AS THE FOUNDER .

WILLIAM H. GATHERCOLE IS A PRINCIPAL FOUNDER OF THE MODERN PROFESSIONAL LAWN CARE INDUSTRY IN BOTH ONTARIO AND
QUEBEC. HE HOLDS A DEGREE IN HORTICULTURE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH, AND ANOTHER PURE AND APPLIED SCIENCE
DEGREE FROM MC GILL UNIVERSITY. HE HAS WORKED IN VIRTUALLY ALL ASPECTS OF THE GREEN SPACE INDUSTRY, 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
OF THOUSANDS 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 FOR TURF & RECREATION MAGAZINE, CANADA’S T URF AND
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE AUTHORITY.

MR. GATHERCOLE HAS FOLLOWED THE EVOLUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL TERRORISM FOR OVER A QUARTER–CENTURY. HIS IN-
VOLVEMENT IN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES REACHED A FEVERED PITCH IN THE 1990S, WHEN HE ORCHESTRATED, WITH HIS COLLEAGUES,
LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THE PROHIBITION OF PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS IN THE TOWN OF HUDSON, QUEBEC. FOR FIFTEEN YEARS,
THE STRATEGIES DESIGNED AND IMPLEMENTED BY MR. GATHERCOLE AND HIS COLLEAGUES GUARANTEED THE CONTROL OF ENVIRO–
TERROR FOR THE ENTIRE MODERN GREEN SPACE INDUSTRY ACROSS CANADA. ALTHOUGH HE CAN BE ACCUSED OF BEING ANTI–
ENVIRONMENT–MOVEMENT , HE IS, IN FACT, SIMPLY A STRONG ADVOCATE FOR THE MODERN GREEN SPACE INDUSTRY. HOWEVER,
THIS POSITION HAS NOT PRECLUDED HIM FROM CRITICIZING THE GREEN SPACE INDUSTRY ITSELF. NONETHELESS, HIS VAST KNOWLEDGE
OF OUR LONG JOURNEY WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IS UNDENIABLE. ( HOPEFULLY ! )

FORCE OF NATURE IS THE INSTRUMENT OF N ATIONAL ORGANIZATION RESPONDING AGAINST HUJE THAT HARM THE GREEN SPACE IN-
DUSTRY (NORAHG) BY CONCOCTING STATEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES SEEKING TO PROHIBIT FEDERALLY LEGAL, SCIENTIFICALLY
SAFE, AND TOTALLY IRREPLACEABLE CONVENTIONAL PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS. ENVIRO–MANIAC–CULPRITS ARE IDENTIFIED
ON THE BASIS OF THEIR STATEMENTS, ACTIVITIES, AFFILIATIONS, AND WHEREABOUTS. EVEN THOUGH EACH ENVIRO–MANIAC–C ULPRIT
IS A MIS–GUIDED ADVERSARY, EACH STILL DESERVES OUR RESPECT. T HE TERMS MANIAC, C ULPRIT, T ERRORIST, OR B ASTERD ARE NOT
ACCUSATIONS OF ANY LEGAL WRONG–DOING. FORCE OF N ATURE IS SIMPLY HOLDING C ULPRITS ACCOUNTABLE FOR CONSPIRING TO
CHANGE PUBLIC POLICIES THAT TERRORIZE AND THREATEN THE GREEN SPACE INDUSTRY. FORCE OF N ATURE BELIEVES THAT THE
PRETENTIOUS PROHIBITIONIST POLICIES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL–T ERROR–MOVEMENT IS LEADING TO LOSS OF REVENUES, BUSI-
NESS FAILURES, BANKRUPTCY, AND UNEMPLOYMENT, INFLICTING DESPAIR AND DESTITUTION FOR THOUSANDS OF
VICTIMS THROUGHOUT THE GREEN SPACE INDUSTRY. T HE ACTIONS OF MANIAC–C ULPRITS–TERRORISTS–BASTERDS IN THE MOVEMENT
ARE VIEWED AS A FORM OF TERROR AGAINST THE GREEN SPACE INDUSTRY. T HE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN FORCE OF N ATURE 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 ! T HE 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 THE INTERNET . WE BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, SERV-
ING ONE OF THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES : ARCHIVE, EDUCATION, PROMOTION, PUBLICITY, OR PRESS RELEASE.

THE FOLLOWING FORCE OF N ATURE DOCUMENTS ARE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE ― ● A LOOK AT ● ALBERTA PROHIBITION ● BRITISH
COLUMBIA PROHIBITION ● CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF P HYSICIANS FOR THE E NVIRONMENT ● MILLIONAIRE–CANCER–SOCIETY ●
CANADIAN E NVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION ● CONSEQUENCES ● DAVID S UZUKI FOUNDATION ● DDT AND POLITICIZED S CI-
ENCE ● DEATH AND THE E NVIRONMENTAL–TERROR–MOVEMENT ● ENVIRO–MONEY ● ENVIRONMENTAL T ERRORISTS UNMASKED ●
FERTILIZER–TERROR IS NEXT ● JUNE IRWIN, T HE CLOWN OF JUNK SCIENCE ● KAZIMIERA JEAN COTTAM ● LANDSCAPE TRADES CA-
PITULATE ● NEW B RUNSWICK PROHIBITION ● NOVA SCOTIA PROHIBITION ● ONTARIO PROHIBITION ● ORGANIC F ERTILIZERS ●
PESTICIDE FREE BC ● PETS AND LAWN CARE CHEMICALS ● PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PROHIBITION ● QUEBEC PROHIBITION ● RA-
CHEL C ARSON, T HE QUEEN OF J UNK SCIENCE ● SALMON ARM BC PROHIBITION ● THE 9/11 ERA OF THE GREEN SPACE INDUSTRY ●
THE F AILURE OF INTEGRATED P EST M ANAGEMENT ● T HE LOOMING GOLF I NDUSTRY S HIPWRECK ● T HE INDUSTRY STRIKES BACK ●
THE MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT CANCER ● THE N ATIONAL ANNIHILATION OF THE MODERN GREEN SPACE INDUSTRY ● T HE WISDOM
OF BILL B ELL ● THE WISDOM OF DRYSDALE ● T HE WISDOM OF HEALTH C ANADA ● THE WISDOM OF HOLLAND ● THE WISDOM OF
LOWES ● THE WISDOM OF MAINS ● THE WISDOM OF THE SOLOMONS ● ASK FOR A COPY OF ANY BACK ISSUE OF FORCE OF NATURE
TODAY. READ ALL ABOUT E NVIRO–MANIACS AND T HEIR ENVIRONMENTAL–TERROR–ORGANIZATIONS IN FORCE OF N ATURE ! T HE
WHOLE TRUTH F ROM AN INDEPENDENT P ERSPECTIVE ! FORCE OF NATURE IS TOTALLY INDEPENDENT OF ANY TRADE ASSOCIA-
TION OR BUSINESS OPERATING WITHIN THE GREEN SPACE I NDUSTRY. DON’T THANK US. IT’S A PUBLIC SERVICE. AND WE
ARE GLAD TO DO IT.