Is principia-scientific.org Safe?

This site is a source of pseudoscience, conspiracy and is not a valid source of scientific information. This site is owned by John O'Sulivan who for years has been passing himself off as a renowned attorney license to practice in New York State and elsewhere. O'Sulivan is an ex-art and gym teacher who was fired after being arrested for sexual misconduct with an underage girl. See: *****

The fact that so many left wing media outlets and "climate science" adherents slam this site pretty much tells you all you need to know. The left simply doesn't understand that being critical of speculative theory and pointing out fallacies in logic, data, and statistics doesn't mean that anyone is a "denier" but that people can and do have the right to rational discussion and do have the right to express opinion and research findings regardless of it departing from the pseudo-science know as "climate science" masquerading as proven science.

I am a fan. Going against the money, control, media machine narrative takes courage and will not win the favour of the government's backhander crew or the sheep as you will ascertain from reading other reviews. This website has a different opinion, shows another side to things "They" don't want you to know the truth or the illusion to be shattered. Do your own research but not on igloogle, too frosty.

This web site is run by John O'Sulivan who for years has been passing himself off as a renowned attorney license to practice in New York State and elsewhere. O'Sulivan is an ex-art and gym teacher who was fired after being arrested for sexual misconduct with an underage girl. Though the court didn't convict him, he could not return to teaching. So he tried to become an author by self-publishing "auto-biographical" fiction, like this one: "Vanilla Girl: A fact-based crime story of a teacher's struggle to control his erotic obsession with a schoolgirl." where he describes his arrest and trial and offers a defense of adults who choose to have sex with children - which he refers to as "kiddyfiddling." Contrary to his many self-promotional assertions, O'Sulivan has no law degree. He is has never been licensed to practice law. Although he claims extensive knowledge of climatology, physics, and other scientific disciplines, he has no formal training, experience, or legitimate credentials. Although he continues to self-publish his "scientific" and "legal" opinions, he has never published work in a peer-reviewed journal. This above statements are based on research and reporting I've done over the past 6 years. I am a semi-retired investigative science and medical journalist and for a decade was an associate news editor for the Journal of the American Medical Association. These statements are documented in an affidavit I was asked to prepare by noted Canadian attorney Roger McConchie, who is representing climatologist Michael Mann in his libel suit against O'Sullivan's global warming denying associate Tim Ball. The affidavits can be downloaded here: ***** *****

Left-wing environmentalists who believe in non-science AGW are deliberately downgrading this site because it produces scientific research contrary to what these global warming alarmists believe in. Seems to be an orchestrated approach by activists to categorize any legitimate, climate science research site as "misleading claims or unethical"

There is nothing untrustworthy or otherwise malevolent about this site. If it disagrees with the narrative put forward by the "degrowther" movement and the willing sheeple that subscribe to it, too bad. Stick with the so-called consensus being pushed by scientists, most of whom receive funding directly to prove/promote the concept that a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of the earth's atmosphere is somehow contributing to catastrophic climate change but do not suppress informed and intellectual debate.

Seems the bad ratings aren't a result of any malware or scamming, but rather the reaction of those that would choose to silence dissent regarding climate change by whatever means necessary. If the science is so convincing, why the fear of another opinion?

The site is clean. Informative and encourages debate. Sites should not be red-rated based on prejudices. There is an increasing trend for some pro-wind and pro-AGM's to red-rate every site that presents the other side of the story. This is not what WOT should be used for, to stifle debate and discouraging users to stay away from clean sites in case alternative facts are shared.